NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
145 reportsClear category filter1,000 miles · May 14, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 20 MPH AND DEPRESSING THE BRAKES WHILE TRAVELING OVER A ROAD BUMP WHEN THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY SURGED FORWARD. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FUNCTIONING NORMAL AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VEHICLE DID NOT RECEIVE DIAGNOSTIC TESTING…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 20 MPH AND DEPRESSING THE BRAKES WHILE TRAVELING OVER A ROAD BUMP WHEN THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY SURGED FORWARD. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FUNCTIONING NORMAL AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VEHICLE DID NOT RECEIVE DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 1,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 21,000.
NHTSA ODI #10330405
36,500 miles · May 11, 2010
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash
WHILE DRIVING MY 2007 PRIUS IN A CONGESTED AREA, THE BRAKES DID NOT RESPOND WHEN DEPRESSED QUICKLY CONTRIBUTING OR CAUSING A LOW-SPEED COLLISION WITH THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME. I FOUND THIS ARTICLE ON CNET REVIEWS THAT ACCURATELY MATCHES MY ISSUE. "TOYOTA REDESIGNED THE BRAKING SYSTEMS FOR THE 2010 PRIUS. THAT APPEARS TO BE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING MY 2007 PRIUS IN A CONGESTED AREA, THE BRAKES DID NOT RESPOND WHEN DEPRESSED QUICKLY CONTRIBUTING OR CAUSING A LOW-SPEED COLLISION WITH THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME. I FOUND THIS ARTICLE ON CNET REVIEWS THAT ACCURATELY MATCHES MY ISSUE. "TOYOTA REDESIGNED THE BRAKING SYSTEMS FOR THE 2010 PRIUS. THAT APPEARS TO BE TOYOTA'S RESPONSE TO THE FACT THAT THE U.S. GENERATION 2 PRIUS (2004-2009) HAS HAD LOW-SPEED BRAKE FAILURES REPORTED TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) AT 31 TIMES THE RATE OF SUCH FAILURES REPORTED FOR THE 2004-2009 COROLLA, WHICH OF COURSE HAS TRADITIONAL BRAKES. MANY OF THE PRIUS LOW SPEED BRAKE FAILURES WERE IN LOW-SPEED CITY TRAFFIC, RESULTING IN REAR-END COLLISIONS WITHOUT INJURY. IT APPEARS THAT THE SEVERAL COMPUTERS THAT CONTROL THE COMPLEX BRAKING SYSTEMS WERE TOO BUSY CALCULATING THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO APPLY THE BRAKES, AND DID NOT GET AROUND TO ACTUALLY APPLYING THEM, UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE." *TR
NHTSA ODI #10329852
35,000 miles · Apr 28, 2010
Electrical SystemService Brakes, HydraulicStructure
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT 48 MPH, THE BRAKES SUDDENLY LOCKED UP AND SWAYED TO THE LEFT SIDE WHEN HE DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALERSHIP FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE DEALER REPAIRED THE AXLE AND DRIVER SIDE BODY BUT IT WAS UNKNOWN IF THE DEALER…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT 48 MPH, THE BRAKES SUDDENLY LOCKED UP AND SWAYED TO THE LEFT SIDE WHEN HE DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALERSHIP FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE DEALER REPAIRED THE AXLE AND DRIVER SIDE BODY BUT IT WAS UNKNOWN IF THE DEALER REPAIRED THE BRAKE SYSTEM. THE CONTACT BELIEVED THAT THE RAIN WAS A FACTOR IN THE FAILURE AS IT CAUSED THE COMPUTER CHIP FOR THE BRAKE PEDAL TO MALFUNCTION. THE BRAKING SYSTEM FOR THE VEHICLE FAILED PERIODICALLY IN RAINY WEATHER. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE COMPLAINT. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 35,000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 60,000.
