← 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

Vehicle Speed Control complaints

124 reports
Clear category filter
72,000 miles · Jan 29, 2014
Vehicle Speed Control

MY CRUISE CONTROL LEVER BROKE OFF RIGHT AT THE BASE. THERE'S NOTHING BUT THE WIRES KEEPING IT ON. I HAD TO TAPE IT TO THE STEERING WHEEL SO IT WOULDN'T MAKE NOISES FROM FLOPPING AROUND WHEN I MADE TURNS.I HAVE NEVER USED EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND MY HANDS AREN'T ALL THAT STRONG. THE CRUISE CONTROL LEVER IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED REGULAR…

Read full complaint

MY CRUISE CONTROL LEVER BROKE OFF RIGHT AT THE BASE. THERE'S NOTHING BUT THE WIRES KEEPING IT ON. I HAD TO TAPE IT TO THE STEERING WHEEL SO IT WOULDN'T MAKE NOISES FROM FLOPPING AROUND WHEN I MADE TURNS.I HAVE NEVER USED EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND MY HANDS AREN'T ALL THAT STRONG. THE CRUISE CONTROL LEVER IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED REGULARLY AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN A WAY TO WITHSTAND REGULAR USE. HOWEVER, IT'S OBVIOUS TOYOTA USED FAULTY CHEAP PARTS HERE THAT DON'T WITHSTAND THE INTENDED USE. THERE ARE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS HERE AND ON OTHER WEBSITES REGARDING THIS ISSUE AFFECTING NUMEROUS CARS SO IT'S NOT A RAMDON BUT RATHER COMMEN ISSUE. TOYOTA SHOULD OFFER A CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM TO REPLACE THIS PART FREE OF CHARGE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10562050

63,145 miles · Jul 11, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

WHILE TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY AT 55 MPH, THE POWER WAS LOST AND THE ACCELERATOR DID NOT RESPOND TO BEING DEPRESSED. THE CAR WAS STEERED FROM THE MIDDLE LANE ON A THREE LANE HIGHWAY TO GRADUALLY COAST INTO THE SAFETY LANE OFF THE HIGHWAY WHERE THE BRAKE WAS USED TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE POWER BUTTON WAS THEN DEPRESSED AND THE EN…

Read full complaint

WHILE TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY AT 55 MPH, THE POWER WAS LOST AND THE ACCELERATOR DID NOT RESPOND TO BEING DEPRESSED. THE CAR WAS STEERED FROM THE MIDDLE LANE ON A THREE LANE HIGHWAY TO GRADUALLY COAST INTO THE SAFETY LANE OFF THE HIGHWAY WHERE THE BRAKE WAS USED TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE POWER BUTTON WAS THEN DEPRESSED AND THE ENGINE RESTARTED AND WE REENTERED THE HIGHWAY. THIS WAS THE ONLY SUCH INCIDENT IN SEVEN YEARS OF OWNERSHIP OF THIS VEHICLE. THIS INCIDENT HAS NOT RECURRED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10524449

125,000 miles · May 29, 2013
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrash

AT APPROXIMATELY 11:20 AM, I WAS WAITING TO HAVE MY CAR WASHED AT A DRIVE THROUGH CAR WASH. A CHEVROLET PICKUP TRUCK HAD COMPLETED BEING WASHED AND WAS STOPPED AT THE EXIT. THE GREEN LIGHT CAME ON AT THE START OF THE CAR WASH FOR ME TO PROCEED. I MOVED FORWARD WHEN SUDDENLY THE CAR LURCHED FORWARD AT WHAT SEEMED TO BE TOP SP…

Read full complaint

AT APPROXIMATELY 11:20 AM, I WAS WAITING TO HAVE MY CAR WASHED AT A DRIVE THROUGH CAR WASH. A CHEVROLET PICKUP TRUCK HAD COMPLETED BEING WASHED AND WAS STOPPED AT THE EXIT. THE GREEN LIGHT CAME ON AT THE START OF THE CAR WASH FOR ME TO PROCEED. I MOVED FORWARD WHEN SUDDENLY THE CAR LURCHED FORWARD AT WHAT SEEMED TO BE TOP SPEED. I JAMMED MY FOOT OF THE BRAKE PEDAL AND HELD IT DOWN BUT THE CAR CONTINUED SPEEDING. I EASED THE CAR INTO THE LEFT SIDE WALL OF THE CAR WASH TO SLOW DOWN THE MOMENTUM, BUT TO NO AVAIL. I CRASHED INTO THE BACK OF THE TRUCK. THE HOOD OF THE PRIUS WENT UNDER THE TRUCK REAR BUMPER. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. THE PRIUS HAS BEEN DECLARED AT TOTAL LOSS. *TR THE CONSUMER STATED NEITHER THE LETTER FROM TOYOTA NOR THE BOSCH REPORT INDICATED AN EXAMINATION OF AN ELECTRONIC ACCELERATION SYSTEM. UPDATED 04/28/14

NHTSA ODI #10514171

112,000 miles · Apr 30, 2013
Service BrakesVehicle Speed ControlCrash

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 7 MPH AND PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE, HE ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE THE BRAKES AND IT FAILED TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE VEHICLE KEPT MOVING FORWARD, WENT OVER A DIVIDER, AND CRASHED INTO TWO VEHICLES. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED AND…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 7 MPH AND PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE, HE ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE THE BRAKES AND IT FAILED TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE VEHICLE KEPT MOVING FORWARD, WENT OVER A DIVIDER, AND CRASHED INTO TWO VEHICLES. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED AND NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLES FRONT BUMPER WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 112,000. *TR UPDATED 06/25/13 *LJ

