Toyota Halts Sales of Popular Models - Accelerator Stuck Problem Recall

wwest · August 2010

The idea is to prevent SUA incidents that result from "people who can't find the right pedal now". If they inadvertently try to use the "right"/gas pedal for braking at least the vehicle wouldn't speed, LEAP, forward ( or reverse..!).

beachfish2 · August 2010

"WOT override idea"

What's a War On Terror override idea? I thought voting for Obama did that already.

I think we need thought control for people who can't tell the brake pedal from the gas pedal. Which government agency handles that sort of stuff? Oh, maybe it's in the new health care bill.

iluvmysephia1 · August 2010

OK, that does explain it to me quite well. Seems a logical idea, if now it can be applied to vehicles so that it's not screwed up by driver's real intent. So, if they really wanted acceleration they'd need to push the accelerator pedal down again after hitting it once with their foot.

And, of course, if they only wanted the brake they'd apply the brake after mistakenly hitting the accelerator pedal. Kind of adds a failsafe step to the driver's acceleration process intent, then.

wwest · August 2010

Revision: The DBW throttle need not be "armed" for going WOT once the vehicle has moved a defined distance, say 20 feet, or you release the brake and then immediately depress the accelerator pedal to WOT. Also if you're trying for the best 0-60 time still on teh brake when depressing the gas pedal.

Drop the below 20 MPH issue.

wwest · August 2010

The carburetor accelerator pump would often begin to fail and then the only way to accelerate quickly was to give the gas pedal a few quick stokes/pumps to keep the engine from dying.

The purpose of the accelerator pump was to give the engine a good "squirt" of raw gas into the carb throat when/if the gas pedal was depressed rapidly. Slowly depress the gas pedal and the engine could keep up without the "squirt" so the pump was not used.

So for some of us the need to "double-pump" the gas pedal to quickly go WOT would not be such a new thing.

houdini1 · August 2010

You've almost got it figured out but you need a couple more steps here to complicate things a little bit more. How about slamming the glove compartment door twice in quick succession and then rolling down the passenger side rear window before you can give 'er the gas!! Then sell the whole idea to GM.

This reminds me of my 1986 BMW 3 series. It had a sunroof you had to crank open by hand. I always yelled Ye Ha while I was cranking it open because I felt like a cowboy twirling a rope !!

popsavalon · August 2010

After 2-3 days of reading posts about how to help folks find the right pedal, here is my take.

Humans make mistakes, and the more technology and choices, the more mistakes we make. It's like the airline pilots who try to take off with the flaps up.

We are not here to tell manufacturers how to design cars. They, like the rest of the country, are being overwhelmed by frivolous lawsuits and stupid government regulations. This certainly leads to some bad decisions.

You can't fix "stupid", and there are a lot of folks out there who should not be driving a vehicle. The rest of us should just be v-e-r-y careful.

wwest · August 2010

The problem isn't "stupid" it's the untrained reactions of humans in sudden PANIC situations. You mention airline pilots....they train for hour upon hour in simulators, repetitively "encountering" panic situations in order to learn, embed, the correct reactions to dire situations.

And still, some of them get it wrong, instantly pulling back on the york when the stall warning sounds.

And here you are, on cruise control at dusk, ~60 MPH, and a doe (two actually) suddenly appears out of nowhere dashing across the road. Do you slam on the brakes or freeze in a panic trying to push your right foot through the floorboard...?

My wife says it felt like I hit the brakes but my memory says the floorboard.

Oh, today's technology would sound a warning if the plane's weight was still on the landing gear and the throttles were advanced without the flaps down.

stever · September 2010

"Toyota confirmed the settlement Saturday in a statement but did not provide the amount of the settlement or any other details."

Toyota Settles Over Death of Family in California (NY Times)

gagrice · September 2010

The settlement, according to Toyotas statement, resolves product liability claims by the Saylor and Lastrella families against Toyota and the dealership. The families have separate claims against the dealership that were not covered.

