Illustration2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE DRIVE BELT JUMPED AND BELT TENSIONER PULLEY BOLT FAILED. *SMD
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
What owners actually said
721 reportsTL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED AND SHIFTED INTO DRIVE, THE VEHICLE UNINTENTIONALLY ACCELERATED. IN ADDITION, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND FAILED TO RESPOND. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO OTHER VEHICLES AND THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE DRIVER SUSTA…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED AND SHIFTED INTO DRIVE, THE VEHICLE UNINTENTIONALLY ACCELERATED. IN ADDITION, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND FAILED TO RESPOND. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT CRASHED INTO OTHER VEHICLES AND THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE DRIVER SUSTAINED A HEAD INJURY THAT REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED HOWEVER, THE BODY DAMAGE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 35,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
THIS IS A DELAYED RESPONSE, AS I WAS NOT AWARE THAT TOYOTA FINALLY ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPONTANEOUS ACCELERATIONS. I WAS IN SLOW, STOP AND GO TRAFFIC AND MY CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. I RECALL LOOKING DOWN AS I PRESSED THE BRAKE AS HARD AS I COULD BECAUSE THE CAR WAS NOT STOPPING OR DECELERATING. I THOUGHT THAT MY FOOT MUS…
Read full complaint
THIS IS A DELAYED RESPONSE, AS I WAS NOT AWARE THAT TOYOTA FINALLY ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPONTANEOUS ACCELERATIONS. I WAS IN SLOW, STOP AND GO TRAFFIC AND MY CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. I RECALL LOOKING DOWN AS I PRESSED THE BRAKE AS HARD AS I COULD BECAUSE THE CAR WAS NOT STOPPING OR DECELERATING. I THOUGHT THAT MY FOOT MUST HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ON THE GAS PEDAL BUT IT WAS FIRMLY PLANTED ON THE BRAKE. THE BRAKE WORKED AS THERE WERE DEFINITE SKID MARKS. I SLAMMED INTO THE BACK OF A TAHOE, TOTALING MY CAR AND CAUSING A PULLED SHOULDER, WHIP LASH, AND A DEVIATED SEPTUM IN MY NOSE FROM THE AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT. I WAS AFRAID THAT THE POLICEMAN WOULD NOT EVEN BELIEVE MY ACCOUNT OF THE ACCIDENT SO I DID NOT REPORT THE INCIDENT AS CLEARLY AS IT OCCURRED (THOUGH I DEFINITELY ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY). I JUST RECEIVED A CHECK FOR APPROXIMATELY $23.00 A FEW WEEKS AGO FOR A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT. I AM FURIOUS THAT I LOST AN OTHERWISE (PAID FOR) GREAT CAR, SUSTAINED INJURIES AND MORE IMPORTANT, ENDANGERED PEOPLE AROUND ME. I ALSO NOW HAVE AN "ACCIDENT" ON MY INSURANCE RECORD. THE FINANCIAL, PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL TOLL THIS HAS TAKEN CAN CERTAINLY NOT BE "BOUGHT OUT" WITH $23.00. I WISH THAT I HAD TOLD MY EXPERIENCE TO THE OFFICER AS I CLEARLY PERCEIVED IT, REGARDLESS OF HOW IMPLAUSIBLE IT SEEMED. NOW, I HAVE FOOLISHLY ALREADY PURCHASED ANOTHER CAMRY, AND, ONCE AGAIN THEY HAVE A MAJOR SAFETY RECALL. AT LEAST THEY HAVE OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS ONE. HOWEVER, I CANNOT GET THEM TO RETURN MY CALLS WITH AN APPOINTMENT FOR A REPAIR. WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO IN THE MEANTIME? WAIT UNTIL ANOTHER "ACCIDENT" HAPPENS? HOW CAN I GET IN TO GET A REPAIR? PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I AM AFRAID TO DRIVE IT BUT CANNOT AFFORD TO RENT A CAR INDEFINITELY. I AM GRATEFUL TO HAVE FOUND THIS SITE. THANK YOU. *TR
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.
AT AROUND 3:00 PM, I WAS IN MY CAR, DRIVING AT A VERY LOW RATE OF SPEED, APPROXIMATELY A COUPLE OF MILES PER HOUR, TO MOVE INTO A LINE OF CARS AT A GAS STATION. SUDDENLY, WITHOUT WARNING AND ON ITS OWN MY CAR SURGED FORWARD AND ACCELERATED. AS MY CAR SPED FORWARD, THE ENGINE SEEMED TO REV HIGHER, MAKING A LOUD NOISE. I TRIE…
Read full complaint
AT AROUND 3:00 PM, I WAS IN MY CAR, DRIVING AT A VERY LOW RATE OF SPEED, APPROXIMATELY A COUPLE OF MILES PER HOUR, TO MOVE INTO A LINE OF CARS AT A GAS STATION. SUDDENLY, WITHOUT WARNING AND ON ITS OWN MY CAR SURGED FORWARD AND ACCELERATED. AS MY CAR SPED FORWARD, THE ENGINE SEEMED TO REV HIGHER, MAKING A LOUD NOISE. I TRIED TO STOP THE CAR WITH THE BRAKE, BUT THE CAR DID NOT STOP. DURING THIS AWFUL EVENT, MY CAR CRASHED INTO TWO DIFFERENT CARS, ONE OF WHICH WAS OCCUPIED, AND ONE OF WHICH WAS PARKED WITH NO OCCUPANT. FINALLY, MY CAR CAME TO A STOP. THE AIR BAGS IN MY CAR DID NOT DEPLOY. PARAMEDICS AND POLICE CAME TO THE SCENE. THERE WAS A POLICE REPORT. I WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL AND CHECKED. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY INSURANCE COMPANY IS THAT THERE IS A CLAIM FOR INJURY BY ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE OCCUPIED CAR. MY CAR WAS IMPOUNDED. MY INSURANCE COMPANY HAS INFORMED ME THAT MY CAR IS A TOTAL LOSS, AND HAS BEEN BRANDED NON-REPAIR. I HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY MY INSURANCE COMPANY THAT THEY AND TOYOTA WILL CONDUCT A JOINT INVESTIGATION OF THE CAR. NOTE: AS I READ AND UNDERSTAND THE SAFERCAR.GOV WEBSITE (POWERED BY NHTSA), IT APPEARS THAT AS OF THIS DATE, THERE ARE 625 COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY, WITH APPARENTLY 249 OF THEM ALMOST 40% REPORTED IN THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL CATEGORY. THE REPORTS LIST NUMEROUS INJURIES AND EVEN DEATHS. I REQUEST THAT NHTSA INVESTIGATE THE MATTER OF UNINTENDED ACCELERATION IN THE 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. I BELIEVE THAT ALL 2005 TOYOTA CAMRYS SHOULD BE RECALLED. IT IS MY HOPE THAT OTHER SUCH ACCIDENTS CAN BE PREVENTED IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT INJURY, DEATH AND PROPERTY DAMAGE CAN BE AVERTED. *TR
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
I PURCHASED MY 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY LE IN AUGUST, 2005. AFTER ABOUT 3 YEARS, I STARTED HAVING ISSUES WITH BOTH FRONT SEATBELTS RETRACTING PROPERLY. WHEN THE SEATBELT IS INITIALLY PULLED OUT TO PUT IT ON, IT DOES NOT RETRACT TO CREATE A SNUG FIT WHILE WEARING IT. THE FABRIC PART OF THE SEATBELT FOLDS OVER AND TWISTS, PREVENTING IT F…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED MY 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY LE IN AUGUST, 2005. AFTER ABOUT 3 YEARS, I STARTED HAVING ISSUES WITH BOTH FRONT SEATBELTS RETRACTING PROPERLY. WHEN THE SEATBELT IS INITIALLY PULLED OUT TO PUT IT ON, IT DOES NOT RETRACT TO CREATE A SNUG FIT WHILE WEARING IT. THE FABRIC PART OF THE SEATBELT FOLDS OVER AND TWISTS, PREVENTING IT FROM RETRACTING. MOST OF THE TIME IT CAN BE CORRECTED WITH A LITTLE MANIPULATION AND MUCH FRUSTRATION. BUT, THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW INCIDENTS WHERE I HAVE HAD TO TAKE IT TO A MECHANIC TO FIX IT. I CONTACTED THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED THE CAR AND WAS TOLD THAT THIS IS A VERY COMMON COMPLAINT FOR MY SPECIFIC YEAR, MAKE, & MODEL AND THEY SAID IT WOULD COST BETWEEN $300-$400 PER SEATBELT TO REPLACE THE PARTS OR I COULD JUST WAIT FOR TOYOTA TO ISSUE A RECALL. THAT WAS 4 YEARS AGO AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN A RECALL FOR THE PROBLEM. I THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE AN OBVIOUS DEFECT IN THE SEATBELTS ON THIS CAR, BASED ON THE # OF COMPLAINTS I'VE READ ON NUMEROUS WEBSITES REGARDING THIS EXACT ISSUE. I JUST HOPE TOYOTA IS NOT WAITING FOR A SERIOUS INJURY OR A FATALITY TO HAPPEN BEFORE THEY ISSUE A RECALL. I WOULD LIKE TO GET A NEWER CAR BUT I WOULD NEED TO SELL THIS ONE FIRST IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT. HOWEVER, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SELLING MY CAR TO ANYONE WITH SUCH A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE PRESENT. I DON'T NEED OR WANT THAT KIND OF KARMA. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED AND AN ABNORMAL SOUND EMITTED FROM A UNKNOWN SOURCE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE ALTERNATOR PULLEY DETACHED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLAC…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED AND AN ABNORMAL SOUND EMITTED FROM A UNKNOWN SOURCE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE ALTERNATOR PULLEY DETACHED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF FAILURE AND THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 11V539000 (ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING). THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 110,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH, AN ABNORMAL NOISE EMITTED FROM THE TRANSMISSION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE OVERDRIVE WAS SHIFTING TOO EARLY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 104,000.
TL-THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN AN OCCUPANT OCCUPIED THE FRONT PASSENGER'S SEAT, THE AIR BAG WARNING LIGHT FAILED TO ILLUMINATE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 39,000. NE
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