IllustrationREAR DOOR OPENER !! RUBBER MELTED AND BLOCK DOOR OPENER (LOCK UNLOCK SYSTEM) . *TR
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 →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Prius years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
2310–25K
57625–50K
39350–75K
20475–100K
210100–150K
107150K+
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 reportsI HAVE BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW WITH MY PRIUS 2007 WHEN I APPLY THE BRAKES. THE CAR STUTTERS WHEN IT CHANGES FROM HYBRID TO GAS. SERVICED ONLY BY TOYOTA. WHEN I BROUGHT THE CAR IN FOR A RECALL I ASKED THEM TO FIX THE PROBLEM . THEY COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM AND CALLED IN A SPECIALIST AND SUBSEQUENTLY …
Read full complaint
I HAVE BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW WITH MY PRIUS 2007 WHEN I APPLY THE BRAKES. THE CAR STUTTERS WHEN IT CHANGES FROM HYBRID TO GAS. SERVICED ONLY BY TOYOTA. WHEN I BROUGHT THE CAR IN FOR A RECALL I ASKED THEM TO FIX THE PROBLEM . THEY COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM AND CALLED IN A SPECIALIST AND SUBSEQUENTLY WAS TOLD THAT THIS IS TYPICAL WEAR ON A CAR THIS OLD (5 YEARS, 59,000 MILES). THIS WAS FROM A REPAIR SPECIALIST SENT FROM TOYOTA WHEN THE REGULAR SERVICE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM. I DRIVE ON HIGHWAY S EVERYDAY TO WORK AND HOME AND I AM A NERVOUS WRECK, WORRYING THAT THE CAR WILL JUST COME TO A STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFFIC. OVER THE PAST 2 YEARS WHEN I GO THRU A CAR WASH THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE HEADLIGHT GETS MOISTURE INSIDE. WHEN I BROUGHT THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SERVICE DEPT AT TOYOTA I WAS TOLD IT WOULD COST APPROXIMATELY $600 TO REPLACE THE HEADLIGHT. THIS WAS WAY BEFORE IT HAD FALLEN OUT OF WARRANTY (36,000) BUT OF COURSE THEY DID NOT TELL ME THAT IT WAS COVERED, IN FACT THEY TOLD ME WHAT IT WOULD COST TO REPLACE! NOW THE BULB IS ALSO FLICKERING ON AND OFF IN THIS SAME HEADLIGHT. DEFINITELY A SAFETY ISSUE. TOYOTA QUOTED ME $270.00 TO CHANGE THE LIGHT BULB. THE REASON I WAS GIVEN WAS THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE OFF THE ENTIRE FRONT BUMPER TO CHANGE AN $11.00 BULB AT AUTOZONE. WE WERE TOLD THAT IF MY HAND WAS SMALL ENOUGH I COULD TRY TO DO IT MYSELF. I CALLED TOYOTA CORPORATE, AND WAS TOLD THAT TOYOTA WAS DISCOUNTING THE BULB, IT NORMALLY SHOULD COST $420.00. THEY WERE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM AND EXTENDED THE WARRANTY TO 50,000 MILES BUT DID NOT ISSUE A RECALL FOR THIS ISSUE EITHER. I ONLY FOUND OUT BECAUSE THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT WAS DRAGGING ITS FEET IN DIAGNOSING THE PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKING SYSTEM SO I CALLED CORPORATE AND MENTIONED THE MOISTURE PROBLEM AND THAT WAS HOW I FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS NOT ONLY MY CAR. *TR
AFTER ONLY ABOUT 3 YEARS USE, THE RUBBER COVER ON THE HATCH RELEASE HANDLE (THE EXTERIOR HANDLE OF THE REAR HATCH) OF OUR 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS, MELTED INTO A STICKY TARRY BLACK RUBBERY GOOEY MESS. I CAN BEST DESCRIBE IT AS BEING A VISCOUS BLACK GLOB LIKE ROOFING TAR. TO OPEN THE HATCH, YOU HAVE TO TOUCH THIS BLACK GOO EACH TIME, WH…
