2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE ENGINE BEING DEFECTIVE. *SMD THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. A DIAGNOSIS REVEALED WATER WAS IN THE ENGINE AND IT WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED AT A COST OF $1,858.33 THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED, THE HEADS COULD NOT BE REMOVED, BECAUSE OF AN ENGINE DEFECT. THE SCREWS ON T…
Read full complaint
2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE ENGINE BEING DEFECTIVE. *SMD THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. A DIAGNOSIS REVEALED WATER WAS IN THE ENGINE AND IT WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED AT A COST OF $1,858.33 THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED, THE HEADS COULD NOT BE REMOVED, BECAUSE OF AN ENGINE DEFECT. THE SCREWS ON THE MANIFOLD OR HEADS WERE COMING LOOSE AND THAT'S HOW WATER ENTERED THE ENGINE, AND THE HEAD GASKET HAD BLOWN. THE CONSUMER STATED ABOUT A MONTH AGO, SHE STARTED HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE VEHICLE. SHE WAS INFORMED THE IGNITION NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. ALSO, THE WATER PUMP, AND ALTERNATOR WERE REPLACED. THE AIR COMPRESSOR AND HEATER SENSOR ELEMENT FAILED. *JB UPDATED 05/12/14. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10566142
73,000 miles · Oct 24, 2012
Visibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE WINDOW AND IT BEGAN TO OPEN AND CLOSE INDEPENDENTLY. AFTER SEVERAL WEEKS OF THE MALFUNCTION, THE WINDOW WOULD OPEN INDEPENDENTLY AS THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE WINDOW AND IT BEGAN TO OPEN AND CLOSE INDEPENDENTLY. AFTER SEVERAL WEEKS OF THE MALFUNCTION, THE WINDOW WOULD OPEN INDEPENDENTLY AS THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS AND THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE WINDOW'S MASTER POWER SWITCH WAS REPLACED HOWEVER, THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER AND THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED OF A RECALL UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 12V491000 (VISIBILITY:POWER WINDOW DEVICES AND CONTROLS) BUT WAS ALSO ADVISED THAT HER VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 73,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 75,000. UPDATED 1/15/13 *CN UPDATED 1/29/2013 *JS
NHTSA ODI #10482092
Mileage unknown · May 8, 2012
Power TrainVisibility
2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER SENT ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO TRANSMISSION AND DRIVER SIDE WINDOW ISSUES. NOTE CONSUMER HAS PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE IN THE SYSTEM UNDER ODI 10186844 *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED WHILE TEST DRIVING THE VEHICLE WITH THE TECHNICIAN, THE TRANSMISSION HESITATED ON ACCELERATION AND SLIPPED A FEW T…
Read full complaint
2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER SENT ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO TRANSMISSION AND DRIVER SIDE WINDOW ISSUES. NOTE CONSUMER HAS PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE IN THE SYSTEM UNDER ODI 10186844 *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED WHILE TEST DRIVING THE VEHICLE WITH THE TECHNICIAN, THE TRANSMISSION HESITATED ON ACCELERATION AND SLIPPED A FEW TIMES. AFTER WAITING FOR THE VEHICLE FOR ABOUT 45 MINUTES, THE TECHNICIAN COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10458353
89,000 miles · Apr 22, 2012
Electrical SystemVisibility
THE ELECTRIC DRIVER SIDE MIRROR QUIT OPERATING. IT FIRST QUIT MOVING UP AND DOWN AND NOW IT WILL NOT MOVE SIDE TO SIDE. APPEARS TO BE A SHORT FROM AN ELECTRICAL DEFECT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10456062
71,000 miles · Feb 13, 2012
Visibility
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THE DRIVERS SIDE WINDOW FAILED TO CLOSE WHILE DRIVING IN THE RAIN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO LOCATED THE FAILURE WITHIN THE DOOR POWER SWITCH AND REPLACED IT. THE MANUFACTURER DENIED ASSISTANCE WITH THE REPAIR. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 71,000 AND THE CURRE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THE DRIVERS SIDE WINDOW FAILED TO CLOSE WHILE DRIVING IN THE RAIN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO LOCATED THE FAILURE WITHIN THE DOOR POWER SWITCH AND REPLACED IT. THE MANUFACTURER DENIED ASSISTANCE WITH THE REPAIR. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 71,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 73,000.
NHTSA ODI #10447716
30,000 miles · Nov 24, 2010
Visibility
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE HEATER WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY. IT WAS ON BUT ONLY BLEW HOT AIR AT THE BOTTOM; THE DEFROSTER BLEW OUTSIDE AIR. WHEN THAT HAPPENED, THE INSTRUMENT PANEL BECAME COLD TO THE TOUCH. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE HEATER WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY. IT WAS ON BUT ONLY BLEW HOT AIR AT THE BOTTOM; THE DEFROSTER BLEW OUTSIDE AIR. WHEN THAT HAPPENED, THE INSTRUMENT PANEL BECAME COLD TO THE TOUCH. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHO STATED THAT ALL HEATERS OPERATED THAT WAY. HE TOOK THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALER WHO LATER STATED THAT THE MIXTURE VALUE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER KNEW ABOUT THE PROBLEM BUT THERE WAS NO REMEDY. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 30,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 83,000.
