2013 Toyota Avalon Hybrid
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Toyota › Avalon Hybrid › 2013
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2013 Toyota Avalon Hybrid. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
3 recalls name the 2013 Toyota Avalon Hybrid. Newest first.
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing (Toyota) is recalling certain 2011-2019 Corolla, 2011-2013 Matrix, 2012-2018 Avalon, and 2013-2018 Avalon Hybrid vehicles. During certain crashes, the air bag electronic control unit (ECU) may malfunction, possibly disabling the deployment of the air bags and/or seat belt pretensioners.
In the event of a crash, air bags and/or seat belt pretensioners that do not deploy as intended may increase the risk of injury.
Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the ECU and install a noise filter between the air bag control module and its wire harness, as necessary, free of charge. Owners were notified of the safety risk beginning March 2, 2020. A second letter notifying owners of the remedy repair will be mailed between March 16, 2020 and June 27, 2020. Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-888-270-9371. Toyota's numbers for this recall are 20TB03, 20TA03 and 20TA05.
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing (Toyota) is recalling certain model year 2013-2015 Avalon and Avalon Hybrid vehicles manufactured October 19, 2012 to October 27, 2015 and 2013-2015 Lexus ES350 and ES300h vehicles manufactured June 18, 2012 to July 6, 2015. The affected vehicles are equipped with a Pre-Collision System (PCS) as optional equipment.…
A vehicle that unexpectedly brakes increases the risk of a crash.
Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace certain PCS components, free of charge. The recall began on July 28, 2016. Owners may contact Toyota at 1-888-270-9371. Toyota's numbers for this campaign are F1V and F2E.
Toyota Motor Engineering & manufacturing North America, Inc. (Toyota) is recalling certain model year 2013-2014 Camry and Camry HV, model year 2013 Avalon and Avalon HV and model year 2014 Corolla vehicles. In the affected vehicles, the windshield wiper switch assembly may short circuit. As such, these vehicles fail to conform to the requirements of…
A short circuit could cause inoperative windshield wipers, reducing driver visibility and increasing the risk of a crash.
Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the wiper switch assembly, free of charge. The recall began on November 8, 2013. Owners may contact Toyota at 1-800-331-4331.
The contact owns a 2013 Toyota Avalon Hybrid. The contact stated that several instrument cluster warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer who informed the contact that they were unable to determine the cause of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic who informed the contact that the vehicle was a hazard and could catch on fire. The manufacturer was notified however, no further assistance was provided. The approximate failure mileage was 98,000.
TL* the contact owns a 2013 toyota avalon hybrid. While driving approximately 25 mph, there was an abnormal sound coming from the passenger side of the vehicle and the contact noticed that the passenger side exterior mirror had shattered. The mirror was not struck by any foreign objects. The vehicle was taken to john o'neil johnson toyota (located at 2900 MS-39, meridian, ms 39301, (888) 781-0044) where it was diagnosed that the mirror and wiring harness needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 43,000.
When it rains heavily (within the two months I have owned it), the roof and/or sunroof leaks causing water damage in multiple areas of the roof. The dealership cannot find a cause after the initial sunroof drain was cleared.
When I put the car in reverse, there IS a very loud grinding noise as the retractable rear window screen tries to go up. When the car IS put in gear there IS a different grinding noise. The screen has frozen in various stages of up or down, but now IS stuck down, obviously trying to raise. According to many posts online, including some from toyota dealerships, this has been an ongoing problem for over 10 years. It IS a safety problem at night when the screen has been stuck in the up position and it IS difficult to see out. it IS also a safety problem because the noise IS very loud and distracting. I have taken it to two different toyota dealers who say it will cost $1,600 to replace, but it would only be guaranteed for 1 year. the fuse can't be removed to disable it and stop the noise because it will affect the cruise control and the blinkers. I want the noise silenced. Toyota needs to fix this issue through a warranty extension or recall.
Headlights blow out frequently and need replacing.
Rear window shade will not retract. stays in up position all the time. hard to see at night. dealer says there has been alot of shades that quit funtioning. not covered under warranty. $1700 repair if want done. can't even disable so it will retract and stay down.
Avalon recall no 15v728. Had the recall "remedy" performed on my car 09/07/16 (was having no issue with my car before the recall) and now the pcs warning buzzes and lights up, and the red brake! Message lights up every time I drive the vehicle! Contacted toyota corporate ofc (case #1609142106 & #1611100472) to report the issue has not been resolved, and express my fear that the system will now not work when it IS supposed to, but the "case mgr" (cory carter) stated "there IS nothing else they can do for me", and advised me to "seek outside assistance for any additional help'. I asked if this meant seeking an attorney, to which he replied "yes". I feel my car IS now unsafe, and toyota could care less!!
