IllustrationI WAS TRYING TO PARK MY CAR AT THE GREEN FARMER MARKET WHEN INSTEAD OF BRAKING THE CAR KEPT GOING. I PRESSED DOWN ON THE BRAKE BUT THE CAR KEPT GLIDING HITTING A POLE AND CONTINUING TO MOVE TOWARDS THE GAS STATION. THE CAR FINALLY SLAMMED INTO THE CONCRETE GAS STATION SIGN AND STOPPED. THE AIR BAG DID NOT DEPLOY. *TR
2005 Toyota Camry
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Camry years
Owner complaints for the 2005 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
1860–25K
14725–50K
10650–75K
5375–100K
57100–150K
26150K+
575 reports with mileage · 146 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 272 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 84 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 71 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
223 crash reports10 fire reports91 injury reports
Air Bags complaints
65 reports2003 AND 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH UNINTENDED ACCELERATION. *KB WHILE PULLING OUT OF A PARKING SPACE, THE 2003 CAMRY SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. ALTHOUGH THE CONSUMERS HUSBAND APPLIED THE BRAKE HARD, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT SLOW DOWN. THE VEHICLE CRASHED THROUGH A WOODEN BARRIER OF THE PARKING LOT AND THEN HIT A FIRE HYDRANT, WHICH STOPP…
Read full complaint
2003 AND 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH UNINTENDED ACCELERATION. *KB WHILE PULLING OUT OF A PARKING SPACE, THE 2003 CAMRY SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. ALTHOUGH THE CONSUMERS HUSBAND APPLIED THE BRAKE HARD, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT SLOW DOWN. THE VEHICLE CRASHED THROUGH A WOODEN BARRIER OF THE PARKING LOT AND THEN HIT A FIRE HYDRANT, WHICH STOPPED THE VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY AND THE CONSUMER AND HER HUSBAND SUFFERED INJURIES. THE CONSUMER NO LONGER OWNS THE 2003 WHICH WAS TOTALED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY. THE CONSUMER PURCHASED A 2005 CAMRY TO REPLACE THE 2003. ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS, SUDDEN ACCELERATION WAS EXPERIENCED WITH THE 2005 CAMRY WHEN THE CONSUMER SLOWLY MADE A TURN INTO A PARKING SPACE. THE CONSUMER SWIFTLY APPLIED THE BRAKES BOTH TIMES TO AVOID CRASHING INTO HER HOUSE. *JB
ON MAR. 1 2010 MY WIFE WAS DRIVING IN CITY TRAFFIC AT 30 MPH WHEN SHE REAR- ENDED THE CAR AHEAD. HER HEAD HIT THE STEERING WHEEL AND WAS RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS. THE AIR BAGS NEVER DEPLOYED DESPITE MAJOR FRONT END DAMAGE. HER MEMORY OF WHAT HAPPENED WAS LOST BUT SHE FELT THE CAR HAD JUMPED OR SURGED JUST BEFORE. SHE WAS DRIVING A 2…
Read full complaint
ON MAR. 1 2010 MY WIFE WAS DRIVING IN CITY TRAFFIC AT 30 MPH WHEN SHE REAR- ENDED THE CAR AHEAD. HER HEAD HIT THE STEERING WHEEL AND WAS RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS. THE AIR BAGS NEVER DEPLOYED DESPITE MAJOR FRONT END DAMAGE. HER MEMORY OF WHAT HAPPENED WAS LOST BUT SHE FELT THE CAR HAD JUMPED OR SURGED JUST BEFORE. SHE WAS DRIVING A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RECALLED.THE CAR WAS TOTALED AND TOYOTA DOESN'T FEEL THE CAR MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM. WHEN WITNESSES WENT TO HELP, MY WIFE HAD BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE TOYOTA WAS STILL RUNNING AT A FAST IDLE AND SHE WAS JUST BEGINNING TO REGAIN HER WITS BUT COULD REMEMBER ONLY THAT THE CAR HAD JUMPED AHEAD. AS TOYOTA HAS NOT INCLUDED THE 2005 CAMRY IN IT'S RECALL I FEEL THAT MAYBE IT SHOULD. MY WIFE WAS NOT ON THE CELL PHONE NOR WAS SHE DRINKING OR ON MEDICATION. SHE IS A SAFE DRIVER AND I BELIEVE THE CAR RACED AHEAD ON ITS OWN. *TR
ON DECEMBER 22, 20006 I WAS DRIVING INTO THORTON GAS STATION ON SHARON ROAD WHILE APPROACHING, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING SUDDENLY MY CAR PLUNGE AHEAD AND SHATTERED THE FRONT WINDOW OF THE FILLING STATION IF IT WASN'T FOR THE BLOCK STOP I WOULD HAVE GONE INTO THE STORE, AN AMBULANCE WAS CALLED I WAS PUT IN THE HOSPITAL FOR TWO FO…
Read full complaint
ON DECEMBER 22, 20006 I WAS DRIVING INTO THORTON GAS STATION ON SHARON ROAD WHILE APPROACHING, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING SUDDENLY MY CAR PLUNGE AHEAD AND SHATTERED THE FRONT WINDOW OF THE FILLING STATION IF IT WASN'T FOR THE BLOCK STOP I WOULD HAVE GONE INTO THE STORE, AN AMBULANCE WAS CALLED I WAS PUT IN THE HOSPITAL FOR TWO FOR TEST, THEY FOUND NOTHING THEN I WAS SCHEDULE FOR A BRAIN SCAN NOTHING THERE, UNTIL RECENTLY I KNOW FEEL THAT I KNOW WHAT HAPPEN TO MY CAR. *TR
I WAS IN A MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK AND I SPOTTED A FREE SPACE 20 YARDS AHEAD. I TOOK MY FOOT OFF THE ACCELERATOR, AND THE VEHICLE BEGUN TO LOSE SPEED NORMALLY. I APPLIED THE BRAKE GENTLY TO TURN RIGHT INTO AN EMPTY SPOT. I WAS BRAKING TO A HALT AT AN APPROPRIATE DISTANCE FROM A RETAINING WALL WHEN SUDDENLY, WITH NO WARNING, THE …
Read full complaint
I WAS IN A MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK AND I SPOTTED A FREE SPACE 20 YARDS AHEAD. I TOOK MY FOOT OFF THE ACCELERATOR, AND THE VEHICLE BEGUN TO LOSE SPEED NORMALLY. I APPLIED THE BRAKE GENTLY TO TURN RIGHT INTO AN EMPTY SPOT. I WAS BRAKING TO A HALT AT AN APPROPRIATE DISTANCE FROM A RETAINING WALL WHEN SUDDENLY, WITH NO WARNING, THE TOYOTA LURCHED FORWARD AT AN INCREDIBLE RATE OF ACCELERATION, STRUCK THE WALL THEN BOUNCED BACK SEVERAL FEET AND THE ENGINE CUT OUT. I SUFFERED SEVERE NECK TRAUMA, DUE FIRST TO THE SUDDEN ACCELERATION AND THEN THE IMPACT. THE AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE FRONT OF THE CAR WAS ACCORDING TO AN EXPERT CONSISTENT WITH AN IMPACT SPEED OF 30 TO 35 MPH. EARLIER IN THE SAME TRIP, I WAS STOPPED AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS WITH THE CAR IN DRIVE AND MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE. SUDDENLY THE CAR VIBRATED AND LURCHED AGAINST THE BRAKE, TRYING TO MOVE AHEAD. I HAD TO BRAKE HARD TO PREVENT IT FROM DOING SO. THE LIGHTS CHANGED AND I PROCEEDED TOWARDS THE PARKING GARAGE WHERE THE ACCIDENT DESCRIBED ABOVE SUBSEQUENTLY OCCURRED. THE DAMAGE TO THE FRONT OF THE CAR HAS NOT YET BEEN FIXED AND THE CAR HAS NOT BEEN USED SINCE THE ACCIDENT. I REPORTED THIS ACCIDENT TO TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE WHO ARRANGED FOR SOMEONE FROM THEIR LOCAL SERVICE COMPANY TO EXAMINE THE VEHICLE AT THE BODY SHOP WHERE IT WAS LOCATED. THE MAIN CONCLUSION OF THEIR EXAMINATION WAS THAT THEY FOUND NO PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKES. IN FACT, MY COMPLAINT WAS NOT ABOUT THE BRAKES, WHICH HAD ALWAYS WORKED PERFECTLY NORMALLY. THEIR REPORT ALSO SAID "WE ARE HAPPY THAT YOU DID NOT SUSTAIN INJURIES IN THIS INCIDENT". I AM SORRY TO INFORM THEM THAT I AM STILL SUFFERING FROM SEVERE BACK AND NECK PAIN FROM THE INJURIES THAT I SUSTAINED. *TR
