← New search

2006 Toyota Prius

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Prius years

Owner complaints for the 2006 Toyota Prius are substantially higher than the model-year median of 164.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,253 reports with mileage · 186 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.

  • Exterior Lighting. Review the 941 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 152 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 94 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

82 crash reports5 fire reports38 injury reports

Service Brakes complaints

73 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Oct 1, 2021
Service Brakes

In June of 2018 My brake actuator failed on my 2006 Prius. At that time I had 169,689 miles on the vehicle. I had the part replaced at Autonation, a Toyota dealership for $2626 . Recently I had noticed that while sitting at a stoplight I was hearing a tapping noise at the brakes along with what they refer to as a 'seal bark'. Th…

Read full complaint

In June of 2018 My brake actuator failed on my 2006 Prius. At that time I had 169,689 miles on the vehicle. I had the part replaced at Autonation, a Toyota dealership for $2626 . Recently I had noticed that while sitting at a stoplight I was hearing a tapping noise at the brakes along with what they refer to as a 'seal bark'. The same sounds the car was making just before the actuator failed three years before. A few days later I was driving south on highway 19 in Saint Petersburg during a light rainstorm. Traffic slowed quickly in front of me. I pressed on the brake pedal and the brakes locked up. The ABS was not working. I was barely able to avoid a crash. On September 27th I took the car to the same Toyota dealership that had replaced the actuator three years earlier. I told them about the noises at the brakes and told them these were the same sounds the car was making when the actuator failed the first time. They checked it out and told me that everything was working fine and that the car was not issuing any error codes. They could hear the same noises that I could, but said that I would need to continue to drive the car until the actuator failed to the point that it lit up dash lights or issued error codes. I logged on to PriusChat to search for what other people were seeing. I am not alone in this. Many others have had the same experience with the dealerships saying 'drive it till it fails'. Drive it until you lose your brakes? If I'm in this situation, then how many other Prius owners are driving around with dangerous brakes. I have no choice but to wait until the failure gets worse. If you search results on PriusChat for 'actuator', I think you will see that this probably means that there are thousands of cars just like mine out there on the roads. I got 169,689 miles out of the first actuator and just 22,000 out of the second one. Based on what I've seen on PriusChat, the new part seems to be worse than the original part.

NHTSA ODI #11435154

Mileage unknown · Aug 23, 2021
Electrical SystemService BrakesUnknown Or Other

Discovered through failures repeated to dealers that certain items (Brakes, dashboard, et. al.) were recalled by Toyote. Never received recall notices. Contacted Toyota who demanded the vehicle be taken to dealer and now refuses to do anything. Have complete documentation to attach to this communication. Essentially: Dashboard …

Read full complaint

Discovered through failures repeated to dealers that certain items (Brakes, dashboard, et. al.) were recalled by Toyote. Never received recall notices. Contacted Toyota who demanded the vehicle be taken to dealer and now refuses to do anything. Have complete documentation to attach to this communication. Essentially: Dashboard failed, brakes failed when auto in operation. Likely there are UNKNOWN additional recalls, etc. of which we were not noticed

NHTSA ODI #11430117

Mileage unknown · Aug 18, 2021
Service Brakes

Vehicle, upon turning on ignition/starting and putting in either drive or reverse gear, on level surface with brakes still applied will roll forward or backward. This has happened several times but usually at first start up for the day No warning lights(brake or other) are displayed Brake pedal is firm /no problems with pads/sh…

Read full complaint

Vehicle, upon turning on ignition/starting and putting in either drive or reverse gear, on level surface with brakes still applied will roll forward or backward. This has happened several times but usually at first start up for the day No warning lights(brake or other) are displayed Brake pedal is firm /no problems with pads/shoes ,brakes work fine any other time. I have called the local toyota dealer and toyota(company) and told them about this safety issue but was told i would have to pay to get it diagnosed . No one other than my wife child and i experienced this problem . Fortunately no one has gotten hurt. Was suprised to learn that this problem is not a part of a recall.

