← 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

Service Brakes complaints

127 reports
Clear category filter
12,000 miles · Aug 3, 2015
Service BrakesSteeringVehicle Speed ControlCrash

ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2015 AT 5:04 PM WHILE TRAVELING AT ABOUT 57 MPH SOUTH ON HI WAY 101 AT ABOUT THE MILE POST 255.5, MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN STEERING BY ME, VEERED TO THE RIGHT OFF THE ROAD AND INTO THE GUARDRAIL. THERE SEEMED TO BE NO REACTION TO MY FRANTIC STEERING AND BRAKING IN THE ATTEMPT TO…

Read full complaint

ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2015 AT 5:04 PM WHILE TRAVELING AT ABOUT 57 MPH SOUTH ON HI WAY 101 AT ABOUT THE MILE POST 255.5, MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN STEERING BY ME, VEERED TO THE RIGHT OFF THE ROAD AND INTO THE GUARDRAIL. THERE SEEMED TO BE NO REACTION TO MY FRANTIC STEERING AND BRAKING IN THE ATTEMPT TO RETURN THE CAR TO THE ROAD. AFTER THE CAR HIT THE GUARDRAIL IT TRAVELED ABOUT 15 FEET SPUN BACK OUT INTO THE SOUTHBOUND LANE AND WAS HIT ON THE REAR RIGHT SIDE BY A CAR TRAVELING IN THE SOUTHBOUND LANE. THIS CAUSED THE CAR TO BE PROPELLED ACROSS 2 NORTHBOUND LANES OF TRAFFIC AND COME TO REST WITH REAR OF MY CAR EMBEDDED INTO THE FAR SIDE GUARDRAIL. MIRACULOUSLY NO ONE WAS HURT. THE POLICE WERE CALLED AND MY 61 YEAR PERFECT DRIVING RECORD WAS RUINED. MY CAR WAS TOTALED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY...UPDATED 08/27/15 *BF UPDATE 9/15/15*CW*DT *CN UPDATED 4/21/20*JB

NHTSA ODI #10745974

185 miles · Jun 21, 2015
Service Brakes

I WAS NOT THE DRIVER, BUT THE PASSENGER WHO WAS ASLEEP UNTIL THE CAR FELT LIKE IT HIT A POT HOLE. THE ACCIDENT WAS NEARLY FATAL. THIS IS AN UPDATE OF AN INITIAL REPORT BASED ON WHAT I NOW BELIEVE. WE WERE EAST ON I-80 AT NEAR MILE 21, WHICH HAS NO EXIT (AS REPORTED BY TOW TRUCK DRIVER). SINCE MY INITIAL REPORT I USED SATELL…

