← 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
40,000 miles · Apr 14, 2010
Exterior Lighting

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 35MPH, THE HID HEADLIGHTS WOULD FAIL INTERMITTENTLY. THE DEALER ADVISED THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS SIMILAR TO HIS FAILURE. ANY REPAIRS MADE TO THE VEHICLE WOULD BE AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE. THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER HOWEVER, HIS CALL WENT UNA…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 35MPH, THE HID HEADLIGHTS WOULD FAIL INTERMITTENTLY. THE DEALER ADVISED THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS SIMILAR TO HIS FAILURE. ANY REPAIRS MADE TO THE VEHICLE WOULD BE AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE. THE CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER HOWEVER, HIS CALL WENT UNANSWERED. THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPAIRS MADE TO THE VEHICLE TO DATE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 45,000.

NHTSA ODI #10325645

Mileage unknown · Apr 12, 2010
Exterior Lighting

SINCE BUYING MY 2007 PRIUS, I HAVE HAD AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH EITHER THE DRIVER'S-SIDE OR PASSENGER-SIDE HEADLIGHTS GOING OUT, USUALLY WITHIN 5-10 MINUTES AFTER STARTING THE CAR. ON ONE OCCASION, BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT AT ONCE WHILE MY HUSBAND AND I WERE ON A BRIDGE ON AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY. THE HEADLIGHTS USUALLY COME BACK O…

Read full complaint

SINCE BUYING MY 2007 PRIUS, I HAVE HAD AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH EITHER THE DRIVER'S-SIDE OR PASSENGER-SIDE HEADLIGHTS GOING OUT, USUALLY WITHIN 5-10 MINUTES AFTER STARTING THE CAR. ON ONE OCCASION, BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT AT ONCE WHILE MY HUSBAND AND I WERE ON A BRIDGE ON AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY. THE HEADLIGHTS USUALLY COME BACK ON AFTER QUICKLY TURNING THE LIGHT SWITCH OFF AND THEN BACK ON. I TALKED WITH A REPAIRMAN AT MY TOYOTA DEALER ABOUT THE PROBLEM SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND HE INDICATED THAT TOYOTA HAD GOTTEN SOME BAD BULBS. BUT I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT IS THE PROBLEM. I BEGAN EXPERIENCING THE PROBLEM SHORTLY AFTER BUYING THE CAR WHEN I WAS STOPPED AT A DRIVER'S LICENSE CHECK AND THE POLICE OFFICER TOLD ME THE DRIVER'S SIDE LIGHT WAS OUT. WHEN I ARRIVED HOME ABOUT 15 MINUTES LATER AND CHECKED THE LIGHT, IT WAS ON. CLEARLY THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10325008

56,400 miles · Apr 11, 2010
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

1. MY PARTNER LEFT WORK AT @ 4 PM AND STARTED TO DRIVE HOME. IT WAS A CLEAR DAY WITH NO PRECIPITATION. HE WAS ABOUT A MILE AWAY FROM WORK PROCEEDING WEST ON NJ STATE ROUTE 561 WHEN HE CAME TO A STOP 1-2 FEET BEHIND A TRUCK AT A STOPLIGHT. HE HAD HIS FOOT ON THE BRAKE. 2. HE WAS CAUGHT OFF GUARD AS THE CAR ACCELERATED FORWAR…

Read full complaint

1. MY PARTNER LEFT WORK AT @ 4 PM AND STARTED TO DRIVE HOME. IT WAS A CLEAR DAY WITH NO PRECIPITATION. HE WAS ABOUT A MILE AWAY FROM WORK PROCEEDING WEST ON NJ STATE ROUTE 561 WHEN HE CAME TO A STOP 1-2 FEET BEHIND A TRUCK AT A STOPLIGHT. HE HAD HIS FOOT ON THE BRAKE. 2. HE WAS CAUGHT OFF GUARD AS THE CAR ACCELERATED FORWARD INTO THE TRUCK AHEAD OF HIM WITHOUT HIS DOING ANYTHING TO THE ACCELERATOR. DAMAGE WAS CAUSED TO THE TRUCKS BUMPER AND TO THE PRIUS' BUMPER AND HOOD. WE HAD NEVER HAD THIS OCCUR IN THE CAR AND HAD NO OTHER PROBLEMS PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT. 3. IN THE SPLIT-SECOND HE HAD TO REACT, HE JAMMED HIS FOOT ON THE BRAKE AND TRIED TO DEPLOY THE P BUTTON ON THE DASH, BUT THE P BUTTON DID NOT ENGAGE NOR LIGHT UP AS GREEN. A POLICE REPORT WAS MADE AND THE CAR WAS DRIVEN HOME. THE LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER, WHERE THE CAR WAS PURCHASED AND SERVICED, WAS CONTACTED AND THEY ASKED US TO CONTACT TOYOTA "EXPERIENCE," AND WE GAVE A FULL REPORT AND RECEIVED A CASE #: 1004081978. WE THEN BROUGHT THE CAR TO THE DEALER'S BODY SHOP THE NEXT DAY AND AWAITED OUR INSURANCE CLAIMS ADJUSTER AND THE "EXPERIENCE" TEAM TO COME AND GET THE DATA OFF THE COMPUTER TO SEE WHAT MIGHT HAVE CAUSED THE ACCIDENT. WE WILL HAVE THE PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO THE CAR REPAIRED (DAMAGE TO BUMPER AND HOOD) AS SOON AS THE "EXPERIENCE" TEAM IS ABLE TO GET THE DATA. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10324934