NHTSA ODI #11429625

177,000 miles · Aug 21, 2020
Service Brakes

THE BRAKE BOOSTER IS MAKING LOTS OF CHIRPING NOISE WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL IS DEPRESSED. WHILE I AM NOT GETTING ANY VISUAL INDICATORS OF FAILURE AT THIS MOMENT I BELIEVE (DUE TO MY OWN RESEARCH) THAT WHEN I DO THERE IS A HIGH CHANCE OF ME GETTING INTO A CAR ACCIDENT. I HAVE READ ON PRIUSCHAT.COM THAT SEVERAL PEOPLE HAD BRAKE FAILU…

Read full complaint

THE BRAKE BOOSTER IS MAKING LOTS OF CHIRPING NOISE WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL IS DEPRESSED. WHILE I AM NOT GETTING ANY VISUAL INDICATORS OF FAILURE AT THIS MOMENT I BELIEVE (DUE TO MY OWN RESEARCH) THAT WHEN I DO THERE IS A HIGH CHANCE OF ME GETTING INTO A CAR ACCIDENT. I HAVE READ ON PRIUSCHAT.COM THAT SEVERAL PEOPLE HAD BRAKE FAILURE DUE TO THE FAULTY PUMP WHICH CAUSED A CAR WRECK. THIS IS A DANGEROUS PREDICAMENT TO BE IN AND TOYOTA SHOULD EXTEND THEIR WARRANTY TO COVER THE FAULTY EQUIPMENT THEY HAVE INSTALLED ON THESE VEHICLES BEFORE SOMEONE GETS SERIOUSLY HURT OR DIES.

NHTSA ODI #11350649

149,000 miles · Aug 21, 2020
Service Brakes

WHILE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION ON A CITY STREET, AND ALSO UPON BACK ROADS, THE BRAKES IN MY 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS SEEMED TO GRAB. THERE WAS ALSO A LOUD NOISE UPON BRAKING. THIS ISSUE WORSENED AND THE DASH LIGHTS LIT UP. I TOOK TO LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE BRAKE ACTUATOR NEEDS TO BE REPLACED DUE TO SAFETY IS…

Read full complaint

WHILE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION ON A CITY STREET, AND ALSO UPON BACK ROADS, THE BRAKES IN MY 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS SEEMED TO GRAB. THERE WAS ALSO A LOUD NOISE UPON BRAKING. THIS ISSUE WORSENED AND THE DASH LIGHTS LIT UP. I TOOK TO LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE BRAKE ACTUATOR NEEDS TO BE REPLACED DUE TO SAFETY ISSUE OF BRAKES GOING OUT IN THE FUTURE. (NOT IF BUT WHEN). I WAS TOLD WHEN THE BRAKES GO OUT, I AM TO PUSH THE EMERGENCY BRAKE AND THE VEHICLE WOULD COAST TO A STOP. THIS IS AN UNSAFE CONDITION AND COULD HAPPEN WHILE BRAKING FOR A RED LIGHT OR BRAKING TO AVOID HITTING A DEER. THE COST TO FIX THIS BRAKE ACTUATOR ISSUE WILL BE APPX $3000. UPON FURTHER RESEARCH, TOYOTA KNEW OF THE ISSUE AND OFFERED AN EXTENDED WARRANTY THAT EXPIRED DEC 2017. THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER COMPLAINTS OF THIS SAME ISSUE WITH OTHER '06 PRIUS OWNERS OF THIS HAPPENING BEFORE AND AFTER THE WARRANTY EXPIRED IN DEC OF 2017. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE WHICH COULD CAUSE INJURY OR DEATH WHEN THE BRAKES DO STOP WORKING AND NEEDS TO BE A RECALL, NOT AN EXTENDED WARRANTY THROUGH TOYOTA THAT EXPIRES.

NHTSA ODI #11350621

136,000 miles · Aug 21, 2020
Service Brakes

OWNER BEGAN NOTICING BRAKING PROBLEM IN NOVEMBER 2017. BRAKE PEDAL WOULD GO TO FLOOR WITH MINIMAL BRAKING. PROBLEM CONTINUED TO GET WORSE. OWNER TOOK VEHICLE TO TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AFTER HOLIDAY PERIOD ON 02/09/18 FOR DIAGNOSTICS. TOYOTA ADVISED OWNER OF FAILURE OF THE BRAKE ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY, $2500.00 REPAIR, AND DANGEROUS TO DRI…

