← New search

2007 Toyota Prius

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Prius years

Owner complaints for the 2007 Toyota Prius are substantially higher than the model-year median of 164.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

1,721 reports with mileage · 282 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 1,060 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 248 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Structure. Review the 184 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

124 crash reports9 fire reports53 injury reports

Electrical System complaints

248 reports
Clear category filter
39,000 miles · Oct 17, 2008
Electrical System

I HAVE A 2007 PRIUS, STARTING AROUND 39,000 MILES, I NOTICED MY RIGHT HEADLIGHT WAS OUT, BUT THE NEXT TIME I STARTED MY CAR IT WAS WORKING. AFTER A FEW WEEKS I NOTICED BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT HEADLIGHTS WOULD RANDOMLY GO OUT. I TOOK MY CAR INTO THE DEALER MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT WHEN I WAS AT THE DEALERSHIP THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE …

Read full complaint

I HAVE A 2007 PRIUS, STARTING AROUND 39,000 MILES, I NOTICED MY RIGHT HEADLIGHT WAS OUT, BUT THE NEXT TIME I STARTED MY CAR IT WAS WORKING. AFTER A FEW WEEKS I NOTICED BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT HEADLIGHTS WOULD RANDOMLY GO OUT. I TOOK MY CAR INTO THE DEALER MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT WHEN I WAS AT THE DEALERSHIP THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. I WAS TOLD TO BRING MY CAR BACK WHEN THE PROBLEM EXISTED. I TOOK MY CAR IN TO THE DEALER AND AT THAT TIME BOTH LIGHTS WERE OUT, AT THE SAME TIME. THE TECH THAT WROTE UP MY TICKET SAW BOTH LIGHTS OUT, THE REACHED IN THE DRIVERS SIDE WINDOW AND TURNED THE LIGHTS OFF, THEN BACK ON. BOTH LIGHTS WORKED, THEY KEPT THE CAR OVERNIGHT AND COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. I HAVE SINCE TAKEN IN THE CAR AND DUPLICATED THE PROBLEM, THE SERVICE MANAGER WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM. THEY CHECKED MY CAR OUT AND SUGGESTED TO CHANGE BOTH HID LIGHTS AND THE COMPUTER THAT CONTROLS EACH LIGHT, ONE FOR EACH SIDE. THE COST OF THIS REPAIR WILL BE OVER $1,500. LATELY THIS FAILURE OCCURS CONSISTENTLY EVERYTIME I START THE CAR. I DRIVE TO WORK AT 5:00AM IN THE MORNING SO THIS PROBLEM POSES A HAZARD AS NOW BOTH LIGHTS WILL GO OUT AT THE SAME TIME. I HAVE HAD CARS FLASH THEIR LIGHTS WHEN I HAVE NOT NOTICE BOTH LIGHTS HAVE GONE OFF. THE LIGHTS NOW SEEM TO DIM, THEN GO OUT SO I DO NOT NOTICE WHEN THE STREET LIGHTS ARE BRIGHT. I HAVE READ ON PRIUSCHAT.COM/FORUMS, THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN IN TO COMPLAIN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10245753

100 miles · Apr 18, 2008
Electrical SystemFuel System, GasolineFuel System, Other

VEHICLE DOES NOT ACHIEVE ADVERTISED FUEL CONSUMPTION PERFORMANCE. I HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS SINCE THE FIRST SERVICE VISIT. TODAY A FACTORY TECHNICIAN GOT UNACHIEVABLE RESULTS SUGGESTING THAT OUR REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE AFTER 29,000 MILES WITH THE VEHICLE IS NORMAL. HE CLAIMED TO HAVE GOTTEN 66.984 MPG AFTER A 42.2 MILES OF 5…

Read full complaint

VEHICLE DOES NOT ACHIEVE ADVERTISED FUEL CONSUMPTION PERFORMANCE. I HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS SINCE THE FIRST SERVICE VISIT. TODAY A FACTORY TECHNICIAN GOT UNACHIEVABLE RESULTS SUGGESTING THAT OUR REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE AFTER 29,000 MILES WITH THE VEHICLE IS NORMAL. HE CLAIMED TO HAVE GOTTEN 66.984 MPG AFTER A 42.2 MILES OF 55 MPH HIGHWAY AND "IN TOWN" DRIVING, NOTING ONLY THAT AN OUT OF FUEL FAULT HAD NEVER BEEN CLEARED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10224967

