← 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
64,000 miles · Apr 16, 2010
Exterior Lighting

I AM THE OWNER OF A 2007 PRIUS. THE CAR HAS 66,000 MILES. THE DRIVER HEADLIGHT HAS BEEN WORKING ON AND OFF. A COUPLE MONTHS AGO (FEB. 2010) MY DRIVER HEADLIGHT WENT OFF A COUPLE TIMES. A MONTH AGO I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT NIGHTTIME AND BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OFF. CARS WERE HONKING AT ME AND I WAS VERY WORRIED BECAUSE I WA…

Read full complaint

I AM THE OWNER OF A 2007 PRIUS. THE CAR HAS 66,000 MILES. THE DRIVER HEADLIGHT HAS BEEN WORKING ON AND OFF. A COUPLE MONTHS AGO (FEB. 2010) MY DRIVER HEADLIGHT WENT OFF A COUPLE TIMES. A MONTH AGO I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT NIGHTTIME AND BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OFF. CARS WERE HONKING AT ME AND I WAS VERY WORRIED BECAUSE I WAS ON A NON VERY WELL LIT AREA. I STOPPED A BIT LATER AND TURNED OFF THE ENGINE. AT THIS POINT, BOTH LIGHTS CAME BACK ON. I CHECKED WITH THE DEALERSHIP. THEY SAY I NEED TO CHANGE BOTH HEADLIGHTS. THE COST WILL BE MORE THAN 500 DOLLARS. I HAVE EXTENDED WARRANTY BUT IT WILL NOT BE COVERED. RIGHT NOW I DON'T HAVE THIS KIND OF MONEY AND SINCE THE PROBLEM HAS NOT PRESENTED AGAIN I DECIDED TO CHECK ONLINE TO SEE IF OTHER PEOPLE ARE EXPERIENCING THIS SPECIFIC PROBLEM. I FOUND OUT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ALREADY FOR MORE THAN 4 YEARS. COULD IT BE SOMETHING ELSE THAN JUST HEADLIGHTS? [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10325982

18,195 miles · Apr 15, 2010
Exterior LightingVehicle Speed Control

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 30 MPH, THE VEHICLE EXHIBITED ABNORMAL SURGING AND THE HEADLIGHTS BECAME INOPERABLE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED ANY REPAIRS TO CORRECT THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 18,195 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 18,200.

NHTSA ODI #10325891

40,000 miles · Apr 15, 2010
Exterior Lighting

THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I AM FILING THIS SAME COMPLAINT. HID HEADLAMP FAILURE ON MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. I HAVE REPLACED MY HEADLAMPS THREE TIMES IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. TOYOTA INITIALLY WANTED $350 JUST FOR THE HEADLAMP, PLUS ADDITIONAL $150 LABOR PER BULB. I ASSUME THAT PRESSURE FROM TOYOTA OWNERS AND POSSIBLY THE NHTSA FORCE…