Read full complaint

OWNER BEGAN NOTICING BRAKING PROBLEM IN NOVEMBER 2017. BRAKE PEDAL WOULD GO TO FLOOR WITH MINIMAL BRAKING. PROBLEM CONTINUED TO GET WORSE. OWNER TOOK VEHICLE TO TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AFTER HOLIDAY PERIOD ON 02/09/18 FOR DIAGNOSTICS. TOYOTA ADVISED OWNER OF FAILURE OF THE BRAKE ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY, $2500.00 REPAIR, AND DANGEROUS TO DRIVE VEHICLE WITHOUT REPAIR PERFORMED. TOYOTA WAS AWARE OF THIS SERIOUS BRAKE DEFECT IN THEIR VEHICLES AND ISSUED A WARRANTY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM ZG1 TO CORRECT AT NO COST TO OWNERS. THE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM ENDED 31 DECEMBER, 2017. MY VEHICLE WAS DIAGNOSED WITH EXACT BRAKE FAILURE PROBLEM 2 MONTHS LATER ON 09 FEBRUARY, 2018. TOYOTA REFUSES TO CORRECT THIS CATASTROPHIC BRAKE FAILURE. REQUEST NHTSA TO ISSUE NEW DIRECTION FOR TOYOTA TO CORRECT THIS CATASTROPHIC BRAKE FAILURE FOR PRIUS VEHICLES BEYOND THE 31 DECEMBER, 2017 DATE.

NHTSA ODI #11350601

163,000 miles · Feb 29, 2020
Service Brakes

ABS WARNING LIGHT ARE NOW ON. FEEL CAR IS LOSING BREAK CAPABILITY. NO ACCIDENT BUT DO NOT FEEL CONFIDENT WITH THE BRAKE CAPACITY. TODAY I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER AND THEY STATED THAT THE ABS ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY (CODE C1391) NEED TO BE REPLACE. LOOKING IN THE INTERNET AND IT LOOKS A VERY COMMON DEFECT FOR PRIUS. THIS IS A P…

Read full complaint

ABS WARNING LIGHT ARE NOW ON. FEEL CAR IS LOSING BREAK CAPABILITY. NO ACCIDENT BUT DO NOT FEEL CONFIDENT WITH THE BRAKE CAPACITY. TODAY I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER AND THEY STATED THAT THE ABS ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY (CODE C1391) NEED TO BE REPLACE. LOOKING IN THE INTERNET AND IT LOOKS A VERY COMMON DEFECT FOR PRIUS. THIS IS A PRIUS 2006 WITH 163.000 MILES. TOYOTA KNOW ABOUT THIS, EXTENDED WARRANTY, BUT I AM OUT OUT THIS EXTENSION. BUT THIS SYSTEM SHOULD PROPERTY WORK FOR THE LIFE OF THE CAR.

NHTSA ODI #11312290

176,000 miles · Feb 13, 2020
Electrical SystemEngineService Brakes

I WAS DRIVING ON A HIGHWAY 95 SOUTH, ALMOST TO DELAWARE, AT NIGHT IN THE RAIN, AFTER 4 HOURS ON THE ROAD, EVERYTHING STOPPED WORKING. I COULDN'T ACCELERATE, I HAD NO BRAKES, AND EVENTUALLY EVEN MY LIGHTS WENT OUT. THE ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM WAS OUT. I WAS IN HEAVY TRAFFIC, AND DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW I GOT OFF THE HIGHWAY, AN…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING ON A HIGHWAY 95 SOUTH, ALMOST TO DELAWARE, AT NIGHT IN THE RAIN, AFTER 4 HOURS ON THE ROAD, EVERYTHING STOPPED WORKING. I COULDN'T ACCELERATE, I HAD NO BRAKES, AND EVENTUALLY EVEN MY LIGHTS WENT OUT. THE ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM WAS OUT. I WAS IN HEAVY TRAFFIC, AND DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW I GOT OFF THE HIGHWAY, AND TO A GAS STATION. THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER COULDN'T EVEN JUMP THE BATTERY ENOUGH TO GET THE CAR IN NEUTRAL, AND HAD A DIFFICULT TIME GETTING IT UP ON THE FLATBED TO TOW IT HOME. I COULDN'T EVEN LOCK THE DOORS. I HAD A NEW KEY MADE AT THE DEALERSHIP ON 10/17/19 AND I WAS USING THAT KEY FOR HOURS DRIVING TO CT AND A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER I WAS HALF WAY HOME WHEN EVERYTHING IN THE CAR STOPPED WORKING. I WAS TOWED TO MY HOME IN MD BECAUSE I NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO UNPACK MY CAR AND COMPUTER BEFORE TAKING IT TO THE DEALERSHIP. WHEN THE SECOND TOW CAME THE NEXT DAY, I HANDED HIM THE KEY BY THE FRONT DOOR, WHICH WAS MY OLD KEY, AND HE WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR IN NEUTRAL RIGHT AWAY, AND AT THE DEALERSHIP THE CAR WORKED JUST FINE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS THE NEW KEY. THE TECHNICIAN FOUND THAT "THE IMMOBILIZER ECU HAS AN INTERMITTENT OPEN CIRCUIT FAILURE, CAUSING THE KEY TO BE SEEN AS UNAUTHORIZED AND STALL THE ENGINE." FROM JIM COLEMAN TOYOTA. APPARENTLY THERE IS A PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM THAT SHUTS OFF ALL SYSTEMS IF IT DETECTS AN "UNAUTHORIZED" KEY--I.E. IF IT BELIEVES THE CAR IS BEING STOLEN. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS PROGRAM IN THIS CAR. I HAD BEEN USING THAT NEW KEY FOR SEVERAL DAYS, AND HAD NO PROBLEM, BUT FOR IT TO DECIDE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HIGHWAY AFTER HOURS ON THE ROAD THAT THE KEY WAS A FAKE, I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED OR I COULD HAVE KILLED SOMEONE ELSE. I WOULD MUCH PREFER THAT MY CAR BE STOLLEN THAN THAT SOMEONE MIGHT GET KILLED BUT SHUTTING OFF EVERYTHING WHILE IT WAS ON THE ROAD.