NHTSA ODI #10367796
71,000 miles · Jul 13, 2008
Visibility
I WAS DRIVING MY 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. I OPENED THE FRONT WINDOWS FOR ONE SECOND FOR FRESH AIR AND WHILE CLOSING, THE PASSENGER SIDE WINDOW DIDN'T COME UP. I TRIED BOTH FROM DRIVER'S SIDE AND PASSENGER SIDE SWITCHES AND IT DIDN'T WORK. I GOT THIS CAR AS BRAND NEW IN MID 2005 AND I HARDLY OPENED THE FRONT WINDOWS. I HARDLY HAVE …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. I OPENED THE FRONT WINDOWS FOR ONE SECOND FOR FRESH AIR AND WHILE CLOSING, THE PASSENGER SIDE WINDOW DIDN'T COME UP. I TRIED BOTH FROM DRIVER'S SIDE AND PASSENGER SIDE SWITCHES AND IT DIDN'T WORK. I GOT THIS CAR AS BRAND NEW IN MID 2005 AND I HARDLY OPENED THE FRONT WINDOWS. I HARDLY HAVE ANY PASSENGER IN MY CAR. BOTTOM-LINE, THE WINDOW HAS BEEN RARELY USED SINCE I GOT IT AND IT CANNOT JUST STOP WORKING UNLESS THERE IS SOME MANUFACTURING DEFECT. IT WENT DOWN BUT DIDN'T COME UP. REST THREE WINDOWS ARE WORKING FINE. I THINK THERE IS SERIOUS MANUFACTURING PROBLEM WITH 2005 CAMRY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10234129
103,000 miles · Feb 22, 2008
Visibility
THIS IS IN REGARD TO OUR 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY, WHICH WE HAD PURCHASED NEW. OUR CAMRY HAS AROUND 100K MILES ON IT. ON 2/20/08, MY WIFE REPORTED THAT THE DRIVERS SIDE WINDSHIELD WIPER STOPPED WORKING, WHILE SHE WAS DRIVING TO WORK IN RAINY CONDITIONS. LATER THAT MORNING, I LOOKED AT THE CAR, AND VERIFIED THAT THE DRIVERS SIDE W…
Read full complaint
THIS IS IN REGARD TO OUR 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY, WHICH WE HAD PURCHASED NEW. OUR CAMRY HAS AROUND 100K MILES ON IT. ON 2/20/08, MY WIFE REPORTED THAT THE DRIVERS SIDE WINDSHIELD WIPER STOPPED WORKING, WHILE SHE WAS DRIVING TO WORK IN RAINY CONDITIONS. LATER THAT MORNING, I LOOKED AT THE CAR, AND VERIFIED THAT THE DRIVERS SIDE WIPER MOVED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER. UPON CLOSER INSPECTION, I NOTICED THAT THE WIPER ARM ALIGNMENT WAS OFF, AND THAT THE WIPER ARM HAD A WITNESS MARK FROM HITTING AGAINST THE HOOD OF THE CAR. I THEN DISCOVERED THAT THE RETAINING NUT (WHICH HOLDS THE WIPER ARM TO THE SPLINED SHAFT) WAS ONLY FINGER TIGHT. (I HAD NEVER DISASSEMBLED THIS IN THE PAST). UPON DISASSEMBLY I OBSERVED AN OBVIOUS COLLECTION OF METAL SHAVINGS AROUND THE BASE OF THE SPLINED SHAFT, AND ON THE SHAFT ITSELF. I NOTED THAT THE CAST ALUMINUM WIPER ARM HAD LOOSENED UP (DUE TO THE LOOSE RETAINING NUT), STARTED TO BACK ITSELF UP OFF THE SPLINED SHAFT, AND ENDED UP BEING REAMED AND STRIPPED OUT, SUCH THAT THE WIPER COULD NO LONGER BE DRIVEN BY THE SPLINED SHAFT. FROM MY OBSERVATION, THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM IS THAT THE RETAINING NUT HAD NOT BEEN TIGHTENED AT (FACTORY) ASSEMBLY. THIS SYSTEM FAILURE CAUSED A SAFETY HAZARD INASMUCH AS THE WIPER BECAME INOPERATIVE WHILE ON THE ROAD, DURING RAINY CONDITIONS. THE WIPER ARM ASSEMBLY WAS REPLACED. I STILL HAVE THE FAILED PART. I WANTED TO REPORT THIS, IN CASE THERE WERE ANY OTHER 2005 CAMRY OWNERS WHO MAY HAVE EXPERIENCED THE SAME THING. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10218880
Mileage unknown · Aug 11, 2006
Visibility
2005 TOYOTA CAMRY WINDSHIELD HAS HASH MARKS THAT MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO SEE WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING DIRECTLY ON THE WINDSHIELD. *KB *JB
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ↗
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