NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
721 reports40,000 miles · Feb 6, 2013
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THE GEAR SHIFTER WAS PLACED INTO PARK AND THE VEHICLE UNEXPECTEDLY ACCELERATED. THE VEHICLE THEN JUMPED THE CURB AND CRASHED INTO A NEARBY CONCRETE LAMP POLE. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THERE WAS NO PERSONAL INJURY. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN FROM THE SCENE. THE MANUFA…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THE GEAR SHIFTER WAS PLACED INTO PARK AND THE VEHICLE UNEXPECTEDLY ACCELERATED. THE VEHICLE THEN JUMPED THE CURB AND CRASHED INTO A NEARBY CONCRETE LAMP POLE. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THERE WAS NO PERSONAL INJURY. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN FROM THE SCENE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHO INFORMED THAT THE THROTTLE PEDAL FUNCTIONED AS DESIGNED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000. ..UPDATED 03/18/13 *BF UPDATED 05/08/2013 *JS
NHTSA ODI #10496630
61,048 miles · Jan 27, 2013
Engine
AT 60667 MILES, CAR DIAGNOSED WITH OIL PAN AND WATER PUMP LEAKAGE. COST OF REPAIR APPROXIMATELY $900 AT TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. CAR HAS BEEN GARAGE KEPT AND MAINTAINED AT RECOMMENDED INTERVALS WITH NO PREVIOUS PROBLEMS. WHILE TOYOTA HAD A MASSIVE RECALL FOR DEFECTIVE WATER PUMPS AND WITH NO APPARENT MILEAGE LIMIT AND FOR YEARS AS FAR…
Read full complaint
AT 60667 MILES, CAR DIAGNOSED WITH OIL PAN AND WATER PUMP LEAKAGE. COST OF REPAIR APPROXIMATELY $900 AT TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. CAR HAS BEEN GARAGE KEPT AND MAINTAINED AT RECOMMENDED INTERVALS WITH NO PREVIOUS PROBLEMS. WHILE TOYOTA HAD A MASSIVE RECALL FOR DEFECTIVE WATER PUMPS AND WITH NO APPARENT MILEAGE LIMIT AND FOR YEARS AS FAR BACK AS 2001 MODELS, THE 2005 BASE CAMRY DID NOT RECEIVE A RECALL EVEN THOUGH THE WATER PUMP LEAKAGE IN THIS MODEL YEAR IS OBVIOUSLY AN ISSUE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10494854
103,000 miles · Jan 9, 2013
Steering
I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED THAT IT HAD A FEW STEERING ISSUES. TOOK IT TO A MECHANIC AND HAD THEM REPLACE THE FRONT TIE ROD END AND WAS STILL NOTICING THE CLICK/CLUNK IN THE STEERING AS I WOULD TURN. I THEN TOOK IT TO TOYOTA TO HAVE RECALLS PERFORMED THAT HAD NOT BEEN DONE BY THE PRIOR OWNER AND MENTIONED THIS TO THEM.…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED THAT IT HAD A FEW STEERING ISSUES. TOOK IT TO A MECHANIC AND HAD THEM REPLACE THE FRONT TIE ROD END AND WAS STILL NOTICING THE CLICK/CLUNK IN THE STEERING AS I WOULD TURN. I THEN TOOK IT TO TOYOTA TO HAVE RECALLS PERFORMED THAT HAD NOT BEEN DONE BY THE PRIOR OWNER AND MENTIONED THIS TO THEM. THEY SAID THAT IT WAS VERY MINOR BUT THAT IT WAS THE INTERMEDIATE STEERING SHAFT AND I DIDN'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IT. THEY PERFORMED THE RECALLS. I HAVE RESEARCHED ONLINE AND FOUND NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS PART FAILING AND MOST ALL AGREE THAT THE UNIT IS FAULTY AND SOME HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS BY THEIR TOYOTA MECHANICS. I ALSO FOUND WHERE THE RECALL ON PRIUS AND COROLLA'S WERE FOR THE SAME THING. I TEND TO BELIEVE THAT THE RECALL MAY NEED TO BE EXTENDED TO OTHER TOYOTA MODELS INCLUDING THE CAMRY. I SERIOUSLY AM CONCERNED ABOUT MY SAFETY HOWEVER HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE PROBLEM IS MINOR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10492019
43,360 miles · Jan 1, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control
DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY...FOUND OUT THIS IS COMMON WITH CAMRY. OVER 1,000 TO REPLACE. OUTRAGEOUS FOR A CAR WITH 43K MILES AND ORIGINAL OWNER. THOS SHOULD BE A RECALL ITEM BY TOYOTA. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10490631
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 · Oct 9, 2012
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO ACCELERATE INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE DID NOT RESPOND AS THE CONTACT APPLIED EXTREME PRESSURE TO THE BRAKES AND EVENTUALLY CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE DRIVER OF THE SECOND VEHICLE WAS INJURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PARK, THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO ACCELERATE INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE DID NOT RESPOND AS THE CONTACT APPLIED EXTREME PRESSURE TO THE BRAKES AND EVENTUALLY CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE DRIVER OF THE SECOND VEHICLE WAS INJURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE THEY WERE UNABLE TO REPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE VIN AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNAVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10479417
112,361 miles · Sep 25, 2012
Seat Belts
THE DRIVER'S SEAT BELT STOPPED RETRACTING AND DOES NOT HAVE THE "G" FORCE NECESSARY TO PROTECT FROM HITTING THE STEERING WHEEL IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENT. I HAD THE BELT UNTANGLED WHILE RECEIVING MAINTENANCE AT THE DEALERSHIP IN JUNE, BUT IN 2 DAYS THE BELT TWISTED UP AGAIN AND STILL DOES NOT RETRACT. I TRIED TO DISCUSS THE SITUAT…
Read full complaint
THE DRIVER'S SEAT BELT STOPPED RETRACTING AND DOES NOT HAVE THE "G" FORCE NECESSARY TO PROTECT FROM HITTING THE STEERING WHEEL IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENT. I HAD THE BELT UNTANGLED WHILE RECEIVING MAINTENANCE AT THE DEALERSHIP IN JUNE, BUT IN 2 DAYS THE BELT TWISTED UP AGAIN AND STILL DOES NOT RETRACT. I TRIED TO DISCUSS THE SITUATION WITH THE DEALERSHIP, AND THEY TOLD ME I WOULD HAVE TO PAY ABOUT $350.00 TO GET THE UNIT REPLACED. SINCE THIS DEFECT AFFECTS MY SAFETY AND CARRIES A HIGH POTENTIAL FOR A FATALITY (NOT TO MENTION DRIVING ILLEGALLY WITH A LOOSE BELT), I FEEL TOYOTA SHOULD RECALL THIS INCIDENT AND REPLACE DEFECTIVE SEAT BELTS AT NO CHARGE. I HAVE SEEN SEVERAL WEBSITES WITH SIMILAR COMPLAINTS AT AUTOMOBILE.COM, ARFC.ORG, AND CAR COMPLAINTS.COM. THERE'S A 10 YEAR RUST-THRU WARRANTY ON THE BODY, WHY SHOULDN'T THERE BE A SIMILAR WARRANTY THAT AFFECTS OUR VERY SAFETY? DOES IT TAKE A FATALITY TO GET ANY RECOURSE? YOUR FEEDBACK WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10477080
51,000 miles · Jul 17, 2012
Power Train
WHILE DRIVING MY 05 TOYOTA CAMRY(WHICH HAS 51K MILES ON IT) IN THE MORNING TO WORK, MY CAR AT FIRST WASN'T GIVING ANY GAS INTO THE ENGINE AND IT WOULDN'T START. MY CO-WORKERS WERE ABLE TO JUMP START MY CAR AND I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE TO THE DEALERSHIP AFTER GOING TO AUTO-ZONE AND A LOCAL BODY SHOP WHO WERE UNSURE OF THE ISSUE. THE D…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING MY 05 TOYOTA CAMRY(WHICH HAS 51K MILES ON IT) IN THE MORNING TO WORK, MY CAR AT FIRST WASN'T GIVING ANY GAS INTO THE ENGINE AND IT WOULDN'T START. MY CO-WORKERS WERE ABLE TO JUMP START MY CAR AND I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE TO THE DEALERSHIP AFTER GOING TO AUTO-ZONE AND A LOCAL BODY SHOP WHO WERE UNSURE OF THE ISSUE. THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME AFTER THE DIAGNOSIS, THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED DUE TO IT BEING "FAULTY" AND CLOGS UP DUE TO MOISTURE GETTING INTO THE VALVES. THE TOTAL COST FOR THE PART ITSELF + LABOR AND TAXES TOTALED 1155.99! UP UNTIL NOW, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUE WITH THE CAR EXCEPT THIS. THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE IF IT DOES NOT GET RESOLVED. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I WAS ON A HIGHWAY DRIVING AT THE SPEED LIMITS? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS STALLED ON A BUSY INTERSECTION? PLEASE TALK TO TOYOTA ABOUT THIS ISSUE! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10466303
Mileage unknown · Jul 5, 2012
Equipment
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 2009 TOYOTA TOWING HITCH KIT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE TIRE WAS RAISED BY THE JACK IN ORDER TO CHANGE A FLAT TIRE. THE JACK BENT ABNORMALLY, CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO FALL ABRUPTLY. THE CONTACT STATED IT WAS THE FIRST TIME SHE USED THE JACK. THE DEALER WAS MADE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 2009 TOYOTA TOWING HITCH KIT. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE TIRE WAS RAISED BY THE JACK IN ORDER TO CHANGE A FLAT TIRE. THE JACK BENT ABNORMALLY, CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO FALL ABRUPTLY. THE CONTACT STATED IT WAS THE FIRST TIME SHE USED THE JACK. THE DEALER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE JACK MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED INCORRECTLY. THE TECHNICIAN OFFERED TO REPLACE THE JACK WITH ANOTHER ONE OF THE EXACT MODEL. THE JACK WAS NOT REPLACED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
NHTSA ODI #10464348
Mileage unknown · Jul 3, 2012
Engine And Engine Cooling
2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. CONSUMER STATES PROBLEMS WITH OBTAINING VEHICLE RECALL REPAIRS *TGW THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED SHE WOULD NEED TO PRESENT A BILL OF SALE FOR THE VEHICLE, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RECORD OF HER PURCHASING THE VEHICLE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10463766
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