NHTSA ODI #11309040

202,500 miles · Nov 28, 2019
Service Brakes

BREAKS, IBS AND OTHER LIGHTS CAME ON DURING A ROAD TRIP. BREAKS SIENGSGED AND I HAD TO PRESS HARDER AND 'PUMP' IN ORDER TO BREAK. TOOK TO MR. TIRE TO CHECK -AND REPLACED BREAKS AND FLUSH. LIGHTS STILL ON. TOOK TO THE DEALER- IBS ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY FAILURE. QUOTED REPAIR OVER $2400. APPARENTLY, SOME OWNERS OF THIS MODEL RECEIVED …

Read full complaint

BREAKS, IBS AND OTHER LIGHTS CAME ON DURING A ROAD TRIP. BREAKS SIENGSGED AND I HAD TO PRESS HARDER AND 'PUMP' IN ORDER TO BREAK. TOOK TO MR. TIRE TO CHECK -AND REPLACED BREAKS AND FLUSH. LIGHTS STILL ON. TOOK TO THE DEALER- IBS ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY FAILURE. QUOTED REPAIR OVER $2400. APPARENTLY, SOME OWNERS OF THIS MODEL RECEIVED LETTER FOR WARRANTY AND EXTENDED WARRANTY FOR ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY. DEALER DID NOT MENTION THIS OPTION AT ALL. HTTPS://ATTACHMENTS.PRIUSCHAT.COM/ATTACHMENT-FILES/2017/12/136422_PRIUS_2ND_GEN_-_BRAKE_ACTUATOR_WARRANTY_EXTENSION.PDF

NHTSA ODI #11282754

280,000 miles · Sep 23, 2019
Service BrakesCrash

WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY CRUISING AT HIGHWAY SPEED I SUDDENLY RECEIVED A LOUD CONTINUOUS BEEP AND MY ABS , BRAKE , AND (!) ILLUMINATED. I ATTEMPTED TO STOP AND I HAD NO BRAKES EXCEPT WHEN THE PEDAL WAS ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR IT FELT AS IS IT WAS JUST PULLING THE REAR DRUMS. IT TOOK A WHILE TO STOP AND I SIDE SWIPED T…

Read full complaint

WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY CRUISING AT HIGHWAY SPEED I SUDDENLY RECEIVED A LOUD CONTINUOUS BEEP AND MY ABS , BRAKE , AND (!) ILLUMINATED. I ATTEMPTED TO STOP AND I HAD NO BRAKES EXCEPT WHEN THE PEDAL WAS ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR IT FELT AS IS IT WAS JUST PULLING THE REAR DRUMS. IT TOOK A WHILE TO STOP AND I SIDE SWIPED THE MEDIAN BARRIER TO AVOID A COLLISION WITH THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME AS TRAFFIC WAS BUILDING. I ASSUME IT WAS THE BRAKE ACTUATOR THAT THERE WAS AN EXTENDED WARRANTY FOR ALMOST A DECADE LATER BUT NO RECALL. FOR SOMETHING SO DANGEROUS I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW THAT ISN'T A RECALL.

