TIRES TREAD WORE BELOW LEGAL DEPTH PRIOR TO 20,000 MILES ON THE TIRES, CREATING A HAZARD WHICH CAUSE MY DAUGHTER TO HYDROPLAIN ON ALMOST DRY ROAD - CAR WENT INTO A GRASS MEDIAN TAKING OUT A SIGN AND MUCH DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE. THIS WAS ON A 2004 CAMRY THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW - JUST HAD IT IN TO THE DEALER FOR AN OIL CHANGE AND T…
Read full complaint
TIRES TREAD WORE BELOW LEGAL DEPTH PRIOR TO 20,000 MILES ON THE TIRES, CREATING A HAZARD WHICH CAUSE MY DAUGHTER TO HYDROPLAIN ON ALMOST DRY ROAD - CAR WENT INTO A GRASS MEDIAN TAKING OUT A SIGN AND MUCH DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE. THIS WAS ON A 2004 CAMRY THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW - JUST HAD IT IN TO THE DEALER FOR AN OIL CHANGE AND THEY ROTATED THE TIRES - NEVER MENTIONED THE WEAR ON THE TIRES. WHEN THE TIRES WERE EVALUATED AT THE TIRE DEALERSHIP - IT WAS NOT DUE TO IMPROPER AIR PRESSURE OR ALIGNMENT - THE WEAR WAS ALL OVER THE TIRE. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10136924
8,023 miles · Jul 15, 2005
Tires
AIR PRESSURE WAS CORRECT. SIDEWALL FAILED. TIRE BLEW OUT. NEW TIRE PURCHASED.
NHTSA ODI #10128874
20,740 miles · May 27, 2005
Tires
DT: CONSUMER BOUGHT A NEW TOYOTA CAMRY IN 2004. THE SALESMAN REPRESENTED THE TIRES AT 50,000 MILES WITH NO PROBLEMS. IN ONE YEAR, THE TIRE HAD LESS THAN 21,000 MILES AND ALL FOUR WERE BALD. THERE IS A NEED FOR 4 NEW TIRES. CONSUMER CALLED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE AND WAS TOLD THAT THEIR TIRES ONLY HAD 20-30,000 MILES ON TIRE…
Read full complaint
DT: CONSUMER BOUGHT A NEW TOYOTA CAMRY IN 2004. THE SALESMAN REPRESENTED THE TIRES AT 50,000 MILES WITH NO PROBLEMS. IN ONE YEAR, THE TIRE HAD LESS THAN 21,000 MILES AND ALL FOUR WERE BALD. THERE IS A NEED FOR 4 NEW TIRES. CONSUMER CALLED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE AND WAS TOLD THAT THEIR TIRES ONLY HAD 20-30,000 MILES ON TIRES. CONSUMER HAD BEEN DRIVING WITH GRANDCHILDREN IN CAR ON THOSE SUPPOSEDLY 50,000 MILE TIRES THINKING THEY HAD LONGER WEAR. VEHICLE NOW NEEDS ALL NEW TIRES AFTER ONE YEAR AND LESS THAN 21,000 MILES. CONSUMER TOOK A TRIP TO FLORIDA @ 14,000 MILES AND AFTER PICKING UP A TACK WENT TO DEALER TO GET REPAIRED AND SERVICE DEALER NOTED THERE WAS UNEVEN WEAR ON TIRES. CALLED TOYOTA AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD TAKE 3-5 DAYS. TOOK TO FIRESTONE INSTEAD WHO ROTATED TIRES AND SAID THE TIRES WERE NORMAL. YESTERDAY WAS TOLD THE TIRES WERE READY TO BLOW, THE STEEL BELTS WERE ABOUT TO COME. *TT
NHTSA ODI #10122296
Mileage unknown · Mar 4, 2005
Tires
I HAVE A NEW 2004 CAMRY 4 CYL. LE SEDAN WITH 5500 MILES ON THE ORIGINAL BIRDGESTONE TIRES. THESE TIRES HAVE VERY POOR TRACTION ON RAINY ROADS AND WITH EVEN LIGHT SNOW YOU CAN SLIDE EASLY AT 3 MPH AS WE DID. THESE TIRES ARE DANGEROUS AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON THE MARKET. SHAME ON TOYOTA FOR PUTTING SUCH SUB-STANDARD EQUIPMEN…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A NEW 2004 CAMRY 4 CYL. LE SEDAN WITH 5500 MILES ON THE ORIGINAL BIRDGESTONE