61,000 miles · Apr 11, 2010
Exterior Lighting

PASSENGER HEADLIGHT LOW BEAM FUNCTIONS INTERMITTENTLY. AT SOME TIMES THE LIGHT IS AT FULL INTENSITY, AT OTHER TIMES THE LIGHT IS COMPLETELY DEAD, AND SOMETIMES THE LIGHT OUTPUT IS A FRACTION OF FULL OUTPUT. HID LIGHTS SHOULD LAST 150K PLUS MILES. TOYOTA DEALER WANTED $400 TO REPLACE BULB AND WOULD NOT GUARANTEE THIS WAS TH…

Read full complaint

PASSENGER HEADLIGHT LOW BEAM FUNCTIONS INTERMITTENTLY. AT SOME TIMES THE LIGHT IS AT FULL INTENSITY, AT OTHER TIMES THE LIGHT IS COMPLETELY DEAD, AND SOMETIMES THE LIGHT OUTPUT IS A FRACTION OF FULL OUTPUT. HID LIGHTS SHOULD LAST 150K PLUS MILES. TOYOTA DEALER WANTED $400 TO REPLACE BULB AND WOULD NOT GUARANTEE THIS WAS THE PROBLEM. INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP WANTED $190 FOR SAME REPAIR. THIS IS AN ENORMOUS SAFETY HAZARD AND SORT OF CRAZY THAT TOYOTA HAS THIS DEFECT AND HAS NOT DETERMINED THE ROOT CAUSE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10324932

20,700 miles · Apr 11, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control

I HAVE EXPERIENCED TWO EPISODES WHERE MY 2007 PRIUS ACCELERATED UNCONTROLLABLY. ONE WAS WHILE BACKING OUT OF A DRIVEWAY BY MY CLASSROOM ONTO THE STREET. I PUT MY FOOT ON THE ACCELERATOR AND THE CAR LITERALLY TOOK OFF BACKWARDS LIKE A ROCKET. I REMOVED MY RIGHT FOOT FROM THE GAS PEDAL AND APPLIED THE BRAKES--NOTHING HAPPENED!!…

Read full complaint

I HAVE EXPERIENCED TWO EPISODES WHERE MY 2007 PRIUS ACCELERATED UNCONTROLLABLY. ONE WAS WHILE BACKING OUT OF A DRIVEWAY BY MY CLASSROOM ONTO THE STREET. I PUT MY FOOT ON THE ACCELERATOR AND THE CAR LITERALLY TOOK OFF BACKWARDS LIKE A ROCKET. I REMOVED MY RIGHT FOOT FROM THE GAS PEDAL AND APPLIED THE BRAKES--NOTHING HAPPENED!! I ENDED UP WITH BOTH FEET ON THE BRAKE ACROSS THE STREET IN PARKING SPACES BY THE LIBRARY. THIS HAPPENED DEC. 22 AT 2:15, WE WERE DISMISSED EARLY FOR CHRISTMAS BREAK, IF IT HAD BEEN ANY OTHER DAY THIS STREET IS USED BY TEACHERS TO TRANSFER ELEMENTARY STUDENTS TO THE LIBRARY FOR THE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM. MY HUSBAND CALLED THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AND REPORTED THIS, HE WAS TOLD OUR CAR WAS NOT ON THE RECALL LIST. THE LATEST INCIDENT WAS LAST WEEK, APRIL 7 AT 7:35 IN THE MORNING. I PULL INTO THE SCHOOL PARKING LOT DRIVING VERY SLOWLY TO MY PARKING SPACE, I START TO TURN INTO THE SPACE, I REMOVED MY RIGHT FOOT FROM THE GAS, AND FOR THE SECOND TIME IT TAKES OFF LIKE A ROCKET AND DOES NOT REACT TO BRAKE APPLICATION. IN FRONT OF MY PARKING SPACE IS A DROP OFF AND THEN A CONCRETE BLOCK WALL, I TURNED THE WHEEL SHARPLY TO THE RIGHT TO AVOID THESE, DID A PARTIAL DONUT TURN, ENDED UP ONCE AGAIN WITH BOTH FEET PRESSING THE BRAKE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. AFTER I HAD CAUGHT MY BREATH, I LOOKED AROUND, NO ONE WAS COMING INTO THE PARKING LOT SO I SLOWLY RELEASED THE BRAKE, CAREFULLY PUT MY FOOT ON THE GAS, THE CAR RESPONDED NORMALLY, AND I PULLED INTO THE PARKING SPACE. THE PRIUS IS NOW AT THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY SAY THE CAR ISN'T DISPLAYING ANY PROBLEMS--OF COURSE IT ISN'T, NOT UNTIL NEXT TIME. WE STATED THAT WE WOULD NOT PICK UP THE PRIUS UNTIL IT WAS FIXED, SO NOW WE ARE WAITING FOR TOYOTA'S NEW SMART TEAM TO COME. HONESTLY, I KNOW THAT IF MY FOOT ISN'T ON THE ACCELERATOR, THE CAR SHOULD NOT TAKE OFF LIKE A ROCKET!! THIS IS A DANGER NOT ONLY TO MYSELF, BUT TO ANYONE ELSE ON THE ROAD WITH ME. I'VE BEEN FORTUNATE TWICE, BUT WHAT ABOUT NEXT TIME?? *TR