NHTSA ODI #11257455

Official recalls

6

12V536000 · Engine And Engine Cooling; Hybrid Propulsion System: Inverter

Nov 14, 2012

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 6, 2003, through March 30, 2009 and FCHV-adv vehicles manufactured December 12, 2008, through September 13, 2011. During manufacturing, a scratch may have occurred inside of the electrically driven water pump at the coil wire. The coil wire may corrode at the scratched portion.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: The corroded coil wire may break and the water pump could stop. The corroded coil wire could cause a short circuit between coil wires and a possible open fuse, creating a stall-like condition of the hybrid system while the vehicle is being driven. This may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify its owners, and dealers will replace the electric water pump, free of charge. The recall began on January 17, 2013. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Hybrid Propulsion System: Inverter

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 6, 2003, through March 30, 2009 and FCHV-adv vehicles manufactured December 12, 2008, through September 13, 2011. During manufacturing, a scratch may have occurred inside of the electrically driven water pump at the coil wire. The coil wire may corrode at the scratched portion.

Consequence: The corroded coil wire may break and the water pump could stop. The corroded coil wire could cause a short circuit between coil wires and a possible open fuse, creating a stall-like condition of the hybrid system while the vehicle is being driven. This may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify its owners, and dealers will replace the electric water pump, free of charge. The recall began on January 17, 2013. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

Engine And Engine Cooling

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 6, 2003, through March 30, 2009 and FCHV-adv vehicles manufactured December 12, 2008, through September 13, 2011. During manufacturing, a scratch may have occurred inside of the electrically driven water pump at the coil wire. The coil wire may corrode at the scratched portion.

Consequence: The corroded coil wire may break and the water pump could stop. The corroded coil wire could cause a short circuit between coil wires and a possible open fuse, creating a stall-like condition of the hybrid system while the vehicle is being driven. This may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify its owners, and dealers will replace the electric water pump, free of charge. The recall began on January 17, 2013. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

12V537000 · Steering; Steering:gear Box:shaft Sector

Nov 14, 2012

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 5, 2003, through March 30, 2009. The affected vehicles have a steering intermediate extension shaft assembly built with metal splines that complete the connection from the steering wheel to the steering gear. These splines may have been manufactured with an insufficient hardness.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: Over time, the splines may wear and eventually fail resulting in a loss of steering ability, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the extension shaft and replace it if it is one with insufficient hardness, free of charge. The recall began during December 2012. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Steering:gear Box:shaft Sector

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 5, 2003, through March 30, 2009. The affected vehicles have a steering intermediate extension shaft assembly built with metal splines that complete the connection from the steering wheel to the steering gear. These splines may have been manufactured with an insufficient hardness.

Consequence: Over time, the splines may wear and eventually fail resulting in a loss of steering ability, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the extension shaft and replace it if it is one with insufficient hardness, free of charge. The recall began during December 2012. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

Steering

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004-2009 Prius vehicles manufactured August 5, 2003, through March 30, 2009. The affected vehicles have a steering intermediate extension shaft assembly built with metal splines that complete the connection from the steering wheel to the steering gear. These splines may have been manufactured with an insufficient hardness.

Consequence: Over time, the splines may wear and eventually fail resulting in a loss of steering ability, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy: Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the extension shaft and replace it if it is one with insufficient hardness, free of charge. The recall began during December 2012. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

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.

09V388000 · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal

Oct 5, 2009

TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2004-2010 PASSENGER VEHICLES. THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL CAN GET STUCK IN THE WIDE OPEN POSITION DUE TO ITS BEING TRAPPED BY AN UNSECURED OR INCOMPATIBLE DRIVER'S FLOOR MAT.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A STUCK OPEN ACCELERATOR PEDAL MAY RESULT IN VERY HIGH VEHICLE SPEEDS AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO STOP THE VEHICLE, WHICH COULD CAUSE A CRASH, SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH.