Read full complaint

I WAS NOT THE DRIVER, BUT THE PASSENGER WHO WAS ASLEEP UNTIL THE CAR FELT LIKE IT HIT A POT HOLE. THE ACCIDENT WAS NEARLY FATAL. THIS IS AN UPDATE OF AN INITIAL REPORT BASED ON WHAT I NOW BELIEVE. WE WERE EAST ON I-80 AT NEAR MILE 21, WHICH HAS NO EXIT (AS REPORTED BY TOW TRUCK DRIVER). SINCE MY INITIAL REPORT I USED SATELLITE IMAGES TO VERIFY THE APPROXIMATE AREA OF HIGHWAY TO MATCH WHAT I SAW WHEN I WOKE UP AFTER EXPERIENCING THE CAR DOING WHAT FELT LIKE HITTING A POT HOLE, BUT WHICH I NOW BELIEVE WAS A NEW RUN OFFSET RUN OF PARTIAL SHOULDER. SPEED IS AN ESTIMATE. MY WIFE WAS LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO PULL OVER AND CHANGE DRIVERS ON THE SHOULDER. I THINK SHE DID PULL ON THE SHOULDER AND THE ABS BRAKES ENGAGED ON THE DIRT SIDE OF THE PARTIAL SHOULDER AND STEERED THE CAR OFF THE HIGHWAY. WHEN I OPENED MY EYES I COULD SEE THE CAR WAS HEADING BACK TO THE HIGHWAY, BUT THE CAR WAS AT SMALL SLOPE OF PERHAPS 20 OR SO DEGREES. SHE WIFE SHOULD HAVE STOPPED ON THE GRASS FOLLOWING THE CONTOUR DOWN THE SLOPE BUT FOLLOWED REFLEXES TRYING TO GET BACK ON THE HIGHWAY. I BELIEVE THAT IS THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF THE ROLL OVER, BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED HAD THE CAR STAYED ON THE PAVEMENT. ABS SHOULD NEVER ENGAGE WHEN THE CAR IS MOVING IN A STRAIGHT LINE. IT ONLY HELPS WHEN TURNING AND OTHERWISE HARMS. IN THE PRIUS EVERYTHING IS COMPUTER CONTROLLED AND THIS COULD HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED. I HAD ONE OTHER INCIDENT WHERE ABS BRAKES FROM TOYOTA CAUSED MY PRISM TO SPIN OFF THE HIGHWAY ON ICE WHEN I WAS DRIVING STRAIGHT AHEAD. THE PRIUS COMPUTER SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN PROGRAMMED TO RESTRICT THE STEERING RADIUS BASED ON THE CAR'S SPEED AND SIDE DIRECTIONAL SLOPE. THIS WAS A DOUBLY DESIGN PREVENTABLE ACCIDENT THAT NEARLY KILLED MY WIFE, WHO HAS NO RECALL OF THE ACCIDENT BEFORE RESCUE DUE TO INJURIES. WITHOUT REDESIGN ABS BRAKES SHOULD BE BANNED ESPECIALLY WITH BAD SHOULDERS.

NHTSA ODI #10726404

260,760 miles · May 26, 2015
Service Brakes

INITIALLY I FELT LIKE IT ACCELERATED LITTLEBIT AS I BRAKE BUT I WAS ABLE TO STOP.

NHTSA ODI #10721498

185,000 miles · May 21, 2015
Seat BeltsService BrakesCrashInjury

THE VEHICLE MILEAGE GIVEN IS APPROXIMATE. THE PASSENGER ESTIMATES THE SPEED AT ABOUT CITY STREET SPEEDS AT TIME OF ACCIDENT SINCE THE CAR WAS SLOWED TO GET ON THE SHOULDER. THE ACCIDENT IS COMPLICATED BECAUSE THE DRIVER CAN'T REMEMBER MUCH OF WHAT HAPPENED BEYOND SHE WAS PULLING OVER TO THE RIGHT SHOULDER TO CHANGE DRIVERS OR…