Read full complaint
AFTER ONLY ABOUT 3 YEARS USE, THE RUBBER COVER ON THE HATCH RELEASE HANDLE (THE EXTERIOR HANDLE OF THE REAR HATCH) OF OUR 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS, MELTED INTO A STICKY TARRY BLACK RUBBERY GOOEY MESS. I CAN BEST DESCRIBE IT AS BEING A VISCOUS BLACK GLOB LIKE ROOFING TAR. TO OPEN THE HATCH, YOU HAVE TO TOUCH THIS BLACK GOO EACH TIME, WHICH MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO OPERATE THE HATCH RELEASE. WE BELIEVE THIS MELTING PROCESS STARTED AT ABOUT THE 2 YR. MARK. I THOUGHT THAT THIS MIGHT BE A SINGULAR ISSUE, BUT HAVE FOUND THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED TO SEVERAL CAR OWNERS, PARTICULARLY IN FLORIDA. I LIVE IN LOUISIANA . TOYOTA KNOWS ABOUT THIS, AND IS SELLING THE ENTIRE WIRING HARNESS FOR $600, AND HAS DONE NOTHING ABOUT RECALLING THIS. FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, THIS MEANS YOU CAN EXPERIENCE EXTREME DIFFICULTY OPENING THE REAR HATCH (A LIFE SAFETY ACCESS POINT), AND WILL GET STICKY BLACK TAR ON YOU FROM THE MELTED DOWN RUBBER COVER OF THE EXTERIOR HATCH RELEASE HANDLE. TO ME, THIS IS BOTH A SERIOUS LIFE SAFETY ISSUE AND A SERIOUS QUALITY DEFECT THAT TOYOTA IS OPTING TO IGNORE AND ONLY FIXING ON VEHICLES WITH EXTENDED WARRANTIES, SINCE THE FAILURE APPEARS TO OCCUR AT AROUND THE 3 YEAR MARK (IE AFTER 3 YEARS OF EXPOSURE TO THE BRIGHT SUN IN LOUISIANA, FOR EXAMPLE). I AM AWARE OF THE OUTSTANDING WORK DONE BY NHTSA ON OTHER SAFETY ISSUES, INCLUDING THE PROBLEM WITH RUSTY FRAMES ON 02 ISUZU AXIOMS, AND I FIND THIS PROBLEM TO BE SIMILAR IN NATURE, SO I AM ASKING FOR YOUR AGENCY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THESE INSTANCES AND ALSO TO INQUIRE FROM TOYOTA WHY THEY ARE NOT RECALLING THESE HANDLES THAT ARE MELTING IN THE SUN!!! IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. I THINK A DOOR HANDLE OR HATCH HANDLE SHOULD BE MADE TO LAST MORE THAN 3 YEARS. AND NOW MY TRUNK WON'T OPEN AND IT IS ABOUT DETACH FROM THE CAR BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA PULLING NEEDED TO OPEN IT. WHY HAS IT NOT BEEN RECALLED? IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY. THEY TOLD ME I WOULD HAVE TO PAY OVER $600 TO DO IT AT THE DEALER, BUT THEY SHOULD PAY FOR IT. *TR
PASSENGER (RIGHT) HEADLIGHT NOT WORKING. IT COULD BE "TURNED ON" BY SWITCHING LIGHT SWITCH OFF, THEN ON. THIS HAS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES. BRIGHT LIGHTS WOULD NOT TURN ON, EVEN WITH TURNING SWITCH OFF, THEN ON. LOW BEAMS DID WORK AND FAILED LIGHT ON PASSENGER SIDE TURNED BACK ON. TOOK CAR TO DEALERSHIP. PASSENGER BULB WENT OUT D…
Read full complaint
PASSENGER (RIGHT) HEADLIGHT NOT WORKING. IT COULD BE "TURNED ON" BY SWITCHING LIGHT SWITCH OFF, THEN ON. THIS HAS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES. BRIGHT LIGHTS WOULD NOT TURN ON, EVEN WITH TURNING SWITCH OFF, THEN ON. LOW BEAMS DID WORK AND FAILED LIGHT ON PASSENGER SIDE TURNED BACK ON. TOOK CAR TO DEALERSHIP. PASSENGER BULB WENT OUT DURING INSPECTION AND HIGH BEAMS WERE BOTH WORKING. BOTH HEADLIGHTS REPLACED WITH A COST OF $500! THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THE LIGHTS HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE LAST TIME WAS IN 2009.