Remedy: TOYOTA FILED AN AMENDED DEFECT REPORT ON NOVEMBER 25, 2009, STATING THAT DEALERS WILL MODIFY THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL AND, ON CERTAIN VEHICLES, ALTER THE SHAPE OF THE FLOOR SURFACE UNDER THE PEDAL. THESE CHANGES ADDRESS THE RISK OF PEDAL ENTRAPMENT DUE TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE FLOOR MAT. REDESIGNED ACCELERATOR PEDALS WILL BECOME AVAILABLE BEGINNING IN APRIL 2010 AND DEALERS WILL REPLACE ANY MODIFIED PEDAL WITH THE NEW PEDAL IF DESIRED. ALSO, DEALERS WILL REPLACE ANY GENUINE TOYOTA OR LEXUS ALL-WEATHER FLOOR MATS WITH REDESIGNED ALL-WEATHER MATS, OR REPURCHASE THE PREVIOUS MATS FROM OWNERS WHO DO NOT WANT THE NEW ONES. ADDITIONALLY, SOFTWARE MODIFICATIONS WILL BE INSTALLED ON CAMRY, AVALON AND LEXUS ES 350, IS 350 AND IS 250 MODELS THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THE BRAKE OVERRIDES THE ACCELERATOR IN THE EVENT BOTH BRAKE AND ACCELERATOR PEDALS ARE APPLIED. TOYOTA WILL BEGIN MAILING LETTERS TO OWNERS ON DECEMBER 31, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331, LEXUS AT 1-800-255-3987.

06V188000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

May 31, 2006

THE INTERMEDIATE SHAFT AND SLIDING YOKE IN THE ELECTRIC POWER STEERING SYSTEM CAN CRACK WHEN LARGE FORCES ARE APPLIED AND THE CONNECTION MAY SEPARATE OR THE SLEEVE MAY FRACTURE.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE.

Remedy: TOYOTA WILL REPLACE THE STEERING INTERMEDIATE SHAFT AND INSPECT THE SLIDING YOKE AND REPLACE IT IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 9, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.

06V096000 · Air Bags

Apr 3, 2006

ON CERTAIN VEHICLES, DUE TO IMPROPER ASSEMBLY OF THE AIR BAG INFLATOR, WHICH IS USED IN THE SIDE AIR BAG, THE CURTAIN SHIELD AIR BAG, AND THE KNEE AIR BAG ASSEMBLY, SOME INFLATORS WERE PRODUCED WITH AN INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF THE HEATING AGENTS NECESSARY FOR PROPER AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT. IN THIS CONDITION, THE EXPANSION FORCE OF THE GAS MAY BE INSUFFICIENT TO PROPERLY INFLATE THE AIR BAG WHEN THE SRS SYSTEM IS ACTIVATED DURING A CRASH.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: THIS MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE OCCUPANT IN THE INVOLVED SEATING POSITION IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SPECIFIC SRS AIR BAG. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 6, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-888-270-9371, SCION AT 1-866-548-1851, 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

3

DP22005 · Pedestrian Alert Sounds

Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Aug 7, 2023

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:propulsion System

NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.

DP13001 · Intermediate Steering Shaft Separation

Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Apr 8, 2020

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering; Steering:column; Steering:linkages

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. Therefore, 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606

Additional source detail variants (3)

Steering:column

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. Therefore, 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606

Steering:linkages

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. Therefore, 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606

Steering

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a January 2013 defect petition requesting that it open an investigation on Model Year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles to address a possible manufacturing safety defect related to the steering column intermediate shaft.During the defect petition evaluation, ODI: 1.Reviewed the petition and its enclosures; 2.Reviewed the subject steering system layout; 3.Examined the Petition Vehicle?s history, including its repair history; 4.Reviewed and followed-up potentially related consumer complaints; 5.Assessed Safety Recalls 06V-188 and 12V-537; and, 6.Requested and examined complaint, claim, field report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.ODI's review revealed that the petition vehicle had been recalled (Recall 06V188) to remedy a defect in the system identified in the petition with the remedy taking place prior to the failure that prompted the petition. Circumstances point to incorrect reassembly of the petitioner's vehicle by those who performed the recall remedy.ODI examined the issues raised by this petition to identify any related safety defect trend in the general subject vehicle population.That review identified a low rate of related consumer complaints (twenty-five over a eight year period from a population of over 600,000 vehicles) and no pattern that would identify either a safety defect not already covered by the two existing steering safety recalls by Toyota or a systematic problem with either recall remedy.Based on this evaluation, ODI does not believe that additional investigation will lead to a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the subject vehicles. Therefore, 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. The denial of this petition does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For more information, see the Federal Register notice in the public file for this action (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle, select NHTSA ID, enter: DP13001)The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed on-line (https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle) under the following NHTSA ID numbers:10407520, 10418710, 10429551, 10473654, 10478195, 10478053, 10437229, 10489425, 10510722, 10639984, 10648277, 10499778, 10712626, 10723196, 10787530, 10808124, 10838803, 11071646, 11098144, 11099507, 11102659, 11160767, 11192607, 11287550, 11287606

