← 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

What owners actually said

2,003 reports
Mileage unknown · May 19, 2010
Service Brakes, Electric

I OWN A 2007 PRIUS THAT HAS A BRAKE ISSUE CONCERNING ME. WHEN THE BRAKES ARE ENGAGED AND I GO OVER A ROUGH SPOT OR BUMP, THE BRAKES "FAIL" FOR ABOUT 1 SECOND AND IT FEELS AS THOUGH THE CAR IS PROPELLED FORWARD. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE DEALER ON 2 OCCASIONS THAT "IT'S JUST THE ABS BRAKES KICKING IN", HOWEVER I HAVE NEVER HAD THI…

Read full complaint

I OWN A 2007 PRIUS THAT HAS A BRAKE ISSUE CONCERNING ME. WHEN THE BRAKES ARE ENGAGED AND I GO OVER A ROUGH SPOT OR BUMP, THE BRAKES "FAIL" FOR ABOUT 1 SECOND AND IT FEELS AS THOUGH THE CAR IS PROPELLED FORWARD. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE DEALER ON 2 OCCASIONS THAT "IT'S JUST THE ABS BRAKES KICKING IN", HOWEVER I HAVE NEVER HAD THIS HAPPEN WITH ANY OTHER CAR I HAVE DRIVEN. I HAVE NOT HAD AN ACCIDENT (YET) BUT HAVE BECOME EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS WHEN I CAN IDENTIFY A SPOT IN THE ROAD THAT MIGHT CAUSE TROUBLE. THE LACK OF BRAKES FOR EVEN 1 SECOND MIGHT MEAN THAT I AM UNABLE TO STOP FROM HITTING A CAR AHEAD OF ME IF THAT CAR STOPS QUICKLY AND THE ROAD IF ROUGH. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10331286

43,000 miles · May 18, 2010
Exterior Lighting

MY 2007 PRIUS HAS THE HID HEADLAMPS, WHICH ARE TOO COSTLY TO REPAIR AND WILL RANDOMLY GO OUT WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT...CLEARLY DANGEROUS. I TRY TO HAVE THE BULBS REPLACED AND TOYOTA DEALER SAYS ITS A 200.00 TO 300.00 DOLLAR JOB TO REPAIR (MONEY THAT I DO NOT HAVE) WHILE THE CAR WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY THE LAS VEGAS DEALER FIXED…

Read full complaint

MY 2007 PRIUS HAS THE HID HEADLAMPS, WHICH ARE TOO COSTLY TO REPAIR AND WILL RANDOMLY GO OUT WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT...CLEARLY DANGEROUS. I TRY TO HAVE THE BULBS REPLACED AND TOYOTA DEALER SAYS ITS A 200.00 TO 300.00 DOLLAR JOB TO REPAIR (MONEY THAT I DO NOT HAVE) WHILE THE CAR WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY THE LAS VEGAS DEALER FIXED THE ISSUE ( OR I THOUGHT THEY DID) BUT LESS THEN TWO YEARS LATER I AM HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM AND NOW TOYOTA WILL NOT REPAIR IT CAUSE IT IS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. THIS IS WRONG THEY TRIED AND FAILED TO FIX NOW I GUESS I AM NO LONGER A GOOD CUSTOMER. WHY WILL THEY NOT FIX A DANGER SITUATION. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10331069

63,000 miles · May 18, 2010
EquipmentExterior Lighting

MY 2007 PRIUS HAS THE HID HEADLAMPS, WHICH ARE TOO COSTLY TO REPAIR AND WILL RANDOMLY GO OUT WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT...CLEARLY DANGEROUS. I TRY TO HAVE THE BULBS REPLACED AND TOYOTA DEALER SAYS ITS A 200.00 TO 300.00 DOLLAR JOB TO REPAIR (MONEY THAT I DO NOT HAVE) WHILE THE CAR WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY THE LAS VEGAS DEALER FIXED…

Read full complaint

MY 2007 PRIUS HAS THE HID HEADLAMPS, WHICH ARE TOO COSTLY TO REPAIR AND WILL RANDOMLY GO OUT WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT...CLEARLY DANGEROUS. I TRY TO HAVE THE BULBS REPLACED AND TOYOTA DEALER SAYS ITS A 200.00 TO 300.00 DOLLAR JOB TO REPAIR (MONEY THAT I DO NOT HAVE) WHILE THE CAR WAS STILL UNDER WARRANTY THE LAS VEGAS DEALER FIXED THE ISSUE ( OR I THOUGHT THEY DID) BUT LESS THEN TWO YEARS LATER I AM HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM AND NOW TOYOTA WILL NOT REPAIR IT CAUSE IT IS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. THIS IS WRONG THEY TRIED AND FAILED TO FIX NOW I GUESS I AM NO LONGER A GOOD CUSTOMER. WHY WILL THEY NOT FIX A DANGER SITUATION. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