THE CLOCKSPRING IN THE STEERING COLUMN HAS GONE BAD CAUSING MY DRIVER SIDE AIRBAG TO NOT BE OPERABLE AND MY HORN NOT OPERABLE, NEITHER IS MY CRUISE, BUT THE FIRST TWO ARE MY MAIN CONCERN. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH DURING NORMAL ROAD CONDITIONS A VEHICLE REAR ENDED THE CONTACT WHICH PUSHED THE VEHICLE INTO A GUARD RAIL CAUSING IT TO ROLL OVER SEVERAL TIMES. THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER FRONT AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOYED. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED INJURIES TO THE HEAD AND THE …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH DURING NORMAL ROAD CONDITIONS A VEHICLE REAR ENDED THE CONTACT WHICH PUSHED THE VEHICLE INTO A GUARD RAIL CAUSING IT TO ROLL OVER SEVERAL TIMES. THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER FRONT AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOYED. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED INJURIES TO THE HEAD AND THE PASSENGER RECEIVED INJURIES TO THE NECK. REPORT NUMBER 0912100264 WAS FILED WITH THE MANUFACTURER; HOWEVER, THEY STATED THAT THEY WILL NOT INVESTIGATE WHY THE AIR BAGS DIN'T DEPLOYED. THE INSURANCE COMPANY CONFIRMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE VIN AND THE POLICE REPORT INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE CURRENT AND THE FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 70,000.
MY HUSBAND HAD A WRECK IN WHICH THE AIRBAGS IN MY CAR DIDN'T DEPLOY. HE T-BONED A STEEL POLE AND THEN WENT INTO A RAVINE ABOUT 20 FEET DOWN HILL AND THEN T-BONED A TREE. THE CAR WAS GOING ABOVE 30 MILE AN HOUR AND NO BRAKES WERE APPLIED AT ANY TIME. HE KNOCKED THE POLE WITH THE CONCRETE STILL ATTACHED AND HAD BEEN BURIED ABOUT 2…
Read full complaint
MY HUSBAND HAD A WRECK IN WHICH THE AIRBAGS IN MY CAR DIDN'T DEPLOY. HE T-BONED A STEEL POLE AND THEN WENT INTO A RAVINE ABOUT 20 FEET DOWN HILL AND THEN T-BONED A TREE. THE CAR WAS GOING ABOVE 30 MILE AN HOUR AND NO BRAKES WERE APPLIED AT ANY TIME. HE KNOCKED THE POLE WITH THE CONCRETE STILL ATTACHED AND HAD BEEN BURIED ABOUT 2FT. IN THE GROUND DOWN INTO THE RAVINE AND TORE THE BRANCHES FROM THE TREE. THE FRONT OF THE CAR TOOK SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE AND IT WAS REPORTED TO ME THAT THE FRAME WAS BENT ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE CAR. HE HIT HIS HEAD ON THE STEERING WHEEL AND RECEIVED A BROKEN NOSE AND A LARGE KNOT ON HIS FOREHEAD DUE TO NO AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT. *TR
TRUCK TURNED LEFT IN FRONT OF MY VEHICLE AND MY CAR T-BONED HIM AND THE AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY. I WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 40 MPH. I HAVE WHIPLASH AND BACK INJURIES DUE TO BEING SLOSHED AROUND IN THE CAR ALONG WITH A 3 INCH WIDE BRUISE ACROSS MY CHEST AND UNDERARM AREA. *TR
DIRECT FULL FRONTAL IMPACT @ 35-40 MPH INTO JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE TURNING LEFT IN FRONT OF ME. AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY - ENTIRE FRONT END DEMOLISHED (CAR WAS TOTALED). 2 INJURED AND STILL IN PHYSICAL THERAPY. ADVISED BY POLICE OFFICER THAT I PROBABLY "NOSE DIVED DURING BRAKING AND WHEN FRONT OF CAR DIPPED, IMPACT WAS ABOVE SENS…