TAIL GATE LIFTERS FAILED TO COMPLETELY LIFT THE TAIL GATE. NOT NOTICING THE TAIL GATE WAS SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN NORMAL, THE DRIVER, WHILE STANDING ON THE GROUND TO REMOVE GROCERIES FROM THE BACK, LEANED INTO BACK OF VEHICLE AND STRUCK THE TOP OF HER HEAD ON THE TAIL GATE, SUSTAINING A CONCUSSION. SYMPTOMS INCLUDED NAUSEA, HEADACH…
Read full complaint
TAIL GATE LIFTERS FAILED TO COMPLETELY LIFT THE TAIL GATE. NOT NOTICING THE TAIL GATE WAS SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN NORMAL, THE DRIVER, WHILE STANDING ON THE GROUND TO REMOVE GROCERIES FROM THE BACK, LEANED INTO BACK OF VEHICLE AND STRUCK THE TOP OF HER HEAD ON THE TAIL GATE, SUSTAINING A CONCUSSION. SYMPTOMS INCLUDED NAUSEA, HEADACHES AND DIFFICULTY CONCENTRATING, LEAVING HER UNABLE TO COMPLETE HER NORMAL TASKS FOR THE DAY. THE SYMPTOMS LASTED 2 DAYS. DRIVER'S HUSBAND CAME OUT AND IMMEDIATELY CONFIRMED THAT TAILGATE HAD FAILED TO OPEN COMPLETELY AND HE DETERMINED IT WAS NO LONGER OPENING COMPLETELY, REPRESENTING A PARTIAL BUT DANGEROUS FAILURE OF THE LIFTING MECHANISM. THE TIME WAS APPROXIMATELY 4 PM; THE TEMPERATURE WAS APPROXIMATELY 48 DEGREES. WHAT MAKES IT PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS AND PERNICIOUS IS THAT THE MECHANISM THAT USED TO OPEN THE TAIL GATE ALL THE WAY UP, PROVIDING AMPLE HEAD CLEARANCE, WAS NOW LEAVING THE TAIL GATE OPEN BUT WITH REDUCED HEADROOM. THE MECHANISM THAT USED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT HEAD CLEARANCE SO ONE COULD STAND BEHIND THE VEHICLE AND LEAN INTO THE REAR WAS NOW ONLY PARTIALLY OPENING THE TAIL GATE, TO A POINT LOW ENOUGH TO CAUSE A CONCUSSION BUT NOT LOW ENOUGH TO BE NOTICEABLE. THE CHANGE FROM HAVING AMPLE HEADROOM TO NOT HAVING ENOUGH HEADROOM CREATED A TRAP. *TR
THE PROBLEM HAS OCCURRED WHENEVER THE DONUT TIRE IS BEING USED ON THE VEHICLE AS A TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT FOR A FLAT TIRE - THIS HAS OCCURRED ON BOTH THE TWO OCCASIONS THAT IN WHICH I HAVE HAD TO USED THEM BOTH TIMES ON THE FRONT TIRES, ONCE ON THE LEFT TIRE AND THE SECOND OCCASION, MOST RECENT ON THE LEFT. APPARENTLY, THE D…
Read full complaint
THE PROBLEM HAS OCCURRED WHENEVER THE DONUT TIRE IS BEING USED ON THE VEHICLE AS A TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT FOR A FLAT TIRE - THIS HAS OCCURRED ON BOTH THE TWO OCCASIONS THAT IN WHICH I HAVE HAD TO USED THEM BOTH TIMES ON THE FRONT TIRES, ONCE ON THE LEFT TIRE AND THE SECOND OCCASION, MOST RECENT ON THE LEFT. APPARENTLY, THE DONUT TIRE BECAUSE OF ITS SMALLER DIAMETER CAUSES THE CAR'S SLIP DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEM TO ACTIVATE (SURMISED BY THE ICON I SEE ON THE DASH WHEN THIS OCCURS), OFTEN FOR PERIODS OF HALF THE DRIVING TIME - WHAT THEN HAPPENS IS THAT THERE IS A TOTAL LOSS OF ENGINE POWER TO THE DRIVE CHAIN, THE CAR CANNOT ACCELERATE OR EVEN MAINTAIN SPEED - IT ESSENTIALLY COASTS OR SLOWS. THIS OCCURS EVEN WHEN/IF THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS DEPRESSED TO TRY TO FEED POWER TO THE WHEELS - THE ENGINE IS UNRESPONSIVE. INTERMITTENTLY, THE POWER IS RESTORED, AND THEN THE CYCLE BEGINS AGAIN. ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT HAD AN ACCIDENT DUE TO THIS LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, I CONSIDER MYSELF LUCKY NOT TO HAVE. USE OF A DONUT TIRE IS THE ONLY OPTION OPEN TO TEMPORARILY REPLACING A FLAT TIRE. I THINK THAT THIS SYSTEM'S RESPONSE TO USE OF THE DONUT TIRE (WHICH IS MANUFACTURER'S SUPPLIED) IS A DEFECT THAT IS DANGEROUS. A DRIVER MUST BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN AND CONTROL VEHICLE SPEED TO PREVENT AND/OR REMEDY A DANGEROUS SITUATION. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
