2003 Lexus ES300

THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED DP09-001 ON APRIL 8, 2009, TO EVALUATE A DEFECT PETITION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION OF POTENTIAL THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM DEFECTS UNRELATED TO FLOOR MAT INTERFERENCE WITH ACCELERATOR PEDALS IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2007 LEXUS ES 350 VEHICLES.THE PETITIONER REFERENCED AN EARLIER ODI INVESTIGATION CONCERNING FLOOR MAT INTERFERENCE WITH ACCELERATOR PEDAL RETURN (PE07-016/EA07-010), WHICH HE STATED WAS TOO NARROW IN SCOPE AS IT DID NOT INCLUDE ALL INCIDENTS OF UNWANTED ACCELERATION AND CONSIDER ALL POTENTIAL CAUSES OF VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL CONCERNS.THE PETITION ALSO REQUESTED AN INVESTIGATION OF MY 2002-2003 LEXUS ES300 FOR THOSE 'LONGER DURATION INCIDENTS INVOLVING UNCONTROLLABLE ACCELERATION WHERE BRAKE PEDAL APPLICATION ALLEGEDLY HAD NO EFFECT' THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION PE04-021. AS BACKGROUND, THE PETITIONER OWNS A MY 2007 LEXUS ES350 THAT ALLEGEDLY EXPERIENCED AN UNWANTED AND UNCONTROLLED ACCELERATION EVENT (ODI COMPLAINT NUMBER 10261660).TOYOTA CONCLUDED THAT THE INCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY AN UNSECURED FLOOR MAT. TO ASSESS THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST, ODI INTERVIEWED THE PETITIONER, INSPECTED HIS VEHICLE, REVIEWED INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY TOYOTA, REVIEWED OWNER COMPLAINTS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF UNWANTED ACCELERATION IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND MATERIAL RELATED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS CITED BY THE PETITIONER.ODI IDENTIFIED 64 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF UNWANTED ACCELERATION IN MY 2007 LEXUS VEHICLES, RESULTING IN 8 CRASHES AND 15 INJURIES.ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THESE COMPLAINTS DETERMINED THAT 50 (78%) INVOLVED INCIDENTS OF FLOOR MAT INTERFERENCE, INCLUDING 7 (88%) OF THE CRASHES AND ALL 15 INJURIES.THEREFORE, ODI'S ANALYSIS FOUND THAT THE ONLY DEFECT TREND RELATED TO VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES INVOLVED THE POTENTIAL FOR ACCELERATOR PEDALS TO BECOME TRAPPED NEAR THE FLOOR BY OUT-OF-POSITION OR INAPPROPRIATE FLOOR MAT INSTALLATIONS. ON OCTOBER 5, 2009, TOYOTA INITIATED A SAFETY RECALL (RECALL 09V-388) TO ADDRESS CONCERNS WITH POTENTIAL ACCELERATOR PEDAL ENTRAPMENT BY FLOOR MATS IN APPROXIMATELY 3.8 MILLION VEHICLES, INCLUDING THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS RELATE TO THAT RECALL, THE FACTUAL BASES OF THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS THAT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY ARE UNSUPPORTED. IN OUR VIEW, ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION IS UNLIKELY TO RESULT IN A FINDING THAT A DEFECT RELATED TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY EXISTS OR A NHTSA ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT, AS ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE REQUESTED INVESTIGATION.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.THIS ACTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.PLEASE SEE THEFEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR FURTHER DETAILS.

