← 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
164,420 miles · Mar 21, 2016
Vehicle Speed Control

AFTER SPEEDING UP TO PASS ANOTHER CAR ON A SLIGHT UPGRADE (2 LANE COUNTRY ROAD), MY PRIUS CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE. I COULD NOT SLOW THE CAR DOWN TO THE SPEED LIMIT USING THE BRAKE PEDAL. FOR ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES, I KEPT TRYING TO SLOW THE CAR DOWN, LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO PULL OVER WHERE I WOULDN'T HIT ANYTHING. THE ACCELERATOR…

Read full complaint

AFTER SPEEDING UP TO PASS ANOTHER CAR ON A SLIGHT UPGRADE (2 LANE COUNTRY ROAD), MY PRIUS CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE. I COULD NOT SLOW THE CAR DOWN TO THE SPEED LIMIT USING THE BRAKE PEDAL. FOR ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES, I KEPT TRYING TO SLOW THE CAR DOWN, LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO PULL OVER WHERE I WOULDN'T HIT ANYTHING. THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS NOT STUCK & NO FLOOR MAT WAS TOUCHING EITHER PEDAL. THE ONLY WAY I COULD STOP WAS WITH THE EMERGENCY BRAKE. I THOUGHT THE CAR MIGHT EXPLODE, BUT LATER REALIZED THE SMOKE WAS POURING OUT FROM MY BRAKES. I MANEUVERED TO THE BERM OF A BRIDGE OVER A LAKE, JUST BEFORE THE ROAD WENT DOWN TO ONE LANE FOR CONSTRUCTION. THEN I TURNED THE CAR OFF. TEN MINUTES AFTER THIS ORDEAL (VEHICLE WAS STATIONARY), I RESTARTED THE CAR, BUT THE ENGINE BEGAN RACING AGAIN WITHOUT ANY TOUCH ON THE GAS PEDAL, SO I QUICKLY TURNED IT OFF. LUCKILY, I HADN'T COLLIDED WITH ANYTHING.

NHTSA ODI #10850888

72,000 miles · Mar 20, 2016
Vehicle Speed Control

THE TRACTION-CONTROL SYSTEM IN THE PRIUS IS, I BELIEVE, DANGEROUS. WHEN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE OF WHEEL SLIP IS DETECTED, IT ESSENTIALLY SHUTS OFF POWER TO THE WHEELS FOR A MOMENT. ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, WHEN ACCELERATING TO MERGE IN WITH TRAFFIC ON A WET ROAD, THE SYSTEM'S REACTION HAS SLOWED ME DOWN TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A …

Read full complaint

THE TRACTION-CONTROL SYSTEM IN THE PRIUS IS, I BELIEVE, DANGEROUS. WHEN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE OF WHEEL SLIP IS DETECTED, IT ESSENTIALLY SHUTS OFF POWER TO THE WHEELS FOR A MOMENT. ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, WHEN ACCELERATING TO MERGE IN WITH TRAFFIC ON A WET ROAD, THE SYSTEM'S REACTION HAS SLOWED ME DOWN TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A DANGEROUS EXTENT. ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS, I HAVE ENDED UP STUCK IN SNOW BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS SO EAGER TO KEEP ME FROM SPINNING WHEELS AT ALL. I CONTACTED TOYOTA, AND THEIR REPLY WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT THIS SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE DRIVE TRAIN, AND THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO REMEDY WHAT I SEE AS A DANGEROUS FLAW. THE ONLY CONCEIVABLE WAY SUCH A SYSTEM COULD BE PROTECTING THE DRIVE TRAIN WOULD BE BY LIMITING ENGINE RPM TO A SAFE POINT; HOWEVER, THE SYSTEM GOES FAR BEYOND JUST KEEPING RPM DOWN. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE RESPONSE TO "WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN" IS NOT REALLY ACCURATE. IT HAS HAPPENED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, AND THE DATE LISTED IS MERELY THE MOST RECENT OCCURRENCE. ALSO, THE SPEED IS JUST FROM THE MOST RECENT OCCURRENCE.