NHTSA ODI #10324926

68,000 miles · Apr 9, 2010
Exterior Lighting

ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PURCHASE OF OUR NEW PRIUS, I NOTICED FLICKERING OF THE HID HEADLIGHTS. I THOUGHT IT ODD BUT HAD NEVER USED HID HEADLAMPS BEFORE. THIS PAST WINTER I NOTICED THE LEFT HEADLIGHT WOULD STOP ILLUMINATING ALTOGETHER. I FIGURED I WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE BULB BUT THEN FOUND THAT IF I TURNED THE HEADLIGHT S…

Read full complaint

ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PURCHASE OF OUR NEW PRIUS, I NOTICED FLICKERING OF THE HID HEADLIGHTS. I THOUGHT IT ODD BUT HAD NEVER USED HID HEADLAMPS BEFORE. THIS PAST WINTER I NOTICED THE LEFT HEADLIGHT WOULD STOP ILLUMINATING ALTOGETHER. I FIGURED I WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE BULB BUT THEN FOUND THAT IF I TURNED THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH TO THE OFF POSITION AND THEN BACK TO THE ON POSITION THE HEADLIGHT WOULD COME BACK ON. SINCE THE COST TO REPLACE THE HEADLAMP IS RATHER EXPENSIVE AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THE REPLACEMENT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM, I CONTINUE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AT NIGHT WATCHING FOR WHEN THE HEADLIGHT GOES OUT. I KEEP MY FOG LAMPS ON ALL THE TIME SO I HAVE FORWARD ILLUMINATION IN CASE BOTH HEADLIGHTS GO OUT. ONCE I SEE THE LIGHT HAS GONE OUT, I WAIT UNTIL I STOP AT A TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE OR THERE IS NO ONCOMING TRAFFIC TO QUICKLY TURN THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH OFF AND ON AGAIN TO ILLUMINATE THE HEADLIGHT. I HAD ONE EXPERIENCE RECENTLY WHERE THE LEFT HEADLIGHT HAD GONE OUT AND BEFORE I HAD OPPORTUNITY TO TURN THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH OFF AND ON AGAIN, THE RIGHT HEADLIGHT ALSO WENT OUT. FORTUNATELY I HAD THE FOG LAMPS ON AS I HAD MY WIFE AND 7 MONTH OLD GRANDDAUGHTER IN THE VEHICLE WITH ME. BUT AS BEFORE, ONCE I TURNED THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH OFF AND THEN ON AGAIN, BOTH HEADLIGHTS CAME BACK ON. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10324785

56,032 miles · Apr 9, 2010
Fuel System, Gasoline

RAN OUT OF GAS IN AN '07 HONDA PRIUS . EMERGENCY VEHICLE SUPPLIED 2 GALLONS AND WE WENT ON OUR WAY. TWO TANKS OF GAS LATER FOLLOWING A REGULAR SERVICE VISIT TO DEALER, I RAN OUT AGAIN JUST MINUTES AFTER LEAVING SERVICE WHILE THE GAUGE INDICATED THAT I SHOULD HAVE ABOUT 3 GALLONS REMAINING. I COASTED INTO A STATION AND PUT 2 GALL…