8,050 miles · Apr 9, 2008
Electrical SystemFuel System, Gasoline

ON A 2007 PRIUS GAS GAUGE SHOWED 2 BARS AND WAS DRIVING ACROSS A BRIDGE IN CALIFORNIA WHEN THE GAS ENGINE STOPPED. LOOKED AT THE GAS GAUGE AND IT STILL SHOWED 2 BARS. WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE ON A SECTION OF THE BRIDGE WITH A BREAKDOWN LANE. 1/2 MILE FURTHER ON AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN STUCK IN ONE OF THE TRAFFIC LANES. THE VSC,…

Read full complaint

ON A 2007 PRIUS GAS GAUGE SHOWED 2 BARS AND WAS DRIVING ACROSS A BRIDGE IN CALIFORNIA WHEN THE GAS ENGINE STOPPED. LOOKED AT THE GAS GAUGE AND IT STILL SHOWED 2 BARS. WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE ON A SECTION OF THE BRIDGE WITH A BREAKDOWN LANE. 1/2 MILE FURTHER ON AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN STUCK IN ONE OF THE TRAFFIC LANES. THE VSC, CHECK ENGINE, AND HYBRID SYSTEM FAILURE INDICATORS WHERE ON - BUT NOT THE LOW FUEL!!! GOT TOWED TO A DEALER. SERVICE MANAGER TOLD US THAT THE CAR WAS OUT OF GAS AND THAT THE "GAS GAUGE WAS STUCK" THAT'S WHY IT DIDN'T SHOW EMPTY. HE BLAMED IT ON THE BLADDER DESIGN OF THE FUEL TANK AND SAID IT WAS "A DESIGN DEFECT" THAT TOYOTA NEW ABOUT. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY ISSUE - WE COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10224037

5,800 miles · Jan 28, 2008
Electrical System

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. HE STATED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO START THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE BATTERY DIED BECAUSE THE VEHICLE SAT FOR MORE THAN TEN DAYS. THE DEALER CHARGED THE BATTERY AND THERE HAD BEEN NO FURTHER OCCURRENCES. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE BATTERY CABLES SHOULD BE DISCONNECTED W…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. HE STATED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO START THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE BATTERY DIED BECAUSE THE VEHICLE SAT FOR MORE THAN TEN DAYS. THE DEALER CHARGED THE BATTERY AND THERE HAD BEEN NO FURTHER OCCURRENCES. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE BATTERY CABLES SHOULD BE DISCONNECTED WHEN THE VEHICLE SITS FOR 7-10 DAYS IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT FELT THAT THE REMEDY WAS UNSAFE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 5,800.

NHTSA ODI #10216335

9,370 miles · Nov 17, 2007
Electrical System

1. SITTING IN TRAFFIC ONLY RT. 287 N. THE BATTERY LEVEL DROPPED QUICKLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE POINT OF MY BEING UNABLE TO ENGAGE THE ELECTRIC ENGINE WHICH IS THE INITIAL METHOD OF SENDING POWER TO THE WHEELS. 2. CONSEQUENCES: BUMPER TO BUMPER TRAFFIC HAD TO BE DIRECTED AROUND ME WHICH CAUSED MORE TRAFFIC AND PUT ME IN DANGER…

Read full complaint

1. SITTING IN TRAFFIC ONLY RT. 287 N. THE BATTERY LEVEL DROPPED QUICKLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE POINT OF MY BEING UNABLE TO ENGAGE THE ELECTRIC ENGINE WHICH IS THE INITIAL METHOD OF SENDING POWER TO THE WHEELS. 2. CONSEQUENCES: BUMPER TO BUMPER TRAFFIC HAD TO BE DIRECTED AROUND ME WHICH CAUSED MORE TRAFFIC AND PUT ME IN DANGER OF BECOMING INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT. 3. INVESTIGATED POSSIBLE RECALL BUT NONE WAS DOCUMENTED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10209218

Mileage unknown · Nov 9, 2007
Back Over PreventionElectrical System

ALL LATE MODEL TOYOTA GAS ELECTRIC AUTOS. I FIND THEM VERY DANGEROUS IN PARKING LOTS, AS THEY CAN AND DO BACKUP WITH NO NOISE. I WAS ALMOST RUN OVER BY ONE ON A FOGGY DAY LAST WEEK. THE DRIVER NEVER TURNED ON LIGHT AND DIDN'T SEE ME WHEN BACKING OUT OF PARKING SPOT. I WAS ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY THAT TIME. SUPPOSE I HAD BEE…