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

THE LEXUS MODELS WERE THE SUBJECT OF DEFECT PETITION (DP) 04-003.TWELVE ODI COMPLAINTS ARE DUPLICATIVE TO TOYOTA REPORTS, INCLUDING THE TWO MINOR CRASHES.THE V6 EQUIPPED SOLARA MODELS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONTAIN THE SUBJECT THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM.TOYOTA INTRODUCED ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL (ETC) ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES BEGINNING IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2002.ODI OPENED THE INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE IF THE SYSTEM COULD BE THE CAUSE OF COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE ENGINE SPEED INCREASED, OR FAILED TO DECREASE, (FOR A SHORT DURATION) WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS NOT DEPRESSED (THE ALLEGED DEFECT).DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION, ODI ANALYZED AGENCY DATA AND REVIEWED VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS, CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS INVOLVING 113 VOQ AND 36 TOYOTA REPORTS, INSPECTED TWO COMPLAINANT VEHICLES, REVIEWED RELEVANT TOYOTA SERVICE AND NEW CAR FEATURE DOCUMENTATION, REVIEWED AND ANALYZED TOYOTA?S RESPONSES TO ODI?S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER, CONDUCTED A LIMITED CONTROL PEDAL ASSESSMENT, AND ATTENDED A TOYOTA TECHNICAL PRESENTATION THAT INCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT OF TWO DEMONSTRATION VEHICLES.THROUGH INTERVIEWS, ODI IDENTIFIED 14 VOQ AND 6 TOYOTA REPORTS (20 UNIQUE VEHICLES) WHERE COMPLAINANTS REPORT MULTIPLE OCCURRENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.IN SOME CASES THE CONDITION WAS EXPERIENCED BY DIFFERENT VEHICLE OPERATORS OR WAS WITNESSED BY OTHER OCCUPANTS.ODI WAS UNABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO THE CAUSE OF 9 TOYOTA AND AN ADDITIONAL 37 VOQ REPORTS (WHICH DESCRIBE 28 UNIQUE INCIDENTS) DUE TO INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION.THE REMAINING COMPLAINANTS INTERVIEWED (62 VOQ, 21 TOYOTA) DESCRIBED CONDITIONS NOT CAUSED BY A FAILURE OF THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM AND WERE THUS CONSIDERED UNRELATED TO THE INVESTIGATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS INTERVIEWED REPORTED A COMPONENT FAILURE (OR OTHER INDICATOR OF A SYSTEM FAILURE) AS THE POTENTIAL CAUSE OF INCIDENTS RELEVANT TO THIS INVESTIGATION.IN MANY CASES, THE COMPLAINT VEHICLES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY INSPECTED BY DEALERSHIP OR MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVES WHO ALSO FAILED TO IDENTIFY A FAULT WITHIN THE VEHICLE.TOYOTA IDENTIFIED 43 RELATED WARRANTY CLAIMS, 24 OF WHICH WERE FOR DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES ONLY (NO REPAIRS PERFORMED).ODI FOUND NOTHING ABNORMAL IN THE CONTROL PEDAL CONFIGURATION OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.A 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.SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY FOR FURTHER DETAIL.

THE POPULATION NUMBER NOTED ABOVE IS ESTIMATED.IN THE JANUARY 15TH, 2004 PETITION REQUEST LETTER TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA), THE PETITIONER IDENTIFIED 37 VOQ COMPLAINTS AS RELATED TO VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL ISSUES SIMILAR TO THOSE THE PETITIONER ALLEGEDLY EXPERIENCED IN THEIR OWN VEHICLE ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS (AS DESCRIBED IN THE PETITION REQUEST LETTER).DURING IT'S CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) REVIEWED THE 37 COMPLAINTS AND CONCLUDED THAT 34 OF THE COMPLAINTS DID NOT INVOLVE A THROTTLE CONTROL ISSUE AS DESCRIBED AND ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER; THREE VOQS (ONE OF WHICH IS THE PETITIONER'S) DO ALLEGE A THROTTLE CONTROL ISSUE.HOWEVER, THE THROTTLE CONTROL ISSUES ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE ALLEGED IN THE SUPPORTING VOQS FOR PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE04-021 WHICH INVOLVES THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM ON MODEL YEAR 2002 AND 2003 TOYOTA CAMRY AND CAMRY SOLARA MODELS.BASED ON ODI'S REVIEW OF AVAILABLE SERVICE INFORMATION, IT APPEARS THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM MANUFACTURED ON THE LEXUS ES300 MODELS IS THE SAME AS, OR SIMILAR TO, THE THROTTLE CONTROL SYSTEM USED ON THE TOYOTA CAMRY AND CAMRY SOLARA MODELS.ACCORDINGLY, THE ES300 MODELS WILL BE ADDED TO THE SCOPE OF PE04-021 AND THE PETITION IS GRANTED.