TIRES. THESE TIRES HAVE VERY POOR TRACTION ON RAINY ROADS AND WITH EVEN LIGHT SNOW YOU CAN SLIDE EASLY AT 3 MPH AS WE DID. THESE TIRES ARE DANGEROUS AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON THE MARKET. SHAME ON TOYOTA FOR PUTTING SUCH SUB-STANDARD EQUIPMENT ON THEIR CARS. ADVERTISEMENT SAYS THESE TIRES ARE ALL SEASON TIRES, BRIDGESTONE SUGGESTED I PAY FOR UPGRADED TIRES. I SAY WHAY SHOULD I PAY FOR PROPRER ALL SEASON TIRE S THAT WERE SUPPOSE TO COME ON THE CAR.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10112533
5,000 miles · Feb 25, 2005
Tires
WE PURCHASED A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY LE AND LIVE IN SYRACUSE, NY. WE RECEIVE ABOUT 190" OF SNOW PER YEAR AND THEY PUT GOODYEAR INTEGRITY "ALL SEASON" TIRES ON THIS CAR. WE HAVE SLID THROUGH SEVERAL STOP SIGNS AND INTERSECTIONS. THESE TIRES ARE TOUTED AS "ALL-SEASON" BUT WHEN WE CALLED GOODYEAR THEY SAID THAT THEY WEREN'T INTENDED…
Read full complaint
WE PURCHASED A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY LE AND LIVE IN SYRACUSE, NY. WE RECEIVE ABOUT 190" OF SNOW PER YEAR AND THEY PUT GOODYEAR INTEGRITY "ALL SEASON" TIRES ON THIS CAR. WE HAVE SLID THROUGH SEVERAL STOP SIGNS AND INTERSECTIONS. THESE TIRES ARE TOUTED AS "ALL-SEASON" BUT WHEN WE CALLED GOODYEAR THEY SAID THAT THEY WEREN'T INTENDED TO BE DRIVEN IN THE SNOW. WHEN I ASKED HER IF WINTER WAS A SEASON, SHE SAID YES BUT.....I ASKED HOW MUCH SNOW CAN THESE TIRES DRIVE THROUGH AND STILL PERFORM AND SHE STATED 2-4 INCHES IS THE NORM. BOTTOM LINE...THESE TIRES ARE UNSAFE AT BEST. THEY ARE DANGEROUS. THEY DON'T EVEN PERFORM WELL IN RAIN. IF YOU HAVE THESE TIRES, CALL AND COMPLAIN TO GOODYEAR IMMEDIATELY. THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT THESE TIRES ON ANYONE'S CAR. WHY EVEN BOTHER WITH ABS AND AIRBAGS IF THE TIRES CAN'T STOP THE CAR? *NM
NHTSA ODI #10112147
11,223 miles · Jan 12, 2005
Tires
THE VEHICLE'S TIRES WERE WORN AT 11,223 MILES. *NM THE CONSUMER LEARNED THAT THIS WAS A COMMON PROBLEM IN THESE VEHICLE'S. *SC
NHTSA ODI #10111085
5,758 miles · Jan 5, 2005
TiresCrash
THE CONSUMER WAS DRIVING THE VEHICLE IN THE RAIN WHEN IT HYDROPLANED TWICE. THE VEHICLE WAS LOSING TRACTION EASILY. *SC AS A RESULT WHEN THE VEHICLE HYDROPLANED, THE CONSUMER STRUCK ANOTHER VEHICLE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10109073
21,950 miles · Jan 3, 2005
Service Brakes, HydraulicSteeringTires
WHILE DRIVING BRAKES AND/OR STEERING WAS OVER RIDING HIS JUDGMENT. VEHICLE STARTED THE PULL TO THE RIGHT CONSUMER HAD A HARD TIME TRYING TO KEEP THE VEHICLE IN LINE. *AK....WHILE DRIVING ON DRY FLAT ROAD ABOUT 70 MPH VEHICLE BEGAN TO PULL TO THE RIGHT. CONSUMER TRIED TO CORRECT BACK STRAIGHT BUT STEERING DID NOT RESPOND. TURN…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING BRAKES AND/OR STEERING WAS OVER RIDING HIS JUDGMENT. VEHICLE STARTED THE PULL TO THE RIGHT CONSUMER HAD A HARD TIME TRYING TO KEEP THE VEHICLE IN LINE. *AK....WHILE DRIVING ON DRY FLAT ROAD ABOUT 70 MPH VEHICLE BEGAN TO PULL TO THE RIGHT. CONSUMER TRIED TO CORRECT BACK STRAIGHT BUT STEERING DID NOT RESPOND. TURNED HARDER AND TO LEFTAND CAR STARTED LEF TOFF THE ROAD. TRIED TO CORRECT BACK RIGHT LIGHTLY AND STEERING DID NOT RESPOND. TURNE DHARDER RIGHT AND CAR WENT HARD RIGHT ALMOST OFF THE ROAD. CONSUME RHIT THE BRAKES TO KEEP FROM LEAVING THE ROAD. ALSO, VEHICLE HAS BAD VIBRATION A THIGHWAY SPEEDS FROM TIRES. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10106601
