Recalls
| Campaign | Manufacturer | Manufacturing date | Type | # of units affected | Date Owner notified Mfg | Recall Initiated by | Manufacturers of recalled vehicles/products | Report Recieved Date | Record Creation Date | Regulation Part Number | FMVSS Number | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EQUIPMENT - OTHER - LABELS | ||||||||||||||||
| 10V036000 | SOUTHEAST TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, LLC | V (Vehicle) | 153418 | 05/27/2010 | MFR | TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION | 02/03/2010 | 02/03/2010 | 571 | 110 | ||||||
| Defect Summary | 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 between september 1, 2005 and june 2, 2008 without the requisite load carrying capacity modification labels. | |||||||||||||||
| Consequence Summary | A driver may overload a vehicle which may increase the risk of a crash. | |||||||||||||||
| Corrective Summary | 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 1-954-420-2000. | |||||||||||||||
| Notes | Owners may also contact the national highway traffic safety administration's vehicle safety hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (tty 1-800-424-9153), or go to http://www.safercar.gov . | |||||||||||||||
| 10V035000 | GULF STATES TOYOTA, INC. | V (Vehicle) | 271417 | 05/27/2010 | MFR | TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION | 02/03/2010 | 02/03/2010 | 571 | 110 | ||||||
| Defect Summary | Gulf states toyota is recalling certain model year 2005-2010 vehicles for failing to comply with the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 110, tire selection and rims. these vehicles were sold between september 1, 2005 and june 2, 2008 without the requisite load carrying capacity modification labels. | |||||||||||||||
| Consequence Summary | This does not meet the standard requirements. | |||||||||||||||
| Corrective Summary | Dealers will mail to consumers the corrected label or the customer will have the option for dealers to install the label free of charge. dealers will also correct the owner's manual. the safety recall began on may 27, 2010. owners may contact gulf states toyota at 713-580-3300. | |||||||||||||||
| Notes | Owners may also contact the national highway traffic safety administration's vehicle safety hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (tty 1-800-424-9153), or go to http://www.safercar.gov . | |||||||||||||||
Bulletins
| Bulletin | Bulletin date | Replacement Bulletin | Item no. | Summary | Added |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EQUIPMENT - ELECTRICAL - AIR CONDITIONER | |||||
| TSB-0163-11 | 10/20/2011 | 10042855 | Toyota: a condition may exhibit in some vehicles where dust or powder is visible from hvac vents. a procedure for installation, blower motor cleaning, evaporator removal and hvac system cleaning has been designed for this condition. | 01/18/2012 | |
Investigations
| NHTSA ID | Manufacturer | Date open | Date close | Subject | Recall campaign | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EQUIPMENT | ||||||
| RQ10003 | TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION | 02/16/2010 | UNINTENDED ACCELERATION | |||
| On september 26, 2007, toyota filed a defect information report and notified nhtsa that some of its model year (my) 2007 and 2008 lexus e350 and toyota camry vehicles could experience unintended and uncontrolled acceleration due to interference between the optional all weather floor mat offered on those vehicles and the vehicles' accelerator pedal.this decision was influenced by an office of defects investigation (odi) engineering analysis.this recall was designated 07e082.two years later, on october 5, 2009, toyota filed a defect information report and notified nhtsa that a number of its my 2004-2009 lexus and toyota vehicles may also experience unintended and uncontrolled acceleration due to interference between the accelerator pedal and the driver's floor mat.this recall was designated 09v388.several months later, on january 27, 2010, toyota filed an amended, or supplemental, defect information report and expanded the population of vehicles to include additional my 2008-2010 toyota and lexus vehicles.since this expansiontook place in a different calendar year, this recall was designated 10v023.separately on january 21, 2010, toyota filed a defect information report and notified nhtsa that certain toyota vehicles and certain pontiac vibe vehicles contained a safety defect in the accelerator pedal assembly that may cause the accelerator pedal to become harder to depress, slower to return, or in the worse case, mechanically stuck in a partially depressed position.nhtsa designated this recall 10v017.in total, the four recalls cover over 7.6 million toyota and lexus vehicles as well as the pontiac vibe product made by new united motor manufacturing, inc., a venture of toyota and general motors corporation.nhtsa requires additional information from toyota to more fully understand and evaluate, among other things, whether the scope of the recalls identified above (makes, models and model years) is sufficiently broad.the agency is seeking to determine whether toyota viewed the underlying defects too narrowly as interference between the accelerator pedal and the driver | ||||||
Consumer Complaints
| Fail date | miles | occurences | Purchase date |
|---|---|---|---|
| EQUIPMENT | |||
| 12/01/2008 | 1 | ||
| Musty wet smell inside car when heater or air conditioner fan is turned on. off and on smell of overheated electrical wires. *tr | |||
| EQUIPMENT ADAPTIVE | |||
| 01/26/2013 | 46725 | ||
| Car wouldn't start at shopping area - paid $5 for a battery jump - had car tested at local auto shop - said we needed an alternator but may be under warranty - went to eastern shore toyota - for $56.57 - yes we needed an alternator - not under warranty -cost $580 - take til tues - suggest we spend $100 plus and rent a car. we elected to take our chances and had the vehicle fixed closer to gulf shores where we are staying - cost was $396. we have never had an alternator go out after owning vehicles for nearly 60 yrs - let alone at 46725 miles and such a pricey car. we are considering the rav 4 for 2014 but this is giving us second thoughts. | |||
| 07/01/2009 | 58000 | ||
| This car has had all 4 headlights burn out at one time or another. now for the second time, the left hid low beam has gone out. i'm sure you are aware these are expensive to replace. about 2 years ago toyota offered to reimburse owners for replacement of high beam halogen bulbs as long as the vehicle had less than 35,000 miles at the time of the malfunction. recently though, since this was a problem with a larger number of cars, toyota expanded this to a service bulletin. in this bulletin they will replace both complete headlight assemblies so long as the vvehicle is less than 5 years old and has less than 75,000 miles on the odometer. my mother-in-law just had this done on her avalon, which failed an inspection because both halogen high beam bulbs were shattered, which was purchased at the same time my wife's was. my wife uses her avalon to commute 90 miles round trip to work. the car currently has 105,000 miles on the odometer since it was purchased new december 8, 2007. due to the mileage toyota is not interested in replacing the headlight assemblies on her car. this is a safety defect that could cause a crash. i believe there should be a recall campaign to rectify the problem. | |||
| 10/15/2007 | 1 | ||
| This is not a complaint but some information regarding the toyota recall. i got a 2008 toyota avalon in october of 2007. when selecting options for my car, i asked for floormats which were clearly shown in the avalon's promotional material. when the avalon came (oct 2007) it did not have the requested floor mats. i asked the dealer about this and he simply said they were not available. i pointed out that they were in the avalon booklet and he again said they were not available. i then did what most probably did, because they wanted to protect their new car, and that was to purchase floormats at an auto supply. my concern is that the automaker clearly knew that there was a problem with floormats at least 2 and a half years ago and did not warn me of this nor anyone else. this resulted in tragic consequences for some. i think they need to be held accountable for withholding this information until after there were deaths related to this problem. *tr | |||