Read full complaint

THE VEHICLE MILEAGE GIVEN IS APPROXIMATE. THE PASSENGER ESTIMATES THE SPEED AT ABOUT CITY STREET SPEEDS AT TIME OF ACCIDENT SINCE THE CAR WAS SLOWED TO GET ON THE SHOULDER. THE ACCIDENT IS COMPLICATED BECAUSE THE DRIVER CAN'T REMEMBER MUCH OF WHAT HAPPENED BEYOND SHE WAS PULLING OVER TO THE RIGHT SHOULDER TO CHANGE DRIVERS OR REST, BUT THE FRONT SEAT PASSENGER WAS ABRUPTLY WOKEN UP FROM A SCHEDULED NAP BY WHAT SEEMED TO HIM LIKE A POTHOLE OR PERHAPS AN ABRUPT EDGE TO THE ROAD FOLLOWED QUICKLY BY A ROUGH RIDE. WHEN HE OPENED HIS EYES HE SAW THE CAR ON THE WILD CLUMPS OF GRASS LIKE VEGETATION ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE REFLECTOR STAKE LINE AND AN ODD SHOULDER THAT WAS ONLY PARTIALLY CEMENT OR PAVEMENT WITH A SUBSTANTIAL GAP BETWEEN THE SIDE REFLECTORS AND HARD SURFACE. THIS WAS SEMI-CONFIRMED WHEN REENTERING WYOMING WITH HIS OLDEST SON DRIVING AND SEEING SIMILAR PARTIAL SHOULDERS, BUT THE SON WAS UNWILLING TO DRIVE FARTHER TO THE ACCIDENT SCENE. THE PASSENGER'S BELIEVES THE TRACTION CONTROL ENGAGED AND CAUSED THE CAR TO GO OFF THE SHOULDER, IN PART BECAUSE OF A SIMILAR PROBLEM WITH A GEO PRIUS LSI ABS BRAKE SYSTEM ON ICE THAT CAUSED WHAT WOULD HAVE NOT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT VEHICLE DAMAGE. THE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION IS A DEFECT OR DEBRIS ON THE SHOULDER ITSELF. THE DRIVER TRIED TO GET BACK ON THE HIGHWAY INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING THE SLIGHT CONTOUR DOWN OF THE SHOULDER OUTSIDE RIGHT OF WAY AND THAT OR TRACTION CONTROL MAY HAVE CAUSED THE CAR TO LEAVE THE PARTIAL SHOULDER. THE VEHICLE WAS LAST SEEN AT HP TOWING IN EVANSTON, WYOMING. IT WAS TOTALED AND TITLE WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO ALLSTATE INSURANCE. THE SEAT BELTS IN THIS CAR ARE TOO THIN AND TEND TO TWIST UP PREVENTING CONSISTENT SUPPORT. THE PASSENGER PROTECTIVE CAGE IN THE TOYOTA PRIUS DID AN IMPRESSIVE JOB OF PROTECTING THE OCCUPANTS BUT A PLASTIC LAYER WOULD HAVE PREVENTED INJURIES AND CONTENTS LOSS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10717591

166,551 miles · Apr 26, 2015
Service Brakes

THE 2004 - 2009 ABS/BRAKE ACTUATOR ASSEMBLIES HAVE KNOWN ISSUES. THE REPAIR COST IS APPROXIMATELY $2000 OR MORE. THE PART ALONE IS $1500 OR MORE. IT APPEARS WITH THIS BEING A COMMON ISSUE (PER THE SERVICE CENTER ASSOCIATE AND PRIUS FORUMS), THAT EVEN A USED PART WOULD NOT SUSTAIN WITHOUT RECURRING ISSUES THEREBY MAKING IT A R…

Read full complaint

THE 2004 - 2009 ABS/BRAKE ACTUATOR ASSEMBLIES HAVE KNOWN ISSUES. THE REPAIR COST IS APPROXIMATELY $2000 OR MORE. THE PART ALONE IS $1500 OR MORE. IT APPEARS WITH THIS BEING A COMMON ISSUE (PER THE SERVICE CENTER ASSOCIATE AND PRIUS FORUMS), THAT EVEN A USED PART WOULD NOT SUSTAIN WITHOUT RECURRING ISSUES THEREBY MAKING IT A REQUIREMENT TO USE ONLY NEW OEM PARTS. THE ABS/BRAKE ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY FAILURES CAN CAUSE SEVERE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES DUE TO BRAKE FAILURE. GIVEN THAT THE ISSUE COMMONLY OCCURS WHEN THE WARRANTY EXPIRES BUT WITH LESS THAN 200,000 MILES THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS COVERED BY TOYOTA AND THE PROBLEM SHOULD BE ADDRESSED WITH THE MANUFACTURING OF DEFECTIVE PARTS IN ALL SUBSEQUENT PRIUS MODELS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10712919

85,500 miles · Apr 26, 2015
Service Brakes

ATTEMPTED EMERGENCY LOW-SPEED STOP TO AVOID A BICYCLIST RUNNING A RED LIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. BICYCLIST TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID COLLISION BECAUSE THE BRAKES FAILED TO FULLY ACTIVATE. PEDAL WENT COMPLETELY HARD, ABS DID NOT ACTIVATE, AND VEHICLE SLOWLY HALTED (NO JERK OR THROWING OCCUPANTS AGAINST SEAT BELTS, AS WOULD HAPPEN W…