NHTSA ODI #10850616

100,228 miles · Mar 11, 2016
Exterior Lighting

THE HEADLIGHTS ON THIS CAR FLICKER AND GO OUR WITH VERY LITTLE WARNING WHILE DRIVING IN THE CITY AND ON THE HIGHWAY. WE WERE ALMOST IN A VERY SERIOUS COLLISION WHEN THE LIGHTS WENT OUT WITHOUT WARNING WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT ON THE HIGHWAY. SOMETIMES TURNING THE LIGHTS OFF AND ON AGAIN WILL GET THEM TO WORK FOR A WHILE, BUT IS …

Read full complaint

THE HEADLIGHTS ON THIS CAR FLICKER AND GO OUR WITH VERY LITTLE WARNING WHILE DRIVING IN THE CITY AND ON THE HIGHWAY. WE WERE ALMOST IN A VERY SERIOUS COLLISION WHEN THE LIGHTS WENT OUT WITHOUT WARNING WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT ON THE HIGHWAY. SOMETIMES TURNING THE LIGHTS OFF AND ON AGAIN WILL GET THEM TO WORK FOR A WHILE, BUT IS IS HAPPENING SO FREQUENTLY THAT WE CANNOT DRIVE THE CAR AT NIGHT ANYMORE. I HAVE SEE MANY HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS ONLINE. WOULD IT TAKE THE DEATH OF MY FAMILY TO GET TOYOTA TO RECALL AND FIX THIS DANGEROUS DEFECT???

NHTSA ODI #10846169

180,000 miles · Mar 9, 2016
Structure

THE REAR HATCH LATCH RUBBER COVER HAS DISSOLVED OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS TO THE POINT YOU CAN NO LONGER OPEN FROM OUTSIDE. IF SOMEONE WAS IN AN ACCIDENT YOU COULD NOT OPEN THE REAR HATCH DOOR AND YOU ARE TRAPPED INSIDE OF THE VEHICLE WITH NO TIME TO GET YOURSELF OUT OR PULL ANYONE ELSE OUT, I HAVE SEEN ONLINE COMPLAINTS ABOUT …

Read full complaint

THE REAR HATCH LATCH RUBBER COVER HAS DISSOLVED OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS TO THE POINT YOU CAN NO LONGER OPEN FROM OUTSIDE. IF SOMEONE WAS IN AN ACCIDENT YOU COULD NOT OPEN THE REAR HATCH DOOR AND YOU ARE TRAPPED INSIDE OF THE VEHICLE WITH NO TIME TO GET YOURSELF OUT OR PULL ANYONE ELSE OUT, I HAVE SEEN ONLINE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS GOING BACK INTO 2011. THIS IS HAPPENING ON A LOT OF CARS, ESPECIALLY TOYOTA PRIUS'S. AS OF RIGHT NOW I CAN NOT OPEN THE HATCH DOOR ON MY 2007 PRIUS. IT HAS JUST GOTTEN WORSE UNTIL NOW WHEN IT WILL NOT OPEN. I USED TO HAVE TO FIGHT BY PUSHING DOWN AND PULLING UP, BUT IT WILL NOT OPEN AT ALL NOW.

NHTSA ODI #10845786

10 miles · Feb 26, 2016
Exterior Lighting

THE RIGHT HID HEADLIGHT ON MY 2007 PRIUS SHUTS OFF INTERMITTENTLY WHEN THE CAR IS IN MOTION. THE FAILURE IS INTERMITTENT, AND IT IS UNCLEAR WHEN IT FIRST STARTED AND HOW FREQUENTLY IT OCCURS. THE HEADLIGHT TURNED OFF LAST WEEK AND MADE IT DANGEROUSLY DIFFICULT TO SEE A PEDESTRIAN ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THERE WAS NO INCIDENT, B…

Read full complaint

THE RIGHT HID HEADLIGHT ON MY 2007 PRIUS SHUTS OFF INTERMITTENTLY WHEN THE CAR IS IN MOTION. THE FAILURE IS INTERMITTENT, AND IT IS UNCLEAR WHEN IT FIRST STARTED AND HOW FREQUENTLY IT OCCURS. THE HEADLIGHT TURNED OFF LAST WEEK AND MADE IT DANGEROUSLY DIFFICULT TO SEE A PEDESTRIAN ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THERE WAS NO INCIDENT, BUT THE EXPERIENCE WAS TROUBLING. TOYOTA HAS DISCLOSED ISSUES WITH HID HEADLIGHTS IN THEIR "2006 THROUGH 2009 MODEL YEAR PRIUS HID HEADLIGHT CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM" AND OFFERED TO REIMBURSE THE FULL COST PER CONDITIONS IN OWNERS WARRANTY. AFTER A 30 MINUTE PHONE CALL TO THE LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER AND THEM 60 MINUTE CALL TO THE TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE EXPERIENCE CENTER THE DISCUSSION RE-ENFORCED THAT THERE WAS 'NO WAY' TO COVER THE COST OUTSIDE OF THE 5 YEAR 50K MILE WARRANTEE AND THUS AM SUPPOSED TO PAY $300 TO THE DEALER TO FIX THE DEFECTIVE HEADLAMP AND ECU THAT IS PROBABLY THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THE DEFECT (LAMPS GENERALLY WORK A LONG TIME IF THEY GET CORRECT/STABLE SOURCE CURRENT). FOR SEVERAL YEARS I INQUIRED DURING ANNUAL STATE INSPECTION CHECKS TO CHECK THE HEADLIGHTS AS I SOMETIMES HAD TROUBLE SEEING AT NIGHT. THE LIGHTS WORKED WHEN THE CAR WAS NOT IN MOTION AND HENCE ALWAYS PASSED INSPECTION. THE TOYOTA FIVE-YEAR WARRANTEE SEEMS ARBITRARY AND NOT RELEVANT FOR INTERMITTENT FAILURES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITHIN THAT TIME WINDOW. TOYOTA SHOULD BE CULPABLE FOR FIXING THE DEFECT CARS IDENTIFIED AS HAVING THE PROBLEM. IT SEEMS UNFAIR FOR TOYOTA TO BELATEDLY ANNOUNCE A KNOWN DEFECT BUT LIMIT RESPONSIBILITY TO TIME OR MILEAGE OF AN OWNER'S WARRANTEE. SHOULDN'T POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS DEFECTS BE SERVICED BY TOYOTA REGARDLESS? WHY SHOULD TOYOTA COLLECT SERVICE PAYMENTS FROM CUSTOMERS TO DRIVE A VEHICLE WITH HEADLIGHTS THAT STAY ON ALL THE TIME WHEN THEY KNOW THEY DON'T WORK AND CRAP OUT?

NHTSA ODI #10838734

Mileage unknown · Feb 25, 2016
Exterior Lighting

I HAVE ENDURED THE SAME HEADLIGHT ISSUE THAT I SEE ENDLESS NUMBERS OF PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTED ON HERE ON THE NHTSA SITE. I HAVE 110,000 MILES ON MY 2007 PRIUS AND HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING REGULAR OUTAGES OF MY RIGHT HEADLIGHT FOR 80,000 OF THOSE MILES NO MATTER WHAT THE "FIX" HAS BEEN. TOYOTA DEALERSHIPS I HAVE TAKEN MY CAR TO OVE…

Read full complaint

I HAVE ENDURED THE SAME HEADLIGHT ISSUE THAT I SEE ENDLESS NUMBERS OF PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTED ON HERE ON THE NHTSA SITE. I HAVE 110,000 MILES ON MY 2007 PRIUS AND HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING REGULAR OUTAGES OF MY RIGHT HEADLIGHT FOR 80,000 OF THOSE MILES NO MATTER WHAT THE "FIX" HAS BEEN. TOYOTA DEALERSHIPS I HAVE TAKEN MY CAR TO OVER THE YEARS ALL CLAIM THAT THIS IS NOT A TYPICAL PROBLEM AND YET IT APPEARS FROM THIS WEBSITE THAT IT IS MOST CERTAINLY DUE TO SOME SORT OF FAULTY DESIGN/PARTS. MY RIGHT HEADLIGHT WILL BE ON AND FLICKER OFF AFTER A FEW MINUTES OF DRIVING. IF I QUICKLY TURN THE LIGHTS OFF AND THEN BACK ON AS I DRIVE, IT WILL TURN BACK ON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE FLICKERING OFF, ONCE AGAIN. MY COUSIN'S 2007 PRIUS AND MY FIANC'S FATHER'S 2004 PRIUS HAD THE EXACT SAME ISSUE WITH A SINGLE HEADLIGHT. OBVIOUSLY, THIS HAS PROVEN TO BE A HIGHLY DANGEROUS PROBLEM WHEN DRIVING AT NIGHT AND IN ALL KINDS OF WEATHER-RELATED SITUATIONS AND WOULD APPRECIATE THE NHTSA'S ASSISTANCE IN INVESTIGATING THIS AS A POTENTIAL RECALL FOR US PRIUS DRIVERS.

NHTSA ODI #10838205

107,500 miles · Feb 25, 2016
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting

THE HEADLIGHTS ON MY PRIUS RANDOMLY GO DARK. SOMETIMES 1 HEADLIGHT AND OTHER TIMES BOTH. TURNING OFF THE LIGHT SWITCH AND THEN BACK ON IS A TEMPORARY FIX. THE PROBLEM COMES BACK MINUTES LATER. THIS IS VERY UNSAFE FOR MYSELF AND OTHER DRIVERS ON THE ROAD. THIS HAPPENED WHILE I WAS ON THE INTERSTATE GOING 70 MPH LAST NIGHT!

