I have a better picture… ODI = 11773574 Please consider expanding the recall …
The worst 2005 Lexus ES problems
Ranked by number of owner complaints. Mileage and cost come from what owners wrote.
Problems by type
Tap a problem to see which part fails, at what mileage and in which other years.
- Transmission24
- Acceleration15
- Airbags10
- Steering6
- Lights4
- Suspension4
- Body2
- Engine2
- Brakes1
- Electrical1
- Fuel system1
- Tires1
- Wheels1
Specific symptoms reported on the 2005 Lexus ES
Recalls
No recalls on record for this model year.
Defect investigations
Vehicle speed control
In a letter dated july 8, 2005, and after experiencing two incidents (and one crash) where he alleges his model year (my) 2002 camry accelerated without driver input, mr. Jordan ziprin petitioned the federal safety agency?s (the federal safety agency) office of defects investigation (odi) to commence a proceeding to determine the existence of a defect within the etc system in my 2002 to 2005 toyota and lexus vehicles, or to reopen a prior investigation preliminary evaluation (pe) 04-021.in a letter dated august 18, 2005, mr. Ziprin amended his petition to include allegations of interrelated brake and acceleration problems that allegedly result in inappropriate and uncontrollable vehicle accelerations.the 1172 vehicle owner questionnaire reports cited by the petitioner involve 4 lexus and 15 toyota models defining a population of 7 million vehicles.the reports typically alleged a defect in the brake system, the throttle control system, or a combination of both systems.in its review of the reports, odi a) failed to find evidence to support the existence of a brake related defect in the cited models, and b) determined that many cited products were not equipped with etc.accordingly, odi restricted its analysis to the 432 petitioner reports involving my 2002 to 2005 camry, solara, and es models (all equipped with etc) that alleged an abnormal throttle control event (see the january 3, 2006 federal register notice for further details).about 40% of the 432 reports involve a driveability concern where the operator intentionally applies the throttle pedal, in expectation that the vehicle will accelerate, and then experiences a delay or hesitation in vehicle response.these reports involve vehicle response to intentional driver commands which odi considers unrelated to the allegations raised by the petitioner.therefore, the reports do not provide support for the investigation requested.about 20% of the reports involve incidents where operators allege vehicle acceleration without driver input and an inability of the brake system to control the vehicle when applied.neither the reports, nor the interviews conducted by odi, identified any vehicle-based cause to explain the incidents or disclosed evidence to support that a failure of the brake or throttle control system had occurred.because these reports do not indicate a distinct safety defect for investigation, the reports do not provide support for the investigation requested by the petitionerthe remaining reports (~ 40%, similar to the petitioner?s and those of pe04-021) typically describe incidents where a vehicle is being maneuvered at slow speed in a close quarter situation at which point the operator alleges that the vehicle accelerates without driver input and crashes.in the aftermath, operators are unsure of whether the brakes were applied or not, sometimes stating there was insufficient time to use the brake; a crash occurred and the operator believes an uncommanded acceleration caused it.in spite of the effort expended during pe04-021 and during this analysis, odi has not identified any vehicle-based cause to explain the reports, or uncovered any evidence to indicate that a throttle control system failure occurred.therefore, the reports have ambiguous significance and do not constitute a basis on which any further investigative action is warranted.based on the analysis conducted, it is unlikely that the federal safety agency would issue an order for the notification and remedy of a safety related defect at the conclusion of the investigation requested in the petition.consequently, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize the federal safety agency?s limited resources t
DP05002
Technical service bulletins for the 2005 Lexus ES 30
Bulletins tell dealers how to fix known problems. A warranty extension means the manufacturer pays for that repair for longer.
- Some 2005 – 2026 Lexus vehicles that have undergone water intrusion may exhibit a condition in which a...
- Some 2005 – 2024 Lexus vehicles that have undergone water intrusion may exhibit a condition in which a...
- Some 2005 – 2024 Lexus vehicles that have undergone water intrusion may exhibit a condition in which a...
- The condition known as acid rain is caused by airborne chemicals or particles in the atmosphere, which mix...
- To prevent brake rotor rust from forming during transportation and storage, wheel film will be used...
- Lexus Safety Recall and Service Campaign
- Some 2005 ? 2022 model year Lexus vehicles that have undergone water intrusion may exhibit a condition in...
- POL: This consolidated Tire Warranty Guide contains the complete warranty terms for all brands of ground...
- Vehicles may display evidence of a fluid leak or fluid seep from powertrain components
- Supersession notice
What 2005 Lexus ES owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
Description of Defect: The crankshaft pulley (harmonic balancer) experienced an adhesive bond failure between its inner hub and outer metal ring, mirroring the exact factory defect in the federal safety agency Campaign 11V539000 (Lexus Campaign BLG). The issue manifested directly following an air conditioning Freon recharge at a licensed automotive service facility. Restoring the correct system pressure introduced normal mechanical load back onto the compressor accessory drive belt. The defective factory adhesive could not withstand standard operating resistance, causing the outer ring of the pulley to immediately begin slipping against its internal torsional rubber damper. This resulted in a chronic, severe rotational squeak during startup and accessory engagement due to the structural failure of the pulley's vulcanized rubber layer. Why this needs federal review: the federal safety agency Campaign 11V539000 strictly cuts off coverage for the 2005 Lexus ES 330 at a production date of late March 2005. My vehicle was manufactured in May 2005—mere weeks outside the boundary—and features the identical 3.3L 3MZ-FE V6 powertrain and pulley assembly. The vehicle has only 82,750 miles and a meticulously documented 5-to-7-year service history showing proper maintenance. Because this component failed identically under standard operating loads, it is clearly the defective batch of adhesive extended past the manufacturer's assumed cutoff. The campaign must be expanded to cover later 2005 production dates.
