← 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

Exterior Lighting complaints

1,060 reports
Clear category filter
31,214 miles · Oct 12, 2011
Exterior Lighting

I HAVE BROUGHT THIS VEHICLE TO THE TOYOTA DEALER FOUR TIMES IN THIS PAST YEAR FOR INTERMITTENTLY WORKING HEADLIGHTS. ONE OR THE OTHER FRONT HEADLIGHT TURN OFF WITHOUT WARNING. WHEN THE HEADLIGHTS ARE (BOTH) TURNED OFF THEN ON, THEY USUALLY, BUT NOT ALWAYS, BOTH COME BACK ON. THE DEALER IS CLUELESS EVEN WHEN PROBLEM IS DEMONSTRAT…

Read full complaint

I HAVE BROUGHT THIS VEHICLE TO THE TOYOTA DEALER FOUR TIMES IN THIS PAST YEAR FOR INTERMITTENTLY WORKING HEADLIGHTS. ONE OR THE OTHER FRONT HEADLIGHT TURN OFF WITHOUT WARNING. WHEN THE HEADLIGHTS ARE (BOTH) TURNED OFF THEN ON, THEY USUALLY, BUT NOT ALWAYS, BOTH COME BACK ON. THE DEALER IS CLUELESS EVEN WHEN PROBLEM IS DEMONSTRATED TO THE HEAD OF THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT. BASED ON A REVIEW OF INTERNET CHAT GROUPS, THIS SEEMS TO BE A WELL KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED PROBLEM, INCLUDING A CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT FILED EARLIER THIS YEAR (COLLADO ET AL V. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES). *KB

NHTSA ODI #10429968

66,500 miles · Oct 12, 2011
Exterior Lighting

HEADLIGHTS RANDOMLY GOES OUT WHILE DRIVING. WHEN HEADLIGHTS OUT, INTERIOR LIGHTS (LIGHTING OF DASHBOARD, ETC.) CONTINUE. IF YOU TURN LIGHTS OFF, THEN ON AGAIN, HEADLIGHTS WORK. DOES NOT HAPPEN EVERY TIME. *KB

NHTSA ODI #10429654

Mileage unknown · Sep 24, 2011
Exterior Lighting

HID HEADLIGHTS GO OFF AT RANDOM TIMES. THE PASSENGERS SIDE WAS FIRST TO START ,NOW THE DRIVER SIDE AS WELL AS BOTH GO OFF. THE PROBLEM IS OCCURRING MORE FREQUENTLY. WHEN YOU SWITCH THE HEADLIGHTS FROM OFF TO ON THEY TURN ON. THE VEHICLE HAS 100K MILES. NO WARRANTY,DEALERS REPAIR COST IS APPROXIMATELY $550.00. I AM SHOCKED WHEN …

Read full complaint

HID HEADLIGHTS GO OFF AT RANDOM TIMES. THE PASSENGERS SIDE WAS FIRST TO START ,NOW THE DRIVER SIDE AS WELL AS BOTH GO OFF. THE PROBLEM IS OCCURRING MORE FREQUENTLY. WHEN YOU SWITCH THE HEADLIGHTS FROM OFF TO ON THEY TURN ON. THE VEHICLE HAS 100K MILES. NO WARRANTY,DEALERS REPAIR COST IS APPROXIMATELY $550.00. I AM SHOCKED WHEN I GOOGLE MY PROBLEM TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED AND MORE SO THE CLASS ACTION LAW SUITS THAT ARE THERE. THIS IS FAR MORE THAN A BURNT LIGHT BULB,IT HAS TO BE LOOKED INTO. I AM A LOYAL TOYOTA CUSTOMER OF 31 YEARS. PLEASE HELP! I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE SAFETY FOR MY WIFE DRIVING AT NIGHT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10427048

51,270 miles · Sep 22, 2011
Exterior Lighting

IT WAS LAST FRIDAY EVENING,SEP 16,2011,WHEN MY CAR HAD AROUND 51270 MILES,I DISCOVERED THAT THE HID BULBS IN PRIUS IS GOING OFF WHILE DRIVING,SOMETIMES FIRST ON THE PASSENGER SIDE AND SOME TIMES ON DRIVER, AND AFTER SOMETIME IT COULD GO OFF ON BOTH SIDES.I AM LESS THAN 5 YEARS IN MY CAR.AFTER DOING RESEARCH IN THE INTERNET,I C…