What do you suppose that would be? Probably negligence with the wrong floor mat and previous customer complaint.

stever · September 2010

Yep. Interesting that Toyota didn't package a settlement together with the dealer - hope the dealer has good insurance.

houdini1 · October 2010

Looks like this tempest in a teapot is finally about over. None of the bad things predicted for Toyota ever happened. The scammers are now concentrating on BP I guess. Looks like they are out of luck also !

gagrice · October 2010

Not if Bob Baker has anything to do with it. I would imagine his defense in the Saylor case will be calling Toyota execs as witnesses. What sometimes looks like a slam dunk can end up just the opposite when you get 12 jurors involved. Yes some klutz at his Lexus dealership put in the wrong floor mat. But part of the recall was to change the shape of the pedal so it would not get caught on a floor mat. That leaves Toyota with partial culpability. Even though Toyota settled with the family. Any way it shakes out I don't think Bob Baker will have a cozy relationship with ToyLex again.

houdini1 · October 2010

The dealer was a fault here, not Toyota. In all likelihood Toyota settled for PR reasons. The Saylors case is what brought on the avalanche of liars and would be scammers who also wanted to cash in. They were finally exposed for what they were and went home empty handed.

No one has ever explained why Saylors did not hit the kill button or put the car in neutral. That is the big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about because the only possible explanation is panic on the part of the driver.

gagrice · October 2010

I think there are other possibilities. On the kill switch it was simply not knowing you have to hold it 3 seconds. And that is assuming it will kill the engine with the car going 120 MPH as reported. The other possibility is the on board computer system will not allow shifting into neutral at 120 MPH.

I am sure Toyota settled to look good. I don't think that will keep them out of court in the Bob Baker case. I do agree that Bob Baker's dealership holds the bulk of the responsibility in this case. At least from the evidence we have gotten. Toyota's part is the poor pedal design. If it had not been recalled they would have a case to argue. By initiating the reshaping of the pedal, they admitted it was a poor design.

houdini1 · October 2010

And that is assuming it will kill the engine with the car going 120 MPH as reported. The other possibility is the on board computer system will not allow shifting into neutral at 120 MPH.

WHAT?? Neither of those possibilities has ever been known to happen and no one has ever been able to make them happen, however, people panic all the time. The simplest answer is usually the best answer.

Since you are using the Obama technique, you might as well throw in a third possibility....it was Bush's fault !!

wwest · October 2010

I still stand by the possibility that the engine/transaxle control ECU firmware (software) got caught in a "deadly embrace", stuck continuously executing ONLY the cruise control accel function.

popsavalon · October 2010

I must have missed the documented road test where (a.) the vehicle was held at 120 MPH (full throttle) and the ignition button was pushed to positively kill the engine, and (b.) the vehicle was held at 120 MPH (full throttle) and the transmission was shifted to neutral (promptly blowing the engine and probably sending the vehicle out of control on engine oil).

Could you direct me to that web site?

And, the simplest answer IS the best, save your political rants for some other forum!

wwest · October 2010

Yes, for simpletons the simple answer IS always the best, and is often also the correct answer....but NOT always.

How many times have YOU been stuck by lightning..??

iluvmysephia1 · October 2010

for us simpletons, what's lightning got ta do with it, got ta do with it? Please fully splane your theory, but do use the Edmunds Reader's Digest version.

gagrice · October 2010

I must have missed the documented road test where (a.) the vehicle was held at 120 MPH (full throttle)

There was none that I know of. However the Saylor car was reportedly going 120 MPH+ and the driver was unable to do anything with it. Neutral seems the most likely way to save yourself. More questions than answers in my mind. Probably never know.

It does seem that Lexus would want to document an ES350 going 120 MPH with the throttle physically held wide open, then putting it into neutral, to prove it will work. Same for the kill button. The test by CR was hardly valid at 80 MPH.

larsb · October 2010

Just curious.....you lost me on this comment Gary.

Gary says, "It does seem that Lexus would want to document an ES350 going 120 MPH with the throttle physically held wide open, then putting it into neutral, to prove it will work. Same for the kill button. The test by CR was hardly valid at 80 MPH."

How is a test result at 80 mph different from the result at 120 mph?

I can see a brake distance test being different.

I can see a steering test being different.

But what would make a kill switch care if the speed was 5 miles an hour or 130 miles an hour? How would the "Start" button know the speed, or care about the speed?

mickeyrom · October 2010

Makes sense to me.

larsb · October 2010

You mean my questioning of his point makes sense,

or do you mean that the test at 80 mph is not the same as the test at 120 mph?

mickeyrom · October 2010

Of course I am agreeing with you Larsb..

larsb · October 2010

OH OK.....:)

:shades: :shades: :shades:

gagrice · October 2010

Let me go further into detail. When CR did the 80 MPH test did they have the gas pedal completely depressed when they shifted into neutral? Or did they speed up to 80 MPH let off the gas and shift into neutral?