Authorized dealership service department (Toyota West/Germain Automotive Group) performed structural repairs and released a vehicle back to me as safe. I operated this vehicle on public highways with my child. Upon subsequent inspection, the same dealership declared the vehicle a 'Total Loss' due to structural frame damage caused by their own technician. The dealership knowingly allowed a structurally compromised, unsafe vehicle to be driven off their lot without disclosing the safety risks.
FORMAL COMPLAINT: CONSUMER FRAUD & SAFETY VIOLATION Dealership: Germain Toyota West (Columbus, OH) Case Reference: #[XXX] To the Consumer Protection Division: I am filing a formal complaint regarding Theft by Deception, Gross Negligence, and Reckless Endangerment by this dealership. 1. THEFT & BILLING FRAUD On Oct 24, 2025, the dealership charged me $455.00 for labor to install rear sway bar links. I provided my own parts. The technician (Maciah Houpe) failed to install the parts but still charged me. He later admitted via text message: "I did not do your rear links... you didn't pay for rear links." The dealership has refused to refund this money despite the written confession. 2. PROPERTY DESTRUCTION During the attempted repair, the technician used excessive force and bent the vehicle's "wheel rod" (Tie Rod), destroying the steering geometry. The technician later admitted to a witness that he was fired for "bending the wheel rod" on my vehicle. 3. RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT (SAFETY VIOLATION) The dealership released the vehicle to my family on Oct 26, representing it as "safe." After a near-miss incident on [XXX] where the steering failed at highway speeds, Management admitted to my wife that they knew the vehicle "might be lucky to make it to the North Side" before failing. They knowingly released a vehicle with a critical safety defect onto a public highway. 4. RETALIATION When I contacted Toyota Corporate to complain, the technician texted me: "You blew up the spot coming through Toyota... they can't help you." The dealership then revoked a "cure offer" (towing/rental) purely as retaliation for my consumer complaint. ATTACHED EVIDENCE: Please see the attached "Master Case Brief" and "Exhibit A" (PDFs). These contain the full legal timeline and the Text Message Logs where the employee confesses to the theft and damage. I have served the dealership a Notice of Intent to Sue. I am requesting an immediate investigation into this franchise's billing fraud INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORM
[XXX] : “for parts it's $375. I'll drop the labor down to $80 for $455 total…”You: “Well I already have the sway bar links but yes that's fine bro. [XXX] : “Got it let me see if I can change the order real quick. [XXX] : “Got it changed 👍🏽”Screenshot that whole block.Text 2 – “Good to go” / work doneFind where he talks about finishing and testi [XXX] ah: “Got the rear brakes done, fighting the links right no [XXX] ah: “First ones out 👍🏽 should be [XXX] ciah: “Got it done, about to test drive and bring it up”Screenshot from “Got the rear brakes done” through “bring it up.”Text 3 – Apology and refund offerFind this [XXX] ciah: “XXX bro it was smooth when I test drove it. I can't do anything until 5 tomorrow. I'll send your money back too, I apologize about that.“I definitely got everything tight… If you can pull up at 5 tomorrow I'll check it over.”Screenshot that entire message.Text 4 – “Through me not Toyota / blew up the spot / arm and a leg”Find the long message from later:“At home, brother you did work through me not Toyota. They can't help you with anything…“You blew up the spot coming through Toyota. I can't even have your car in the shop now without you going through them first and charging you an arm and a leg.“I tried to do something nice for you… you ha [XXX] ‑old vehicle…” INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
passenger dash airbag is coming apart at the seems.
Severe vibration from 30-70mph when acceleration, outboard boot split/slinging grease on left/right sides. CV axle has alot of movement. Right and Left axle shaft needs removed and replaced.
Tl* the contact owns a 2005 lexus es350. The contact stated that the vehicle failed to respond with the accelerator pedal depressed. The contact was concerned that the transmission was defective. The vehicle was not taken to be diagnosed nor repaired. A dealer was not contacted. The manufacturer was informed of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 72,000.
The headlight assembly degrades thereby causing the lights to appear extremely dim when driving at night.
My passenger airbag compartment on front dash has been slowly been lifting and separating though the car has never been in an accident. Is the airbag going to implode one day on a passenger without us knowing? It is looking scary but I see there is no recall.
Compare the 2005 Lexus ES
Other model years
199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Questions about the 2005 Lexus ES
Is the 2005 Lexus ES reliable?
Owners have filed 60 complaints about the 2005 Lexus ES, 2.6 times a typical ES model year. It is one of the years we flag to avoid.
What is the 2005 Lexus ES year score?
The 2005 Lexus ES scores 38 out of 100 (poor). The score compares it with the other model years of the Lexus ES: 75 is a typical year, 50 means twice the usual complaints, and serious complaints and recalls lower it.
What is the most common problem with the 2005 Lexus ES?
Transmission and drivetrain, with 24 complaints, typically around 100 miles. Next is acceleration (15).
How many recalls does the 2005 Lexus ES have?
No recalls on record.
VIN decoder
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Buying a used 2005 Lexus ES?
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history