Read full complaint

ATTEMPTED EMERGENCY LOW-SPEED STOP TO AVOID A BICYCLIST RUNNING A RED LIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. BICYCLIST TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID COLLISION BECAUSE THE BRAKES FAILED TO FULLY ACTIVATE. PEDAL WENT COMPLETELY HARD, ABS DID NOT ACTIVATE, AND VEHICLE SLOWLY HALTED (NO JERK OR THROWING OCCUPANTS AGAINST SEAT BELTS, AS WOULD HAPPEN WITH NORMAL BRAKES). SYSTEM WORKS NORMALLY UNDER LIGHT BRAKING. INABILITY TO BRAKE FULLY UNDER LOW-SPEED CONDITIONS IS A SERIOUS FAILURE. ROAD WAS DRY AND TIRES ARE ONLY A FEW MONTHS OLD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10712911

150,000 miles · Feb 26, 2015
Service Brakes

VSC, ABS, BRAKE AND ((!)) LIGHTS CAME ON, BUZZING IN CABIN. ATTEMPTED TO STOP THE VEHICLE AND THE BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR, VEHICLE STOPPED BUT TOOK A LONG DISTANCE TO DO SO AND DRIVER HAD NO CONTROL OF THE BRAKING SYSTEM. TOOK VEHICLE TO MECHANIC, HE STATES HE CANNOT DO ANYTHING FOR THIS VEHICLE, TOOK TO TOYOTA, THEY STATE…

Read full complaint

VSC, ABS, BRAKE AND ((!)) LIGHTS CAME ON, BUZZING IN CABIN. ATTEMPTED TO STOP THE VEHICLE AND THE BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR, VEHICLE STOPPED BUT TOOK A LONG DISTANCE TO DO SO AND DRIVER HAD NO CONTROL OF THE BRAKING SYSTEM. TOOK VEHICLE TO MECHANIC, HE STATES HE CANNOT DO ANYTHING FOR THIS VEHICLE, TOOK TO TOYOTA, THEY STATED IT WAS THE 12V BATTERY, REPLACED, TECHNICIAN STATED THAT IF THE LIGHTS CAME BACK ON THE ACTUATOR WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED FOR $2100.00.LIGHTS OUT ON DASH FOR LESS THAN 48 HOURS, CAME BACK ON, RETURNED TO TOYOTA, NOW A DIFFERENT TECHNICIAN STATES THE ECU AND THE ACTUATOR ARE IN THE SAME ASSEMBLY AND IT WILL COST $2869.73 TO REPLACE. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT IF WE DON'T WANT TO REPLACE IT RIGHT NOW THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE THE CONVENTIONAL BRAKES WILL STILL WORK JUST FINE. LEFT THE DEALERSHIP AND PICKED UP MY DAUGHTER, TOOK HER TO PICK UP HER GLASSES AND WHEN WE LEFT THE BRAKES DID THE SAME THING, THE BUZZING IN THE CABIN AND THE BRAKES WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR AND STOPPED AFTER A LONG DISTANCE WITH NO DRIVER CONTROL. TOOK TO ANOTHER MECHANIC AND ALTHOUGH THE SAME LIGHTS ARE ALL LIT UP ACROSS THE DASH THEY COULD PULL NO CODES AT ALL. WHEN THE CAR WAS STARTED AGAIN THE LIGHTS WERE ALL OFF ALTHOUGH THE MECHANIC COULD NOT CLEAR ANY CODES. IT SEEMS NO ONE IS REALLY SURE WHAT IS CAUSING THIS OR IF THE CODES WHEN THEY DO SHOW ARE VALID CODES. I JUST KNOW THAT THE VEHICLE IS NOT SAFE AND TOYOTA COULD NOT GUARANTEE THAT IF THEY REPLACE THE ECU AND THE ACTUATOR THAT IT WOULD BE FIXED. ONE OF THE TECHNICIANS STATED THAT THIS MAY BE A PROBLEM THAT I WILL JUST HAVE TO THROW MONEY AT.

NHTSA ODI #10690850

155,000 miles · Jan 26, 2015
Service Brakes

GOING AROUND A CORNER AT A REASONABLE SPEED, TRACTION DASH LIGHT LIT UP AND ALARM SOUNDED. BRAKES FAILED TO ENGAGE. LET OFF ACCELERATOR AND SLOWED. PULLED CAR OFF ROAD. CAR MAKES CLICKS AND NOISES OF A SMALL ELECTRICAL MOTOR ENGAGING WHENEVER VEHICLE IS AT REST WITH FOOT ON BRAKE. BRAKE SYSTEM WAS BLED - DID NOT RESOLVE T…

Read full complaint

GOING AROUND A CORNER AT A REASONABLE SPEED, TRACTION DASH LIGHT LIT UP AND ALARM SOUNDED. BRAKES FAILED TO ENGAGE. LET OFF ACCELERATOR AND SLOWED. PULLED CAR OFF ROAD. CAR MAKES CLICKS AND NOISES OF A SMALL ELECTRICAL MOTOR ENGAGING WHENEVER VEHICLE IS AT REST WITH FOOT ON BRAKE. BRAKE SYSTEM WAS BLED - DID NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE. ANY TIME A SMALL BUMP IN THE ROAD IS ENCOUNTERED, DASH WARNING LIGHT AND ALARM COMES ON BRAKES DO NOT RESPOND FOR A SHORT TIME AFTERWARD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10678817

70,000 miles · Dec 19, 2014
Service BrakesCrash

DRIVING TO MY JOB AND WENT TO PARK. I PUT MY FOOT ON THE BRAKES TO SLOWLY ENTER THE SPACE ABOUT 10 FEET AWAY TRAVELING ABOUT 2 TO 5 MPH AND NEVER TAKING MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE, THE CAR ACCELERATOR WENT INTO FULL THROTTLE AND I HIT THE WALL DAMAGING THE FRONT END. IS THIS A COMMON OCCURRENCE? . *TR

NHTSA ODI #10667265

80,000 miles · Nov 6, 2014
Service BrakesCrash

FREQUENTLY THE BRAKES WOULD FEEL HARD AND FAIL TO FULLY ENGAGE ONCE PUTTING THE CAR IN DRIVE AND RELEASING THE PARKING BRAKE. THIS WAS MOST APPARENT WHEN PARKED ON A HILL. ONCE THE PARKING BRAKE WAS RELEASED, WITH THE BRAKE PEDAL FULLY PRESSED, THE CAR WOULD ROLL FORWARD A COUPLE OF FEET BEFORE STOPPING UNFORTUNATELY IT HAS NOW…

Read full complaint

FREQUENTLY THE BRAKES WOULD FEEL HARD AND FAIL TO FULLY ENGAGE ONCE PUTTING THE CAR IN DRIVE AND RELEASING THE PARKING BRAKE. THIS WAS MOST APPARENT WHEN PARKED ON A HILL. ONCE THE PARKING BRAKE WAS RELEASED, WITH THE BRAKE PEDAL FULLY PRESSED, THE CAR WOULD ROLL FORWARD A COUPLE OF FEET BEFORE STOPPING UNFORTUNATELY IT HAS NOW DONE THE SAME THING TO ME IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION AND AS A RESULT I REAR ENDED ANOTHER CAR. I WAS WAFFLING ABOUT GOING BECAUSE I WAS TURNING LEFT. I REMEMBER PRESSING LIGHTLY ON THE GAS, THEN BRAKE, THEN GAS WHEN THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME STOPPED. I SLAMMED THE BRAKES AND NOTHING HAPPENED. THE PEDAL WAS HARD BUT THE CAR DID NOT SLOW DOWN SO I HIT THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10653220

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.