2004 Toyota Camry problems

What is wrong

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2004 avalon vehicles; 2004 and 2005 camry, camry solara, highlander, and sienna vehicles, 2006 highlander hybrid; 2004 and 2005 lexus es330 and rx330; and 2006 lexus rx400h vehicles manufactured from june 1, 2004 through march 31, 2005, equipped with the 1mz-fe or 3mz-fe engine. The amount of adhesive agent applied between the outer ring and the torsional rubber damper (inner ring) in the crankshaft pulley may be inadequate. If the adhesive is insufficient, there is a possibility that the outer ring may become misaligned and it may not properly rotate with the inner ring, causing noise and/or illumination of the battery discharge indicator light.

Risk

In some cases, the belt for the power steering pump may become detached from the pulley which could result in a loss of power steering and a sudden increase in steering effort, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will check the crankshaft pulley to identify whether it was produced by the u.s. Supplier. If so, the dealer will replace the pulley with a new one at no charge. The safety recall is expected to begin during early january 2012. Owners may contact toyota at 1‑800‑331‑4331.

Recall number 11V539000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain passenger vehicles equipped with a front passenger power seat, when installing certain rear-facing infant child seat bases onto the seat with an excessively high seatbelt tension, it may be possible to unseat a component called the buckle status switch from the seat belt buckle.

Risk

If the switch becomes unseated, the front passenger occupant classification system may mistake the rear-facing child restraint for an unbelted adult occupant, and may not suppress the deployment of the front passenger airbag.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the front passenger seatbelt buckle status switch. This safety improvement campaign (ssc 40m) began on december 20, 2004. Owners should contact toyota at 1‑800‑331‑4331 or lexus at 1‑800‑255‑3987..

Recall number 04V595000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain vehicles equipped with curtain shield air bags (csa), one or both of the curtain air bags may be twisted near the inflator due to improper assembly.

Risk

If this occurs, the csa may not deploy rapidly enough when activated in a side impact collision. This may result in failure to provide the intended head protection, increasing the risk of injury.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the csas and replace the air bag assembly if necessary. The recall began on august 6, 2004. Owners should contact toyota at 1‑800‑331‑4331.

Recall number 04V346000 · Recall details

The petitioner owns a my 2006 toyota camry with a 4-cylinder engine that was purchased new in january 2006. The petitioner also previously owned a my 2005 camry. He alleges that both vehicles exhibited vehicle engine surging, which he described as a short duration (1 to 2 second) increase in engine speed occurring while the accelerator pedal is not depressed. In an initial interview, the petitioner estimated that 6 to 8 surge incidents, of varying severity, occurred in the my 2006 vehicle over the course of 10,000 miles and 7 months of ownership. The petitioner reports that the brake system is effective at overcoming the surge. However, he is concerned about reports filed with the federal safety agency alleging uncontrolledsurging in my 2002 to 2006 camry vehicles bringing those vehicles to a high rate of speed (in some cases, purportedly, with the brakes applied).after review and analysis of the available information, odi has not identified a vehicle-based defect that would have produced the alleged engine surge in the petitioner?s vehicle, nor was it able to witness such an event when road testing the petitioner?s vehicle.evaluation of a suspect throttle actuator removed from the petitioner?s vehicle did not reveal a component problem. Warranty and parts sales of the actuator are unremarkable.these data do not support the existence of a wide-spread defect or ongoing concern. The fault detection and reaction strategy described in toyota?s technical documents indicates that a loss of throttle control due to a component or system failure would be detected within a one second periodafter which engine power would be limited. The petitioner?s my 2006 vehicle brake system overcomes full engine power at easily achievable brake pedal forces. 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 to best accomplish the agency?s safety mission, the petition is denied.please see the march 9, 2007 federal register notice for further details.

DP06003

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