Read full complaint

RAN OUT OF GAS IN AN '07 HONDA PRIUS . EMERGENCY VEHICLE SUPPLIED 2 GALLONS AND WE WENT ON OUR WAY. TWO TANKS OF GAS LATER FOLLOWING A REGULAR SERVICE VISIT TO DEALER, I RAN OUT AGAIN JUST MINUTES AFTER LEAVING SERVICE WHILE THE GAUGE INDICATED THAT I SHOULD HAVE ABOUT 3 GALLONS REMAINING. I COASTED INTO A STATION AND PUT 2 GALLONS IN TANK. CAR STARTED BUT ONLY DIED AFTER SEVERAL TRIES. TOWED BACK TO DEALER. THEY REPORTED THE CAR WAS OUT OF GAS. I TOLD THEM I'D ALREADY ADDED GAS. THEY PUT IN 5 GALLONS AND SAID THE GAUGE INDICATED "FULL." 3+2+5 DOES NOT EQUAL THE 11.9 GALLONS THAT THE TANK IS SUPPOSED TO HOLD. THESE CARS FEATURE A BLADDER TANK WHICH IS MONITORED BY COMPUTER AND IF THE COMPUTER DECIDES THAT THE TANK IS EMPTY, IT WILL SHUT THE CAR DOWN. THIS IS NOT A SAFE SITUATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. THE DEALER, PICKED UP THE TOWING EXPENSE, THE COST OF A TEMPORARY RENTAL AND THE COST OF THE 5 GALLONS OF GAS. THEY REFUSED TO EXPLORE THE PROBLEM FURTHER AND SAID WE MIGHT NEED A TO REPLACE SOME PART OF THE FUEL MONITOR SYSTEM. COULD IT BE THAT THE BLADDER TANK WILL NOT FULLY RECOVER IF A DRIVER RUNS THE CAR OUT OF GAS? *TR

NHTSA ODI #10324686

67,535 miles · Apr 9, 2010
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting

INTERMITTENT HEADLIGHT OPERATION ON HID HEADLIGHTS 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT AT THE SAME TIME WHILE TRAVELING ON I75 LAST NIGHT. AFTER ALMOST WRECKING, WE PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AFTER TURNING LIGHTS OFF FOR A WHILE THEY CAME BACK ON AND STARTED WORKING AGAIN. THIS SEEMS TO BE A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE …

Read full complaint

INTERMITTENT HEADLIGHT OPERATION ON HID HEADLIGHTS 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. BOTH HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT AT THE SAME TIME WHILE TRAVELING ON I75 LAST NIGHT. AFTER ALMOST WRECKING, WE PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AFTER TURNING LIGHTS OFF FOR A WHILE THEY CAME BACK ON AND STARTED WORKING AGAIN. THIS SEEMS TO BE A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE ACCORDING TO BLOGS ON THE INTERNET. I CONTACTED THE DEALER AND THEY SAID IF THEY HAD TO REPLACE THE UNIT IT WOULD BE IN THE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS!!!!! ($1100 FOR HEADLIGHT COMPUTER, $500- $600+ FOR HEADLIGHT BULBS AND ANOTHER $1100 FOR LIGHT KITS) I THINK THAT IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS TO EXPECT SOMEONE TO PAY THAT MUCH JUST TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE THERE CAR SAFELY! NONE OF THIS WAS REVEALED WHEN THE CAR WAS PURCHASED! HOW COULD ANYONE EXPECT TO PAY THAT KIND OF MONEY TO KEEP THERE HEADLIGHTS WORKING? PLEASE HELP, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DRIVE SAFELY NOW! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10324684

51,000 miles · Apr 9, 2010
Exterior Lighting

TL * THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 65 MPH, BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED. THE PARKING LIGHTS WERE STILL OPERABLE AND WHEN ENGAGING THE DIMMER SWITCH, THE PARKING LIGHTS FAILED AS WELL. WHEN TURNING THE LIGHT SWITCH BACK ON, THE LIGHTS WERE OPERATING AS NORMAL. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEA…

Read full complaint

TL * THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 65 MPH, BOTH HEADLIGHTS FAILED. THE PARKING LIGHTS WERE STILL OPERABLE AND WHEN ENGAGING THE DIMMER SWITCH, THE PARKING LIGHTS FAILED AS WELL. WHEN TURNING THE LIGHT SWITCH BACK ON, THE LIGHTS WERE OPERATING AS NORMAL. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER OR A REPAIR SHOP. THE CONTACT STATED THIS WAS THE SECOND OCCURRENCE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WERE 51,000.

NHTSA ODI #10324642

Mileage unknown · Apr 2, 2010
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control

2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. CONSUMER STATES UNINTENDED ACCELERATION. *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED HE WAS PARKING THE VEHICLE AND WHEN HE SHIFTED THE GEAR FROM DRIVE TO NEUTRAL, WITH HIS FOOT ON THE BRAKE, THE RPM ACCELERATED TO APPROXIMATELY 4000, SO HE PUSHED THE POWER OFF BUTTON TO TURN THE VEHICLE OFF.

NHTSA ODI #10324233

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.