IllustrationABS ACCUATOR FAILURE. THIS IS A VERY KNOWN COMMON FAILURE FROM TOYOTA . THEY WILL NOT COVER IT. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE BRAKING SYSTEM OF MY CAR.
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 →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Prius years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
2310–25K
57625–50K
39350–75K
20475–100K
210100–150K
107150K+
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 reportsTHE DASHBOARD DON'T WORK SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES THA BREAK LIGHT TURNS ON AND THE BREAKS STOP WORKING IT CHANGE IT SELF TO NEUTRAL AND THE POWER STEERING W. GET REALLY HARD.. ALL THIS HAPENS WHEN THE CAR IS IN MOTION ON CITY STREETS.
MY CAR HAS 115K MILES AND THE ABS ALARM WENT OFF AND THE DEALER SAID THE BRAKE SYSTEM MODULE FAILED AND NEED A NEW ONE AND QUOTE ME $3000. I CAN'T AFFORD THIS SO MY MECHANIC INSTALLED A USED PART AND STILL THE ABS ALARM ON! THIS PART HAS A RECALL THAT EXPIRED IN JAN 2018. CAN TOYOTA DO THIS FOR ME? THE CAR CAN STILL BE DRIVE…
Read full complaint
MY CAR HAS 115K MILES AND THE ABS ALARM WENT OFF AND THE DEALER SAID THE BRAKE SYSTEM MODULE FAILED AND NEED A NEW ONE AND QUOTE ME $3000. I CAN'T AFFORD THIS SO MY MECHANIC INSTALLED A USED PART AND STILL THE ABS ALARM ON! THIS PART HAS A RECALL THAT EXPIRED IN JAN 2018. CAN TOYOTA DO THIS FOR ME? THE CAR CAN STILL BE DRIVEN FOR A LONG TIME. THIS PART IS SUPPOSED TO LIVE MUCH MORE THAN 115K MILES AND PROBABLY MORE THAN 300K MILES.
BRAKE ACTUATOR MAKING NOISE ALONG WITH 3 DIFFERENT BRAKE LIGHTS ON. TOYOTA PREVIOUSLY HAD A RECALL ON THIS EXACT ISSUE WHICH HAS SINCE ENDED. MANY CARS ARE STILL AT RISK
IT HAD RAINED OUTSIDE. WHEN ATTEMPTING TO BRAKE MY CAR SLID AND WOULD NOT STOP. THE BRAKES WERE HARD TO PUSH AND SLID AS IF IT WAS ON ICE. WHEN TRYING TO PARK THE CAR IT STOPPED SUDDENLY AS IF I HIT A WALL.
THE BRAKE ACCUATOR ON THE GENERATION 2 TOYOTA PRIUS HAS BECOME FAMOUS FOR FAILING. TOYOTA RAN AN EXTENDED WARRANTY, HOWEVER, DEALERSHIPS IGNORED THE PROBLEM AND INSTEAD FIXED OTHER ISSUES WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING AFTER THE ACCUATOR UNTIL AFTER THE EXTENDED WARRANTY EXPIRED. NOW MY CAR'S ACCUATOR FOR THE BRAKES IS BAD, AS INDICATED…
Read full complaint
THE BRAKE ACCUATOR ON THE GENERATION 2 TOYOTA PRIUS HAS BECOME FAMOUS FOR FAILING. TOYOTA RAN AN EXTENDED WARRANTY, HOWEVER, DEALERSHIPS IGNORED THE PROBLEM AND INSTEAD FIXED OTHER ISSUES WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING AFTER THE ACCUATOR UNTIL AFTER THE EXTENDED WARRANTY EXPIRED. NOW MY CAR'S ACCUATOR FOR THE BRAKES IS BAD, AS INDICATED BY WARNING LIGHTS AND ALARMS. I FEAR THAT MY 10 YEAR OLD CAR WILL HAVE A BRAKE FAILURE. THE REPAIR IS ESTIMATED AT OVER $2500 FOR A DEFECTIVE TOYOTA PART. THIS IS UNFAIR THAT TOYOTA MADE A BAD PART THAT CONSISTENTLY FAILS IN THIS MODEL AND THAT THEY DO NOT FIX ALL OF THEM WITH A PROPER RECALL, OR EXCLUDE DRIVERS AFTER NOT RELAYING IMPORTANT INFORMATION. I WAS DRIVING MY CAR DOWN THE STREET WHEN ALL THE LIGHTS CAME ON WARNING ME THAT MY BRAKE SYSTEM WAS FAILING SO I LEFT THE CAR ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND WILL NOT DRIVE IT FURTHER.
