Lexus ES Investigations

2 ODI actions on file.

• EAEA07010RECALLOpened 8/8/2007
  UNWANTED ACCELERATION, FLOOR MAT
  VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:ACCELERATOR PEDAL

  THE DRIVER SIDE FLOOR MAT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE THROTTLE PEDAL IF PROPERLY SECURED USING THE RETAINING HOOKS PROVIDED BY TOYOTA.HOWEVER, IF THE ALL WEATHER MAT IS UNSECURED AND MOVES FORWARD FROM ITS INTENDED POSITION IT CAN ENTRAP THE THROTTLE PEDAL AT THE FULLY OPEN POSITION AFTER IT HAS BEEN DEPRESSED.THIS CAN HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT ANOTHER MAT (CARPET) IS UNDERNEATH.WHEN THIS OCCURS, SOME OPERATORS REACT BY APPLYING THE BRAKE PEDAL MULTIPLE TIMES, DEPLETING THE BRAKING SYSTEM'S (VACUUM BASED) POWER ASSIST.STOPPING THE VEHICLE WITH UNASSISTED BRAKING WHILE THE THROTTLE IS FULLY OPEN REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT PEDAL FORCE, WHICH SOME OPERATORS DID NOT, OR WERE UNABLE TO, APPLY FOR THE REQUIRED DURATION.CONTINUED DRIVING IN THIS CONDITION RESULTS IN OVERHEATED BRAKES, WHICH FURTHER DIMINISHES THE BRAKING EFFECTIVENESS.SOME OPERATORS ATTEMPTED TO TURN THE VEHICLE OFF BY DEPRESSING THE ENGINE CONTROL BUTTON, HOWEVER THEY WERE UNAWARE THE BUTTON HAD TO BE DEPRESSED FOR THREE SECONDS TO STOP THE ENGINE WHEN THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION; THIS FUNCTIONALITY WAS NOT EXPLAINED ADEQUATELY IN THE OWNER'S MANUAL.IN ODI INTERVIEWS, OWNER'S REPORTED THEY WERE UNAWARE THE ALL WEATHER MAT HAD THE POTENTIAL TO INTERFERE WITH THE THROTTLE PEDAL, ADVISING THAT THIS WAS NEVER PROPERLY EXPLAINED GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANT HAZARD IT REPRESENTED.OWNERS REPORTED SEVERAL EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY THE MAT WAS UNSECURED, INCLUDING THAT THE VEHICLE WAS DELIVERED IN THIS CONDITION (MOST COMMON REASON), OR THAT THEY HAD (UNWITTINGLY) INSTALLED THE MAT THEMSELVES, OR THAT ANOTHER PARTY, SUCH AS A CAR WASH ATTENDANT, HAD DISTURBED THE MAT WITHOUT THE OWNER'S KNOWLEDGE.ONE CONSUMER REPORTED THAT THEIR VEHICLE WAS DELIVERED WITHOUT THE RETAINING DEVICES INSTALLED.IN A SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 LETTER TO NHTSA, TOYOTA INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL TO REPLACE THE ALL WEATHER MAT WITH A REDESIGNED MAT.ACCORDING TO TOYOTA, THE NEW MAT DESIGN WILL REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR MAT INTERFERENCE WITH THE THROTTLE PEDAL.THE POPULATION NOTED ABOVE REPRESENTS THE NUMBER OF SUBJECT MATSTHAT HAVE BEEN SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES.SINCE TOYOTA CANNOT IDENTIFY WHICH VEHICLES MAY HAVE THE SUBJECT MATS, THEY WILL SEND A LETTER TO ALL REGISTERED OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES (ESTIMATED 750K) ADVISING THEM OF THE CONCERN AND REMEDY.A COPY OF THAT LETTER WILL BE POSTED TO NHTSA'S WEB SITE UNDER RECALL 07E-082; IT CONTAINS A DESCRIPTION OF THE CONDITION AND THE ACTIONS AN OPERATOR SHOULD TAKE IN THE EVENT THROTTLE ENTRAPMENT OCCURS WHILE DRIVING.THE FATALITY INCIDENT NOTED ABOVE OCCURRED IN JULY 2007 AND WAS INVESTIGATED BY NHTSA'S SPECIAL CRASH INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE.IT HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED ON A VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE.THE OPERATOR REPORTEDLY TRAVELLED AT SPEEDS IN EXCESS OF 100 MPH FOR AN ESTIMATED EIGHT MILES ON AN INTERSTATE IN CALIFORNIA BEFORE IT STRUCK TWO OTHER VEHICLES.ONE OF THE STRUCK VEHICLES AND THE SUBJECT VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE.THE OCCUPANT OF THE STRUCK VEHICLE DID NOT EVACULATE AND DIED AT THE SCENE.THE SUBJECT VEHICLE DRIVER SUFFERED A BROKEN BONE.THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL IS INVESTIGATING THE INCIDENT ALSO.ODI DID NOT ISSUE AN INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER DURING THIS INVESTIGATION.THE TOYOTA REPORTS NOTED ABOVE WERE REPORTED DURING PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE07-016 AND ARE CURRENT THROUGH APRIL 2007 FOR MY 2007 LEXUS ES350 ONLY.ODI DOES NOT HAVE FIELD EXPERIENCE DATA FROM TOYOTA FOR CAMRY VEHICLES.THROTTLE ENTRAPMENT DUE TO IMPROPERLY INSTALLED FLOOR MATS COULD BE A CONCERN IN ALL VEHICLES.THEREFORE, DRIVERS SHOULD ALWAYS ENSURE THEIR FLOOR MATS ARE PROPERLY AND SAFELY INSTALLED.THIS INCL

• DPDP05002CLOSEDOpened 8/5/2005
  VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL
  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 NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION?S (NHTSA) 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 NHTSA 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 NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES T