IllustrationSUNROOF EXPLODED WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY. *TR
2004 Toyota Camry
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Camry years
Owner complaints for the 2004 Toyota Camry are substantially higher than the model-year median of 295.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Camry years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
1700–25K
11225–50K
7950–75K
6075–100K
63100–150K
32150K+
516 reports with mileage · 122 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 238 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 80 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Air Bags. Review the 79 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
199 crash reports11 fire reports96 injury reports
Visibility complaints
12 reportsTOYOTA CAMRY DRIVER-SIDE WINDOW FIRE. DURING AUGUST OF 2014, I WENT SHOPPING IN LITHONIA, GA. I PARKED MY 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY IN THE SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT. A SHORT TIME LATER, I RETURNED TO MY CAR AND OBSERVED SMOKE BILLOWING FROM THE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW OF MY VEHICLE. I IMMEDIATELY DROVE ACROSS THE STREET TO NALLEY TOYOTA…
Read full complaint
TOYOTA CAMRY DRIVER-SIDE WINDOW FIRE. DURING AUGUST OF 2014, I WENT SHOPPING IN LITHONIA, GA. I PARKED MY 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY IN THE SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT. A SHORT TIME LATER, I RETURNED TO MY CAR AND OBSERVED SMOKE BILLOWING FROM THE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW OF MY VEHICLE. I IMMEDIATELY DROVE ACROSS THE STREET TO NALLEY TOYOTA OF STONECREST TO HAVE THE VEHICLE CHECKED OUT. I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY RECALL AT THIS TIME, AND ASKED THE SERVICE ADVISOR TO CHECK FOR ONE. SHE DID SO, AND TOLD ME THERE WAS NOT A TOYOTA RECALL FOR MY VEHICLE. I PROCEEDED TO PAY THEM $967.00 IN PARTS AND LABOR TO REPLACE MY ENTIRE MASTER SWITCH, THE MASTER SWITCH ASSEMBLY, AND WINDOW MOTOR IN THE DRIVER-SIDE DOOR. AFTER COMING HOME, I PROCEEDED TO LOOK FOR ANY INFORMATION I COULD FIND ON TOYOTA RECALLS OF OTHER 2004 CAMRYS. I FOUND THE TOYOTA RECALL LIST ONLINE AND SAW THAT MY CAR HAD THE SAME PROBLEM AS OTHER CAMRYS BEING RECALLED, YET HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED. IN MAY OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR (2015), THE MOTOR I WAS SOLD FAILED AGAIN. I WAS UNABLE TO RAISE MY DRIVER SIDE WINDOW, SO I WENT BACK TO NALLEY TOYOTA AT STONECREST. I SPOKE WITH A SERVICE ADVISOR WHO EXPLAINED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE RECALL HAD BEEN EXPANDED TO INCLUDE MORE VEHICLES WITH THIS PROBLEM, MY TOYOTA CAMRY WAS STILL NOT INCLUDED. I PROCEEDED TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL $234.17 TO HAVE THE WINDOW MOTOR REPLACED AGAIN. SINCE THAT TIME, I HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCE THE BURNING OUT OF MY CAR LIGHTER. I HAVE BEEN WAITING IN VAIN FOR TOYOTA TO INCLUDE MY MODEL OF TOYOTA CAMRY IN THE RECALL PROCESS. I AM WRITING NOW TO REQUEST THAT TOYOTA REIMBURSE ME FOR THE MONEY I HAVE PAID TO HAVE WORK DONE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED UNDER THE EXISTING TOYOTA RECALL ON WINDOW MOTORS. OBVIOUSLY, MY CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. I AM ATTACHING DOCUMENTATION OF EACH TRANSACTION FOR YOUR REVIEW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. *TR
PROBLEMS WITH THE SUNROOF. CABLES BROKE UNEXPECTEDLY RIGHT AFTER THE THIRD YEAR. DEALER SAID THE ENTIRE PULLEY SYSTEM BROKE FOR UNKNOWN REASONS. DEALER SAID WARRENTY HAD JUST EXPIRED, COST OVER $1000+ TO REPLACE IT. TWO YEARS AGO, WHILE DROVE ON THE FREEWAY; THE ROOF EXPLODED, GLASS DROPPED ALL OVER, IT WAS SCARY. PAID $800…