PE09019 · Headlight Failure

Opened Apr 17, 2009 · Closed Aug 27, 2009

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting; Exterior Lighting:headlights

ODI OPENED THIS INVESTIGATION AFTER RECEIVING REPORTS THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS WOULD GO OUT, OR EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE (HID) HEADLAMPS THAT OPERATE ON INDEPENDENT LAMPS AND ECU'S (ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNITS) FOR EACH HEADLIGHT, MEANING THAT EACH HEADLIGHT RUNS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, AND A FAILURE IN ONE LAMP OR ECU DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN A FAILURE OF THE OTHER.DURING THE INVESTIGATION, A RANDOM SAMPLE OF FORTY CONSUMERS WAS CONTACTED BY ODI IN A TELEPHONE SURVEY TO VERIFY THEIR EXPERIENCES.THE CONSUMERS STATED IN COMPLAINTS TO TOYOTA THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED AT THE SAME TIME.ODI DISCOVERED THROUGH TALKING WITH THESE COMPLAINANTS THAT IN FACT ONE HEADLIGHT WOULD BEGIN TO FLICKER AND THEN CUT OFF.THE OTHER HEADLIGHT WOULD STILL BE OPERATIONAL.IN A FEW CASES WHERE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, SOME COMPLAINANTS STATED THAT AFTER A FEW MONTHS BOTH HEADLAMPS WOULD BEGIN TO FAIL RESULTING IN NO HEADLIGHTS; HOWEVER NONE REPORTED THAT BOTH LAMPS FAILED SIMULTANEOUSLY.COMPLAINANTS ALSO STATED THAT THEY COULD TOGGLE THE HEADLAMP SWITCH ON AND OFF TO TEMPORARILY RESTORE LIGHTING WHEN THIS CONDITION OCCURRED, EVEN IN CASES WERE BOTH HEADLAMPS WERE EXTINGUISHED.THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH ODI'S ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORTS AND WARRANTY DATA.TOYOTA SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONLY ONE LAMP FAILED AT A TIME, AND THAT TOGGLING THE SWITCH RESTORED THE LAMP.TOYOTA REQUESTED A MEETING WITH ODI AND ON AUGUST 6, 2009, PRESENTED THEIR ASSESSMENT OF HEADLAMP FAILURE.TOYOTA CONFIRMED THAT A HEADLAMP COULD EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING DUE TO A BULB FAILURE, AND THAT IT COULD BE TEMPORARILY RESTORED BY TURNING THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH ON AND OFF, AND THAT SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE OF BOTH HEADLAMPS WAS RARE AND UNLIKELY.TOYOTA ALSO BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THEIR INTENTION TO CONDUCT A CUSTOMER SERVICE CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION WITH HID BULB FAILURES.SINCE THERE IS STILL ONE HEADLIGHT OPERATING WHEN THE OTHER ONE CUTS OFF, THERE IS STILL LIGHTING AVAILABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO A REPAIR FACILITY.THUS, A SAFETY DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Exterior Lighting:headlights

