← 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
93,251 miles · Aug 14, 2015
Tires

MY BRIDGESTONE ECOPIA EP 422 TIRES WORE OUT AFTER ONLY 32,000 MILES EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ADVERTISED AS WARRANTIED FOR 65,000 MILES. THE BRIDGESTONE DEALER GAVE ME A REFERENCE # 112-95-47 AND SENT ME TO A DEALER. THE DEALER MEASURED THE TIRES AT 4-4-0 AND STATED THAT THE WARRANTY WOULD NOT COVER BECAUSE THE INSIDE EDGES OF ALL …

Read full complaint

MY BRIDGESTONE ECOPIA EP 422 TIRES WORE OUT AFTER ONLY 32,000 MILES EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ADVERTISED AS WARRANTIED FOR 65,000 MILES. THE BRIDGESTONE DEALER GAVE ME A REFERENCE # 112-95-47 AND SENT ME TO A DEALER. THE DEALER MEASURED THE TIRES AT 4-4-0 AND STATED THAT THE WARRANTY WOULD NOT COVER BECAUSE THE INSIDE EDGES OF ALL FOUR TIRES WERE BALD. HE STATED THAT, "IT LOOKS LIKE AN ALIGNMENT PROBLEM TO ME." DURING THE LIFE OF THE TIRES I RETURNED TO THE TOYOTA DEALER FOR 5,000 MILE SERVICE INTERVALS. EACH TIME THEY CHECKED THE ALIGNMENT AND INFLATION. IT WAS ALWAYS "WITHIN SPEC" FOR MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. I TOLD THIS TO THE DEALER AND THE BRIDGESTONE REPRESENTATIVE. THEY STATED THAT THEY ARE SORRY BUT THEY CANNOT HONOR THE WARRANTY. WHAT GOOD IS A 65,000 MILE WARRANTY FOR TIRES THAT WEAR OUT IN 32,000 MILES IF THE FACT THAT THEY WORE OUT VOIDS THE WARRANTY? I PURCHASED THESE TIRES BECAUSE THEY GOT HIGH RATINGS FOR LOW ROLLING RESISTANCE AND THE BRIDGESTONE BROCHURE RECOMMENDED THEM FOR MY 07 PRIUS. WHILE THE GAS SAVINGS WERE GOOD, THE LOSS OF HALF THE LIFE OF THE TIRE MORE THAN OUTWEIGHS THE GAS SAVINGS. I BELIEVE THAT BRIDGESTONE HAS HAD A WEAR PROBLEM WITH THESE TIRES BECAUSE AFTER ONLY 3 YEARS THEY HAVE WITHDRAWN THE TIRES AND REPLACED THEM WITH THE NEW ECOPIA 422 PLUS. IT HAS A 70,000 MILE WARRANTY. BUT THE NEW TIRE HAS A TREAD COMPOUND RATED AT 680 WHILE THE OLD TIRE HAS A TREAD COMPOUND RATED AT 400. WOULDN'T IT BE REASONABLE TO THINK THAT THE MUCH HARDER 680 RATING WOULD PRODUCE MUCH MORE THAN ONLY 5,000 MILE MORE WARRANTY? I THINK THAT THEY WITHDREW THE SOFTER TIRE BECAUSE IT WORE OUT TOO QUICKLY AND CHANGED TO THE HARDER TREAD COMPOUND TO GET IT CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL WARRANTY. BUT, THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING THE OLD TIRE WARRANTY. I PRESENTED THIS LOGIC TO THE BRIDGESTONE REPRESENTATIVES ON THE PHONE AND IN PERSON. THEY STATED THAT THEY HAVE NOT HAD COMPLAINTS. I DOUBT THIS. THAT IS WHY I AM SENDING THIS COMPLAINT. THIS IS FALSE ADVERTISING.

NHTSA ODI #10748785

94,000 miles · Aug 13, 2015
Unknown Or Other

WHEN ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO DRIVE OR REVERSE THE TRANSMISSION SELECTION WILL REVERT TO NEUTRAL WITHIN A FEW SECONDS. THE PROBLEM OCCURS MULTIPLE TIMES EVEN AFTER TUNING OFF ALL ACCESSORIES AND RESTARTING THE VEHICLE. IN SOME CASES IT REQUIRES THAT THE TRANSMISSION JOYSTICK SELECTOR LEVER BE HELD MANUALLY IN THE D P…

Read full complaint

WHEN ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO DRIVE OR REVERSE THE TRANSMISSION SELECTION WILL REVERT TO NEUTRAL WITHIN A FEW SECONDS. THE PROBLEM OCCURS MULTIPLE TIMES EVEN AFTER TUNING OFF ALL ACCESSORIES AND RESTARTING THE VEHICLE. IN SOME CASES IT REQUIRES THAT THE TRANSMISSION JOYSTICK SELECTOR LEVER BE HELD MANUALLY IN THE D POSITION TO CONTINUE DRIVING. THE PROBLEM ALSO OCCURS AT LOW SPEED, I.E AFTER TURNING ONTO A STREET FROM A STOPPED POSITION OF THE TRANSMISSION WILL POP OUT OF GEAR INTO NEUTRAL. THE PROBLEM IS INTERMITTENT AND HAS OCCURRED A FEW TIMES OVER THE PAST YEAR.