Read full complaint
DIRECT FULL FRONTAL IMPACT @ 35-40 MPH INTO JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE TURNING LEFT IN FRONT OF ME. AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY - ENTIRE FRONT END DEMOLISHED (CAR WAS TOTALED). 2 INJURED AND STILL IN PHYSICAL THERAPY. ADVISED BY POLICE OFFICER THAT I PROBABLY "NOSE DIVED DURING BRAKING AND WHEN FRONT OF CAR DIPPED, IMPACT WAS ABOVE SENSORS". HAVE HEARD OF MANY OTHER INSTANCES WHERE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. *TR
Official recalls
516V396000 · Seats:front Assembly:seat Heater/cooler
Jun 2, 2016
Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC (SET) is recalling certain 2005-2011 4Runner, Highlander, Sequoia, and Sienna, 2005-2010 Avalon and Tundra, 2006-2008 Camry Solara, 2006-2010 Highlander hybrid, 2006-2011 Rav4 and Tacoma, 2007-2010 FJ Cruiser, 2007-2011 Camry hybrid, 2009-2010 Venza, 2010-2012 Prius, 1988-1990 and 2005-2010 Camry, and 1989 and 2009-2010 Corolla vehicles equipped with aftermarket accessory seat heaters with a copper strand heating element. The electrical wiring in the seat heaters may be damaged when the seat cushion is compressed.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If damaged, the copper strand heating element may short circuit, increasing the risk of a fire.
Remedy: SET will notify owners, and dealers will disconnect the seat heaters, free of charge, and refund the purchase price of the seat heater accessory. The recall began on July 14, 2016. Owners may contact SET customer service at 1-866-405-4226. SET number for this recall is SET16B.
11V539000 · 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.
10V035000 · Equipment:other:labels
Feb 3, 2010
GULF STATES TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2005-2010 VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS." THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 AND JUNE 2, 2008 WITHOUT THE REQUISITE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY MODIFICATION LABELS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL MAIL TO CONSUMERS THE CORRECTED LABEL OR THE CUSTOMER WILL HAVE THE OPTION FOR DEALERS TO INSTALL THE LABEL FREE OF CHARGE. DEALERS WILL ALSO CORRECT THE OWNER'S MANUAL. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 27, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT GULF STATES TOYOTA AT 713-580-3300.
10V036000 · Equipment:other:labels
Feb 3, 2010
SOUTHEAST TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2005-2011 PASSENGER VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS." THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD WITHOUT THE REQUISITE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY MODIFICATION LABELS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A DRIVER MAY OVERLOAD A VEHICLE WHICH MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL MAIL TO CONSUMERS THE CORRECTED LABEL OR THE CUSTOMER WILL HAVE THE OPTION FOR DEALERS TO INSTALL THE LABEL FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 27, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT SOUTHEAST TOYOTA AT 1-800-301-6859.
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..
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