SIR/MADAM, I AM TRYING TO HELP MY FRIENDS (XXXX) AND (XXXXX), LONG TIME RESIDENTS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND A VERY SWEET COUPLE. PEGGY WAS DRIVING HER HUSBAND TO A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT AND DUE TO A FAULT IN THE ENGINE (THERE IS A RECALL AND THEY WERE NOT INFORMED), THE ENGINE CAUGHT ON FIRE. IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR THE DRIVER BEHIND THEM WHO RAN TO THEM AND GOT THEM QUICKLY OUT OF THE CAR AND WALKED THEM TO SAFETY, THE OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY BLEAK. THEY ARE AN ELDERLY COUPLE AND THE HUSBAND, (XXXXX), HAS GREAT DIFFICULTY WALKING AND THE CAR BURNED VERY QUICKLY. THEY, THANK GOD, MADE IT TO SAFETY IN TIME ONLY TO WATCH THEIR CAR BURN. THEY INFORMED TOYOTA AND SINCE THEY ARE ON FIXED INCOME ASKED TOYOTA FOR HELP WITH THE PURCHASE OF ANOTHER USED RELIABLE CAR (THE LEXUS THEY WERE DRIVING WAS 15 YEARS OLD BUT IN GOOD CONDITION AND MORE THAN ENOUGH CAR FOR THEIR TRIPS TO LOCAL STORES OR DOCTOR APPOINTMENTS. SURPRISINGLY, TOYOTA ONLY RESPONDED WITH ONE LETTER FROM CUSTOMER SERVICE. (XXXX)'S FOLLOW UP CALLS AND LETTERS TO CUSTOMER SERVICE, ECO MARK TEMPLIN WERE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED OR ANSWERED. PLEASE HELP THIS COUPLE BELIEVE IN HUMANITY AGAIN. TOYOTA IS A REPUTABLE COMPANY AND TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A PHONE CALL FROM THE COMPANY IS SURPRISING TO ALL THAT KNOW OF THIS CASE. I AM ATTACHING ALL THE EVIDENCE: PICTURES, COPIES OF LETTERS FOR YOUR REFERENCE. PLEASE PROVIDE CASE NUMBER. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR HELP. (XXXXX) FOR (XXXXX) PARTS OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ID

11223156

Incident

Sep 26, 2018

Mileage

90,284 mi

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LEXUS ES300. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 15 MPH, WHEN SHE SAW SMOKE AND FIRE IGNITING FROM THE HOOD. THE CONTACT STATED THE ENGINE FAILED AND TURNED OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. THE CONTACT STATED NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS ABLE TO EXTINGUISH THE FIRE, BUT NO REPORT WAS FILED. THE POLICE WAS CALLED TO THE SCENE BUT NO REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DRIVABLE AND WAS TOWED TO IMPOUND LOT. THE CONTACT CALLED LOCAL DEALER LEXUS USA LOCATED AT 6565 HEADQUARTERS DR, PLANO, TX 75024, (800) 255-3987, AND WHERE NOTIFIED OF FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED AS OF YET. THE MANUFACTURER HAD BEEN INFORMED OF FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 110,000. *AS *TR

NHTSA ID

11222432

Incident

Sep 26, 2018

Mileage

110,000 mi

VIN: (XXXXXX) YEAR: 2003 MAKE: LEXUS MODEL: ES300 (XXXX) AIR/BAG BUSTING THRU DASH ( * NEED HELP ) (XXXX) YEAR: 2003 MAKE: LEXUS MODEL: ES300 AIRBAG IS BULGING -SEE PICTURES ELECTRICAL DRAIN ON THE BATTERY OFF AND ON SINCE. PARTS OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).

NHTSA ID

11218107

Incident

Oct 1, 2014

Mileage

80,000 mi

(XXXX) AIR/BAG BUSTING THRU DASH ( * NEED HELP ) (XXXX) YEAR: 2003 MAKE: LEXUS MODEL: ES3 PARTS OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).

