In July 2024, I decided it was time to retire my old car, which had quite a few problems, and buy a new one. After carefully comparing the information from different brands, I chose the 2024 Toyota RAV4, LE trim. One major reason was Toyota’s prominent introduction of its Pre-Collision System (PCS) on its official website. Through videos, pictures, and written descriptions, the website clearly explained that when there is a stationary vehicle waiting at a red light, or a pedestrian crossing the street ahead—and a collision is possible—the PCS will issue a red warning. If the driver does not brake, the system will automatically intervene and apply the brakes to avoid the collision.
I liked this active safety technology very much, so I bought the vehicle.
In the month after I bought the car, I drove it frequently and decided to try the PCS system. On straight, clear city roads, I intentionally did not press the brake when I approached stationary vehicles waiting at red lights while driving at around 20 to 40 miles per hour. The car did flash the red warning, but the PCS never intervened or applied the brakes. Each time, I had to slam on the brakes at the last moment to avoid a collision. I tried this three times, and the result was exactly the same every time. It was frightening, and it made me doubt whether the PCS was truly effective.
Later, I called the salesperson who had sold me the car. His answer was: “This car does not have automatic braking. It only has automatic braking and distance keeping when you are driving on the freeway.” However, the automatic braking on the freeway—Dynamic Radar Cruise Control (DRCC)—is not the same technology as PCS. What he told me was completely inconsistent with what Toyota said on its official website.
During my first routine maintenance, I formally requested that the dealer test the PCS. My initial thought was that maybe the system on this particular car had a problem—a one-in-a-thousand chance, perhaps—but still possible. However, the service staff insisted that the car could not possibly have any issue, and that there was no need for any testing at all.
After I repeatedly insisted, they finally agreed to perform the test. When the report came out, the conclusion was extremely simple: “PCS operation as designed.” Other than that, there was no technical data and no explanation of how the test was conducted.
During that time, I also spoke with several other salespeople. Not only did they repeat the claim that automatic braking only exists on the freeway, but two additional explanations appeared. One salesperson told me that the car I bought was just a basic model and therefore did not have automatic braking. However, Toyota’s official website clearly states that all 2024 RAV4 trims come with PCS.
Another salesperson said that because there are many traffic lights and frequent stop-and-go situations on city roads, the PCS can easily become confused and is not reliable, so it is better not to use it.
These statements surprised me even more, and instead of solving my doubts, they only deepened them.
At this point, I had thought my confusion could be easily resolved, but instead my doubts only grew. With no other option, I decided to write to Toyota’s Quality Management Department and explain the situation in detail. It was, in effect, a formal complaint.
Toyota responded fairly quickly. They coordinated with the dealer to perform a second inspection on the vehicle, and this time a technician also carried out a road test. The report came out the next day, and part of it stated:
“Shop Foreman test drove vehicle 19 miles on freeway and city streets. Inspected radar sensor operation. Test drove vehicle with radar cruise active and the system properly detected all vehicles encountered and corrected speed to maintain correct distance and slowed vehicle to a complete stop. Unable to safely test the pre-collision system. The PCS system only activates when the system determines the possibility of a frontal collision with an object is high. The system will not activate unless a crash is very likely. The test drive performed verified the operation of the radar sensor used to detect the possibility of a collision. No problem was found with the vehicle at this time.”
Because I had a camera installed in the car, the video also confirmed Toyota’s description: the shop foreman did drive on both the freeway and city streets. But the problem is that I had never questioned Adaptive Cruise Control on the freeway—I had already told them the ACC worked perfectly fine. What I cared about was the PCS on city roads. On this point, the report only said that it was “unable to safely test the pre-collision system.”
The video also clearly showed that when the car was driving at a moderate speed on city streets and approached a red light with stationary vehicles ahead, the driver simply pressed the brake pedal gently, and the car slowly came to a stop behind the vehicle in front. There was no attempt to simulate a situation where the driver did not brake, allowing the PCS to intervene. There was not even the sound of a red warning alert.
This second inspection result left me disappointed. Toyota, as a top-tier designer and manufacturer with strong technical capabilities and equipment, somehow could not provide any convincing test data for such an important safety system. After seeing that my concerns remained completely unresolved, Toyota told me that they might perform yet another inspection and would provide a replacement vehicle at that time. I was very pleased and even impressed—this serious and responsible attitude lived up to Toyota’s reputation.
But a few days later, Toyota suddenly changed its stance. They informed me that they had already done everything they could and would not be able to offer any further service in the future. They also suggested that I resolve the issue through arbitration and provided information about the California Dispute Settlement Program (CDSP), describing it as a completely neutral arbitration organization.
I felt conflicted. I am almost seventy years old, and my energy is limited. Whenever I encounter problems, I always hope they can be resolved simply. The earlier back-and-forth had already consumed a great deal of effort, and arbitration is a legal process that can be very troublesome. But after thinking it over, I felt that if I could show that Toyota had engaged in exaggeration or misleading advertising, it would be meaningful for many consumers. After all, the RAV4 is a very popular model.
So I put in the effort and submitted various materials to CDSP, including Toyota’s website videos, descriptions and images about PCS, the part in the owner’s manual describing PCS, all the emails between Toyota and me, the two inspection reports, and the video of the technician driving the vehicle. I also stated my request: if Toyota had indeed engaged in misleading or exaggerated claims, then I wanted the vehicle to be repurchased. Even though the repurchase price would be decided by Toyota (and when I filed for arbitration, the vehicle had only a little over six thousand miles), and even though I would gain nothing from it, at least I would understand the truth. And I was not being unreasonable.
During the arbitration, Toyota responded to my claims with two points. First, they said that there was nothing wrong with the vehicle, and therefore no repairs had been performed. Second, they cited the owner’s manual, which states the limitations of the Pre-Collision System (PCS): that the driver is solely responsible for safe driving, that the system cannot prevent every collision or reduce damage in every situation, and that one should never rely on it instead of normal braking. In short, no matter what happens, Toyota bears no responsibility.
I felt that Toyota’s reasoning was flawed. Their explanation only defined the safety limitations and responsibility boundaries of PCS. They did not directly answer the real question: whether the PCS system—which they prominently promote on their official website—actually exists on my vehicle and whether it is effective, even just slightly. At the same time, I believed that Toyota should not use an additional disclaimer to negate the positive promises they made about PCS.
Moreover, the fact that during both inspections the technicians never dared simulate a real braking scenario demonstrated that they had no confidence in the system. For these reasons, I submitted my formal response to CDSP.
On September 30, CDSP issued its arbitration decision. The panel unanimously denied my repurchase request, stating that there was insufficient evidence of a “nonconformity” and that the situation did not meet the requirements of the relevant regulations (Song-Beverly/CCR), such as the number of repair attempts or the number of days the vehicle was out of service. They concluded the case and stated that no further action would be taken.
I could only smile bitterly. Just like Toyota, the arbitration panel never addressed the real issue: whether the PCS exists or is truly effective, and whether Toyota’s advertising was misleading or exaggerated. My request for repurchase was based entirely on that foundation. The arbitration panel did not ask Toyota to provide scientific data proving PCS effectiveness; instead, they concluded that my evidence was insufficient.
As an ordinary consumer, I do not have professional equipment or technical expertise. The only evidence I can provide is my actual driving experience. Must I intentionally risk driving without braking until a collision occurs, causing injury or damage, for my evidence to be considered “sufficient”? And according to Toyota’s disclaimer, even one or two collisions would not prove PCS ineffective, because it would still be considered the driver’s fault—perhaps only three or four collisions would count as “evidence.”
Meanwhile, Toyota has the capability to provide decisive testing data. Why is it so difficult for them to do so? As for the “number of repairs” mentioned by CDSP, it does not apply here. I never claimed the vehicle had general quality issues, and Toyota never admitted to any quality problem, so there was nothing to repair in the first place.
After nearly a year—from when I first raised my concerns about PCS in August 2024 to the final arbitration decision on September 30—I was left with deep frustration. I had no choice but to accept the result.
Some friends suggested that I hire a lawyer and pursue the matter through legal channels, but I rejected the idea immediately. It would be far too troublesome and simply not worth it. My energy is limited. Overall, based on my driving experience, the RAV4 seems to be a good vehicle, and I haven’t found other problems so far (though I have not driven it very many miles yet).
So I decided to let the matter end here. I only hope to share my experience on a public platform as a reminder to other consumers: be cautious when purchasing a Toyota RAV4, and pay attention to the differences between the promotional claims and the actual performance. If my experience can help others, then the effort I put in over this past year will not have been in vain.
(For anyone interested in the supporting evidence, I have prepared a complete set of documents—including screenshots, inspection reports, videos, correspondence, and timeline summaries—which I can provide upon request.)
In July 2024, I decided it was time to retire my old car, which had quite a few problems, and buy a new one. After carefully comparing the information from different brands, I chose the 2024 Toyota RAV4, LE trim. One major reason was Toyota’s prominent introduction of its Pre-Collision System (PCS) on its official website. Through videos, pictures, and written descriptions, the website clearly explained that when there is a stationary vehicle waiting at a red light, or a pedestrian crossing the street ahead—and a collision is possible—the PCS will issue a red warning. If the driver does not brake, the system will automatically intervene and apply the brakes to avoid the collision.
I liked this active safety technology very much, so I bought the vehicle.
In the month after I bought the car, I drove it frequently and decided to try the PCS system. On straight, clear city roads, I intentionally did not press the brake when I approached stationary vehicles waiting at red lights while driving at around 20 to 40 miles per hour. The car did flash the red warning, but the PCS never intervened or applied the brakes. Each time, I had to slam on the brakes at the last moment to avoid a collision. I tried this three times, and the result was exactly the same every time. It was frightening, and it made me doubt whether the PCS was truly effective.
Later, I called the salesperson who had sold me the car. His answer was: “This car does not have automatic braking. It only has automatic braking and distance keeping when you are driving on the freeway.” However, the automatic braking on the freeway—Dynamic Radar Cruise Control (DRCC)—is not the same technology as PCS. What he told me was completely inconsistent with what Toyota said on its official website.
During my first routine maintenance, I formally requested that the dealer test the PCS. My initial thought was that maybe the system on this particular car had a problem—a one-in-a-thousand chance, perhaps—but still possible. However, the service staff insisted that the car could not possibly have any issue, and that there was no need for any testing at all.
After I repeatedly insisted, they finally agreed to perform the test. When the report came out, the conclusion was extremely simple: “PCS operation as designed.” Other than that, there was no technical data and no explanation of how the test was conducted.
During that time, I also spoke with several other salespeople. Not only did they repeat the claim that automatic braking only exists on the freeway, but two additional explanations appeared. One salesperson told me that the car I bought was just a basic model and therefore did not have automatic braking. However, Toyota’s official website clearly states that all 2024 RAV4 trims come with PCS.
Another salesperson said that because there are many traffic lights and frequent stop-and-go situations on city roads, the PCS can easily become confused and is not reliable, so it is better not to use it.
These statements surprised me even more, and instead of solving my doubts, they only deepened them.
At this point, I had thought my confusion could be easily resolved, but instead my doubts only grew. With no other option, I decided to write to Toyota’s Quality Management Department and explain the situation in detail. It was, in effect, a formal complaint.
Toyota responded fairly quickly. They coordinated with the dealer to perform a second inspection on the vehicle, and this time a technician also carried out a road test. The report came out the next day, and part of it stated:
“Shop Foreman test drove vehicle 19 miles on freeway and city streets. Inspected radar sensor operation. Test drove vehicle with radar cruise active and the system properly detected all vehicles encountered and corrected speed to maintain correct distance and slowed vehicle to a complete stop. Unable to safely test the pre-collision system. The PCS system only activates when the system determines the possibility of a frontal collision with an object is high. The system will not activate unless a crash is very likely. The test drive performed verified the operation of the radar sensor used to detect the possibility of a collision. No problem was found with the vehicle at this time.”
Because I had a camera installed in the car, the video also confirmed Toyota’s description: the shop foreman did drive on both the freeway and city streets. But the problem is that I had never questioned Adaptive Cruise Control on the freeway—I had already told them the ACC worked perfectly fine. What I cared about was the PCS on city roads. On this point, the report only said that it was “unable to safely test the pre-collision system.”
The video also clearly showed that when the car was driving at a moderate speed on city streets and approached a red light with stationary vehicles ahead, the driver simply pressed the brake pedal gently, and the car slowly came to a stop behind the vehicle in front. There was no attempt to simulate a situation where the driver did not brake, allowing the PCS to intervene. There was not even the sound of a red warning alert.
This second inspection result left me disappointed. Toyota, as a top-tier designer and manufacturer with strong technical capabilities and equipment, somehow could not provide any convincing test data for such an important safety system. After seeing that my concerns remained completely unresolved, Toyota told me that they might perform yet another inspection and would provide a replacement vehicle at that time. I was very pleased and even impressed—this serious and responsible attitude lived up to Toyota’s reputation.
But a few days later, Toyota suddenly changed its stance. They informed me that they had already done everything they could and would not be able to offer any further service in the future. They also suggested that I resolve the issue through arbitration and provided information about the California Dispute Settlement Program (CDSP), describing it as a completely neutral arbitration organization.
I felt conflicted. I am almost seventy years old, and my energy is limited. Whenever I encounter problems, I always hope they can be resolved simply. The earlier back-and-forth had already consumed a great deal of effort, and arbitration is a legal process that can be very troublesome. But after thinking it over, I felt that if I could show that Toyota had engaged in exaggeration or misleading advertising, it would be meaningful for many consumers. After all, the RAV4 is a very popular model.
So I put in the effort and submitted various materials to CDSP, including Toyota’s website videos, descriptions and images about PCS, the part in the owner’s manual describing PCS, all the emails between Toyota and me, the two inspection reports, and the video of the technician driving the vehicle. I also stated my request: if Toyota had indeed engaged in misleading or exaggerated claims, then I wanted the vehicle to be repurchased. Even though the repurchase price would be decided by Toyota (and when I filed for arbitration, the vehicle had only a little over six thousand miles), and even though I would gain nothing from it, at least I would understand the truth. And I was not being unreasonable.
During the arbitration, Toyota responded to my claims with two points. First, they said that there was nothing wrong with the vehicle, and therefore no repairs had been performed. Second, they cited the owner’s manual, which states the limitations of the Pre-Collision System (PCS): that the driver is solely responsible for safe driving, that the system cannot prevent every collision or reduce damage in every situation, and that one should never rely on it instead of normal braking. In short, no matter what happens, Toyota bears no responsibility.
I felt that Toyota’s reasoning was flawed. Their explanation only defined the safety limitations and responsibility boundaries of PCS. They did not directly answer the real question: whether the PCS system—which they prominently promote on their official website—actually exists on my vehicle and whether it is effective, even just slightly. At the same time, I believed that Toyota should not use an additional disclaimer to negate the positive promises they made about PCS.
Moreover, the fact that during both inspections the technicians never dared simulate a real braking scenario demonstrated that they had no confidence in the system. For these reasons, I submitted my formal response to CDSP.
On September 30, CDSP issued its arbitration decision. The panel unanimously denied my repurchase request, stating that there was insufficient evidence of a “nonconformity” and that the situation did not meet the requirements of the relevant regulations (Song-Beverly/CCR), such as the number of repair attempts or the number of days the vehicle was out of service. They concluded the case and stated that no further action would be taken.
I could only smile bitterly. Just like Toyota, the arbitration panel never addressed the real issue: whether the PCS exists or is truly effective, and whether Toyota’s advertising was misleading or exaggerated. My request for repurchase was based entirely on that foundation. The arbitration panel did not ask Toyota to provide scientific data proving PCS effectiveness; instead, they concluded that my evidence was insufficient.
As an ordinary consumer, I do not have professional equipment or technical expertise. The only evidence I can provide is my actual driving experience. Must I intentionally risk driving without braking until a collision occurs, causing injury or damage, for my evidence to be considered “sufficient”? And according to Toyota’s disclaimer, even one or two collisions would not prove PCS ineffective, because it would still be considered the driver’s fault—perhaps only three or four collisions would count as “evidence.”
Meanwhile, Toyota has the capability to provide decisive testing data. Why is it so difficult for them to do so? As for the “number of repairs” mentioned by CDSP, it does not apply here. I never claimed the vehicle had general quality issues, and Toyota never admitted to any quality problem, so there was nothing to repair in the first place.
After nearly a year—from when I first raised my concerns about PCS in August 2024 to the final arbitration decision on September 30—I was left with deep frustration. I had no choice but to accept the result.
Some friends suggested that I hire a lawyer and pursue the matter through legal channels, but I rejected the idea immediately. It would be far too troublesome and simply not worth it. My energy is limited. Overall, based on my driving experience, the RAV4 seems to be a good vehicle, and I haven’t found other problems so far (though I have not driven it very many miles yet).
So I decided to let the matter end here. I only hope to share my experience on a public platform as a reminder to other consumers: be cautious when purchasing a Toyota RAV4, and pay attention to the differences between the promotional claims and the actual performance. If my experience can help others, then the effort I put in over this past year will not have been in vain.
(For anyone interested in the supporting evidence, I have prepared a complete set of documents—including screenshots, inspection reports, videos, correspondence, and timeline summaries—which I can provide upon request.)
- YANXI L., Laguna Hills, CA, US