NHTSA ODI #10838175

132,000 miles · Feb 19, 2016
Exterior Lighting

BOTH HEADLIGHTS GO OUT WITHOUT WARNING ..THIS IS THE 5TH TIME IN A MONTH THIS HAS HAPPENED.. I'VE REPLACED THE BULBS WHICH ARE VERY EXPENSIVE BY THE WAY TWICE NOW.....THIS IS CLEARLY A MANUFACTURING PROBLEM AND YOU PEOPLE CLEARLY KNOW THAT IT IS AND STILL AREN'T DOING A DAM THING ABOUT IT IS BS.....I HAVE READ HUNDREDS OF COMPLA…

Read full complaint

BOTH HEADLIGHTS GO OUT WITHOUT WARNING ..THIS IS THE 5TH TIME IN A MONTH THIS HAS HAPPENED.. I'VE REPLACED THE BULBS WHICH ARE VERY EXPENSIVE BY THE WAY TWICE NOW.....THIS IS CLEARLY A MANUFACTURING PROBLEM AND YOU PEOPLE CLEARLY KNOW THAT IT IS AND STILL AREN'T DOING A DAM THING ABOUT IT IS BS.....I HAVE READ HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS ON THIS ISSUE AND THEY ALL SAY THE SAME DAM THING ....DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS ISSUE BEFORE SOMEONE IS SERIOUSLY HURT OR KILLED ........

NHTSA ODI #10837266

75,000 miles · Feb 17, 2016
Unknown Or Other

REAR LATCH FOR THE HATCHBACK DOOR IS INOPERABLE IN COLD WEATHER (+/-<40*), THE DOOR LATCHING RELEASE MECHANISM FREEZES AND CANNOT BE OPENED. IN HOT WEATHER (+/->80*) THE COVERING FOR THE MECHANISM MELTS AND IT GETS ALL OVER YOUR HANDS AND IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET OFF. THE FREEZING ASPECT OF THIS DEFECT IS DANGEROUS WHEN THE BACK CAN…

Read full complaint

REAR LATCH FOR THE HATCHBACK DOOR IS INOPERABLE IN COLD WEATHER (+/-<40*), THE DOOR LATCHING RELEASE MECHANISM FREEZES AND CANNOT BE OPENED. IN HOT WEATHER (+/->80*) THE COVERING FOR THE MECHANISM MELTS AND IT GETS ALL OVER YOUR HANDS AND IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET OFF. THE FREEZING ASPECT OF THIS DEFECT IS DANGEROUS WHEN THE BACK CANNOT BE OPENED. I HAVE TALKED WITH TOYOTA ABOUT THIS BUT THEY WILL NOT OFFER MUCH HELP IN RESOLVING THE PROBLEM. IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE >$300. I DID NOT NOTICE THE PROBLEM UNTIL I MOVED TO THE MOUNTAINS IN THE WINTER TIME.

NHTSA ODI #10836757

45,000 miles · Feb 14, 2016
Structure

THE RUBBER COVER ON THE REAR HATCH LATCH HAS DETERIORATED SO SEVERELY THAT THE LATCH HANDLE WILL NO LONGER WORK. THE RUBBERIZED COVER HAS BECOME GOOEY AND STICKY, AND COMES OFF ON YOUR HANDS WHEN YOU TOUCH IT. THERE IS NO ALTERNATE TRUNK RELEASE ON THIS VEHICLE, SO WITH THE HANDLE MECHANISM GUMMED UP BY THE DETERIORATING RUBBE…

Read full complaint

THE RUBBER COVER ON THE REAR HATCH LATCH HAS DETERIORATED SO SEVERELY THAT THE LATCH HANDLE WILL NO LONGER WORK. THE RUBBERIZED COVER HAS BECOME GOOEY AND STICKY, AND COMES OFF ON YOUR HANDS WHEN YOU TOUCH IT. THERE IS NO ALTERNATE TRUNK RELEASE ON THIS VEHICLE, SO WITH THE HANDLE MECHANISM GUMMED UP BY THE DETERIORATING RUBBER COVER, THERE IS NO WAY TO ACCESS THE TRUNK OF THE VEHICLE. THIS PIECE HAS BEEN DETERIORATING OVER THE PAST THREE TO FOUR YEARS. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO HOLD OFF FOR A TOYOTA RECALL ON THIS PIECE, BUT NOW WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PAY TO HAVE IT FIXED.

NHTSA ODI #10826036

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.