NHTSA ID

11208366

Incident

Jan 1, 2019

Mileage

97,000 mi

MY DRIVER HEADLIGHT KEEPS SHORTING OUT.I BOUGHT ANOTHER BULB AND SAME PROBLEM .

NHTSA ID

11202717

Incident

Apr 20, 2019

Mileage

1 mi

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 LEXUS ES300. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, SMOKE WAS NOTICED COMING FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. THE CONTACT MANAGED TO PULL THE VEHICLE OVER AS IT WAS STALLING. THE CONTACT EXITED THE VEHICLE, LIFTED THE HOOD, AND NOTICED FLAMES COMING FROM THE BATTERY. THE CONTACT CALLED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHO EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CUT THE BATTERY CORD AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE CONTACT'S RESIDENCE. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THE BATTERY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 156,000.

NHTSA ID

11088394

Incident

Apr 4, 2018

Mileage

156,000 mi

SUDDEN ACCELERATION, IN MOTION IN REVERSE

NHTSA ID

11065899

Incident

Jan 21, 2018

Mileage

30,000 mi

UNWANTED ACCELERATION WHILE APPLYING THE BREAK WHILE SLOWING DOWN THE RPM GAUGE PINS ITSELF TO ABOUT 3000. THE CAR WILL NOT DOWN SHIFT UNTIL IT JOLTS FORWARD JUST A LITTLE AND THE YOU CAN FEEL THE LOWER GEARS ENGAGE. I BOUGHT IT AS A USED VEHICAL ABOUT 3 WEEKS AGO WITH 80,336 MILES . I SEE LOTS OF COMPLAINTS FOR THE SAME THING ON MANY OTHER VEHICALS OF THE SAME MAKE MODEL AND YEAR. I'M ASSUMING IT'S A BAD SPEED SENSOR . WHY IS THIS NOT A RECALL? THIS STARTED HAPPENING AFTER WE TOOK A RIDE ON THE HIGHWAY. AND IT ONLY APPEARS TO HAPPEN WHILE THE CAR IS IN MOTION. SOMETIMES THE CAR WILL NOT ACCELERATE WHEN THE ACCELERATOR IS APPLIED IT JUST MAKES THE RPMS REV UP, AND THESE DOESN'T GO ANY FASTER KIND OF THE SAME EFFECT YOU WOULD GET IF IT WAS IN NEUTRAL AND APPLIED THE ACCELERATOR.

NHTSA ID

10893003

Incident

Aug 1, 2016

Mileage

80,900 mi

Lexus vehicles are currently protected with RapgardTM protective film designed to protect the horizontal painted surfaces. This material protects from acid rain, environmental fallout, and rail contamination. Follow the Removal Procedure in this bulletin to remove the RapgardTM protective film within 90 days from initial application. SUPERSESSION NOTICE The information contained in this bulletin supersedes Service Bulletin No. L-PG004-94. •The entire bulletin has been updated.

Vehicles may occasionally be subjected to contamination by airborne iron particles shed from railroad tracks, train wheels, exposure to heavy machinery facilities, grinding, welding, etc. This type of contamination can be identified by the presence of small, red or brown particles on the paint surface. These particles are often difficult to see on dark color paints but can be easily felt when brushing a hand across horizontal body surfaces such as the hood, roof, or deck lid. Follow the Repair Procedure in this bulletin to clean vehicles that may have been subjected to contamination by airborne iron particles such as rail dust during rail transportation or extended storage near industrial areas.