NHTSA ODI #10748614

Mileage unknown · Aug 11, 2015
Unknown Or Other

I STARTED HAVING PROBLEMS WITH MY HEADLIGHTS WHEN I BOUGHT MY USED PRIUS MARCH 9, 2010. FIRST IT WAS JUST ONE HEADLIGHT ... I FOUND THAT IF I SHUT THE LIGHTS OFF AND BACK ON THE HEADLIGHT WOULD COME BACK ON. IT WOULD DO IT ONCE IN AWHILE... THEN IT WOULD SWITCH FROM THE LEFT TO THE RIGHT HEADLIGHT AND STARTED DOING IT MORE OFTEN…

Read full complaint

I STARTED HAVING PROBLEMS WITH MY HEADLIGHTS WHEN I BOUGHT MY USED PRIUS MARCH 9, 2010. FIRST IT WAS JUST ONE HEADLIGHT ... I FOUND THAT IF I SHUT THE LIGHTS OFF AND BACK ON THE HEADLIGHT WOULD COME BACK ON. IT WOULD DO IT ONCE IN AWHILE... THEN IT WOULD SWITCH FROM THE LEFT TO THE RIGHT HEADLIGHT AND STARTED DOING IT MORE OFTEN...SOON BOTH LIGHTS WOULD SHUT OFF WHILE I WAS DRIVING AND IT WOULD OCCUR SEVERAL TIMES A MONTH. LATELY, IT HAS STARTED SHUTTING THE LIGHTS (EITHER OR BOTH) EVERY COUPLE MINUTES SOME TIMES EVEN EVERY COUPLE SECONDS... I HATE DRIVING AT NIGHT... THIS HAS BECOME A REALLY BAD PROBLEM. I JUST HAD A AUTO SHOP LOOK AT THE CAR AND THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE LIGHTS... I THINK TOYOTA SHOULD FIX THIS ISSUE AT NO COST TO THE CUSTOMERS NO MATTER HOW OLD THE CAR IS...IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE!

NHTSA ODI #10747981

143,000 miles · Aug 9, 2015
Exterior Lighting

MY RIGHT HEADLIGHT BEGAN FLICKERING AROUND 2-3 MONTHS AGO. I THEN PURCHASED 2 HID BULBS TO REPLACE BOTH SIDES AT 1X. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE REPLACEMENT A FEW WEEKS AGO, MY RIGHT LIGHT WOULD FLICKER THEN BOTH HEADLIGHTS WOULD TURN OFF. ID IMMEDIATELY HAVE TO TURN LIGHTS ON AND OFF THEN THEY WOULD COME BACK ON. THE LIGHTS WOULD ST…

Read full complaint

MY RIGHT HEADLIGHT BEGAN FLICKERING AROUND 2-3 MONTHS AGO. I THEN PURCHASED 2 HID BULBS TO REPLACE BOTH SIDES AT 1X. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE REPLACEMENT A FEW WEEKS AGO, MY RIGHT LIGHT WOULD FLICKER THEN BOTH HEADLIGHTS WOULD TURN OFF. ID IMMEDIATELY HAVE TO TURN LIGHTS ON AND OFF THEN THEY WOULD COME BACK ON. THE LIGHTS WOULD STAY ON FOR ABOUT 45 SECONDS THEN FLICKER AND OFF AGAIN AND ID HAVE TO START THE CYCLE AGAIN. I TRAVEL 120 MILES A DAY AND THIS HAS LIMITED THE ABILITY TO USE THE VEHICLE SAFELY AND WITH PEACE OF MIND.

NHTSA ODI #10747271

71,000 miles · Aug 6, 2015
Structure

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN THE SUN, THE DASHBOARD MELTED AND LEFT A SHINY SUBSTANCE WHICH CAUSED A REFLECTION ON THE WINDSHIELD THAT OBSTRUCTED THE CONTACT'S VISIBILITY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 71,000.

NHTSA ODI #10746843

20,900 miles · Aug 5, 2015
StructureFire

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE EXTERIOR REAR HATCH HANDLE MELTED AND LEFT A MELTED RUBBER RESIDUE ON HER HANDS. THE FAILURE RECURRED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS DURING WARM WEATHER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MI…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE EXTERIOR REAR HATCH HANDLE MELTED AND LEFT A MELTED RUBBER RESIDUE ON HER HANDS. THE FAILURE RECURRED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS DURING WARM WEATHER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 20,900.