Read full complaint

IT WAS LAST FRIDAY EVENING,SEP 16,2011,WHEN MY CAR HAD AROUND 51270 MILES,I DISCOVERED THAT THE HID BULBS IN PRIUS IS GOING OFF WHILE DRIVING,SOMETIMES FIRST ON THE PASSENGER SIDE AND SOME TIMES ON DRIVER, AND AFTER SOMETIME IT COULD GO OFF ON BOTH SIDES.I AM LESS THAN 5 YEARS IN MY CAR.AFTER DOING RESEARCH IN THE INTERNET,I CAME TO KNOW ABOUT TOYOTA HID BULB HEAD LIGHT PROBLEMS,EXPERIENCED BY OTHER PRIUS OWNERS, AND THE CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT REGARDING THIS,AND THE FACT THAT THE TOYOTA HAS EXTENDED THE WARRANTY TILL 5 YR/50K MILES. I MOSTLY USE THE CAR DURING THE DAY TIME TO WORK(8 MILES ONE WAY),AND SINCE ALL MY FRIENDS/AMENITIES/SHOPPING ARE WITH IN 5 MILE RADIUS,I DONT GET MUCH CHANCE TO DRIVE FOR A LONGER TIME DURING THE NIGHT.ALL MY NIGHT DRIVES ARE RARE AND IS MOSTLY LESS THAN 10-15 MINS.I ALSO HAVE FOG LIGHTS IN MY CAR WHICH GIVES SOME DECENT LIGHT,AND WHEN THERE ARE OTHER CARS IN THE ROAD,OR WHEN THE ROAD IS WELL LIT,IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DIAGNOSE THIS PROBLEM,WHEN THE FIRST HEADLIGHT GOES OFF.EVEN WHEN THE SECOND HEADLIGHT GOES OFF,UNDER GOOD ROAD CONDITIONS,IT IS VERY DIFFICULT. IT APPEARS AS SOME LIGHT DIMMING GOING ON FROM INSIDE THE CAR,WHEN ONLY ONE HEAD LIGHT GOES OFF.FURTHER I DID MY 50K MILES SERVICE LESS THAN A MONTH AGO. I CALLED TOYOTA,OPENED A CASE(NUMBER:1109191158)AND TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER.THE DEALER DIAGNOSED IT AND CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS DUE TO HID BULBS,COVERED BY THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.HE ALSO UPDATED MY CASE WITH TOYOTA.THE TOYOTA AGREED TO COVER THE COST OF THE BULB BUT NOT THE LABOR.I TRIED TO ESCALATE THE SITUATION WITH TOYOTA, BUT THEY WERE FIRM ON THEIR DECISION.THEY WERE MORE TALKING BY THE RULE BOOK, ABOUT THE EXPIRATION OF WARRANTY, THAN TRYING TO HELP ME WITH MY PROBLEM.CLEARLY THEY HAVE DEFECTIVE PART,AND THEY WERE UNWILLING TO COVER THE COMPLETE COST. IT WOULD ONLY BE FAIR,IF THEY REFUND THE $112 LABOR COST. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10426844

93,000 miles · Sep 21, 2011
Exterior Lighting

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE HEADLIGHTS WOULD TURN OFF SPORADICALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS WERE DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE WHO DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE HEADLIGHTS WOULD TURN OFF SPORADICALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE HEADLIGHTS WERE DEFECTIVE AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE WHO DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 93,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 107,000.

NHTSA ODI #10426669

58,000 miles · Sep 21, 2011
Exterior Lighting

I HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING THE SAME PROBLEM AS MOST WITH THE PRIUS HID HEADLIGHTS. WHILE DRIVING IN DARK OR LOW LIGHT TIMES THE HEADLIGHTS WILL FAIL NEARLY CAUSING ACCIDENTS. USUALLY IT IS ONE HEADLIGHT, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL TIMES IN WHICH BOTH HEADLIGHTS HAVE FAILED (SERIOUS ISSUE). BY TURNING THE HEADLIGHTS OFF AND BAC…

Read full complaint

I HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING THE SAME PROBLEM AS MOST WITH THE PRIUS HID HEADLIGHTS. WHILE DRIVING IN DARK OR LOW LIGHT TIMES THE HEADLIGHTS WILL FAIL NEARLY CAUSING ACCIDENTS. USUALLY IT IS ONE HEADLIGHT, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL TIMES IN WHICH BOTH HEADLIGHTS HAVE FAILED (SERIOUS ISSUE). BY TURNING THE HEADLIGHTS OFF AND BACK ON TEMPORARY FIXES THE PROBLEM, YET THE PROBLEM KEEPS OCCURRING DAILY. IN JAN. 2010 TOYOTA SETTLED A CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT WHICH ONLY HELPED THOSE PERSONNEL WHOSE MILEAGE WAS FEWER THAN 50,000. WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE OWNERS OUT THERE THAT ARE STILL LEFT WITH THIS ENORMOUS SAFETY ISSUE. A SAFETY RECALL NEEDS TO BE DONE TO PROTECT ALL OWNERS SAFETY, NOT JUST THOSE WHOSE VEHICLE MILEAGE IS UNDER 50,000. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10426567

