← 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
41,000 miles · Oct 12, 2009
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting

I BOUGHT A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS ON AUGUST 1, 2007. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH MY CAR UNTIL AUGUST OF 2008 WHEN I STARTED HAVING ISSUES WITH MY HEADLIGHTS AND TAIL LIGHTS (THEY WOULD GO OFF AND THEN WHEN I TURNED THE LIGHTS OFF AND FLIPPED BACK ON, THEY WOULD COME BACK ON AGAIN). TWICE WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT, ALL OF MY LIGHTS W…

Read full complaint

I BOUGHT A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS ON AUGUST 1, 2007. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH MY CAR UNTIL AUGUST OF 2008 WHEN I STARTED HAVING ISSUES WITH MY HEADLIGHTS AND TAIL LIGHTS (THEY WOULD GO OFF AND THEN WHEN I TURNED THE LIGHTS OFF AND FLIPPED BACK ON, THEY WOULD COME BACK ON AGAIN). TWICE WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT, ALL OF MY LIGHTS WENT OUT (HEADLIGHTS, TAIL LIGHTS AND DASH BOARD LIGHTS)! I BROUGHT CAR INTO DEALER AND THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS WRONG BUT REPLACED THE HEADLIGHTS (TO THE TUNE OF $1200 A PIECE). I DIDN'T HAVE TROUBLE WITH MY HEADLIGHTS AFTER THAN UNTIL THIS YEAR (AUGUST OF 2009). MY PASSENGER HEADLIGHT IS GOING OUT AND THEN FLIPPING BACK ON FOR A BIT (ALTHOUGH THE BULB SEEMS DULL) WHEN I TURN LIGHTS OFF AND THEN BACK ON AGAIN. THE PROBLEM IS THEY WON'T STAY ON AND IT SEEMS INSANE TO PAY $2400 A YEAR FOR WHAT OBVIOUSLY SEEMS TO BE A VEHICLE DEFECT; NOT TO MENTION THE SAFETY ISSUE OF ONLY HAVING 1 HEADLIGHT THAT WORKS OR TAIL LIGHT AND DASHBOARD LIGHTS GOING OUT WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10287120

43,500 miles · Oct 12, 2009
Exterior Lighting

THE DRIVER'S SIDE HEADLIGHT TURNS OFF WHILE DRIVING. IF I TURN IT OFF AND BACK ON, IT WILL COME BACK ON, BUT IT WILL ONLY REMAIN ON FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THE DEALERSHIP SAYS THAT IT IS A PROBLEM WITH THE COMPUTER THAT CONTROLS THE HID HEADLIGHTS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10287095

35,999 miles · Oct 8, 2009
Exterior Lighting

MY 2007 PRIUS WITH 36,655 MILES EXPERIENCED THE INTERMITTENT HEADLAMP FAILURE. DRIVERS HEADLIGHT WOULD RANDOMLY GO OFF, BUT WORK FINE OTHER TIMES. EVENTUALLY, IT FAILED COMPLETELY. I CONTACTED MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIPS SERVICE DEPARTMENT. THEIR DIAGNOSIS DETERMINED CIRCUIT CHECK REVEALED AN INTERNAL SHORT IN HEADLAMP ECU …

Read full complaint

MY 2007 PRIUS WITH 36,655 MILES EXPERIENCED THE INTERMITTENT HEADLAMP FAILURE. DRIVERS HEADLIGHT WOULD RANDOMLY GO OFF, BUT WORK FINE OTHER TIMES. EVENTUALLY, IT FAILED COMPLETELY. I CONTACTED MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIPS SERVICE DEPARTMENT. THEIR DIAGNOSIS DETERMINED CIRCUIT CHECK REVEALED AN INTERNAL SHORT IN HEADLAMP ECU (ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNIT) CAUSED BULB TO SHORT. REPLACED ECU AND BULB. OPERATIONAL TEST VERIFIED REPAIR. REPAIR AND PARTS COVERED UNDER GOODWILL POLICY. THE INSTALLED PARTS NOTE PART #90981-20015 BULB, HID AND 81107-47150 COMPUTER SUB-ASSY. MY REGULAR MECHANIC SAID THAT THE ECU IS EQUIVALENT TO AN IGNITER, WHICH REGULATES VOLTAGE AND CURRENT GOING TO THE HEADLAMP, SIMILAR TO A FLUORESCENT BALLAST. MY MECHANIC SAID THE ECU IS COVERED UNDER THE 3 YEAR / 36K WARRANTY. MY REPLACEMENT WAS COVERED AT NO CHARGE UNDER A ?GOODWILL POLICY? BECAUSE I WAS ONLY 655 MILES OVER 36K. (THE INITIAL HEADLAMP FAILURE OCCURRED WHEN I WAS OUT OF TOWN & MILEAGE LESS THAN 36K.) THE TOYOTA SERVICE MANAGER STATED OFF THE RECORD THAT SERVICE MANAGERS CAN INTERNALLY APPROVE SUCH REPLACEMENTS UP TO 70K MILES. HOWEVER, THOSE IN THE 80-100K MILE RANGE WILL LIKELY NOT BE APPROVED. I ATTEMPTED TO CONVINCE THEM TO ALSO REPLACE THE PASSENGER SIDE HEADLAMP AS A PREVENTIVE MEASURE, BUT THEY REFUSED. I?M SURE IT?S A TICKING TIME BOMB. WITH 42,554 CURRENT MILES, BOTH HEADLAMPS NOW WORK CORRECTLY. THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH THE TOYOTA PRIUS AND SHOULD BE RECALLED! SOMEONE COULD BE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED WITH RANDOM HEADLAMP FAILURE AT NIGHT OR IN POOR VISIBILITY CONDITIONS. AND EVEN IF IT WEREN'T A DANGEROUS SITUATION, IT IS A KNOWN DEFECT WHICH THEY ARE AWARE OF AND RESPONSIBLE! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10286758