Read full complaint
PROBLEMS WITH THE SUNROOF. CABLES BROKE UNEXPECTEDLY RIGHT AFTER THE THIRD YEAR. DEALER SAID THE ENTIRE PULLEY SYSTEM BROKE FOR UNKNOWN REASONS. DEALER SAID WARRENTY HAD JUST EXPIRED, COST OVER $1000+ TO REPLACE IT. TWO YEARS AGO, WHILE DROVE ON THE FREEWAY; THE ROOF EXPLODED, GLASS DROPPED ALL OVER, IT WAS SCARY. PAID $800+ AND INSTALLED THE NEW ROOF WITH DEALER, A MONTH LATER THE PULLEY BROKE AGAIN. THE DEALER SAID WE HAVE TO PAY $1000+ AGAIN. IT IS DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN THE GLASS. TOTAL COST OVER $3000+ FOR JUST A SUN ROOF ITSELF. UNTIL NOW, I HAVEN'T REPLACED YET. I AM AFRAID TO KEEP REPLACING THE PULLEY SYSTEM. *TT
BOTH SUN VISORS HAVE FAILED WITH ORDINARY USE. THE BRACKETS BREAK AND THE SUN VISOR FALLS IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE OBSTRUCTING YOUR VISION. THE VISOR WILL NOT STAY UP AS THE PLASTIC BRACKET EASILY BREAKS. THE DRIVER SIDE VISOR BROKE FIRST THEN THE PASSENGER SIDE. I TALKED WITH THE TECHNICIANS AT THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THERE W…
Read full complaint
BOTH SUN VISORS HAVE FAILED WITH ORDINARY USE. THE BRACKETS BREAK AND THE SUN VISOR FALLS IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE OBSTRUCTING YOUR VISION. THE VISOR WILL NOT STAY UP AS THE PLASTIC BRACKET EASILY BREAKS. THE DRIVER SIDE VISOR BROKE FIRST THEN THE PASSENGER SIDE. I TALKED WITH THE TECHNICIANS AT THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY SAID THERE WERE LOTS OF REPLACEMENTS. THE COST TO REPLACE BOTH WERE IN EXCESS OF $250.00. THIS IS A MANUFACTURE DEFECT THAT CAN EASILY CAUSE SERIOUS SAFETY RAMIFICATIONS. MY SON WHO WAS DRIVING THE CAR HAD PINNED THE VISORS UP TO THE OVERHEAD MATERIAL WITH STRAIGHT PINS TO KEEP IT FROM DROPPING IN HIS FACE. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS UNTIL HE WENT OFF TO COLLEGE BECAUSE HE WAS THE ONLY DRIVER OF THE CAR. I KNOW THIS IS NOT ON THE SAME LEVEL AS A AIR BAG BUT IT IS A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD NEVER THE LESS AND SHOULD BE RESOLVED. I HAVE OWNED MANY CARS OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS AND HAVE NEVER HAD ONE SUN VISOR EVER BREAK, YET THIS CAR HAD TOW BREAK. I HAVE SAVED THE OLD VISORS AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO FORWARD THEM TO YOU FOR TESTING. I LOOKED AT THEM AND COULD EASILY SEE WHERE THE DEFECT IS, YET I AM NOT A ENGINEER. I KNOW I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE HAVING THESE ISSUES BUT MIGHT BE THE ONLY ONE TO COMPLAIN OF THIS DEFECT. I WOULD BE EASY TO SEE JUST HOW MANY ARE REPLACED. THIS IS "CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE" THAT THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AS IT CAN IMPAIR A DRIVERS VISIBILITY CAUSING SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH. *JS
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THREE WINDOW REGULATORS FAILED. IN JANUARY 2010, THE DRIVERS SIDE WINDOW REGULATOR WAS REPLACED. THE DEALER DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS AWARE OF THE FAILURE. NO ADDITIONAL REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 114,000 A…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THREE WINDOW REGULATORS FAILED. IN JANUARY 2010, THE DRIVERS SIDE WINDOW REGULATOR WAS REPLACED. THE DEALER DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS AWARE OF THE FAILURE. NO ADDITIONAL REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 114,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 120,000.
2004 TOYOTA CAMRY XLE V6 SUNROOF STUCK. WHILE DRIVING ON A HIGHWAY AT 65MPH WITH THE SUNROOF FULLY OPENED, IT BEGAN TO RAIN. I ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE IT AND IT WOULD NOT CLOSE. I TRIED TO PULL OVER, BUT WITH THE RAIN AND SOME HAIL ON MY EYES, IT WAS HARD TO SEE THE ROAD. I ALMOST HAD AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE MY SUNROOF WOULD NOT CLOS…
Read full complaint
2004 TOYOTA CAMRY XLE V6 SUNROOF STUCK. WHILE DRIVING ON A HIGHWAY AT 65MPH WITH THE SUNROOF FULLY OPENED, IT BEGAN TO RAIN. I ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE IT AND IT WOULD NOT CLOSE. I TRIED TO PULL OVER, BUT WITH THE RAIN AND SOME HAIL ON MY EYES, IT WAS HARD TO SEE THE ROAD. I ALMOST HAD AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE MY SUNROOF WOULD NOT CLOSE. THE DEALER INFORMED ME THAT THESE CARS HAVE ISSUES WITH SUNROOFS GETTING STUCK, BUT BECAUSE MY CAR IS OUT OF WARRANTY THE DEALER WILL NOT PAY. DEALER ESTIMATED APPROXIMATELY $1,200 WILL COST TO FIX IT. *TR
MY TOYOTA CAMRY LEFT REAR WINDOW MOTOR WAS BURNED , BUT THE FUSE STILL GOOD, AND I PULLED RIGHT SIDES TWO FUSES, THE WINDOWS STILL CAN GO UP AND DOWN, THAT MEAN THE ELECTROCITY DIDN'T GO THROUGH FUSES TO THE MOTORS. *TR
IF YOU TRY TO PUT THE WINDOW DOWN (DRIVER'S WINDOW), IT COMES OFF TRACK - NO PREVIOUS PROBLEMS, JUST HAPPENED WHEN I TRIED TO LET IT DOWN. *TR
MALFUNCTION OF MY SUNROOF IN MY 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY SE. DEALERSHIP CONFIRMED COMMON PROBLEM... *TR
TL*- THE CONTACT HAD A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT WINDOW DEFROSTER TURNED OFF/FAILED WHEN WATER SPLASHED ONTO THE VEHICLE BY ANOTHER VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING UNDER RAINY CONDITIONS AT 35 MPH. . THE WINDOWS FOGGED UP AND SHE HAD TO ROLL DOWN THE DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW TO SEE. THE CONTACT PULLED TO THE S…
Read full complaint
TL*- THE CONTACT HAD A 2004 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT WINDOW DEFROSTER TURNED OFF/FAILED WHEN WATER SPLASHED ONTO THE VEHICLE BY ANOTHER VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING UNDER RAINY CONDITIONS AT 35 MPH. . THE WINDOWS FOGGED UP AND SHE HAD TO ROLL DOWN THE DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW TO SEE. THE CONTACT PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND SAW THAT THE DEFROSTER LIGHT AND THE AIR RECIRCULATION LIGHT WERE FLASHING. AFTER A FEW MINUTES THE DEFROSTER STARTED WORKING AGAIN, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED THE NEXT TIME THE VEHICLE WAS SPLASHED. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND THEY TOLD HER THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OPERATING NORMALLY. *AK UPDATED 2/22/2007 -THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THAT THE FAILURE WAS HER FAULT. *NM
Official recalls
311V539000 · Engine And Engine Cooling
Nov 9, 2011
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.
04V595000 · Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
Dec 15, 2004
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..
04V346000 · Air Bags:side/window
Jul 13, 2004
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 ↗
NHTSA investigations
2DP06003 · Engine Surging
Opened Sep 14, 2006 · Closed Apr 3, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; 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.
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