Acid rain results from rainwater or other airborne moisture that become acidic due to industrial chemical impurities in the atmosphere. If these acidic compounds settle on an exposed vehicle, especially the horizontal areas such as the hood, roof, and decklid, significant damage to the painted surfaces can occur. Acid rain damage can typically be identified on vehicles by the presence of stains on the paint surface that resemble hard water spots. Unlike water spots however, acid rain damage cannot be removed by regular washing procedures. Also, because acid rain can etch and soften the paint, normal buffing or polishing repair procedures should not be attempted. This can cause further damage and result in visible depressions in the paint surface. The following are the three major categories of acid rain damage: •Minor damage: requires only buffing to repair. •Moderate damage: usually requires neutralizing, color sanding, and buffing. •Severe damage: extending beyond 1/2 mil of clearcoat on a pearl, metallic, or solid color, requires neutralization, sanding, and repainting. In cases where acid rain damage is minor, neutralization and buffing with a liquid-type paint finessing product may provide an adequate repair. Only specially formulated products outlined in this bulletin should be used for that purpose. Unfortunately, other than minor damage, there is no simple method of determining the actual extent (depth) of acid penetration other than color sanding a representative affected area until there is no visible etching or depressions, followed by measuring the amount of paint removed with either a magnetic or digital-type film thickness gauge. The procedures in this bulletin are intended for use by qualified body/paint technicians and should not be attempted by inexperienced personnel. While the quality and durability of paint on Lexus vehicles is continuously being improved, it remains the dealer’s responsibility to protect and maintain the quality of the vehicle’s paint finish after receipt at the dealership prior to the first sale. Perform frequent vehicle washing, as often as daily, during high heat and humidity periods to minimize the potential for paint damage due to acid rain exposure. This is especially important in geographical areas known for high frequency and concentration of acid rain and industrial fallout.

Vehicles may occasionally be subjected to contamination by airborne iron particles shed from railroad tracks, train wheels, exposure to heavy machinery facilities, grinding, welding, etc. This type of contamination can be identified by the presence of small, red or brown particles on the paint surface. These particles are often difficult to see on dark color paints but can be easily felt when brushing a hand across horizontal body surfaces such as the hood, roof, or deck lid. Follow the Repair Procedure in this bulletin to clean vehicles that may have been subjected to contamination by airborne iron particles such as rail dust during rail transportation or extended storage near industrial areas.

Lexus vehicles are currently protected with RapgardTM protective film designed to protect the horizontal painted surfaces. This material protects from acid rain, environmental fallout, and rail contamination. Follow the Removal Procedure in this bulletin to remove the RapgardTM protective film within 90 days from initial application. SUPERSESSION NOTICE The information contained in this bulletin supersedes Service Bulletin No. L-PG004-94. •The entire bulletin has been updated.

Acid rain results from rainwater or other airborne moisture that become acidic due to industrial chemical impurities in the atmosphere. If these acidic compounds settle on an exposed vehicle, especially the horizontal areas such as the hood, roof, and decklid, significant damage to the painted surfaces can occur. Acid rain damage can typically be identified on vehicles by the presence of stains on the paint surface that resemble hard water spots. Unlike water spots however, acid rain damage cannot be removed by regular washing procedures. Also, because acid rain can etch and soften the paint, normal buffing or polishing repair procedures should not be attempted. This can cause further damage and result in visible depressions in the paint surface. The following are the three major categories of acid rain damage: •Minor damage: requires only buffing to repair. •Moderate damage: usually requires neutralizing, color sanding, and buffing. •Severe damage: extending beyond 1/2 mil of clearcoat on a pearl, metallic, or solid color, requires neutralization, sanding, and repainting. In cases where acid rain damage is minor, neutralization and buffing with a liquid-type paint finessing product may provide an adequate repair. Only specially formulated products outlined in this bulletin should be used for that purpose. Unfortunately, other than minor damage, there is no simple method of determining the actual extent (depth) of acid penetration other than color sanding a representative affected area until there is no visible etching or depressions, followed by measuring the amount of paint removed with either a magnetic or digital-type film thickness gauge. The procedures in this bulletin are intended for use by qualified body/paint technicians and should not be attempted by inexperienced personnel. While the quality and durability of paint on Lexus vehicles is continuously being improved, it remains the dealer’s responsibility to protect and maintain the quality of the vehicle’s paint finish after receipt at the dealership prior to the first sale. Perform frequent vehicle washing, as often as daily, during high heat and humidity periods to minimize the potential for paint damage due to acid rain exposure. This is especially important in geographical areas known for high frequency and concentration of acid rain and industrial fallout.