MASTER WARNING LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH VEHICLE STABILITY CONTROL, BRAKE & CHECK ENGINE LIGHTS. TOOK IT TO MY TOYOTA DEALER (RICE TOYOTA, GREENSBORO, NC). I WORK 79 MILES FROM HOME. I CALLED MY TOYOTA DEALER, A SERVICE REP SAID IT WAS OK TO DRIVE AS LONG AS THE WARNING LIGHTS WEREN'T FLASHING.DIAGNOSTIC CODES INDICATED THE HYBRI…
Read full complaint
MASTER WARNING LIGHT CAME ON ALONG WITH VEHICLE STABILITY CONTROL, BRAKE & CHECK ENGINE LIGHTS. TOOK IT TO MY TOYOTA DEALER (RICE TOYOTA, GREENSBORO, NC). I WORK 79 MILES FROM HOME. I CALLED MY TOYOTA DEALER, A SERVICE REP SAID IT WAS OK TO DRIVE AS LONG AS THE WARNING LIGHTS WEREN'T FLASHING.DIAGNOSTIC CODES INDICATED THE HYBRID CONVERTER/INVERTER WAS BAD, THEY CLEARED WARNING LIGHTS, WHICH STAYED OFF. THEY SAID IT MAY HAVE BEEN A "GLITCH", IF WARNING LIGHTS RETURNED, BRING IT BACK. THEY RETURNED ON 3/1/13 WHILE DRIVING TO WORK. I LOST POWER WHILE ON I-540, PULLED OVER ONTO SHOULDER, TURNED OFF ENGINE, RESTARTED IT, GOT BACK ONTO I-540 & EXITED AT NEAREST EXIT. LOST POWER AGAIN. PULLED OVER, WENT THRU STOP/START PROCESS, DROVE 3 MILES TO WORK. DROVE HOME WITH WARNING LIGHTS BUT NO POWER LOSSES. TOOK IT TO RICE TOYOTA NEXT MORNING. THIS OCCURRED BARELY 2 WEEKS AFTER THE 100,000 MILE POWERTRAIN WARRANTY EXPIRED, GALLING TO SAY THE LEAST, AS THIS PART "IS" THE HYBRID SYSTEM PER THE SERVICE REP. HAVE YOU RECEIVED OTHER COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS COMPONENT? *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH OVER A BUMP IN THE ROAD AND THE BRAKE PEDAL ENGAGED; THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. AFTER THE FAILURE OCCURRED, THE ABS WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. ...UPDATED 04/25/13 *BF THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHO W…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH OVER A BUMP IN THE ROAD AND THE BRAKE PEDAL ENGAGED; THE VEHICLE FAILED TO ACCELERATE. AFTER THE FAILURE OCCURRED, THE ABS WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. ...UPDATED 04/25/13 *BF THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHO WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THE VEHICLE OPERATED AS DESIGNED. IN ADDITION, WHEN THE ANTI SKID WAS ACTIVATED IT WOULD NOT RESPOND DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 5,000. THE CONSUMER STATED AT FOWARD SPEED OF 0 MPH THE STABILITY CONTROL ACTIVATED, ON A SLIPPERY SURFACE THAT HAD 1 INCH OF SNOW AND AN INCLINE OF APPROXIMATELY 15 DEGREES. THE ANTI SKID LIGHT BLINKED AND THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE FOWARD UP THE INCLINE. THE SAME FAILURE OCCURED IN THE DEALER'S PARKING LOT. THE DEALERSTATED THE VEHICLE WAS OPERATING AS DESIGNED.THE DEALER SUGGESTED THE CONSUMER SWITCH TO SNOW TIRES. UPDATED 06/04/2013 *JS
HEADLIGHTS WORK INTERMITTENTLY AND THE PASSENGER SIDE TAILLIGHT ALSO GOES OUT AND COMES BACK ON INTERMITTENTLY. CAR IS NOT DRIVEN OFTEN AT NIGHT AND THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR SEVERAL YEARS. *TR
HEADLIGHTS TURN OFF WHILE DRIVING. I CAN TURN OFF THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH AND TURN IT BACK ON AND THE LIGHTS WILL WORK FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AND THAN THE EPISODE IS REPEATED. *TR
Official recalls
412V536000 · 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
3DP22005 · 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.