NHTSA ODI #10327870
Mileage unknown · Apr 22, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
MY 2007 PRIUS HAS THE SAME BRAKING SAFETY ISSUES INVOLVING MOMENTARY LOSS OF BRAKING POWER DESCRIBED FOR THE 2010 PRIUS. IT IS ESPECIALLY TROUBLESOME WHEN GOING OVER A BUMP OR A SLICK SPOT IN THE ROAD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10327091
45,000 miles · Apr 15, 2010
Service Brakes, HydraulicTraction Control SystemCrash
ON MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2010, IN THE MORNING, ON A RAINY DAY IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, I WAS DRIVING ABOUT 15 MPH WHEN THE TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF ME SLOWED. I WAS DRIVING OVER RAILROAD TRACKS WITH STEEL PLATES BETWEEN THE TRACKS IN MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. I BRAKED BUT THE CAR DID NOT STOP. I HAD TIME TO ACTUALLY LOOK DOWN AT MY FEET…
Read full complaint
ON MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2010, IN THE MORNING, ON A RAINY DAY IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, I WAS DRIVING ABOUT 15 MPH WHEN THE TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF ME SLOWED. I WAS DRIVING OVER RAILROAD TRACKS WITH STEEL PLATES BETWEEN THE TRACKS IN MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. I BRAKED BUT THE CAR DID NOT STOP. I HAD TIME TO ACTUALLY LOOK DOWN AT MY FEET TO CONFIRM THAT IT WAS DEFINITELY THE BRAKES THAT I WAS APPLYING MAJOR PRESSURE TO. I ALSO NOTICED THAT THE LIGHT WAS ON INDICATING THAT THE CAR DID NOT HAVE TRACTION. I HIT THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. THE FIRST WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH WERE, "I HAD NO BRAKES, I'M SO SORRY, BUT I HAD NO BRAKES." THE INITIAL ESTIMATE FOR MY CAR IS OVER $6,000, I HAVE NOT HEARD WHAT THE ESTIMATE IS FOR THE OTHER CAR. I DID EVERYTHING I COULD HAVE DONE, THE CAR FAILED ME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10325843
15,000 miles · Mar 11, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
CONSTANT PECULIAR NOISES FROM BRAKE SYSTEM, PREMATURE BRAKE WEAR COMPUTER SYSTEM HAD TO BE RE-INITIALIZED AT 15,000 MILES. BRAKES PADS HAD TO BE REPLACED AND ROTORS RESURFACED AT SAME MILEAGE. BRAKE PEDAL DEPRESSED TO THE FLOOR BEFORE VEHICLE STOPPED, IT WAS AN EMERGENCY STOP. THESE PROBLEMS HAVE PERSISTED FOR ALMOST 3 YEARS AND…
Read full complaint
CONSTANT PECULIAR NOISES FROM BRAKE SYSTEM, PREMATURE BRAKE WEAR COMPUTER SYSTEM HAD TO BE RE-INITIALIZED AT 15,000 MILES. BRAKES PADS HAD TO BE REPLACED AND ROTORS RESURFACED AT SAME MILEAGE. BRAKE PEDAL DEPRESSED TO THE FLOOR BEFORE VEHICLE STOPPED, IT WAS AN EMERGENCY STOP. THESE PROBLEMS HAVE PERSISTED FOR ALMOST 3 YEARS AND THE DEALER AND FACTORY REP. SAYS IT IS NORMAL. ARBITRATION IN FAVOR OF TOYOTA. I HAVE NEVER HEARD THESE NOISES IN ANY OTHER VEHICLE I HAVE DRIVEN IN 62 YEARS. THESE NOISES COULD BE A PROBLEM WAITING TO HAPPEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10319003
23,406 miles · Mar 11, 2010
Electrical SystemService Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, APPROACHING A TRAFFIC LIGHT. WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS ENGAGED, THE BRAKES FAILED TO RESPOND IN A TIMELY MANNER. ADDITIONALLY, THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM FAILED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE VEHICLE WAS IN TH…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, APPROACHING A TRAFFIC LIGHT. WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS ENGAGED, THE BRAKES FAILED TO RESPOND IN A TIMELY MANNER. ADDITIONALLY, THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM FAILED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE VEHICLE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REPAIRED WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 23,406. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 30,000.
NHTSA ODI #10318991
50,000 miles · Mar 10, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
CAR SEEMS TO LOSE BRAKE POWER FOR A FRACTION OF A SECOND WHEN DRIVING OVER POTHOLES, ON BUMPY PAVEMENT, OR ON WET SLIPPERY DIRT ROADS. OCCURS EACH TIME WHEN BRAKING UNDER SAID CONDITIONS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10318497
27,000 miles · Mar 10, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE TRAVELING AT A SPEED OF 25 MPH OVER A ROUGH SURFACE THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SKID AND IT BECAME DIFFICULT TO CONTROL, THE TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT ALSO APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED AND SENT A REPRESENTATIVE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE CONT…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE TRAVELING AT A SPEED OF 25 MPH OVER A ROUGH SURFACE THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SKID AND IT BECAME DIFFICULT TO CONTROL, THE TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT ALSO APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE DEALER WAS CONTACTED AND SENT A REPRESENTATIVE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING THE DIAGNOSIS THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE FOUND. THE CONTACT ALSO NOTICED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 27,000. UPDATED 05/14/10. *LJ
NHTSA ODI #10318412
58,000 miles · Mar 10, 2010
Exterior LightingSeatsService Brakes, Hydraulic
1. WIFE IS LEARY OF DRIVING OUR 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS BECAUSE OF PROBLEM BRAKES. WE NEED A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE TRY TO TURN OFF THE ENGINE GOING 100 MPH. 2. LIGHTS ARE POOR. WE CANNOT SEE VERY FAR AHEAD IN THIS DEER INFESTED ENVIRONMENT. I HAVE BETTER LIGHTS ON MY 1997 HYUNDAI 3. ONE OR THE OTHER…
Read full complaint
1. WIFE IS LEARY OF DRIVING OUR 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS BECAUSE OF PROBLEM BRAKES. WE NEED A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE TRY TO TURN OFF THE ENGINE GOING 100 MPH. 2. LIGHTS ARE POOR. WE CANNOT SEE VERY FAR AHEAD IN THIS DEER INFESTED ENVIRONMENT. I HAVE BETTER LIGHTS ON MY 1997 HYUNDAI 3. ONE OR THE OTHER HEADLIGHT FLICKERS AND GOES OUT FOR NO UNDERSTANDABLE REASON. WE TURN THE LIGHTS OFF AND TURN THEM ON AGAIN AND IT WORKS OK. THIS COULD BE A SAFETY HAZARD. WHAT IS BEING DONE TO FIX IT. 4. SEATING. MY FIRST ENCOUNTER WITH THE TOYOTA COMPLAINT SYSTEM CAM ABOUT AS I WAS TRYING TO GET THE DRIVER SEAT MOVED BACK BECAUSE I HAVE LONG LEGS. THE DEALER SAID THEY HAVE NO WAY OF FIXING THIS BUT THAT I SHOULD GO TO THE AFTER MARKET. I ASKED IF TOYOTA WOULD ACCEPT AN AFTERMARKET SOLUTION. THE DEALER SAID THAT THEY WILL EVALUATE IT AFTER IT IS INSTALLED TO TELL US IF IT MEETS SAFETY SPECIFICATIONS NO AFTERMARKET SUPPLIER WILL TRY TO FIX THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT ASSURANCE THAT IT WILL BE ACCEPTED BY TOYOTA. YET TOYOTA GIVES NO TECHNICAL INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE. I COMPLAINED FORMALLY TO THE DEALER AND GOT NOWHERE. I THEN SENT A FORMAL COMPLAINT TO NATIONAL TOYOTA. THEY PASSED THE COMPLAINT BACK TO THE DEALER FOR RESPONSE. FOR ME THIS IS A MAJOR FLAW IN THE TOYOTA COMPLAINT HANDLING SYSTEM. THEY HAVE A CLOSED LOOP WHEN IT COMES TO COMPLAINTS. 5. I LIKE THE CAR AND IT GETS THE MILEAGE I EXPECTED. I AM NOT SURE I WILL EVER GET ANOTHER TOYOTA IF THERE ARE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE THAT GET GOOD MILEAGE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10318404
Official recalls
4Nov 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.
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.
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.
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
3DP22005 · 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.
Illustration