Mileage unknown · Sep 8, 2011
Exterior LightingVisibility

HEADLIGHTS GO OFF FOR NO REASON WHILE DRIVING. THIS HAPPENS SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10424299

40,000 miles · Sep 7, 2011
Exterior LightingVisibility

BOTH HID HEADLIGHTS FAILED ON A WINDING COUNTRY ROAD. I QUICKLY TURNED THE HEADLIGHTS OFF, THEN ON THEN WAS ABLE TO SWERVE THE CAR TO PREVENT GOING OFF THE ROAD. I HAD INTERMITTENT PROBLEMS WITH ONE LIGHT FAILING. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME BOTH LIGHTS FAILED AT THE SAME TIME. I SPENT OVER $400 TO REPLACE THE LIGHTS. THERE…

Read full complaint

BOTH HID HEADLIGHTS FAILED ON A WINDING COUNTRY ROAD. I QUICKLY TURNED THE HEADLIGHTS OFF, THEN ON THEN WAS ABLE TO SWERVE THE CAR TO PREVENT GOING OFF THE ROAD. I HAD INTERMITTENT PROBLEMS WITH ONE LIGHT FAILING. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME BOTH LIGHTS FAILED AT THE SAME TIME. I SPENT OVER $400 TO REPLACE THE LIGHTS. THERE IS A CLASS ACTION CASE AGAINST TOYOTA THAT COVERS PRIUS WITH UNDER 50K MILES. SINCE I HAD OVER 70K MILES ON MY PRIUS, I WAS HESITANT TO MAKE THE REPAIR, BECAUSE OF THE COST UNTIL BOTH LIGHTS FAILED. THIS IS AN INTERMITTENT PROBLEM THAT GETS WORSE AS TIME GOES BY AND SHOULD BE RECALLED BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10424061

10,000 miles · Sep 2, 2011
Exterior Lighting

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE HEADLIGHTS WOULD INTERMITTENTLY FAIL OR ACTIVATE INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE THEY REPLACED THE BULBS YET THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO EXPERIENCE THE HEADLIGHT FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT FURTHER REPAIRED.…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE HEADLIGHTS WOULD INTERMITTENTLY FAIL OR ACTIVATE INDEPENDENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE THEY REPLACED THE BULBS YET THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO EXPERIENCE THE HEADLIGHT FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT FURTHER REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 10,000. UPDATED 09/28/11*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED ONE OF THE HEADLIGHTS WAS REPLACED UNDER WARRANTY. AFTER THE WARRANTY EXPIRED, THE OTHER HEADLIGHT STARTED TO FAIL. UPDATED 10/07/11

NHTSA ODI #10423049

27,000 miles · Aug 26, 2011
Exterior Lighting

2007 PRIUS HEADLIGHT FAILURE - PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT GOES OUT FREQUENTLY. BY TURNING LIGHTS OFF AND BACK ON IT STAYS ON FOR A WHILE. I CAN'T REPRODUCE THE PROBLEM WHEN I WANT TO. LOOKING AT CONSUMER COMPLAINTS IT SEEMS TO BE A WIDE SPREAD PROBLEM AND VERY EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE BULB WHICH DOESN'T HELP THE PROBLEM. MAJOR SAF…

Read full complaint

2007 PRIUS HEADLIGHT FAILURE - PASSENGER SIDE HEADLIGHT GOES OUT FREQUENTLY. BY TURNING LIGHTS OFF AND BACK ON IT STAYS ON FOR A WHILE. I CAN'T REPRODUCE THE PROBLEM WHEN I WANT TO. LOOKING AT CONSUMER COMPLAINTS IT SEEMS TO BE A WIDE SPREAD PROBLEM AND VERY EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE BULB WHICH DOESN'T HELP THE PROBLEM. MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE AT LEAST THAT TOYOTA IS JUST BRUSHING ASIDE. I AM NOT A SATISFIED TOYOTA CUSTOMER BY ALL MEANS. *TT

NHTSA ODI #10421648

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.