Do we know for a fact that there is not override protection in the ECU to prevent shifting into neutral with WOT? Speeding up to 80 and then shifting into neutral is not the same as having WOT going 120+ MPH. Then again Saylor may have just been hanging onto the steering wheel dodging traffic and it did not occur to him to try neutral.

Again we may never know as the data recorder was not well protected from fire.

larsb · October 2010

I ran that test on my 2007 TCH back when we talked about this before.

WOT at 65 MPH, shifting to neutral IMMEDIATELY brought the revs down to nothing, while the pedal still depressed to the floor.

Why would it behave any differently at any other speed?

They would have to have coded to software like this:

IF WOT = YES THEN
IF SPEED LESS THAN MAX
SWITCH TO NEUTRAL
ELSE
KEEP ACCELERATING WOT.

That would be completely ignorant programming and would never pass any quality examination.

.

gagrice · October 2010

So the answer is we don't know why Saylor did not shift into neutral. Probably did not know about the 3 second hold to shut off the engine. Dealer says it was electronic failure. We will have to wait until the trial to find out what evidence he has to back up that claim. I am sure he will drag Toyota into the trial.

larsb · October 2010

Gary says, "So the answer is we don't know why Saylor did not shift into neutral."

In my mind that has ALWAYS been a question. It might have been as easy as that to save those lives.

gagrice · October 2010

It might have been as easy as that to save those lives.

That is a sad and distinct possibility.

iluvmysephia1 · October 2010

Saylor could not shift the lever in to neutral. Why might that happen? Might it lock under some sort of out-of-control SUA ECU non-working quirk of some kind? If someone could answer that question accurately for me I would stop calling for Babwa-Wa-Wa to immediately retire.

larsb · October 2010

iluvmysephia1 says, "Saylor could not shift the lever in to neutral"

How do we really know that?

It was not on the 911 call.

Was it in a report somewhere that I missed?

If it was not on the 911 call, how could anyone know that he tried but it would not go into neutral?

.
.
.

obyone · October 2010

Boring. All of this has been beaten to death. Shall we move on?

larsb · October 2010

I'm just as sick of it as everyone. I'm just axin a question, trying to find out if I missed something earlier..........
:shades:

houdini1 · October 2010

Me too. This tracks perfectly with what happened with Audi. This country is full of would be scammers. The good thing is that Toyota/Lexus is going strong, sales were not hurt, and they have defended themselves very vigorously and successfully.

iluvmysephia1 · October 2010

2012 Toyota Celica, they've gained this longtime Mitsubishi and Kia fan in to their stable as well.

Hey, when I ask about the Saylor case I'm only inquiring, I'm not deciding one way or another. Like the 1947 Roswell UFO crash, the Saylor Lexus rental sedan crash due to a jammed floor mat leaves some dangling participles that demand answers from certain curious types.

Like rushing in on the crash site and taking away little grey men that don't look like us. That stunk real bad. Then the U.S. government rushing everyone away from the base hospital exam room and certain witnesses disappearing mysteriously.
For good. :surprise:

You all know the gig.

mickeyrom · October 2010

Could you please think before you write? This makes no sense whatsoever.Could you try again and this time slower.I have never flamed anybody before,but try as I may I cannot make any sense of this post.What are "driver specifications",What is the "worst" ever.. :confuse:

stever · October 2010

It was just a spammer trying to sneak a link in his post. Gone now.

larsb · October 2010

'Yota trying to hide surging cars.

Naughty

Court documents: Toyota quietly bought back surging vehicles from owners

LOS ANGELES  Toyota Motor Corp. bought back cars from drivers who reported sudden acceleration defects, but the company didn't tell federal regulators about the problem, according to court documents filed in the sprawling litigation against the automaker.

Plaintiffs' lawyers contend the Japanese company compelled the owners to sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from speaking publicly about the issues they encountered.

In some cases dating back to 2006, Toyota's own technicians experienced the vehicles speeding up without pressing the gas pedal, according to the documents filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court.

