NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Suspension complaints
15 reportsClear category filter116,000 miles · Dec 24, 2014
Suspension
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL NOISE COMING FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE STRUT AND COIL NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL NOISE COMING FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE STRUT AND COIL NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 116,000.
NHTSA ODI #10668134
179,712 miles · Dec 9, 2014
Suspension
AT THE TIME OF 5K MILE OIL CHANGE AND TIRE ROTATION, I INQUIRED ABOUT UNUSUAL TIRE NOISE AT ~30 MPH AND HIGHER. I ASKED IF MAYBE A 4-WHEEL ALIGNMENT WAS IN ORDER. THIS HAD NEVER BEEN DONE ON THIS VEHICLE. WHILE DOING THE ALIGNMENT THE MECHANIC DISCOVERED THAT THE "PASSENGER SIDE REAR TOE ARM ASSEMBLY" WAS NOT PROPERLY ATTACHE…
Read full complaint
AT THE TIME OF 5K MILE OIL CHANGE AND TIRE ROTATION, I INQUIRED ABOUT UNUSUAL TIRE NOISE AT ~30 MPH AND HIGHER. I ASKED IF MAYBE A 4-WHEEL ALIGNMENT WAS IN ORDER. THIS HAD NEVER BEEN DONE ON THIS VEHICLE. WHILE DOING THE ALIGNMENT THE MECHANIC DISCOVERED THAT THE "PASSENGER SIDE REAR TOE ARM ASSEMBLY" WAS NOT PROPERLY ATTACHED AT THE CENTER POINT DUE TO THE LACK OF THREADS ON THE FEMALE PORTION OF THE PART. THUS THE TWO ENDS WERE SIMPLY SLIDING FREELY IN AND OUT AT THE CONNECTION POINT. THE PART WAS REPLACED AND ALIGNMENT WAS COMPLETED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10663192
Mileage unknown · Feb 6, 2014
SteeringSuspension
2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO HEARING NOISE FROM REAR DRIVERS SIDE OF VEHICLE AND DEALERSHIP MECHANIC REPAIRED BROKEN STRUT BUT NOISE CONTINUED. *SMD WHEN THE CONSUMER RETURNED TO THE DEALER, AND INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED, WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THE STRUT WAS BROKEN. THE CONSUMER CONTINUED TO HEAR THE NOISE…
Read full complaint
2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO HEARING NOISE FROM REAR DRIVERS SIDE OF VEHICLE AND DEALERSHIP MECHANIC REPAIRED BROKEN STRUT BUT NOISE CONTINUED. *SMD WHEN THE CONSUMER RETURNED TO THE DEALER, AND INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED, WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THE STRUT WAS BROKEN. THE CONSUMER CONTINUED TO HEAR THE NOISE, SO HE RETURNED TO THE DEALER, WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED AGAIN. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THE NOISE WAS COMING FROM THE STEERING COLUMN INTERMEDIATE SHAFT. THE CONSUMER DID NOT BELIEVE THE NOISE WAS COMING FROM THE INTERMEDIATE SHAFT.
NHTSA ODI #10563079
166,000 miles · Feb 3, 2014
Service Brakes, HydraulicSteeringSuspension
WHEN I TOOK MY CAR FOR A TEST RIDE AT DEALER I NOTICED THAT THE WHEEL SHOOK AND TOLD THE SALESMAN IT NEEDED TO BE FIXED IF I PURCHASED THE CAR, HE WAS CERTAIN IT WAS JUST A TIRE BALANCING ISSUE AND IT WOULDN'T COST MUCH TO FIX. THE NEXT DAY I TOOK THE CAR TO LESS SCHWAB WHO COULD NOT FIGURE OUT WHAT COULD POSSIBLE BE WRONG SO WE…
Read full complaint
WHEN I TOOK MY CAR FOR A TEST RIDE AT DEALER I NOTICED THAT THE WHEEL SHOOK AND TOLD THE SALESMAN IT NEEDED TO BE FIXED IF I PURCHASED THE CAR, HE WAS CERTAIN IT WAS JUST A TIRE BALANCING ISSUE AND IT WOULDN'T COST MUCH TO FIX. THE NEXT DAY I TOOK THE CAR TO LESS SCHWAB WHO COULD NOT FIGURE OUT WHAT COULD POSSIBLE BE WRONG SO WE PUT NEW TIRES ON, STILL SHOOK, THEN HAD WHEELS BALANCED AND ALIGNED SEVERAL TIMES IN FIRST WEEK OF HAVING CAR, THEN REPLACED MOTOR MOUNTS, THEN STRUTS, STILL SHOOK, THEN REPLACED BRAKE PADS, ROTORS, YUP STILL SHAKES. I TOOK IT BACK TO THE DEALER AND THEY STILL SWEAR IT'S JUST A BALANCING ISSUE SO THEY BALANCED THE TIRES, CAR STILL SHAKES VIOLENTLY. I HAVE NOW OWNED THIS CAR FOR 1 YR AND TRIED EVERYTHING POSSIBLE, NOW I FIND OUT IT MAY BE THE INTERMEDIATE SHAFT. I DO NOT FEEL SAFE IN THIS CAR I HAVE TWO SMALL CHILDREN AND I'M AFRAID THIS ISSUE MAY CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10562777
57,000 miles · Jan 4, 2014
SteeringSuspension
A CONSISTENT GRINDING/KNOCKING/CLUNKING SOUND STARTED COMING FROM THE STEERING WHEEL WHILE STEERING AT LOW SPEEDS (0-30 MPH). ALSO, THE STEERING WHEEL FELT LOOSER THAN NORMAL AT ALL SPEEDS (0-65MPH). THE SERVICE ADVISER AT THE DEALERSHIP INFORMED ME THAT THIS WAS A COMMON ISSUE WITH A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY, AND THAT THE INTERMEDIA…
Read full complaint