37,000 miles · Oct 7, 2009
Exterior Lighting

HEADLIGHTS DIM OR GO OFF BY THEMSELVES. COME BACK ON IF YOU TURN LIGHTS OFF THEN ON. DANGEROUS AT NIGHT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10286694

47,000 miles · Oct 7, 2009
Exterior Lighting

HEADLAMPS GO OUT AT RANDOM TIMES. SOMETIMES ONE BULB SOMETIMES BOTH. TWO TIMES AT NIGHT BOTH BULBS WENT OUT ALONG WITH ALL THE DASHBOARD LIGHTS. THE CAR WAS COMPLETELY DARK. THE FIRST TIME MY HUSBAND WAS ON THE INTERSTATE TRAVELING AT ABOUT 75 MPH THE SECOND WE WERE TRAVELING ON A ROAD WITH NO OVER HEAD LIGHTS. WE COULD N…

Read full complaint

HEADLAMPS GO OUT AT RANDOM TIMES. SOMETIMES ONE BULB SOMETIMES BOTH. TWO TIMES AT NIGHT BOTH BULBS WENT OUT ALONG WITH ALL THE DASHBOARD LIGHTS. THE CAR WAS COMPLETELY DARK. THE FIRST TIME MY HUSBAND WAS ON THE INTERSTATE TRAVELING AT ABOUT 75 MPH THE SECOND WE WERE TRAVELING ON A ROAD WITH NO OVER HEAD LIGHTS. WE COULD NOT SEE THE LINES, WE NEARLY CRASHED. WE HAVE TO QUICKLY TURN THE LIGHTS OFF THEN ON AGAIN TO GET THE LIGHTS BACK ON. THE REPAIR FOR THIS PROBLEM IS $1200. I HAVE READ ON THE INTERNET SOME PEOPLE HAVE PAID AS MUCH AS $2500. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10286651

Mileage unknown · Oct 7, 2009
Exterior Lighting

PASSENGER SIDE HID HEADLIGHT GOES OUT AND STAYS OUT UNTIL ENTIRE HEADLIGHT SYSTEM IS TURNED OFF AND THEN TURNED BACK ON. VERY UNSAFE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10286630

24,000 miles · Oct 7, 2009
Exterior Lighting

THE R-H ( RIGHT-HAND, PASSENGER SIDE ) HID HEADLIGHT ON MY PRIUS WAS OPERATING INTERMITTENTLY. I HAVE TAKEN IT TO MY LOCAL DEALER TO HAVE IT REPAIRED. THEY DID NOT HAVE THE CORRECT PART IN STOCK ( 1ST TIME IN ). THEY DID NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM ( 2ND TIME IN ). THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE COMPLAINT ( 3RD T…

Read full complaint

THE R-H ( RIGHT-HAND, PASSENGER SIDE ) HID HEADLIGHT ON MY PRIUS WAS OPERATING INTERMITTENTLY. I HAVE TAKEN IT TO MY LOCAL DEALER TO HAVE IT REPAIRED. THEY DID NOT HAVE THE CORRECT PART IN STOCK ( 1ST TIME IN ). THEY DID NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM ( 2ND TIME IN ). THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE COMPLAINT ( 3RD TIME IN ), DESPITE THE MALFUNCTION OCCURRING WHEN I ARRIVED AT THEIR LOCATION. ( THEY SHUT OFF THE CAR AND THE HEADLIGHTS TO PARK THE CAR - CONTRARY TO MY DIRECTION. ) THE "BULB" HAS BEEN REPLACED, AND FOR NOW THE HEADLIGHT IS FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. NEARLY OUT OF ORIGINAL WARRANTY ( 3YRS/36K MI ). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10286613