NHTSA ODI #10746315

Mileage unknown · Aug 3, 2015
Unknown Or Other

THE TRUNK HATCH COVER/SWITCH ON MY 2007 PRIUS HAS COMPLETELY MELTED AND LOCKED UP. MYSELF, AND MANY OTHER PRIUS OWNERS OF THIS YEAR, ARE VICTIMS OF A FAULTY COMPONENT AND CAN NO LONGER ACCESS OUR SPARE TIRES IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY. THIS IS A TERRIBLE SAFETY ISSUE AND THESE COMPONENTS SHOULD BE RECALLED.

NHTSA ODI #10745989

12,000 miles · Aug 3, 2015
Service BrakesSteeringVehicle Speed ControlCrash

ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2015 AT 5:04 PM WHILE TRAVELING AT ABOUT 57 MPH SOUTH ON HI WAY 101 AT ABOUT THE MILE POST 255.5, MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN STEERING BY ME, VEERED TO THE RIGHT OFF THE ROAD AND INTO THE GUARDRAIL. THERE SEEMED TO BE NO REACTION TO MY FRANTIC STEERING AND BRAKING IN THE ATTEMPT TO…

Read full complaint

ON TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2015 AT 5:04 PM WHILE TRAVELING AT ABOUT 57 MPH SOUTH ON HI WAY 101 AT ABOUT THE MILE POST 255.5, MY 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN STEERING BY ME, VEERED TO THE RIGHT OFF THE ROAD AND INTO THE GUARDRAIL. THERE SEEMED TO BE NO REACTION TO MY FRANTIC STEERING AND BRAKING IN THE ATTEMPT TO RETURN THE CAR TO THE ROAD. AFTER THE CAR HIT THE GUARDRAIL IT TRAVELED ABOUT 15 FEET SPUN BACK OUT INTO THE SOUTHBOUND LANE AND WAS HIT ON THE REAR RIGHT SIDE BY A CAR TRAVELING IN THE SOUTHBOUND LANE. THIS CAUSED THE CAR TO BE PROPELLED ACROSS 2 NORTHBOUND LANES OF TRAFFIC AND COME TO REST WITH REAR OF MY CAR EMBEDDED INTO THE FAR SIDE GUARDRAIL. MIRACULOUSLY NO ONE WAS HURT. THE POLICE WERE CALLED AND MY 61 YEAR PERFECT DRIVING RECORD WAS RUINED. MY CAR WAS TOTALED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY...UPDATED 08/27/15 *BF UPDATE 9/15/15*CW*DT *CN UPDATED 4/21/20*JB

NHTSA ODI #10745974

25,000 miles · Aug 3, 2015
Structure

THE REAR HATCH HANDLE ASSEMBLY HAS MELTED COMPLETELY INTO A GOOEY MESS. THIS HANDLE WAS REPLACED BY TOYOTA UNDER WARRANTY IN 2009.. AND THE REPLACEMENT MELTED COMPLETELY AS DID THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT. BUT NOW THIS WILL COST APPX. $300 TO REPLACE. THERE IS OTHER WAY TO OPEN THE REAR HATCH . THIS PART IS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE AN…

Read full complaint

THE REAR HATCH HANDLE ASSEMBLY HAS MELTED COMPLETELY INTO A GOOEY MESS. THIS HANDLE WAS REPLACED BY TOYOTA UNDER WARRANTY IN 2009.. AND THE REPLACEMENT MELTED COMPLETELY AS DID THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT. BUT NOW THIS WILL COST APPX. $300 TO REPLACE. THERE IS OTHER WAY TO OPEN THE REAR HATCH . THIS PART IS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE AND RESULTS IN NO WAY TO ACCESS THE SPARE TIRE AND OTHER SAFETY EQUIPMENT IN THE HATCH. UPDATE 9/15/15*CW *CN

NHTSA ODI #10745780

Mileage unknown · Jul 30, 2015
Structure

FOR ABOUT 3-4 YEARS OFF AND ON IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT TO OPEN THE HATCH BACK DOOR. OVER TIME THIS PROBLEM HAS GOTTEN WORSE. AT THIS POINT EVEN MY HUSBAND IS HAVING TROUBLE OPENING THE DOOR. NON OF THE OTHER DOORS IS HAVING A PROBLEM. THE RUBBER COVER ON THE HATCH OPENING SWITCH ABOVE THE LICENSE PLATE IS DETERIORATING AND …

Read full complaint

FOR ABOUT 3-4 YEARS OFF AND ON IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT TO OPEN THE HATCH BACK DOOR. OVER TIME THIS PROBLEM HAS GOTTEN WORSE. AT THIS POINT EVEN MY HUSBAND IS HAVING TROUBLE OPENING THE DOOR. NON OF THE OTHER DOORS IS HAVING A PROBLEM. THE RUBBER COVER ON THE HATCH OPENING SWITCH ABOVE THE LICENSE PLATE IS DETERIORATING AND CAUSING THE PROBLEM. APPARENTLY WE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE HAVING TROUBLE WITH THIS. WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE THIS IN TO HAVE IT FIXED. MY HUSBAND JUST CALLED OUR LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER AND THEY SAID IT WOULD BE $110 TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM. WHAT GIVES?

NHTSA ODI #10744997

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.