"The deeper we dig into the facts that surround Toyota, the more damning the evidence that Toyota was aware of the issue and failed to act responsibly," plaintiffs' attorney Steve Berman said. "The revelation that they bought up the cars in question and prevented the owners from talking about their experience is curious at best, nefarious at worst."

Toyota spokesman Mike Michels denied the allegations, saying company technicians weren't able to duplicate the sudden acceleration claimed by drivers in two instances.

"After having thoroughly analyzed these vehicles and driven them for thousands of miles, Toyota (technicians) and engineers have not been able to replicate the customers' acceleration concerns nor found any related issues or conditions in these vehicles," Michels said in a statement. "In fact, test driving of these vehicles is ongoing and they are operating safely."

The automaker didn't respond to the allegations that it required the owners to remain silent and said it looks forward to defending itself in court.

Hundreds of lawsuits were filed against Toyota after the automaker began recalling millions of vehicles because of acceleration problems in several models and brake glitches with the Prius hybrid.

The automaker has recalled more than 10 million vehicles worldwide over the past year. Federal officials said they have received about 3,000 complaints about sudden acceleration and estimated the problem could be involved in the deaths of 93 people over the past decade.

Last month, Toyota paid an undisclosed amount to settle a lawsuit with the relatives of four people killed in August 2009 when a driver was unable to stop a runaway Lexus.

The high-profile case helped draw attention to the acceleration phenomenon, which in some cases was blamed on faulty floor mats trapping vehicles' accelerator pedals.

Some of the remaining lawsuits seek compensation for injury and death stemming from sudden acceleration, while others claim economic loss from owners who say the value of their cars and trucks plummeted after the recalls.

All the federal cases were consolidated and assigned to a judge in Southern California. The next hearing is Nov. 9.

luckyseven · November 2010

NEW YORK (AP) -- Toyota Motor Corp. asked a federal court to throw out lawsuits over acceleration defects in its cars, saying many of the plaintiffs never identified any defect or experienced sudden, unintended acceleration.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Toyota-asks-court-to-dismiss-apf-3610652525.html

anythngbutgm · May 2011

Report: NHTSA investigating Ford Freestyle over unintended lunging

gagrice · May 2011

All Toyotas do that don't they? I know my 2007 Sequoia will lurch forward if I don't keep a solid pressure on the brake pedal at a light. Someone here said that was normal for Toyotas.

anythngbutgm · May 2011

I've never owned a Toyota so I have no idea. Would be quite interesting if it pans out and includes more Ford models tho.

gagrice · May 2011

A friend of ours just got rid of a new Corolla for that very reason. She did not like the lurching. Especially in reverse. Bought a Hyundai Santa Fe and loves it. It is not like SUA. The vehicle just jumps forward of backward from a dead stop without touching the throttle. I got used to it. My Nissan PU truck does not do it. I think it has something to do with the AC kicking in and out.

popsavalon · May 2011

Are you saying that the vehicles actually move some distance ("jump forward or backward") with your foot on the brake at a dead stop? If this is related to the A/C compressor cycling on, a slight increase in engine RPM might be noticed, but certainly not enough to move the vehicle with your foot actually on the brake.

I currently own an Avalon and a Tacoma and have never experienced what you are describing.

gagrice · May 2011

No only if you are sitting there with your foot OFF the brake, not touching the accelerator pedal.

dchev · May 2011

Interesting! Usually, you have your foot ON gas pedal when you are at a traffic light! How come you take your foot OFF brake pedal and expect the car not to move? I describe this as silly at best or s....d at worst!
People still do not know how to drive and complain for ridiculous things!
You cannot trash a whole company for incompetence of some people!

larsb · May 2011

Seriously, who does that?

At a stop light, every idiot knows to keep your foot on the brake until you are ready to go.

Don't they?

gagrice · May 2011

At a stop light, every idiot knows to keep your foot on the brake until you are ready to go.

Don't they?

Evidently not as that is probably the reason for the lurching. I am not a two foot driver with an automatic so my foot stays on the brake until I am ready to move. In my Sequoia you can feel the surge to go forward with your foot on the brake. And I don't think from what I have seen on the road that an IQ test is given for a Driver's license. Idiot drivers outnumber good drivers by about 2 to 1 around here.

Toyota Halts Sales of Popular Models - Accelerator Stuck Problem Recall

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles