Illustration2005 TOYOTA CAMRY STALLED WHILE DRIVING. CONSUMER STATES THAT THE VEHICLE NEEDED A NEW THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY. CONSUMER STATES THAT THE WARRANTY WAS OVERDUE BY 120 DAYS. *KB
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 reportsWHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS THE STEERING WHEEL "CLICKS" WHEN CHANGING DIRECTION. THERE IS ALSO AN INCESSANT AND RANDOM VIBRATION THAT FEELS ALMOST LIKE "DRIVING OVER BUMPS" ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THERE IS ALSO EXCESSIVE PLAY IN THE STEERING WHEEL. THE DEALER DID NOT COVER THIS UNDER THE TSB, BUT INSTEAD CHARGED ~$500 FOR …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS THE STEERING WHEEL "CLICKS" WHEN CHANGING DIRECTION. THERE IS ALSO AN INCESSANT AND RANDOM VIBRATION THAT FEELS ALMOST LIKE "DRIVING OVER BUMPS" ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THERE IS ALSO EXCESSIVE PLAY IN THE STEERING WHEEL. THE DEALER DID NOT COVER THIS UNDER THE TSB, BUT INSTEAD CHARGED ~$500 FOR THE INTERMEDIATE STEERING SHAFT REPLACEMENT. CAR IS 2005, WITH 44K MILES. *TR
TOYOTA CAMRY 2005 THE CAR WONT SLOW DOWN IT WONT GO BELOW 27 MPH, VERY DANGEROUS. *TR
THERE'S ALWAYS A HESITATION IN TRANSMISSION. *TR
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
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE GOING FORWARD INTO THE GARAGE AT 1 MPH ON DECEMBER 6, 2006, THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD AND CRASHED THROUGH A WALL. THE FREEZER, STOVE, KITCHEN CABINETS, DESK, TABLE, AND CHAIRS WERE DAMAGED. ON A SECOND OCCASION, THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD, BUT NO CRASH OCCURRED. ON JUNE 15, 200…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE GOING FORWARD INTO THE GARAGE AT 1 MPH ON DECEMBER 6, 2006, THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD AND CRASHED THROUGH A WALL. THE FREEZER, STOVE, KITCHEN CABINETS, DESK, TABLE, AND CHAIRS WERE DAMAGED. ON A SECOND OCCASION, THE VEHICLE LUNGED FORWARD, BUT NO CRASH OCCURRED. ON JUNE 15, 2007, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED AND CRASHED INTO THE WALL OF A GROCERY STORE, CAUSING EXTENSIVE DAMAGE. THE DEALER HAD THE VEHICLE AFTER EACH FAILURE AND PERFORMED BODY WORK ON THE VEHICLE; HOWEVER, THE CONTACT DID NOT KNOW WHAT MECHANICAL WORK WAS PERFORMED. WHEN HE ASKED FOR THE PAPERWORK. HE WAS DENIED. THE POWERTRAIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 24,000. UPDATED 03-18-08 *BF THE CONSUMER STATED AIRBAGS NEVER DEPLOYED IN BOTH CRASHES. UPDATED 03/18/08 *TR
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
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. WHILE IDLING, THE VEHICLE REVS AND ACCELERATES ON ITS OWN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOUR TIMES, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 33,500 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 28,000.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA CAMRY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER AND BOTH REAR SEAT BELTS TIGHTEN AND GRAB THE OCCUPANT INTERMITTENTLY. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED AND NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 36,030 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 35,630.
HE HAS BEEN EXPERIENCING PROBLEM EITHER WITH THE TRANSMISSION OR THE ACCELERATOR. WHEN HE START TO ACCELERATE SOMETIMES, USUALLY IN LOW SPEED, 20% TO 40% OF THE TIME, THERE IS A FEW SECONDS THE CAR DOES NOT RESPOND, AND SUDDENLY HE FEEL A JOLT AND THE CAR JUMPS VIOLENTLY. HE HAS TO LOOK BACK WHENEVER IT HAPPENS TO SEE IF SOMEONE…
Read full complaint
HE HAS BEEN EXPERIENCING PROBLEM EITHER WITH THE TRANSMISSION OR THE ACCELERATOR. WHEN HE START TO ACCELERATE SOMETIMES, USUALLY IN LOW SPEED, 20% TO 40% OF THE TIME, THERE IS A FEW SECONDS THE CAR DOES NOT RESPOND, AND SUDDENLY HE FEEL A JOLT AND THE CAR JUMPS VIOLENTLY. HE HAS TO LOOK BACK WHENEVER IT HAPPENS TO SEE IF SOMEONE HAS CRASH IN TO HIS CAR. IF THERE IS A CAR INFRONT OF HIM WHILE IN TRAFFIC, THIS COULD LEAD POTENTIAL CAR ACCIDENT OF HITTING THE CAR INFRONT OF HIM. HE ALSO HAS TO MAKE SURE HE DOES NOT PARK TOO CLOSE TO OTHER CARS OR THE WALL. I HAVE HELP HIM REPORTED THE ISSUE TO DEALER 2 TIMES MANY MONTHS AGO AND THEY SAID THEY CAN NOT FIX THE PROBLEM IF THEY CAN'T FEEL THE PROBLEM. I HAVE ALSO TOLD THE HEADQUARTER I FOUND NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ON THE SAME HESITATION/ACCELERATION PROBLEM MY FATHER EXPERIENCING AND I NOTICED TOYOTA HAVE BEEN TELLING OTHER PEOPLE SAME RESPONSE THAT DEALER CAN NOT FIX THE PROBLEM IF DEALER CAN NOT FEEL THE PROBLEM, AND DEALER HAVE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE THIS IS NORMAL BEHAVIOR FOR THOSE WHO REVISITED MANY TIMES. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS ISSUE IF YOU GO SEARCH ON GOOGLE (USING KEYWARD TOYOTA CAMERY TRANSMISSION PROBLEM). ONE OF THE WEBSITE IS I FOUND FROM GOOGLE RESULT FOR EXAMPLE WAS HTTP://WWW.AUTOBYTEL.COM/CONTENT/RESEARCH/FORUMS/INDEX.CFM/ACTION/POSTS/FID/2852. IT HAS 27 PAGES OF SUCH COMPLAINTS . I HAVE ALSO NOTICE SUCH COMPLAINTS DOES NOT APPLY TO JUST 2005 YEAR CAMERY BUT AGAINST 2002 AND 2007 CAMERY AS WELL. WITH SO MANY CARS THEY SOLD OVER 5 YEARS AND SO MANY COMPLAINTS ON THEIR TRANSMISSION THAT CAN LEAD ACCIDENTS AND POSSIBLY ALREADY DID, TOYOTA ARE MAKING INDIVIDUALS FEEL AS IF THEY ARE THE ONLY ONE IMAGINING THINGS. A FEW PEOPLE SAID CERTAIN STORES ALLOW THEM TO DO A COMPUTER CHIP "FIX," AND THE FIX WAS NOT HELPFUL. ON TOP OF TRANSMISSION PROBLEM. HE NOTICED PAINT PEELING, RUST PAINT UNDER 15X MAGNIFYING GLASSES, A BUBBLE ON DASH BOARD. *TR
Official recalls
516V396000 · Seats:front Assembly:seat Heater/cooler
Jun 2, 2016
Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC (SET) is recalling certain 2005-2011 4Runner, Highlander, Sequoia, and Sienna, 2005-2010 Avalon and Tundra, 2006-2008 Camry Solara, 2006-2010 Highlander hybrid, 2006-2011 Rav4 and Tacoma, 2007-2010 FJ Cruiser, 2007-2011 Camry hybrid, 2009-2010 Venza, 2010-2012 Prius, 1988-1990 and 2005-2010 Camry, and 1989 and 2009-2010 Corolla vehicles equipped with aftermarket accessory seat heaters with a copper strand heating element. The electrical wiring in the seat heaters may be damaged when the seat cushion is compressed.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If damaged, the copper strand heating element may short circuit, increasing the risk of a fire.
Remedy: SET will notify owners, and dealers will disconnect the seat heaters, free of charge, and refund the purchase price of the seat heater accessory. The recall began on July 14, 2016. Owners may contact SET customer service at 1-866-405-4226. SET number for this recall is SET16B.
11V539000 · Engine And Engine Cooling
Nov 9, 2011
TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2004 AVALON VEHICLES; 2004 AND 2005 CAMRY, CAMRY SOLARA, HIGHLANDER, AND SIENNA VEHICLES, 2006 HIGHLANDER HYBRID; 2004 AND 2005 LEXUS ES330 AND RX330; AND 2006 LEXUS RX400H VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 2004 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2005, EQUIPPED WITH THE 1MZ-FE OR 3MZ-FE ENGINE. THE AMOUNT OF ADHESIVE AGENT APPLIED BETWEEN THE OUTER RING AND THE TORSIONAL RUBBER DAMPER (INNER RING) IN THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY MAY BE INADEQUATE. IF THE ADHESIVE IS INSUFFICIENT, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE OUTER RING MAY BECOME MISALIGNED AND IT MAY NOT PROPERLY ROTATE WITH THE INNER RING, CAUSING NOISE AND/OR ILLUMINATION OF THE BATTERY DISCHARGE INDICATOR LIGHT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN SOME CASES, THE BELT FOR THE POWER STEERING PUMP MAY BECOME DETACHED FROM THE PULLEY WHICH COULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF POWER STEERING AND A SUDDEN INCREASE IN STEERING EFFORT, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: TOYOTA WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL CHECK THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY TO IDENTIFY WHETHER IT WAS PRODUCED BY THE U.S. SUPPLIER. IF SO, THE DEALER WILL REPLACE THE PULLEY WITH A NEW ONE AT NO CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING EARLY JANUARY 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
10V035000 · Equipment:other:labels
Feb 3, 2010
GULF STATES TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2005-2010 VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS." THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 AND JUNE 2, 2008 WITHOUT THE REQUISITE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY MODIFICATION LABELS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL MAIL TO CONSUMERS THE CORRECTED LABEL OR THE CUSTOMER WILL HAVE THE OPTION FOR DEALERS TO INSTALL THE LABEL FREE OF CHARGE. DEALERS WILL ALSO CORRECT THE OWNER'S MANUAL. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 27, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT GULF STATES TOYOTA AT 713-580-3300.
10V036000 · Equipment:other:labels
Feb 3, 2010
SOUTHEAST TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2005-2011 PASSENGER VEHICLES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 110, "TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS." THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD WITHOUT THE REQUISITE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY MODIFICATION LABELS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A DRIVER MAY OVERLOAD A VEHICLE WHICH MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL MAIL TO CONSUMERS THE CORRECTED LABEL OR THE CUSTOMER WILL HAVE THE OPTION FOR DEALERS TO INSTALL THE LABEL FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 27, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT SOUTHEAST TOYOTA AT 1-800-301-6859.
04V595000 · Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
Dec 15, 2004
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A FRONT PASSENGER POWER SEAT, WHEN INSTALLING CERTAIN REAR-FACING INFANT CHILD SEAT BASES ONTO THE SEAT WITH AN EXCESSIVELY HIGH SEATBELT TENSION, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO UNSEAT A COMPONENT CALLED THE BUCKLE STATUS SWITCH FROM THE SEAT BELT BUCKLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE SWITCH BECOMES UNSEATED, THE FRONT PASSENGER OCCUPANT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAY MISTAKE THE REAR-FACING CHILD RESTRAINT FOR AN UNBELTED ADULT OCCUPANT, AND MAY NOT SUPPRESS THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE FRONT PASSENGER AIRBAG.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT PASSENGER SEATBELT BUCKLE STATUS SWITCH. THIS SAFETY IMPROVEMENT CAMPAIGN (SSC 40M) BEGAN ON DECEMBER 20, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331 OR LEXUS AT 1-800-255-3987..
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
2DP06003 · Engine Surging
Opened Sep 14, 2006 · Closed Apr 3, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Vehicle Speed Control
THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2006 TOYOTA CAMRY WITH A 4-CYLINDER ENGINE THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW IN JANUARY 2006. THE PETITIONER ALSO PREVIOUSLY OWNED A MY 2005 CAMRY. HE ALLEGES THAT BOTH VEHICLES EXHIBITED VEHICLE ENGINE SURGING, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SHORT DURATION (1 TO 2 SECOND) INCREASE IN ENGINE SPEED OCCURRING WHILE THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS NOT DEPRESSED. IN AN INITIAL INTERVIEW, THE PETITIONER ESTIMATED THAT 6 TO 8 SURGE INCIDENTS, OF VARYING SEVERITY, OCCURRED IN THE MY 2006 VEHICLE OVER THE COURSE OF 10,000 MILES AND 7 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP. THE PETITIONER REPORTS THAT THE BRAKE SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE AT OVERCOMING THE SURGE. HOWEVER, HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTS FILED WITH NHTSA ALLEGING UNCONTROLLEDSURGING IN MY 2002 TO 2006 CAMRY VEHICLES BRINGING THOSE VEHICLES TO A HIGH RATE OF SPEED (IN SOME CASES, PURPORTEDLY, WITH THE BRAKES APPLIED).AFTER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A VEHICLE-BASED DEFECT THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED ENGINE SURGE IN THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE, NOR WAS IT ABLE TO WITNESS SUCH AN EVENT WHEN ROAD TESTING THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE.EVALUATION OF A SUSPECT THROTTLE ACTUATOR REMOVED FROM THE PETITIONER?S VEHICLE DID NOT REVEAL A COMPONENT PROBLEM. WARRANTY AND PARTS SALES OF THE ACTUATOR ARE UNREMARKABLE.THESE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A WIDE-SPREAD DEFECT OR ONGOING CONCERN. THE FAULT DETECTION AND REACTION STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN TOYOTA?S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS INDICATES THAT A LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL DUE TO A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM FAILURE WOULD BE DETECTED WITHIN A ONE SECOND PERIODAFTER WHICH ENGINE POWER WOULD BE LIMITED. THE PETITIONER?S MY 2006 VEHICLE BRAKE SYSTEM OVERCOMES FULL ENGINE POWER AT EASILY ACHIEVABLE BRAKE PEDAL FORCES. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.PLEASE SEE THE MARCH 9, 2007 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
DP05002 · Vehicle Speed Control
Opened Aug 5, 2005 · Closed Jan 5, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control
IN A LETTER DATED JULY 8, 2005, AND AFTER EXPERIENCING TWO INCIDENTS (AND ONE CRASH) WHERE HE ALLEGES HIS MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002 CAMRY ACCELERATED WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT, MR. JORDAN ZIPRIN PETITIONED THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION?S (NHTSA) OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) TO COMMENCE A PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A DEFECT WITHIN THE ETC SYSTEM IN MY 2002 TO 2005 TOYOTA AND LEXUS VEHICLES, OR TO REOPEN A PRIOR INVESTIGATION PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE) 04-021.IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 18, 2005, MR. ZIPRIN AMENDED HIS PETITION TO INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF INTERRELATED BRAKE AND ACCELERATION PROBLEMS THAT ALLEGEDLY RESULT IN INAPPROPRIATE AND UNCONTROLLABLE VEHICLE ACCELERATIONS.THE 1172 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE REPORTS CITED BY THE PETITIONER INVOLVE 4 LEXUS AND 15 TOYOTA MODELS DEFINING A POPULATION OF 7 MILLION VEHICLES.THE REPORTS TYPICALLY ALLEGED A DEFECT IN THE BRAKE SYSTEM, THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM, OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH SYSTEMS.IN ITS REVIEW OF THE REPORTS, ODI A) FAILED TO FIND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A BRAKE RELATED DEFECT IN THE CITED MODELS, AND B) DETERMINED THAT MANY CITED PRODUCTS WERE NOT EQUIPPED WITH ETC.ACCORDINGLY, ODI RESTRICTED ITS ANALYSIS TO THE 432 PETITIONER REPORTS INVOLVING MY 2002 TO 2005 CAMRY, SOLARA, AND ES MODELS (ALL EQUIPPED WITH ETC) THAT ALLEGED AN ABNORMAL THROTTLE CONTROL EVENT (SEE THE JANUARY 3, 2006 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS).ABOUT 40% OF THE 432 REPORTS INVOLVE A DRIVEABILITY CONCERN WHERE THE OPERATOR INTENTIONALLY APPLIES THE THROTTLE PEDAL, IN EXPECTATION THAT THE VEHICLE WILL ACCELERATE, AND THEN EXPERIENCES A DELAY OR HESITATION IN VEHICLE RESPONSE.THESE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLE RESPONSE TO INTENTIONAL DRIVER COMMANDS WHICH ODI CONSIDERS UNRELATED TO THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER.THEREFORE, THE REPORTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED.ABOUT 20% OF THE REPORTS INVOLVE INCIDENTS WHERE OPERATORS ALLEGE VEHICLE ACCELERATION WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT AND AN INABILITY OF THE BRAKE SYSTEM TO CONTROL THE VEHICLE WHEN APPLIED.NEITHER THE REPORTS, NOR THE INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY ODI, IDENTIFIED ANY VEHICLE-BASED CAUSE TO EXPLAIN THE INCIDENTS OR DISCLOSED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT A FAILURE OF THE BRAKE OR THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM HAD OCCURRED.BECAUSE THESE REPORTS DO NOT INDICATE A DISTINCT SAFETY DEFECT FOR INVESTIGATION, THE REPORTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONERTHE REMAINING REPORTS (~ 40%, SIMILAR TO THE PETITIONER?S AND THOSE OF PE04-021) TYPICALLY DESCRIBE INCIDENTS WHERE A VEHICLE IS BEING MANEUVERED AT SLOW SPEED IN A CLOSE QUARTER SITUATION AT WHICH POINT THE OPERATOR ALLEGES THAT THE VEHICLE ACCELERATES WITHOUT DRIVER INPUT AND CRASHES.IN THE AFTERMATH, OPERATORS ARE UNSURE OF WHETHER THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED OR NOT, SOMETIMES STATING THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT TIME TO USE THE BRAKE; A CRASH OCCURRED AND THE OPERATOR BELIEVES AN UNCOMMANDED ACCELERATION CAUSED IT.IN SPITE OF THE EFFORT EXPENDED DURING PE04-021 AND DURING THIS ANALYSIS, ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY VEHICLE-BASED CAUSE TO EXPLAIN THE REPORTS, OR UNCOVERED ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT A THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURE OCCURRED.THEREFORE, THE REPORTS HAVE AMBIGUOUS SIGNIFICANCE AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS ON WHICH ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTION IS WARRANTED.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS CONDUCTED, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES T