2005 Toyota Matrix Engine Problems

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS HIGH SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE COMPLETELY LOST POWER ON THREE OCCASIONS. THE CONTACT COASTED THE VEHICLE TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE OVER A PERIOD OF 15-20 MINUTES ON EACH OCCASION. WARRENS AUTO REPAIR IN BISHOP, CALIFORNIA WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE, BUT COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND STATED THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL RELATED TO THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 152,000.

CAR TURNS OFF WHILE I'M DRIVING AND WILL NOT TURN ON RIGHT AWAY, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT TURNS ON AND OFF, THERE'S A LAG WHEN IT IS SWITCHING GEARS, FEELS VERY FORCED.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE WOULD STALL AS THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS, BUT THE DETAILS OF THE DIAGNOSIS COULD NOT BE PROVIDED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED, BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 10V384000 (ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING). THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 90,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 10V384000 (ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING). THE REPAIR WAS PERFORMED AND WITHIN 30 MILES OF DRIVING, THE ENGINE WARNING LIGHT WAS ILLUMINATED AND THE ENGINE STALLED SPORADICALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A SECOND DEALER WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE TRANSMISSION HAD FAILED. THE MANUFACTURER AGREED TO FURTHER INSPECT THE VEHICLE AND ADVISED THAT THERE POSSIBLY COULD BE MORE FAILURES WITHIN THE VEHICLE OTHER THAT THE TRANSMISSION. THE CONTACT WAS AWAITING A RESPONSE FROM THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 275,000.

MY CAR DIED WHILE I WAS DRIVING ON A SATURDAY. I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP AND TOLD THEM, THEY CONFIRMED IT WAS DUE TO THE RECALL ON THE ECM [1ZZ-FE], YET I HAD TO PAY TO HAVE THE CAR TOWED IN. THEY SAID THEY WOULD RUN TEST TO CONFIRM THAT WAS THE PROBLEM THEN FIX IT. 3 HOURS LATER THEY CALLED AND SAID THAT CHANGING THE COMPUTER PART THAT WAS RECALLED COULD FIX THE PROBLEM, BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY - I ASKED FOR A LONER CAR SINCE IT WAS NOT MY FAULT I WOULD BE WITHOUT A CAR, THEY SAID THEY WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. THEY WOULD DO AN EMERGENCY ORDER AND THE PART WOULD BE IN ON TUESDAY - THEY WOULD CALL ME IN THE MORNING. ON TUESDAY THEY DIDN'T CALL I HAD TO CALL, I HAD TO CALL MULTIPLE TIMES TO REACH ANYONE, AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE PART, IT WAS BACK-ORDERED AND COULD BE UP TO A FEW WEEKS. I AGAIN PUSHED FOR A LONER CAR, THEY SAID THEY WOULD SEE IF THEY COULD AUTHORIZE IT AND CALL ME IN THE MORNING. IN THE MORNING THEY HAD SOMEHOW MANAGED TO FIND A PART, PUT IT IN, I WAS THEN TOLD THAT THE FUEL SYSTEM NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. MY CAR WAS IN PERFECT CONDITION BEFORE THIS, THERE IS NO WAY THE FUEL SYSTEM MIRACULOUSLY WENT BAD AT THE EXACT SAME TIME THAT THE RECALLED PART WENT OUT - IT HAD TO BE CAUSED BY THE COMPUTER FAILURE. BESIDES THAT I WAS TOLD THAT THE COMPUTER PART WAS THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH MY CAR. THEN THEY TRIED TO OVERCHARGE MY BY $600 FOR THE FUEL SYSTEM, ALL THE WHILE STILL NOT GIVING ME A LONER CAR. IN SUMMARY MY CAR DIED ON MY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, I HAD TO PAY FOR MY TOWING, MISS HOURS OF WORK, BE CARELESS FOR 6 DAYS AND PAY FOR A NEW FUEL SYSTEM ALL THANKS TO THE RECALLED PART. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THE PARTS THAT WERE DAMAGED BY THE RECALL PROBLEMS.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 10V384000 (ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING). THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO HAVE THE VEHICLE REPAIRED UNDER THE RECALL DUE TO A LACK OR AVAILABLE PARTS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE HAD BEEN ATTEMPTING TO HAVE THE VEHICLE REPAIRED FOR OVER FOUR MONTHS TO NO AVAIL. THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT ONLY TWO ENGINE CONTROL MODULES WERE DELIVERED PER MONTH MEANING ONLY TWO VEHICLES PER MONTH COULD BE REPAIRED UNDER THE RECALL. THE CONTACT HAD NOT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE THAT COULD CAUSE A CRASH AND HE NO LONGER FELT SAFE DRIVING THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 83,200.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. THE CONTACT STARTED THE IGNITION AND THE ENGINE FAILED TO START. THE FAILURE RECURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO STATED TO THE CONTACT THAT THE MALFUNCTION WAS RELATED TO THE ECM, WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS BEING REPAIRED AT THE DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD INTERMITTENTLY STALL WHEN DRIVING AT ANY SPEED. MOST RECENTLY, THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE AFTER STALLING. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE THEY ADVISED THAT THE ECM WOULD NEED REPLACING. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED AT THE CONTACT'S EXPENSE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 92,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 99,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING AT SPEEDS OF 55MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO MANEUVER THE VEHICLE OFF THE ROADWAY. THE DEALER ADVISED THE VEHICLES COMPUTER HAD MALFUNCTIONED AND A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN WAS AVAILABLE DESCRIBING THE FAILURE (NHTSA ITEM NUMBER 10019673: ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING: ENGINE). THERE WERE NO RECALLS. THE MANUFACTURE ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OUT OF WARRANTY AND ANY REPAIRS MADE TO THE VEHICLE WOULD BE AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 80,744.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 55 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT WAS ABLE TO PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE YET THE ENGINE WAS REPLACED. THE FAILURE DID NOT RECUR. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 114,300.

TL*THE CONTACT OWNED A 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 65 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE DECREASED IN SPEED AS THE CONTACT REMOVED HIS FOOT FROM THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL. THE DEALER COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT CONFIRMED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER ON NINE SEPARATE OCCASIONS WITH CONCERNS OF UNINTENDED ACCELERATION. THE DEALER COULD NOT DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS LEFT IN POSSESSION OF THE DEALER. THE CONTACT WOULD NOT DRIVE THE VEHICLE ANY LONGER DUE TO CONCERNS FOR HIS SAFETY WHILE OPERATING THE VEHICLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 25,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 25,000. UPDATED 5/12/10 *CN THE CONSUMER STATED WHEN THE SPEED WAS SET AT 55 MPH, THE SPEED WOULD FLUCTUATE FROM 51 MPH UPHILL TO 59-60 MPH DOWNHILL. WHEN STARTING FROM A STOP, THE ENGINE WOULD EITHER STALL OR SPIN THE WHEELS. AT TIMES, THE ENGINE WOULD NOT RESPOND WHEN TRYING TO INCREASE SPEED. DURING VERY COLD WINTER DAYS, THE ENGINE WOULD STUMBLE AND AT TIMES BUCK LIKE A BRONCO WITH THE GAS PEDAL TO THE FLOOR UNTIL THE ENGINE WAS WARMED UP. UPDATED 06/18/10

ECM FAILURE ON 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. CAUSED LURCHING,ACCELERATION CHANGES DURING AUTOMATIC GEAR SHIFTING., CAUSING UNSAFE DRIVING BY DRIVER. DEALER SAID VEHICLE OUT OF WARRANTY AND MILEAGE TOO HIGH (80,500) FOR THEM TO REPLACE AT THEIR COST. *TR

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH ON NORMAL ROAD CONDITIONS, PRESSURE WAS APPLIED TO THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL FOLLOWED BY HARSH SHIFTING AND EXCESSIVE VIBRATION. THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED INTERMITTENTLY ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE CONTACT IS IN THE PROCESS OF NOTIFYING THE MANUFACTURER. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 82,000.

TOOK CAR TO DEALERSHIP IN JULY, 2006, BECAUSE THE A/C WAS BLOWING HOT, A CHECK ENGINE LIGHT HAD COME ON, AND IT WASN'T ALWAYS STARTING, AND/OR SPUTTERING WHILE DRIVING. THEY REPLACED THE FUEL PUMP, A NEW A/C CONTROL SWITCH, AND A SENSOR IN THE ENGINE BECAUSE THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WOULD NOT GO OFF AND THEY COULD FIND NOTHING ELSE WRONG. REPAIRS OCCURRED OVER A TWO WEEK PERIOD WITH ME HAVING TO RETURN THE CAR TO THE SAME DEALERSHIP FOR SERVICE FOR THE SAME THREE COMPLAINTS A TOTAL OF THREE TIMES- A/C BLOWING HOT, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ON, AND SPUTTERING WHEN DRIVING/HESITATION WHEN STARTING. I ALSO HAVE A FOURTH COMPLAINT OF A POPPING NOISE IN THE ENGINE WHICH TO DATE HAS NEVER BEEN RESOLVED. I ALSO HAD A 30K MILE SERVICE DONE AT THIS TIME. PROBLEMS BEGAN TO REOCCUR THE FIRST WEEK OF OCTOBER 2006, AND I MADE ANOTHER APPOINTMENT WITH A DIFFERENT DEALERSHIP. TOOK THE CAR IN, THEY HAD THE CAR FOR THREE DAYS AND COULD NOT DUPLICATE ANY OF THE PROBLEMS I WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT. I WAS DISSATISFIED BY THE LACK OF SERVICE BOTH ON THE CAR AND CUSTOMER RELATED. PICKED THE CAR UP WITH NO DIAGNOSIS OR REPAIRS HAVING BEEN MADE. WITHIN FOUR DAYS, THE CAR BEGAN ACTING UP AGAIN AND SHUT DOWN COMPLETELY ON THE FLORIDA TURNPIKE RESULTING IN A TOW 35 MILES BACK TO MY HOUSE AND THEN ANOTHER 15 OR SO MILES TO THE DEALERSHIP. DETERMINED THE PROBLEM TO BE "ENGINE SLUDGE" AND AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW I AM BEING TOLD THAT THE ENTIRE ENGINE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AT MY EXPENSE. MY PROBLEM HAS NOT REACHED A FINAL RESOLUTION/DECISION WITH TOYOTA BUT I AM DISGUSTED BEYOND BELIEF ABOUT THE ENTIRE EXPERIENCE. *NM

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ACCELERATING FROM A STOP, THE VEHICLE STALLED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE RESTARTED EACH TIME. THE DEALERSHIP WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE VEHICLE IS A 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX. *AK UPDATED 12/26/2006 - THE CONSUMER FELT THAT THE CRUISE CONTROL WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY BUT THE DEALER INDICATED THAT IT WAS WORKING AS DESIGNED. THE CONSUMER NOTICED A LONG CRANK TIME WHILE ATTEMPTING TO START THE VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER NOTICED A VIBRATION IN THE STEERING WHEEL. THE CONSUMER INDICATED THAT THE VEHICLE NEEDED A NEW ENGINE MOUNT TO ALLEVIATE THE VIBRATION. *NM

STARTED CAR TO GO TO WORK AND ENGINE CAUGHT FIRE. FIRE DEPT CAME AND PUT THE FIRE OUT BUT THE FIRE BURNED THE ENGINE AND BURNED INTO THE DRIVER SIDE OF THE CAR BURNING THROUGH THE FLOOR BOARD AND DASH. *NM

I WAS HALTED IN THE LEFT TURN LANE OF A 6 LANE HIGHWAY BEHIND ANOTHER CAR ALSO WAITING TO TURN. MY CAR(1,600 MILES) WAS IDLING IN DRIVE. SUDDENLY THE ENGINE BEGAN RACING AND BY VIRTUALLY STANDING ON THE BRAKE I PREVENTED FORWARD MOVEMENT AND AFTER A FEW SECONDS I SLIPPED IT INTO NEUTRAL. WHEN I DID THAT, THE ENGINE SEEMED TO RACE ALL THE MORE - VIRTUALLY SCREAMING. I FINALLY THOUGHT TO TURN THE IGNITION OFF. THE CAR PROMPTLY RESTARTED AND THE PROBLEM DID NOT RECUR AGAIN. THE POTENTIAL FOR A SERIOUS ACCIDENT FROM THIS PROBLEM IS HUGE. *JB

I PURCHASED MY 2005 TOYOTA MATRIX 5/7/05. 1 WEEK AFTER I PURCHASED MY VEHICLE I EXPERIENCED A INTERMITTENT STARTING PROBLEM. EVEN AFTER 4 ATTEMPTS BY TOYOTA TO FIX THE PROBLEM IT IS STILL CURRENT. IT USUALLY HAPPENS MORE OFTEN WHEN THE ENGINE IS WARM. IT USUALLY CRANKS 5-10 SECONDS BEFORE STARTING. SOMETIMES THE VEHICLE WILL NOT START AT ALL AND I HAVE TO TURN THE KEY BACK AND RETRY TO START THE VEHICLE. THE DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE CLAIMS THEY CANNOT GET THE PROBLEM TO DUPLICATE WHEN THEY HAVE THE VEHICLE IN THEIR POSSESSION BUT WHEN I LAST HAD MY CAR THERE THE CAR TOOK ABOUT 7 SECONDS TO START AND THE SERVICE MANAGER CLAIMS THAT IS NORMAL FOR THE MATRIX ENGINE TO CRANK. I FIND THIS HARD TO BELIEVE WITH A BRAND NEW VEHICLE.*JB

DT: THE CLUTCH WAS DIFFICULT TO DEPRESS/TO ENGAGE THE STARTER. THE CONSUMER STATED THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WHEN TRYING TO WORK THE CLUTCH BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN THE FLOOR AREA ,AND THE WHEEL WELL MADE A HUMP IN THIS AREA. ALSO, THE VEHICLE WAS DESIGNED WITH A FOOT REST THAT THE CONSUMER HAD REMOVED BECAUSE IT MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DRIVE. ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT OCCASIONS THE VEHICLE STALLED. TWICE IT PUT THE CONSUMER IN DANGEROUS SITUATION ALTHOUGH, THERE WERE NO ACCIDENTS. THE FIRST TIME WAS IN AUGUST 2004. THE SECOND TIME WAS IN SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER 2004. WHEN THE CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO A DEALER THEY BASICALLY TOLD HIM THEY COULD NOT FIND THE STALLING PROBLEM. WHEN HE CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER, THEY TOLD HIM BASICALLY THE SAME HING. THE CONSUMER STATED HE BELIEVED THAT THE AREA PROBLEM WAS A DESIGN FLAW. *AK