34,000 miles · Oct 6, 2009
Exterior Lighting

I PURCHASED A NEW '07 TOYOTA PRIUS IN MAY, 2007. IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS, WE NOTICED THAT SOMETIMES THE RIGHT HEADLAMP WAS WORKING, SOMETIMES NOT. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FOR AN ESTIMATE ON REPLACING THE BULB. GENERALLY, MY HUSBAND PERFORMS ALL MAINTENANCE, ETC, ON OUR AUTOMOBILES. HE WAS UNABLE…

Read full complaint

I PURCHASED A NEW '07 TOYOTA PRIUS IN MAY, 2007. IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS, WE NOTICED THAT SOMETIMES THE RIGHT HEADLAMP WAS WORKING, SOMETIMES NOT. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FOR AN ESTIMATE ON REPLACING THE BULB. GENERALLY, MY HUSBAND PERFORMS ALL MAINTENANCE, ETC, ON OUR AUTOMOBILES. HE WAS UNABLE TO GET THE HEADLAMP ASSEMBLY DISASSEMBLED, EVEN WHILE USING THE OWNER'S MANUAL AS A GUIDE. INITIALLY, WE THOUGHT IT COULD BE A PROBLEM WITH THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM, BECAUSE IF IT WORKS SOMETIMES AND NOT OTHERS, THEN MAYBE IT WAS A SHORT AND SHOULD BE REPAIRED. THE DEALERSHIP LOOKED AT THE HEADLIGHTS AND TOLD ME THAT MY CAR HAD THE HID HEADLAMPS (INTERPRETED, THIS MEANS EXPENSIVE) AND TO REPLACE IT WOULD MEAN REMOVING THE BUMPER, ETC, ETC. THEY TOLD ME THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED UNDER WARRANTY, HOWEVER, MY CAR'S ODOMETER WAS AT 36,900. THEY TOLD ME I SHOULD MAKE AN APPOINTMENT AND BRING IT IN FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE BULB, AND IT WOULD COST ABOUT $150 FOR THE REPLACEMENT. FOR THE RECORD, I PAID $1,499 FOR THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE EXTENDED WARRANTY THAT THEY OFFERED, AND STILL THIS PROBLEM IS NOT A COVERED REPAIR. WHEN MY HUSBAND CALLED FOR THE APPOINTMENT, THEY QUOTED HIM IN EXCESS OF $300 TO REPLACE THE BULB. IN MY RESEARCH, I HAVE FOUND THAT THIS TYPE OF BULB SHOULD LAST THE LIFE TIME OF THE VEHICLE, HENCE THE REASON THAT IT IS SO HARD TO GET TO THAT A REGULAR PERSON CANNOT REPLACE THE BULB. I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT TOYOTA HAS AN OBLIGATION TO REPLACE THE HEADLAMP OR REPAIR THE "SHORT" IN THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM, EVEN THOUGHT IT IS SLIGHTLY PAST THE WARRANTY MILES, AND SEVEN MONTHS UNDER THE 36 MONTH WARRANTY PERIOD. THE PROBLEM BEGAN WELL BEFORE THE ORIGINAL WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED, AND MY ONLY FAULT WAS THAT I DID NOT RECOGNIZE THIS PROBLEM SOON ENOUGH. TOYOTA IS WELL AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM AND IS CONTENT TO ALLOW THE DEALERS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PRIUS OWNERS WITH THIS PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10286573

40,000 miles · Oct 6, 2009
Exterior Lighting

MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS HID HEADLIGHTS GO OFF FREQUENTLY WITH (OF COURSE) NO NOTICE. I RECEIVED A WARNING TICKET IN MAY 2009, AND HAVE CONTACTED TOYOTA, AS I HAVE DISCOVERED THAT THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF OTHER PRIUS OWNERS WITH THE VERY SAME PROBLEM. TOYOTA WILL COVER THE COST OF REPAIR SOMETIMES, BUT NOT ALWAYS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10286506

38,000 miles · Oct 6, 2009
Exterior Lighting

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE HID HEADLIGHTS SHUT OFF WITHOUT ANY WARNING . THE LIGHTS HAVE SHUT ON AND OFF FOR APPROXIMATELY 4 WEEKS. THE DEALER STATED THE THEY WOULD REPAIR THE HID HEADLIGHTS FOR $1500. THE DEALER ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE MANUFACTURER IS AWARE OF THE HID LIGHT FAILURE. THE…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE HID HEADLIGHTS SHUT OFF WITHOUT ANY WARNING . THE LIGHTS HAVE SHUT ON AND OFF FOR APPROXIMATELY 4 WEEKS. THE DEALER STATED THE THEY WOULD REPAIR THE HID HEADLIGHTS FOR $1500. THE DEALER ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE MANUFACTURER IS AWARE OF THE HID LIGHT FAILURE. THE CONTACT WILL NOT DRIVE THE VEHICLE AT NIGHT DUE TO THE SAFETY RISK. THE HID HEADLIGHTS WILL BE REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 38000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 44000.

NHTSA ODI #10286503

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.