ODI OPENED THIS INVESTIGATION AFTER RECEIVING REPORTS THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS WOULD GO OUT, OR EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE (HID) HEADLAMPS THAT OPERATE ON INDEPENDENT LAMPS AND ECU'S (ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNITS) FOR EACH HEADLIGHT, MEANING THAT EACH HEADLIGHT RUNS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, AND A FAILURE IN ONE LAMP OR ECU DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN A FAILURE OF THE OTHER.DURING THE INVESTIGATION, A RANDOM SAMPLE OF FORTY CONSUMERS WAS CONTACTED BY ODI IN A TELEPHONE SURVEY TO VERIFY THEIR EXPERIENCES.THE CONSUMERS STATED IN COMPLAINTS TO TOYOTA THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED AT THE SAME TIME.ODI DISCOVERED THROUGH TALKING WITH THESE COMPLAINANTS THAT IN FACT ONE HEADLIGHT WOULD BEGIN TO FLICKER AND THEN CUT OFF.THE OTHER HEADLIGHT WOULD STILL BE OPERATIONAL.IN A FEW CASES WHERE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, SOME COMPLAINANTS STATED THAT AFTER A FEW MONTHS BOTH HEADLAMPS WOULD BEGIN TO FAIL RESULTING IN NO HEADLIGHTS; HOWEVER NONE REPORTED THAT BOTH LAMPS FAILED SIMULTANEOUSLY.COMPLAINANTS ALSO STATED THAT THEY COULD TOGGLE THE HEADLAMP SWITCH ON AND OFF TO TEMPORARILY RESTORE LIGHTING WHEN THIS CONDITION OCCURRED, EVEN IN CASES WERE BOTH HEADLAMPS WERE EXTINGUISHED.THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH ODI'S ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORTS AND WARRANTY DATA.TOYOTA SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONLY ONE LAMP FAILED AT A TIME, AND THAT TOGGLING THE SWITCH RESTORED THE LAMP.TOYOTA REQUESTED A MEETING WITH ODI AND ON AUGUST 6, 2009, PRESENTED THEIR ASSESSMENT OF HEADLAMP FAILURE.TOYOTA CONFIRMED THAT A HEADLAMP COULD EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING DUE TO A BULB FAILURE, AND THAT IT COULD BE TEMPORARILY RESTORED BY TURNING THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH ON AND OFF, AND THAT SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE OF BOTH HEADLAMPS WAS RARE AND UNLIKELY.TOYOTA ALSO BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THEIR INTENTION TO CONDUCT A CUSTOMER SERVICE CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION WITH HID BULB FAILURES.SINCE THERE IS STILL ONE HEADLIGHT OPERATING WHEN THE OTHER ONE CUTS OFF, THERE IS STILL LIGHTING AVAILABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO A REPAIR FACILITY.THUS, A SAFETY DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Exterior Lighting

ODI OPENED THIS INVESTIGATION AFTER RECEIVING REPORTS THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS WOULD GO OUT, OR EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE (HID) HEADLAMPS THAT OPERATE ON INDEPENDENT LAMPS AND ECU'S (ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNITS) FOR EACH HEADLIGHT, MEANING THAT EACH HEADLIGHT RUNS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, AND A FAILURE IN ONE LAMP OR ECU DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN A FAILURE OF THE OTHER.DURING THE INVESTIGATION, A RANDOM SAMPLE OF FORTY CONSUMERS WAS CONTACTED BY ODI IN A TELEPHONE SURVEY TO VERIFY THEIR EXPERIENCES.THE CONSUMERS STATED IN COMPLAINTS TO TOYOTA THAT BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED AT THE SAME TIME.ODI DISCOVERED THROUGH TALKING WITH THESE COMPLAINANTS THAT IN FACT ONE HEADLIGHT WOULD BEGIN TO FLICKER AND THEN CUT OFF.THE OTHER HEADLIGHT WOULD STILL BE OPERATIONAL.IN A FEW CASES WHERE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, SOME COMPLAINANTS STATED THAT AFTER A FEW MONTHS BOTH HEADLAMPS WOULD BEGIN TO FAIL RESULTING IN NO HEADLIGHTS; HOWEVER NONE REPORTED THAT BOTH LAMPS FAILED SIMULTANEOUSLY.COMPLAINANTS ALSO STATED THAT THEY COULD TOGGLE THE HEADLAMP SWITCH ON AND OFF TO TEMPORARILY RESTORE LIGHTING WHEN THIS CONDITION OCCURRED, EVEN IN CASES WERE BOTH HEADLAMPS WERE EXTINGUISHED.THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH ODI'S ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORTS AND WARRANTY DATA.TOYOTA SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONLY ONE LAMP FAILED AT A TIME, AND THAT TOGGLING THE SWITCH RESTORED THE LAMP.TOYOTA REQUESTED A MEETING WITH ODI AND ON AUGUST 6, 2009, PRESENTED THEIR ASSESSMENT OF HEADLAMP FAILURE.TOYOTA CONFIRMED THAT A HEADLAMP COULD EXTINGUISH WHILE DRIVING DUE TO A BULB FAILURE, AND THAT IT COULD BE TEMPORARILY RESTORED BY TURNING THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH ON AND OFF, AND THAT SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE OF BOTH HEADLAMPS WAS RARE AND UNLIKELY.TOYOTA ALSO BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THEIR INTENTION TO CONDUCT A CUSTOMER SERVICE CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION WITH HID BULB FAILURES.SINCE THERE IS STILL ONE HEADLIGHT OPERATING WHEN THE OTHER ONE CUTS OFF, THERE IS STILL LIGHTING AVAILABLE TO GET THE VEHICLE TO A REPAIR FACILITY.THUS, A SAFETY DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.