6,000 miles · Dec 6, 2004
Tires
WHILE DRIVING 5 MPH FRONT PASSENGER SIDE TIRE SIDEWALL SEPARATED. CONSUMER PULLED OVER AND CHANGED THE TIRE. DEALERSHIP WAS NOTIFIED, BUT DID NOT RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. GOODYEAR 205/65R15.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10103176
13,500 miles · Dec 5, 2004
Tires
TEAR IN SIDEWALL OF BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE TIRE. *AK
TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2004 AVALON VEHICLES; 2004 AND 2005 CAMRY, CAMRY SOLARA, HIGHLANDER, AND SIENNA VEHICLES, 2006 HIGHLANDER HYBRID; 2004 AND 2005 LEXUS ES330 AND RX330; AND 2006 LEXUS RX400H VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 2004 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2005, EQUIPPED WITH THE 1MZ-FE OR 3MZ-FE ENGINE. THE AMOUNT OF ADHESIVE AGENT APPLIED BETWEEN THE OUTER RING AND THE TORSIONAL RUBBER DAMPER (INNER RING) IN THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY MAY BE INADEQUATE. IF THE ADHESIVE IS INSUFFICIENT, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE OUTER RING MAY BECOME MISALIGNED AND IT MAY NOT PROPERLY ROTATE WITH THE INNER RING, CAUSING NOISE AND/OR ILLUMINATION OF THE BATTERY DISCHARGE INDICATOR LIGHT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN SOME CASES, THE BELT FOR THE POWER STEERING PUMP MAY BECOME DETACHED FROM THE PULLEY WHICH COULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF POWER STEERING AND A SUDDEN INCREASE IN STEERING EFFORT, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: TOYOTA WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL CHECK THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY TO IDENTIFY WHETHER IT WAS PRODUCED BY THE U.S. SUPPLIER. IF SO, THE DEALER WILL REPLACE THE PULLEY WITH A NEW ONE AT NO CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING EARLY JANUARY 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A FRONT PASSENGER POWER SEAT, WHEN INSTALLING CERTAIN REAR-FACING INFANT CHILD SEAT BASES ONTO THE SEAT WITH AN EXCESSIVELY HIGH SEATBELT TENSION, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO UNSEAT A COMPONENT CALLED THE BUCKLE STATUS SWITCH FROM THE SEAT BELT BUCKLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE SWITCH BECOMES UNSEATED, THE FRONT PASSENGER OCCUPANT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAY MISTAKE THE REAR-FACING CHILD RESTRAINT FOR AN UNBELTED ADULT OCCUPANT, AND MAY NOT SUPPRESS THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE FRONT PASSENGER AIRBAG.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT PASSENGER SEATBELT BUCKLE STATUS SWITCH. THIS SAFETY IMPROVEMENT CAMPAIGN (SSC 40M) BEGAN ON DECEMBER 20, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331 OR LEXUS AT 1-800-255-3987..
ON CERTAIN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH CURTAIN SHIELD AIR BAGS (CSA), ONE OR BOTH OF THE CURTAIN AIR BAGS MAY BE TWISTED NEAR THE INFLATOR DUE TO IMPROPER ASSEMBLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS, THE CSA MAY NOT DEPLOY RAPIDLY ENOUGH WHEN ACTIVATED IN A SIDE IMPACT COLLISION. THIS MAY RESULT IN FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE INTENDED HEAD PROTECTION, INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE CSAS AND REPLACE THE AIR BAG ASSEMBLY IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 6, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Vehicle Speed Control
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
DP05002 · Vehicle Speed Control
Opened Aug 5, 2005 · Closed Jan 5, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control
IN A LETTER DATED JULY 8, 2005, AND AFTER EXPERIENCING TWO INCIDENTS (AND ONE CRASH) WHERE HE ALLEGES HIS MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 CAMRY ACCELERATED WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT, MR. JORDAN ZIPRIN PETITIONED THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION?S (NHTSA) OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) TO COMMENCE A PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A DEFECT WITHIN THE ETC SYSTEM IN MY 2002 TO 2005 TOYOTA AND LEXUS VEHICLES, OR TO REOPEN A PRIOR INVESTIGATION PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE) 04-021.IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 18, 2005, MR. ZIPRIN AMENDED HIS PETITION TO INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF INTERRELATED BRAKE AND ACCELERATION PROBLEMS THAT ALLEGEDLY RESULT IN INAPPROPRIATE AND UNCONTROLLABLE VEHICLE ACCELERATIONS.THE 1172 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE REPORTS CITED BY THE PETITIONER INVOLVE 4 LEXUS AND 15 TOYOTA MODELS DEFINING A POPULATION OF 7 MILLION VEHICLES.THE REPORTS TYPICALLY ALLEGED A DEFECT IN THE BRAKE SYSTEM, THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM, OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH SYSTEMS.IN ITS REVIEW OF THE REPORTS, ODI A) FAILED TO FIND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A BRAKE RELATED DEFECT IN THE CITED MODELS, AND B) DETERMINED THAT MANY CITED PRODUCTS WERE NOT EQUIPPED WITH ETC.ACCORDINGLY, ODI RESTRICTED ITS ANALYSIS TO THE 432 PETITIONER REPORTS INVOLVING MY 2002 TO 2005 CAMRY, SOLARA, AND ES MODELS (ALL EQUIPPED WITH ETC) THAT ALLEGED AN ABNORMAL THROTTLE CONTROL EVENT (SEE THE JANUARY 3, 2006 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS).ABOUT 40% OF THE 432 REPORTS INVOLVE A DRIVEABILITY CONCERN WHERE THE OPERATOR INTENTIONALLY APPLIES THE THROTTLE PEDAL, IN EXPECTATION THAT THE VEHICLE WILL ACCELERATE, AND THEN EXPERIENCES A DELAY OR HESITATION IN VEHICLE RESPONSE.THESE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLE RESPONSE TO INTENTIONAL DRIVER COMMANDS WHICH ODI CONSIDERS UNRELATED TO THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER.THEREFORE, THE REPORTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED.ABOUT 20% OF THE REPORTS INVOLVE INCIDENTS WHERE OPERATORS ALLEGE VEHICLE ACCELERATION WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT AND AN INABILITY OF THE BRAKE SYSTEM TO CONTROL THE VEHICLE WHEN APPLIED.NEITHER THE REPORTS, NOR THE INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY ODI, IDENTIFIED ANY VEHICLE-BASED CAUSE TO EXPLAIN THE INCIDENTS OR DISCLOSED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT A FAILURE OF THE BRAKE OR THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM HAD OCCURRED.BECAUSE THESE REPORTS DO NOT INDICATE A DISTINCT SAFETY DEFECT FOR INVESTIGATION, THE REPORTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONERTHE REMAINING REPORTS (~ 40%, SIMILAR TO THE PETITIONER?S AND THOSE OF PE04-021) TYPICALLY DESCRIBE INCIDENTS WHERE A VEHICLE IS BEING MANEUVERED AT SLOW SPEED IN A CLOSE QUARTER SITUATION AT WHICH POINT THE OPERATOR ALLEGES THAT THE VEHICLE ACCELERATES WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT AND CRASHES.IN THE AFTERMATH, OPERATORS ARE UNSURE OF WHETHER THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED OR NOT, SOMETIMES STATING THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT TIME TO USE THE BRAKE; A CRASH OCCURRED AND THE OPERATOR BELIEVES AN UNCOMMANDED ACCELERATION CAUSED IT.IN SPITE OF THE EFFORT EXPENDED DURING PE04-021 AND DURING THIS ANALYSIS, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY VEHICLE-BASED CAUSE TO EXPLAIN THE REPORTS, OR UNCOVERED ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT A THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURE OCCURRED.THEREFORE, THE REPORTS HAVE AMBIGUOUS SIGNIFICANCE AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS ON WHICH ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTION IS WARRANTED.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES T
Illustration