Read full complaint

THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I AM FILING THIS SAME COMPLAINT. HID HEADLAMP FAILURE ON MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. I HAVE REPLACED MY HEADLAMPS THREE TIMES IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. TOYOTA INITIALLY WANTED $350 JUST FOR THE HEADLAMP, PLUS ADDITIONAL $150 LABOR PER BULB. I ASSUME THAT PRESSURE FROM TOYOTA OWNERS AND POSSIBLY THE NHTSA FORCED TOYOTA TO ISSUE IT'S HID HEADLAMP CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM. WHOOPEE! THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN OWNERS ARE STILL DRIVING WITH DEFECTIVE HEADLAMPS BECAUSE TOYOTA'S "PROGRAM" DOES NOT ADDRESS ANYTHING BUT THE COST OF REPLACEMENT. THANKS FOR NOTHING. REDUCING THE COST TO REPLACE DEFECTIVE HEADLAMPS FROM $350/BULB TO $150/BULB, PLUS ANOTHER $150/BULB FOR INSTALLATION IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN INSULT TO OUR INTELLIGENCE. THEIR HID SYSTEM IS STILL DEFECTIVE. THE HEADLAMPS STILL FAIL WITH REGULARITY. I HAVE BEEN PULLED OVER THREE TIMES IN THE LAST FIVE MONTHS FOR HAVING A HEADLAMP OUT. MY LIFE AND THE LIFE OF THE OFFICER, WHO IS JUST DOING HIS DUTY, ARE BOTH IN JEOPARDY AS WE SIT ON THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE AT NIGHT WITH CARS AND TRUCKS WHIZZING BY AT 70+ MPH, ALL BECAUSE THE NHTSA IS NOT ISSUING A RECALL ON AN OBVIOUSLY DEFECTIVE SYSTEM. WHAT WILL IT TAKE? A HIGHLY PUBLICIZED DEATH BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING? THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF COMPLAINTS, INCLUDING VIDEO PROOF OF THE HID BULBS BLINKING ON AND OFF ONE SIDE AT A TIME, REGARDING THIS SYSTEM ON MESSAGE BOARDS ALL OVER THE INTERNET. THERE IS AT LEAST ONE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING AGAINST TOYOTA OVER THIS ISSUE. NOT EVERY OWNER IS SAVVY ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROBLEM IS NOT THEIR'S ALONE. THE HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS YOU HAVE RECEIVED ARE JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. PLEASE ISSUE A MANDATORY RECALL BEFORE SOMEONE DIES, IF IT HASN'T HAPPENED ALREADY. THANKS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10325786

40,000 miles · Apr 14, 2010
Exterior Lighting

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 35MPH, THE HID HEADLIGHTS WOULD FAIL INTERMITTENTLY. THE DEALER ADVISED THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS SIMILAR TO HIS FAILURE. ANY REPAIRS MADE TO THE VEHICLE WOULD BE AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE. THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER HOWEVER, HIS CALL WENT UNA…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 35MPH, THE HID HEADLIGHTS WOULD FAIL INTERMITTENTLY. THE DEALER ADVISED THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS SIMILAR TO HIS FAILURE. ANY REPAIRS MADE TO THE VEHICLE WOULD BE AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE. THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER HOWEVER, HIS CALL WENT UNANSWERED. THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPAIRS MADE TO THE VEHICLE TO DATE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 45,000.

NHTSA ODI #10325645

Mileage unknown · Apr 12, 2010
Exterior Lighting

SINCE BUYING MY 2007 PRIUS, I HAVE HAD AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH EITHER THE DRIVER'S-SIDE OR PASSENGER-SIDE HEADLIGHTS GOING OUT, USUALLY WITHIN 5-10 MINUTES AFTER STARTING THE CAR. ON ONE OCCASION, BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT AT ONCE WHILE MY HUSBAND AND I WERE ON A BRIDGE ON AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY. THE HEADLIGHTS USUALLY COME BACK O…

Read full complaint

SINCE BUYING MY 2007 PRIUS, I HAVE HAD AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH EITHER THE DRIVER'S-SIDE OR PASSENGER-SIDE HEADLIGHTS GOING OUT, USUALLY WITHIN 5-10 MINUTES AFTER STARTING THE CAR. ON ONE OCCASION, BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT AT ONCE WHILE MY HUSBAND AND I WERE ON A BRIDGE ON AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY. THE HEADLIGHTS USUALLY COME BACK ON AFTER QUICKLY TURNING THE LIGHT SWITCH OFF AND THEN BACK ON. I TALKED WITH A REPAIRMAN AT MY TOYOTA DEALER ABOUT THE PROBLEM SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND HE INDICATED THAT TOYOTA HAD GOTTEN SOME BAD BULBS. BUT I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT IS THE PROBLEM. I BEGAN EXPERIENCING THE PROBLEM SHORTLY AFTER BUYING THE CAR WHEN I WAS STOPPED AT A DRIVER'S LICENSE CHECK AND THE POLICE OFFICER TOLD ME THE DRIVER'S SIDE LIGHT WAS OUT. WHEN I ARRIVED HOME ABOUT 15 MINUTES LATER AND CHECKED THE LIGHT, IT WAS ON. CLEARLY THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10325008