NHTSA ODI #10331067

22,130 miles · May 18, 2010
Traction Control System

THIS FAILURE OCCURS WHENEVER ONE WHEEL LOOSES TRACTION WITH THE ROAD. INSTEAD OF THE ANTILOCK BRAKING KICKING IN, THE BRAKES ON ALL WHEELS ARE BACKED OFF GIVING THE FEELING THE CAR IS ACCELERATING. THIS HAPPENS WHEN YOU GO OVER A BUMP OR SNOW. ON SNOW YOU HAVE TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL BRAKING DISTANT. THIS IS THE SAME PROBLEM AS DESC…

Read full complaint

THIS FAILURE OCCURS WHENEVER ONE WHEEL LOOSES TRACTION WITH THE ROAD. INSTEAD OF THE ANTILOCK BRAKING KICKING IN, THE BRAKES ON ALL WHEELS ARE BACKED OFF GIVING THE FEELING THE CAR IS ACCELERATING. THIS HAPPENS WHEN YOU GO OVER A BUMP OR SNOW. ON SNOW YOU HAVE TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL BRAKING DISTANT. THIS IS THE SAME PROBLEM AS DESCRIBED FOR THE 2010 PRIUS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10331010

43,300 miles · May 17, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic

ANTI LOCK BRAKES TAKE A SECOND OR TWO TO GRAB WHEN TRAVELING ON BUMPY, UNEVEN, BAD ROAD SURFACES. THIS HAS OCCURRED SINCE DAY ONE THAT I RECEIVED THE CAR AND I HAVE ALLOWED EXTRA SPACE TO STOP BECAUSE OF IT. I DID ASK MY DEALERSHIP 2 YEARS AGO ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND THEY COULD FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE BRAKES. THE MOST RECENT …

Read full complaint

ANTI LOCK BRAKES TAKE A SECOND OR TWO TO GRAB WHEN TRAVELING ON BUMPY, UNEVEN, BAD ROAD SURFACES. THIS HAS OCCURRED SINCE DAY ONE THAT I RECEIVED THE CAR AND I HAVE ALLOWED EXTRA SPACE TO STOP BECAUSE OF IT. I DID ASK MY DEALERSHIP 2 YEARS AGO ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND THEY COULD FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE BRAKES. THE MOST RECENT INCIDENT HAPPENED ON 4/29/2010 AND I SLID THROUGH A RED LIGHT. THANK GOD NO ONE WAS AHEAD OF ME. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10330872

1,000 miles · May 14, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 20 MPH AND DEPRESSING THE BRAKES WHILE TRAVELING OVER A ROAD BUMP WHEN THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY SURGED FORWARD. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FUNCTIONING NORMAL AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VEHICLE DID NOT RECEIVE DIAGNOSTIC TESTING…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 20 MPH AND DEPRESSING THE BRAKES WHILE TRAVELING OVER A ROAD BUMP WHEN THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY SURGED FORWARD. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS FUNCTIONING NORMAL AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VEHICLE DID NOT RECEIVE DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 1,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 21,000.

NHTSA ODI #10330405

36,000 miles · May 13, 2010
Exterior Lighting

TOYOTA PRIUS 2007 WITH HID HEADLIGHTS. PASSENGER HEADLIGHT INTERMITTENTLY ON AND OFF. I HAVE BEEN READING ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND IT SEEMS TO BE A COMMON ONE WITH NO SOLUTION FOR REPAIR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10330279

84,320 miles · May 12, 2010
Electrical SystemExterior LightingParking Brake

SUMMARY: MY CAR BEGAN ACCELERATING WHILE I WAS IN PARK. I OWN A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. TWO DAYS AGO, I DROVE TO MY DESTINATION, PULLED INTO A PARKING SPOT, AND TURNED OFF THE CAR. I WAS EARLY, SO I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON (SO I COULD LISTEN TO THE RADIO WHILE I WAITED). THE CAR WAS IN PARK AND I DID NOT HAVE MY FEET ON ANY PEDA…