FRONT WHEELS LOOSE ALL TRACTION ON ICY PATCH! TRAVELING NORTH ON AN OLD PAVED COUNTRY ROAD WITH A MODERATE CROWN AND NARROW LANES, I CAME UPON A MODEST BLUFF THAT WAS JUST ABRUPT ENOUGH TO KEEP ME FROM SEEING THE ROAD SURFACE ON THE OTHER SIDE. WITHIN 50' OF THE OTHER SIDE WAS BLOWING SNOW, SOME STICKING AND TURNING INTO ICE. A…
Read full complaint
FRONT WHEELS LOOSE ALL TRACTION ON ICY PATCH! TRAVELING NORTH ON AN OLD PAVED COUNTRY ROAD WITH A MODERATE CROWN AND NARROW LANES, I CAME UPON A MODEST BLUFF THAT WAS JUST ABRUPT ENOUGH TO KEEP ME FROM SEEING THE ROAD SURFACE ON THE OTHER SIDE. WITHIN 50' OF THE OTHER SIDE WAS BLOWING SNOW, SOME STICKING AND TURNING INTO ICE. AIR TEMP. 27 DEGREES. DON'T KNOW THE SURFACE TEMP, AND IT WAS SUNNY, NICE. THIS PATCH WAS 500' OR SO AND PROMPTED ME TO REMOVE MY FOOT FROM ACCELERATOR. I WAS APPROACHING 50 MPH, NOT FAST FOR THIS ROAD AND WAS IN NO HURRY. WITHIN THE TIME OF A BREATH, MY FRONT END BLEW SMOOTHLY TOWARD THE DITCH AND ME AND THE PRIUS CAME TO REST WITHIN 30' OR SO. NOW THIS LIGHT TO MODERATE CROSS WIND TOOK CONTROL OF THE FRONT OF THE CAR, 'NOT THE BACK'. THE POINT BEING, REAR WHEELS ARE FREE SPINNING, WHILE FRONT WHEELS HAVE A RATHER AGGRESSIVE BREAKING EFFECT. MIND YOU, NEVER CONSIDERED TOUCHING THE 'BREAKS'. IN ADDITION, I'VE LEARNED THAT DRIVING ON SNOW COVERED TOWN STREETS, THAT IT IS BEST TO POP THE CAR INTO NEUTRAL WHEN APPROACHING AN INTERSECTION AND APPLYING THE SERVICE BRAKES, THIS ACTION WOULD PREVENT THE CAR SLIPPING OR SLIDING AT ALL. (3 MO. OLD MICHELIN DEFENDER TIRES) NOT DEDICATED SNOW TIRES, BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE, VERY GOOD. THIS TOWN I LIVE IN HAS VERY STEEP GRADES, I'M ABLE TO NEGOTIATE ALL OF IT COMING AND GOING. I BELIEVE THIS INCIDENT (STATE FARM CLAIM #[XXX]) WAS CAUSED BY THE OVERLY AGGRESSIVE REGENERATIVE BREAKING ACTION WHEN REMOVING ONES FOOT FROM THE ACCELERATOR. ADDITIONALLY, I WOULD LIKE POINT OUT THAT A HOUR EARLIER WHILE DRIVING TO MY DESTINATION, I'D DRIVEN OVER MANY DRIFTING PATCHES AT VARYING SPEEDS FROM 50 TO 70 MPH WITH A STIFFER CROSS WIND. HOWEVER I COULD SEE THEM FAR IN ADVANCE. AFTER A LENGTHY GO-A-ROUND WITH TOYOTA OVER THE PHONE, THE RESPONSE WAS, THEY WILL TAKE NO ACTION ON THIS CAR OR IN THE FUTURE MODELS. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TT
BRAKE ACTUATOR FAILED WITHOUT WARNING ON THE HIGHWAY. DIFFICULT TO BRAKE. VERY DANGEROUS
TAKATA RECALL 1. DRIVING ON SURFACE STREET AT APPROX. 45 MPH ATTEMPTING TO SLOW DOWN FOR AN INTERSECTION ALL THE BRAKE WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON, WHILE I WAS APPLYING THE BRAKES THEY HAD FAILED, EVENTUALLY THE VEHICLE CAME TO A STOP. AFTER THAT INCIDENT THE BRAKES ARE WORKING NORMAL. APPARENTLY THERE WAS A RECALL TO ADDRESS THE IS…