A CONSISTENT GRINDING/KNOCKING/CLUNKING SOUND STARTED COMING FROM THE STEERING WHEEL WHILE STEERING AT LOW SPEEDS (0-30 MPH). ALSO, THE STEERING WHEEL FELT LOOSER THAN NORMAL AT ALL SPEEDS (0-65MPH). THE SERVICE ADVISER AT THE DEALERSHIP INFORMED ME THAT THIS WAS A COMMON ISSUE WITH A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY, AND THAT THE INTERMEDIATE STEERING SHAFT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. HOWEVER, SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS OUT OF WARRANTY, I HAD TO COVER THE ~$660 COST. A GOOGLE SEARCH REVEALS SEVERAL SIMILAR ISSUES WITH OTHER LATE MODEL CAMRYS. TOYOTA HAS A TSB T-SB-0296-08 TO "GREASE" THE STEERING SHAFT FOR THE NOISE. HOWEVER, BOTH THE DEALERSHIP, AS WELL AS A GOOGLE SEARCH REVEALED THAT THE GREASE FIX WOULD BE TEMPORARY, AND DOES NOT LAST. THE DEALERSHIP ALSO INFORMED ME THAT THE NEWER REPLACEMENT STEERING SHAFTS ARE BETTER DESIGNED, ARE COMPLETELY SEALED, AND CANNOT BE GREASED. SINCE A TSB IS OUT, IT LOOKS LIKE TOYOTA IS AWARE OF THIS SAFETY ISSUE. HOWEVER, NO RECALL HAS BEEN MADE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10558427
54,620 miles · Nov 11, 2011
Suspension
FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARMS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10435276
45,000 miles · Mar 5, 2010
Suspension
MY LEFT REAR STRUT "CAP" FAILED ON 05 TOYOTA CAMRY WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEED AT ONLY 3900 MILES ON ODOMETER. DEALER REPAIRED UNDER WARRANTY. NOW RIGHT REAR STRUT IS FAILING WITH ONLY 45,000 MILES BUT DEALER WILL NOT FIX. HAVE CONTACTED TOYOTA HQ BUT NO AVAIL. SEEMS TO BE A VERY UNSAFE CONDITION AT ANY SPEED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10317189
24,000 miles · Feb 24, 2010
Electrical SystemSuspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH HE HEARD A NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AROUND THE TRUNK AREA. WHEN HE DROVE OVER A BUMP THE NOISE WAS MORE FREQUENT. THE DEALER STATED THAT REAR STRUTS AND STRUT MOUNTS WERE LOOSE AND THE ESTIMATED COST FOR REPAIR WAS $600. HE CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH HE HEARD A NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AROUND THE TRUNK AREA. WHEN HE DROVE OVER A BUMP THE NOISE WAS MORE FREQUENT. THE DEALER STATED THAT REAR STRUTS AND STRUT MOUNTS WERE LOOSE AND THE ESTIMATED COST FOR REPAIR WAS $600. HE CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER AND THEY GAVE HIM A DISCOUNT ON THE REPAIR COST. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WERE 24,000. UPDATED 4/22/10 *CN THE CONSUMER ALSO STATED THE SPEEDOMETER ALWAYS READ 4 MILES PER HOUR SLOWER, BUT THE DEALER REFUSED TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. UPDATED 07/06/10.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10313909
76,900 miles · May 19, 2008
Suspension
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, THE CONTACT LOST CONTROL OF THE STEERING AND HAD TO MANEUVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE TOWED TO A DEALER AND THEY STATED THAT THE REAR LOWER CONTROL ARM FAILED. BOTH OF THE REAR LOWER CONTROL ARMS WERE REPLACED. THE CURRENT MIL…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, THE CONTACT LOST CONTROL OF THE STEERING AND HAD TO MANEUVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE VEHICLE HAD TO BE TOWED TO A DEALER AND THEY STATED THAT THE REAR LOWER CONTROL ARM FAILED. BOTH OF THE REAR LOWER CONTROL ARMS WERE REPLACED. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 76,937 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 76,900.
NHTSA ODI #10228179
10,000 miles · Apr 9, 2008
SuspensionTires
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE TIRES HAD TO BE REPLACED EVERY 10,000 MILES. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A SERVICE STATION AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE STRUT BOLTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE STRUTS WERE REPLACED WITH A CAMBER BOLT KIT. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 31,00…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE TIRES HAD TO BE REPLACED EVERY 10,000 MILES. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A SERVICE STATION AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE STRUT BOLTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE STRUTS WERE REPLACED WITH A CAMBER BOLT KIT. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 31,000 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 10,000. UPDATED 5/5/08 *CN
NHTSA ODI #10223799
Official recalls
5Jun 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Illustration