NHTSA ODI #10510033

11,923 miles · Dec 13, 2012
Air BagsVehicle Speed ControlCrash

2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE THROTTLE MALFUNCTION. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED OUT OF CONTROL AND CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER STATED SHE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE THROTTLE BEING STUCK OPEN, PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT. ALSO, THE AIR BAG LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER FOUND…

Read full complaint

2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE THROTTLE MALFUNCTION. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED OUT OF CONTROL AND CRASHED INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER STATED SHE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE THROTTLE BEING STUCK OPEN, PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT. ALSO, THE AIR BAG LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER FOUND AN OPEN CIRCUIT IN THE SPIRAL CABLE. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10488481

Mileage unknown · Feb 27, 2012
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

SUDDEN ACCELERATION WHILE ENTERING ONE OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN EMISSION TESTING CENTERS FOR ANNUAL REQUIRED TEST. I HAD 10 TO 15 SECONDS TO RESPOND AFTER THE CAR TOOK OFF. I PLACED BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKE AND THE CAR WOULD NOT STOP, AS THERE WAS NO TIME TO TRY ANYTHING ELSE. I HAD TO CHOOSE TO HIT THE TESTING CENTER OR A POST; …

Read full complaint

SUDDEN ACCELERATION WHILE ENTERING ONE OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN EMISSION TESTING CENTERS FOR ANNUAL REQUIRED TEST. I HAD 10 TO 15 SECONDS TO RESPOND AFTER THE CAR TOOK OFF. I PLACED BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKE AND THE CAR WOULD NOT STOP, AS THERE WAS NO TIME TO TRY ANYTHING ELSE. I HAD TO CHOOSE TO HIT THE TESTING CENTER OR A POST; I MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO HIT THE POST. THE AIR BAG DEPLOYED. INSURER DECLARED PRIUS A TOTAL LOSS. CAR HAD 2009 RECALL FOR FLOOR MATS AND ACCELERATOR AT TOYOTA DEALER. PICTURE AFTER CRASH, SHOWED THE FLOOR MATS IN PLACE. CAR HAD 50,000 MILE MAINTENANCE AT DEALER 11 DAYS PRIOR TO CRASH. UPDATED 02/28/12 *BF

NHTSA ODI #10449869

40,000 miles · Jul 9, 2011
Vehicle Speed Control

I USE MY CRUISE CONTROL AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE, SO I BELIEVE THAT IF THE LEVER IS FLEXED EVEN A LITTLE BIT 20-30 TIMES A DAY THE STRESS WILL EVENTUALLY BREAK IT. MINE DIDN'T JUST SNAP, IT REFUSED TO FUNCTION FOR A DAY OR TWO WHEN THE AMOUNT OF FLEX IN THE NEARLY BROKEN LEVER DIDN'T MAKE THE CANCEL SWITCH ENGAGE. IT BROKE COMPLETEL…

Read full complaint

I USE MY CRUISE CONTROL AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE, SO I BELIEVE THAT IF THE LEVER IS FLEXED EVEN A LITTLE BIT 20-30 TIMES A DAY THE STRESS WILL EVENTUALLY BREAK IT. MINE DIDN'T JUST SNAP, IT REFUSED TO FUNCTION FOR A DAY OR TWO WHEN THE AMOUNT OF FLEX IN THE NEARLY BROKEN LEVER DIDN'T MAKE THE CANCEL SWITCH ENGAGE. IT BROKE COMPLETELY WHILE ENGAGING IT. I FOUND OUT THAT OTHERS ARE HAVING THE SAME ISSUE BY DOING A SIMPLE SEARCH ON THE WEB.

NHTSA ODI #10412510

9,000 miles · Feb 4, 2011
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 TO 15 MPH SHE APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO SURGE FORWARD CAUSING HER TO CRASH INTO A GATE. THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHO ADVISED HER THAT THEY COULD N…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 TO 15 MPH SHE APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO SURGE FORWARD CAUSING HER TO CRASH INTO A GATE. THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHO ADVISED HER THAT THEY COULD NOT DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO HAVE THE SAME FAILURES FOR TWO YEARS ON AN INTERMITTENT BASIS. EACH TIME THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER THEY CONSTANTLY INFORMED HER THAT THEY COULD NOT DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED BY MAIL AND REPLIED BY SAYING THEY HAVE INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND FOUND NO KNOWN FAILURES. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 9,000. UPDATED 3/11/11 *CN UPDATED 1/3/11 *CN

NHTSA ODI #10380202

41,100 miles · Dec 13, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE PARKING, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED OVER A CONCRETE CURB AND ONTO THE SIDEWALK. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THERE WAS NO POLICE REPORT FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHO COULD FIND NOTHING WRONG. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER WHO OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. …

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE PARKING, THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED OVER A CONCRETE CURB AND ONTO THE SIDEWALK. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THERE WAS NO POLICE REPORT FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHO COULD FIND NOTHING WRONG. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER WHO OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 41,100.

NHTSA ODI #10370426

17,000 miles · Nov 15, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 2 MPH, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO STOP THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION AS THE VEHICLE PROCEEDED OVER A SLAB OF CONCRETE BARRIERS AND CRASHED INTO THE BRICK WALL OF A BUILDING. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY AND THE CONTACT…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 2 MPH, THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO STOP THE UNINTENDED ACCELERATION AS THE VEHICLE PROCEEDED OVER A SLAB OF CONCRETE BARRIERS AND CRASHED INTO THE BRICK WALL OF A BUILDING. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY AND THE CONTACT SUSTAINED MODERATE INJURIES. A POLICE REPORT WAS AVAILABLE. THE VEHICLE WAS PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 09V388000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL: ACCELERATOR PEDAL) PRIOR TO THE CRASH. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER AND WAS AWAITING A RESPONSE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 17,000.

NHTSA ODI #10365780

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.