Read full complaint

ALL LATE MODEL TOYOTA GAS ELECTRIC AUTOS. I FIND THEM VERY DANGEROUS IN PARKING LOTS, AS THEY CAN AND DO BACKUP WITH NO NOISE. I WAS ALMOST RUN OVER BY ONE ON A FOGGY DAY LAST WEEK. THE DRIVER NEVER TURNED ON LIGHT AND DIDN'T SEE ME WHEN BACKING OUT OF PARKING SPOT. I WAS ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY THAT TIME. SUPPOSE I HAD BEEN BLIND? NOT A SOUND TO LET ME KNOW THE CAR WAS THERE. I REALLY THINK THE CAR COMPANY SHOULD INSTALL A BACKUP ALARM OF SOME SORT ON ALL THESE AUTOS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10208524

1,000 miles · Sep 6, 2007
Electrical System

2007 TOYOTA PRIUS ONLY HIGH BEAM HEADLIGHTS WORKED. CONSUMER STATES THAT THE SWITCH WORKS AND THE LIGHT ON THE DASHBOARD FOR THE HIGH BEAMS WORK BUT THE HEADLIGHTS WILL NOT SWITCH FROM HIGH TO LOW. *KB THE DEALER STATED THE FUSE BOX NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10203791

2,644 miles · Jul 6, 2007
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingFuel System, Gasoline

INDICATOR LIGHTS FLASHED. MALFUNCTION INDICATOR LAMP STAYED ON. AT 2,644 MILES, 12 V. BATTERY DEAD & REPLACED. I WAS TOLD TO KEEP THE GAS TANK HALF OR A QUARTER FULL OR THE RESERVE GAS TANK WOULD CAUSE THE CAR TO RUN ON BATTERY. THE BATTERY MIGHT HAVE DIED BECAUSE THE CAR SAT TOO LONG BEFORE IT WAS SOLD/AT 8,879 MILES, I WENT…

Read full complaint

INDICATOR LIGHTS FLASHED. MALFUNCTION INDICATOR LAMP STAYED ON. AT 2,644 MILES, 12 V. BATTERY DEAD & REPLACED. I WAS TOLD TO KEEP THE GAS TANK HALF OR A QUARTER FULL OR THE RESERVE GAS TANK WOULD CAUSE THE CAR TO RUN ON BATTERY. THE BATTERY MIGHT HAVE DIED BECAUSE THE CAR SAT TOO LONG BEFORE IT WAS SOLD/AT 8,879 MILES, I WENT IN. AFTER FILLING THE GAS TANK & TAKING OUT THE NOZZLE, GAS SPEWED & BUBBLED OUT. THE CAR STALLED WHILE DRIVING SLOWLY & WHILE IN PARK. INDICATOR LIGHTS FLASHED. THE MALFUNCTION INDICATOR LAMP AND MASTER WARNING LIGHTS STAYED ON. IT TOOK 5 MIN. TO TURN OFF THE CAR. I STARTED THE CAR. THOSE LIGHTS STAYED ON. I WAS TOLD I LEFT THE "TRUNK DOOR" OPEN & RAN DOWN THE BATTERY. (NOT TRUE.) THERE IS A GASKET AROUND THE ACCESS HOLE AND IF A PERSON "IS A LITTLE BIT OFF," THE GAS WILL REGURGITATE. (I WAS NOT " OFF" & DID NOT TOP OFF THE TANK.) THEY REPROGRAMMED THE COMPUTER. THE GAS TANK HAD NOT BEEN FILLED SO I KNEW THEY DID NOT FILL THE GAS TANK AND TRY TO RECREATE THE SITUATION AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD. I BOUGHT GAS AT A DIFFERENT PUMP. I STOPPED AT A STOP LIGHT. I COULD FEEL A LOSS OF POWER IN THE CAR. WHEN I PUSHED THE GAS PEDAL, THE CAR WOULD NOT MOVE. I TURNED THE CAR OFF AND ON 3 TIMES BEFORE IT WOULD MOVE. IT CREPT SLOWLY THROUGH THE INTERSECTION AS THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL TURNED RED. I TOOK THE CAR IN AT 8,936 MILES. I WAS TOLD IF MY PROBLEM IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BATTERY THAT WAS TAKEN OUT OF MY CAR, IT IS NOT AT REPAIR PERSON'S RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE HE DID NOT TOUCH MY BATTERY. WHEN A BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, IF SOMETHING IS NOT RESET, IT COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS. THEN, HE SAID NO TROUBLE FOUND/MY CAR STALLED AND/OR HAD A LOSS OF POWER. I TOOK IT IN AT 9,014 MILES. NO TROUBLE FOUND. I WAS TOLD THAT MY PROBLEMS COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY A FAULTY GAS PUMP OVERFILLING MY TANK. THE GAS STATION IS NEW. THE MANAGER SAID THE PUMPS WERE INSPECTED. IF THERE WERE A FAULTY PUMP, EVERYONE WOULD HAVE PROBLEMS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10195443

Official recalls

4

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.

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.