Read full complaint

SUMMARY: MY CAR BEGAN ACCELERATING WHILE I WAS IN PARK. I OWN A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. TWO DAYS AGO, I DROVE TO MY DESTINATION, PULLED INTO A PARKING SPOT, AND TURNED OFF THE CAR. I WAS EARLY, SO I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON (SO I COULD LISTEN TO THE RADIO WHILE I WAITED). THE CAR WAS IN PARK AND I DID NOT HAVE MY FEET ON ANY PEDALS. THE CAR WAS ON FOR LESS THAN A MINUTE WHEN IT BEGAN TO DRIVE FORWARD. I BOTH HEARD THE SOUND OF THE MOTOR ENGAGING AND VISUALLY PROCESSED THAT THE CAR WAS MOVING. I IMMEDIATELY STEPPED ON THE BRAKE HARD AND THE CAR IMMEDIATELY CAME TO A STOP. MY 4-YEAR-OLD WAS DISTRESSED BECAUSE THE ROLLING AND HARD STOP MADE A BIG JOLT. THE CAR WAS STILL IN PARK. I RELEASED THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE CAR STAYED STILL. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS RELATED, BUT MY CAR HEADLIGHTS RANDOMLY TURN OFF WHILE I AM DRIVING. IF I TOGGLE THE SWITCH OFF AND BACK ON, THEY ALWAYS COME BACK ON. I TOOK IT TO THE LOCAL DEALER, WHERE THE REPAIR GUY TOLD ME THEY FREQUENTLY SEE THIS PROBLEM, AND ALL THEY DO IS REPLACE THE HEADLIGHTS (WHICH MADE NO SENSE TO ME, BECAUSE THE BULBS AREN'T BURNED OUT). I WOULD SAY THIS PROBLEM HAPPENS ABOUT ONCE A WEEK. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10330198

56,000 miles · May 11, 2010
Latches/locks/linkagesUnknown Or OtherCrashInjury

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE KEY TO THE VEHICLE WAS RADIOACTIVE. THE CONTACT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY RISK BECAUSE HE WORE A PACEMAKER. THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR CONCERN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE APPROXIMATELY 56,000. THE CONSUMER STAT…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE KEY TO THE VEHICLE WAS RADIOACTIVE. THE CONTACT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY RISK BECAUSE HE WORE A PACEMAKER. THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR CONCERN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE APPROXIMATELY 56,000. THE CONSUMER STATED HE WAS INVOLVED IN TWO ACCIDENTS AND WAS INJURED. HE DIDN'T GIVE ANY OTHER SPECIFICS. UPDATED 07/22/10*JB

NHTSA ODI #10329973

36,500 miles · May 11, 2010
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash

WHILE DRIVING MY 2007 PRIUS IN A CONGESTED AREA, THE BRAKES DID NOT RESPOND WHEN DEPRESSED QUICKLY CONTRIBUTING OR CAUSING A LOW-SPEED COLLISION WITH THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME. I FOUND THIS ARTICLE ON CNET REVIEWS THAT ACCURATELY MATCHES MY ISSUE. "TOYOTA REDESIGNED THE BRAKING SYSTEMS FOR THE 2010 PRIUS. THAT APPEARS TO BE…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING MY 2007 PRIUS IN A CONGESTED AREA, THE BRAKES DID NOT RESPOND WHEN DEPRESSED QUICKLY CONTRIBUTING OR CAUSING A LOW-SPEED COLLISION WITH THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF ME. I FOUND THIS ARTICLE ON CNET REVIEWS THAT ACCURATELY MATCHES MY ISSUE. "TOYOTA REDESIGNED THE BRAKING SYSTEMS FOR THE 2010 PRIUS. THAT APPEARS TO BE TOYOTA'S RESPONSE TO THE FACT THAT THE U.S. GENERATION 2 PRIUS (2004-2009) HAS HAD LOW-SPEED BRAKE FAILURES REPORTED TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) AT 31 TIMES THE RATE OF SUCH FAILURES REPORTED FOR THE 2004-2009 COROLLA, WHICH OF COURSE HAS TRADITIONAL BRAKES. MANY OF THE PRIUS LOW SPEED BRAKE FAILURES WERE IN LOW-SPEED CITY TRAFFIC, RESULTING IN REAR-END COLLISIONS WITHOUT INJURY. IT APPEARS THAT THE SEVERAL COMPUTERS THAT CONTROL THE COMPLEX BRAKING SYSTEMS WERE TOO BUSY CALCULATING THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO APPLY THE BRAKES, AND DID NOT GET AROUND TO ACTUALLY APPLYING THEM, UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE." *TR

NHTSA ODI #10329852

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.