Read full complaint
TAKATA RECALL 1. DRIVING ON SURFACE STREET AT APPROX. 45 MPH ATTEMPTING TO SLOW DOWN FOR AN INTERSECTION ALL THE BRAKE WARNING LIGHTS CAME ON, WHILE I WAS APPLYING THE BRAKES THEY HAD FAILED, EVENTUALLY THE VEHICLE CAME TO A STOP. AFTER THAT INCIDENT THE BRAKES ARE WORKING NORMAL. APPARENTLY THERE WAS A RECALL TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND IT IS NO LONGER VALID, I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF THE RECALL AND THE DEALERSHIP THAT I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FROM (USED) NEVER NOTIFIED ME OF ANY RECALLS. I AM A TOYOTA OWNER WITH A DEFECTED VEHICLE (A KNOWN DEFECT BY THE MANUFACTURE). WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS? 2. THE HEADLAMPS (LEFT) INTERMITTENTLY GOES OUT, I HAVE REPLACED THE LAMP, CHECKED THE FUSES AND IT STILL HAPPENS, OTHERS HAVE DESCRIBED LOOSING BOTH LAMPS. BOTH ISSUES ABOVE ARE SAFETY ISSUES THAT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO SERIOUS INJURY INCIDENTS. THESE SAFETY ISSUE NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY TOYOTA.
FIRST ISSUE IS WITH THE REAR LATCH BEING USELESS SOMETIMES DEPENDING ON THE WEATHER AS THE MOLDING IS ALL MELTED AND ACCESS TO THE TRUNK BEING IMPOSSIBLE. SECOND AND MOST IMPORTANT I'VE NOTICED THE BRAKING ON THIS CAR IS VERY VERY SUSPECT. PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE AROUND 6 MONTHS AGO FROM WESTBURY TOYOTA AND I'VE LEARNED I NEE…
Read full complaint
FIRST ISSUE IS WITH THE REAR LATCH BEING USELESS SOMETIMES DEPENDING ON THE WEATHER AS THE MOLDING IS ALL MELTED AND ACCESS TO THE TRUNK BEING IMPOSSIBLE. SECOND AND MOST IMPORTANT I'VE NOTICED THE BRAKING ON THIS CAR IS VERY VERY SUSPECT. PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE AROUND 6 MONTHS AGO FROM WESTBURY TOYOTA AND I'VE LEARNED I NEED TO APPLY MY BRAKES AT LEAST A GOOD 50 TO 100 FEET BEFORE THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME. COUPLE MONTHS AGO THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME BRAKED SO SUDDEN THAT I ALSO HIT MY BRAKES, THE ABS SIGN FLASHED AS IF IT "WAS" WORKING BUT THE CAR JUST KEPT GOING, I ENDED UP PRESSING THE BRAKE ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR AND STILL NO RESULT. IF I HADN'T KEPT MY DISTANCE I WOULD'VE DEFINITELY ENDED UP IN THAT CARS TRUNK. I CAN SAY FROM ALL MY EXPERIENCE AS A DRIVER AND ALL THE CARS I'VE OWNED THIS CAR HAS THE WORST BRAKING SYSTEM IN THE HISTORY OF MOTOR VEHICLES. FEELS LIKE BRAKING A 747 PLANE. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS BRAKING
Official recalls
412V536000 · 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
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.