61,000 miles · Apr 11, 2010
Exterior Lighting

PASSENGER HEADLIGHT LOW BEAM FUNCTIONS INTERMITTENTLY. AT SOME TIMES THE LIGHT IS AT FULL INTENSITY, AT OTHER TIMES THE LIGHT IS COMPLETELY DEAD, AND SOMETIMES THE LIGHT OUTPUT IS A FRACTION OF FULL OUTPUT. HID LIGHTS SHOULD LAST 150K PLUS MILES. TOYOTA DEALER WANTED $400 TO REPLACE BULB AND WOULD NOT GUARANTEE THIS WAS TH…

Read full complaint

PASSENGER HEADLIGHT LOW BEAM FUNCTIONS INTERMITTENTLY. AT SOME TIMES THE LIGHT IS AT FULL INTENSITY, AT OTHER TIMES THE LIGHT IS COMPLETELY DEAD, AND SOMETIMES THE LIGHT OUTPUT IS A FRACTION OF FULL OUTPUT. HID LIGHTS SHOULD LAST 150K PLUS MILES. TOYOTA DEALER WANTED $400 TO REPLACE BULB AND WOULD NOT GUARANTEE THIS WAS THE PROBLEM. INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP WANTED $190 FOR SAME REPAIR. THIS IS AN ENORMOUS SAFETY HAZARD AND SORT OF CRAZY THAT TOYOTA HAS THIS DEFECT AND HAS NOT DETERMINED THE ROOT CAUSE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10324932

68,000 miles · Apr 9, 2010
Exterior Lighting

ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PURCHASE OF OUR NEW PRIUS, I NOTICED FLICKERING OF THE HID HEADLIGHTS. I THOUGHT IT ODD BUT HAD NEVER USED HID HEADLAMPS BEFORE. THIS PAST WINTER I NOTICED THE LEFT HEADLIGHT WOULD STOP ILLUMINATING ALTOGETHER. I FIGURED I WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE BULB BUT THEN FOUND THAT IF I TURNED THE HEADLIGHT S…

Read full complaint

ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PURCHASE OF OUR NEW PRIUS, I NOTICED FLICKERING OF THE HID HEADLIGHTS. I THOUGHT IT ODD BUT HAD NEVER USED HID HEADLAMPS BEFORE. THIS PAST WINTER I NOTICED THE LEFT HEADLIGHT WOULD STOP ILLUMINATING ALTOGETHER. I FIGURED I WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE BULB BUT THEN FOUND THAT IF I TURNED THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH TO THE OFF POSITION AND THEN BACK TO THE ON POSITION THE HEADLIGHT WOULD COME BACK ON. SINCE THE COST TO REPLACE THE HEADLAMP IS RATHER EXPENSIVE AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THE REPLACEMENT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM, I CONTINUE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AT NIGHT WATCHING FOR WHEN THE HEADLIGHT GOES OUT. I KEEP MY FOG LAMPS ON ALL THE TIME SO I HAVE FORWARD ILLUMINATION IN CASE BOTH HEADLIGHTS GO OUT. ONCE I SEE THE LIGHT HAS GONE OUT, I WAIT UNTIL I STOP AT A TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE OR THERE IS NO ONCOMING TRAFFIC TO QUICKLY TURN THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH OFF AND ON AGAIN TO ILLUMINATE THE HEADLIGHT. I HAD ONE EXPERIENCE RECENTLY WHERE THE LEFT HEADLIGHT HAD GONE OUT AND BEFORE I HAD OPPORTUNITY TO TURN THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH OFF AND ON AGAIN, THE RIGHT HEADLIGHT ALSO WENT OUT. FORTUNATELY I HAD THE FOG LAMPS ON AS I HAD MY WIFE AND 7 MONTH OLD GRANDDAUGHTER IN THE VEHICLE WITH ME. BUT AS BEFORE, ONCE I TURNED THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH OFF AND THEN ON AGAIN, BOTH HEADLIGHTS CAME BACK ON. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10324785

67,535 miles · Apr 9, 2010
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting

INTERMITTENT HEADLIGHT OPERATION ON HID HEADLIGHTS 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT AT THE SAME TIME WHILE TRAVELING ON I75 LAST NIGHT. AFTER ALMOST WRECKING, WE PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AFTER TURNING LIGHTS OFF FOR A WHILE THEY CAME BACK ON AND STARTED WORKING AGAIN. THIS SEEMS TO BE A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE …

Read full complaint

INTERMITTENT HEADLIGHT OPERATION ON HID HEADLIGHTS 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT AT THE SAME TIME WHILE TRAVELING ON I75 LAST NIGHT. AFTER ALMOST WRECKING, WE PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AFTER TURNING LIGHTS OFF FOR A WHILE THEY CAME BACK ON AND STARTED WORKING AGAIN. THIS SEEMS TO BE A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE ACCORDING TO BLOGS ON THE INTERNET. I CONTACTED THE DEALER AND THEY SAID IF THEY HAD TO REPLACE THE UNIT IT WOULD BE IN THE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS!!!!! ($1100 FOR HEADLIGHT COMPUTER, $500- $600+ FOR HEADLIGHT BULBS AND ANOTHER $1100 FOR LIGHT KITS) I THINK THAT IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS TO EXPECT SOMEONE TO PAY THAT MUCH JUST TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE THERE CAR SAFELY! NONE OF THIS WAS REVEALED WHEN THE CAR WAS PURCHASED! HOW COULD ANYONE EXPECT TO PAY THAT KIND OF MONEY TO KEEP THERE HEADLIGHTS WORKING? PLEASE HELP, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DRIVE SAFELY NOW! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10324684

51,000 miles · Apr 9, 2010
Exterior Lighting

TL * THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 65 MPH, BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED. THE PARKING LIGHTS WERE STILL OPERABLE AND WHEN ENGAGING THE DIMMER SWITCH, THE PARKING LIGHTS FAILED AS WELL. WHEN TURNING THE LIGHT SWITCH BACK ON, THE LIGHTS WERE OPERATING AS NORMAL. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEA…

Read full complaint

TL * THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 65 MPH, BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED. THE PARKING LIGHTS WERE STILL OPERABLE AND WHEN ENGAGING THE DIMMER SWITCH, THE PARKING LIGHTS FAILED AS WELL. WHEN TURNING THE LIGHT SWITCH BACK ON, THE LIGHTS WERE OPERATING AS NORMAL. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER OR A REPAIR SHOP. THE CONTACT STATED THIS WAS THE SECOND OCCURRENCE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WERE 51,000.

NHTSA ODI #10324642

44,639 miles · Apr 2, 2010
Exterior Lighting

I HAVE A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. IN JULY 2009 ONE HID HEADLIGHT BEGAN FLICKERING. THE DEALER TOLD ME HE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE BUMPER TO REPLACE THE HEADLIGHT AND RECOMMENDED I REPLACE BOTH HEADLIGHTS AT THE SAME TIME. I DID AND THE TOTAL COST $545. THE VEHICLE HAD 44,000 MILES AT THE TIME AND ONLY 2 YEARS OLD. I WROTE A LETTE…

Read full complaint

I HAVE A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. IN JULY 2009 ONE HID HEADLIGHT BEGAN FLICKERING. THE DEALER TOLD ME HE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE BUMPER TO REPLACE THE HEADLIGHT AND RECOMMENDED I REPLACE BOTH HEADLIGHTS AT THE SAME TIME. I DID AND THE TOTAL COST $545. THE VEHICLE HAD 44,000 MILES AT THE TIME AND ONLY 2 YEARS OLD. I WROTE A LETTER TO TOYOTA COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FAILURE OF THE BULB SO SOON, THE POOR DESIGN THAT REQUIRED THE BUMPER TO BE REMOVED, AND THE TOTAL COST...I NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE. THIS YEAR I WAS THE RECIPIENT OF THE "2006-2009 MODEL YEAR PRIUS HID HEADLIGHT CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM". I SENT IN ALL OF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND WAS RECENTLY TOLD I WOULD RECEIVE $51 FROM THE PROGRAM. THAT IS A FAR CRY FROM THE $545 I SPENT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10323510

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.