TL* the contact owns a 2013 toyota avalon hybrid. The contact received a recall notification for nhtsa campaign number: 15v728000 (forward collision avoidance); however, the parts needed were not available. The contact believed that the manufacturer exceeded a reasonable amount of time to provide the recall repair. The dealer inspected the vehicle and performed the temporary remedy. The manufacturer was made aware of the delay. The contact had not experienced a failure.
TL* the contact owns a 2013 toyota avalon hybrid. The contact received notification of nhtsa campaign number: 15v728000 (forward collision avoidance). The recall repair remedy was unavailable beyond a reasonable time frame. The contact waited longer than six months. The dealer and the manufacturer were unable to determine when the vehicle would be repaired. The contact had not experienced a failure. Parts distribution disconnect.
TL* the contact owns a 2013 toyota avalon hybrid. The contact received notification of nhtsa campaign number: 15v728000 (forward collision avoidance). However, the part to do the recall repair was unavailable. The contact stated that the manufacturer exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was aware of the issue. The contact had not experienced a failure. Parts distribution disconnect.
Letter from senator nelson on behalf of constituent re the pre-collision system for 2013 toyota avalon recall notice. *smd the consumer stated the system never worked properly and he notified the dealer about the problem in 2014. In late 2015, a recall was issued. The consumer stated when a vehicle turned in the left lane as he approached it, the pcs initiated five or six times, and twice stopped the vehicle in traffic. *Jb
TL* the contact owns a 2013 toyota avalon hybrid. The contact stated that the recall notice for nhtsa campaign number: 15v728000 (forward collision avoidance) was received in november of 2015. After contacting the dealer and the manufacturer on multiple occasions, the contact was informed that the parts needed to repair the vehicle were still not available and no estimated time for receiving the parts could be given. The contact indicated that the safety feature was deactivated and the part of the recall and was no long available. The contact had not experienced a failure. Updated 05/03/16*lj
I was parking head-in to parking spot. As I reached the final spot, and was shifting gear to p (parking), the car took off like a "rocket" and jumped the curb. This caused damage to the car parked in the next parking spot and my car. The other car had to be towed. I was able to still drive my car. this happened at an office building outdoor parking lot. People standing outside the building (for smoking or otherwise) witnessed it all. They also indicated that the car went like a rocket and they have never seen anything like this.
Car lacks auto shutoff feature in the electric mode when parked. Keyless system continues to run even though key IS more than 25' away from the car. If hybrid goes 'quiet' in electric mode when parked, one can walk blocks away without the auto shutting down. We returned after a two hour lunch to find the car was still 'running' even though key was in my purse the entire time. We've since tested the system several times with the same result. Toyota dealer located on lake city way in seattle, washington denies this to be a problem. We consider it both a safety and security problem since a child could access and drive auto without having a key.
My 2013 toyota avalon hybrid IS having engine revving problems. While operating at normal speed (45-50). The rpm's suddenly increase to high levels without an increase in speed. Lack of control IS evident. If you switch to "manual" mode with the gear selector you can force it out of play...but the revving can occur soon thereafter or it will not occur again a different day. I took the car into be serviced and told the service manager about the revving problem. He seemed to be very doubtful of the description and told me they could download the engine history. They reported "no problem found". It happened again a few weeks later for a while on a flat paved country road and could be coaxed to stop with the gas pedal. *tr
2013 toyota avalon hybrid requesting airbags to be replaced. *mw the dealer stated the had not received any information concerning the replacement of air bags. She was also informed of a recall concerning an issue with the seats, but never received a notice. *jb
Driver seat warmer stay on when the switch IS off. *tr
TL* the contact owned a 2013 toyota avalon hybrid. The contact's vehicle was struck by a drunk driver, which caused the contact to crash the vehicle into an embankment. The vehicle rolled over several times. The air bags failed to deploy. The contact and front passenger were injured and received medical attention. The driver from the other vehicle also sustained injuries. A police report was filed and the vehicle was destroyed. The manufacturer was notified. The failure occurred while driving 40 mph. The approximate failure mileage was 9,500.
2013 toyota avalon. consumer writes in regards to unintended acceleration vehicle accident. *smd the consumer stated the vehicle accelerated backwards out of a parking space. Luckily, she did not hit anything or anyone. However, it then accelerated forward hitting another vehicle in a parking space. the vehicle was inspected, and it was determined, the accident was not a result of any type of manufacturing or design defect. *jb
The top two clips of the driver's seat back disconnected from the seat back trim panel and the trim panel cannot be reattached at the top clips. the bottom hinge IS still attached. the trim panel IS now hanging back, almost touching the rear seat. *tr
The headliner on the rear of the vehicle was noted to be falling down in august 2013, just two months after purchase of the vehicle. it was brought back to the dealer for repair where they glued it back in place. just a couple of months later, the headliner again began to droop and today, it continues to impair visibility out of the rear window. *tr
On sunday, march 16, 2014, at approximately 12:50pm, northbound traffic on lake shore drive was brought to a halt by four police vehicles that spread across the four northbound lanes. the police vehicles were parked, one in each lane. the officers had created a road block. my car was in the far east lane immediately behind a parked police vehicle. I placed my vehicle in park, but kept the engine running. minutes later, a black chrysler sedan driving at a high speed (estimated at 55-100mph per police reports) was being pursued by the police in a high speed chase. the black chrysler approached my stationary vehicle from the rear with no signs of slowing down. I told my family we were about to be hit and soon after we felt the impacts first from the black sedan hitting us from behind and then from the front when my car was pushed into the parked police vehicle ahead of us. my head hit the steering wheel causing an abrasion and bleeding. none of the airbags deployed despite a high speed impact from the rear and a secondary impact in the front. *tr
Driving on straight level interstate with laser cruise set at 65 mph and no other cars or obstacles present, car suddenly braked two times (about 20 minutes apart). the same thing occurred about 7 days later on comparable road in light rain. in this later situation, wipers suddenly went on high speed, for 5 seconds and car braked twice in span of about 5 minutes. the second time this occurred, the master warning light came on for about 30 seconds. we took it to toyota dealer the next morning in rapid city, sd, who said he could not work on it for a couple of days and suggested we call toyota. toyota said it sounded like a cruise problem and asked if we could carefully drive it to salt lake city to be evaluated. On way to salt lake city, car suddenly accelerated above the setting of 65 mph. pressed brakes to cancel. dealer in salt lake city said car displayed a defect code for the laser cruise and the blind spot monitoring and said car was safe to drive home to arizona if we did not use the cruise. took car back to originating dealer in phoenix area for repairs blind spot monitoring apparently repaired. however, factory rep drove car for 25 miles and stated that this IS the way laser cruise IS supposed to work and refuses to authorize any repairs. we do not deem the car to be safe to drive and are afraid that toyota and the dealership are going to do nothing. *ln
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has received a petition dated September 19, 2023 from the owner of a 2012 Toyota Prius V requesting that ODI reevaluate its decision to deny DP19-004. In the letter, the petitioner reported experiencing an unexpected and complete loss of brake power while driving, accompanied by multiple dashboard warning lights. This petition is based on the petitioner's direct experience and assessment that ODI closed DP19-004 because its prompting petition was withdrawn by that petitioner. ODI will review the work conducted during DP19-004 and a review of any additional related complaints and crashes via a new defect petition The petition and related materials can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under the following ODI number:11553736.
NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.
On September 19, 2019, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a defect petition from Mr. Roger Hogan requesting that the Agency investigate and recall certain Toyota Prius, Prius PHV, Camry Hybrid and Avalon Hybrid vehicles for a brake actuator valve wear condition covered under Toyota Customer Support Programs ZJB and ZKK (subject CSP?s). In support of his request, the petitioner identified 117 NHTSA complaints allegedly related to the subject CSP condition, including 60 reporting crashes. On September 30, 2019, ODI opened Defect Petition DP19-004 to evaluate the petitioner?s request for an investigation. In August 2020, the petitioner notified the Agency that he was withdrawing his petition. Because the petitioner has withdrawn the petition, we are denying the petition as moot and no further analysis of this petition is necessary.NHTSA is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the Agency?s investigation shows a defect in the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. ?? 30102(a)(9), 30118. Because the petitioner has with withdrawn the petition, the petition is denied as moot. This action does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency notes that it is not required to receive a defect petition prior to opening a defect investigation and will take further action if warranted by future circumstances.
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect. During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW. The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications. The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU. In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment. FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle. Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW. These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes. An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time. In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU. This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners. Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW. The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation. The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage. There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation. The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU. If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC. Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC. All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled. In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024. With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
Technical service bulletins and other communications the manufacturer sent dealers about this vehicle. Ask a dealer for the full document by its number.
Bars are owner complaints, dots mark years with recalls. Select a year to open its report.