>appears to be a one-hit wonder troll taking gratuitous potshots at GM
Right. Plus poster didn't understand the DexCool problem nor that there were multiple types of problems with various upper intakes not all DexCool. Bet he didn't know DexCool got reformulated early in this. The Prestone Mixes with All Colors coolant is the same formula as the redone DexCool, but folks swear it's better.
Nor was the poster knowledgeable on the years most prone to one of the multiple types of failure.
The cost of repairing an upper failure on the engines for someone doing normal checks on coolant level once a week or so, and getting it checked out was moderate. Lack of care was contributory.
I don't understand why the brakes won't slow the cars. I keep trying to think if I've every applied the power-assisted brakes when I had the motor at full throttle, and I believe the brakes lose assist (if they're vacuum assisted), due to WOT. Even if the motor were revving high in a lower gear, I'm wondering if the vacuum builds up enough to assist.
I know that the brake pedal is really stiff if there is no vacuum assist. I can understand someone used to the vacuum assist no being able to press hard enough to slow the car against a strong motor pull. But without power assist the pedal is lower, I believe, so the mats may have resisted pushing the pedal far enough, and with enough pressure, to effect the braking needed against the motor.
Regardless of whether the brakes would work or not and despite the push to start system, shifting to neutral would work. Also there is no way that the car could accelerate to 120MPH against even some braking.
I realise it's harsh to say with no evidence but I suspect that the presence of the drivers in-law may have contributed, as in "let's see what this baby can do".
From the little bit of the 911 call I heard from the brother in law it was hardly egging the driver on. He was panic stricken. They tried taking it out of gear. Witnesses say that smoke was coming from the brakes. The highway they were on is a long down hill that you have to touch the brakes now and then to keep from coasting in gear over 70 MPH. No one wants to believe those drive by wire systems could have failed for some unforeseen reason. If everything is electronic and there is a short circuit the results are unknown. I cannot believe a CHP would not have tried every trick in the book over a minute or more period to stop that car. Will the ES350 allow you to shift into neutral if it loses power to the selector? Does it have manual override? Same for the ignition?
I can only think of what would happen if I was in such a situation. If my accelerator was jammed, and then I noticed my brakes were stuck...I have to think I would look down. From there it should be a simple yank back of the mat, right? I have to believe there is something else at work, either another systems failure or something connected to the driver.
of someone in a panic needing one of those truck overrun turnout things that go up the hills a ways that are for semi's that are having braking problems, huh? Only this guy would've needed an unempeded drift area off the road in order to reach this sort of thing. The panic and intense worry and immediacy of this situation was no doubt unbearable in the cabin of that doomed car.
I graduated fromj the FBI emergency driving school in Va. and again in the 90's from a private bodyguard driving school for my related civilian occupation after I retired from the PD. This subject was covered at both schools, although it is probably outdated since the vehicles didn't have the electronics and drive by wire that these autos have.
Also had a runaway police cruiser in the 70's, on the interstate travelling about 95 in pursuit, the accelerator linkage to the carb jammed full down, that makes sense since when it broke I had the pedal buried.
Bottom line, no sweat, calmly put gear shift in nuetral, now engine is taching 7000 RPM and howling, still no sweat, then reached down and switched ignition one click toward me killing the engine, then calmly pulling over.
But I dont know if any of that would work with incident with the Lexus because of the vehicle itself and the floor mat issue, without the facts I'm gonna this guy was screwed, not his fault. If he was trying to hot rod the auto as some have surmised, no way would the family in the car be on phone to 911 yelling for help.
No one wants to believe those drive by wire systems could have failed for some unforeseen reason.
One very important correction - the brakes are not "by wire".
They are hydraulic, it's fluid that pushes the pads against the rotors, not electronics.
In theory, the by-wire throttle could have been stuck open, but what about the brakes? If FULL braking pressure had been applied, the car would have slowed. If NO pressure had been applied, there would have been no smoke from the brakes.
That basically proves the brakes did not completely fail.
Accelerator was stuck AND the brakes failed? The two are mutually exclusive aren't they?
I said the same thing a while ago, and yes, you're correct.
That's why I believe the carpet mat theory. Could even have been that the mat got stuck between the brake pedal and the gas pedal. That would keep the brakes from working and press the gas harder while trying to stop.
That theory lines up with what happened, to.
Think about it - he kept speeding up. Pumping the "brakes" added throttle.
The brakes were smoking - light pressure due to the pedal not going down far enough would cause the pads to smoke, but not stop the car.
Add to that the recall on the rubber mats, the fact that it was a loaner, etc.
but if the carpet mat theory is rising to the surface here as a main culprit in this problem, I'm really glad that my '08 Lancer GTS' mats are attached right on to the floorboard. I mean, those pups(part of the GTS package, they're actually embroidered with the Lancer model name on them) don't go anywhere, they're firmly attached.
This is a problem that I would instinctively feel with my two feet down there. I'm not saying that I would've been able to avoid this tragedy but mats have got to be dealt with before one even takes off. Trouble is, it's not something a lot of people probably fret over before taking off.
Heck, I don't even make sure my seatbelt is clicked in before I roll away from my parking spot. I do it as I drive away, somehow thinking I'm saving myself time somewhere in the equation.
This one needs to be researched and damages need to be paid off here, I'm thinking out loud. Horrible and senseless tragedy here.
My 2007 Toyota Sequoia only has one goofy hook on the door side close to the seat. I am always snagging my shoe sole getting out. Not a very good design. It does keep the carpet mat out from under the peddles. I am sure Lexus has their fingers crossed that it was a screw-up by the dealer. They did a recall so why would they still be used 2 years later?
I am still wondering why he could not get the car to shift into neutral. That would be my first impulse. Has ToyLex made it impossible to coast down a long hill in neutral? That should have been a simple remedy. Anyone with an ES350 want to kick it up to 100 MPH and try shifting into neutral?
help us figure this one out. Wrong time for pilot error...but if something was locking tight on his gear selector that prevented him from shifting out, well then that's entirely a different scenario.
I don't think there's a requirement to have lock-down mats.... although I'm not sure.
My 98 328i had holes in the mats with twist-pins that locked them to the floor.
My last two have had velcro pads on them that held them to the carpets. These work fine... they're big enough to keep the mats from sliding.
However in the Lexus case, I think I read that the dealership had put a mat on top of a mat, and the auxillary mat was the one that (is believed to have) caused the problem.
One shows the mat near the throttle cable. If it slips, you can tell it would cover it immediately, pretty much. There is no space under the throttle cable, so it would definitely be on top of the throttle pedal.
You can also see there is space under the brake pedal - so it coule bunch up under there and block it.
The 2nd photo shows one of the hooks - so it does fit the rubber mats when properly installed.
It doesn't show the 2nd hole but if you google Lexus ES350 floor mats a pic comes up where you can see the holes on both sides.
Lancer GTS about an hour ago I took a look at it's mat tie down. It is indeed two holes in the mat with anchors going through it near the driver's seat side that appear to really hold the mat down well. One would have to peel the mat back from the pedal side of it and lift it towards the driver's seat and up and over and out of the clips installed for it. Yep, this one's not going anywhere and for me to have a mat problem someone would've had to have added an additional mat on top of it to cause a problem.
They did a recall so why would they still be used 2 years later?
I have noticed that dealership loaner cars in general don't get very good maintenance or much attention.
It is possible that when the recall was sent out, it was not addressed in these loaner cars. It is also possible as some have mentioned that some careless yard jockey in charge of washing the cars tossed a second set of mats in on top of the fabric ones.
My question is, why has this been such an issue in the last half dozen years? What is different about 21st century cars that causes the mats to be an issue? We have had carpeted floor mats for 50 years!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ive spent the last hour or more scanning this thread. Brand new here, I had to go sign up just so I could post a reply. Im a ASE certified master, over 30 years in the auto repair line. Im not even going to reveal what make Ive spent the majority of those years with, LOL! I'd like to comment on nearly everything thats been brought up, but first and foremost, those of you stressing proper maintenance are on the money. ANY engine will sludge (or should I say jell) if the oil isnt changed as needed. Any transmission will fail if neglected or abused. Not to say some aren't more prone to failure than others, and there are some that will take more abuse than others...and I'll leave my comments on that, there. It is a long and complicated topic, isnt it?
I want to hit on the 'unintended acceleration' thing. Audi went through this years ago, as mentioned. And changes were made by all brands. (yeah, we all have to step on the brake before shifting out of park now) Was Audi at fault? No, and I dont think Lexus is now, either. A very tragic accident, but floormats or not, I'll bet my retirement that it was driver error. Tragic, but blaming the car is pointless.
I also have to comment on the publicized 'ratings' of cars, and how we perceive this. I think a few posters are old enough (like me) to remember the 70's. I was still in high school when the American car companies finally decided to fight the small 4 cylinder imports. In the school library, I read 'Consumer Reports' test of the new Ford Pinto and the Chevy Vega. CR, with all their knowledge, gave the Vega a 'higher than average' rating for frequency of repair, based on previous small cars built by Chevrolet. (as in the Chevy II and Nova) Those same posters of my age group will not argue that the Vega was possibly the biggest POS ever presented to the American car buyers. So much for basing your car purchase on a magazine's rating. It has spoiled me on CR forever. lol.
There is not one car make you can mention that hasnt had a 'blooper' or 2 (or 3 or 4 or..) And as has also been said in this thread, its all too easy now, with the internet and blogs, to have everyone 'pile on' and add their tales of woe. I'll bet there is someone out there that will tell me they owned a Vega and it was a fine car. I also bet there is a rich dude out there who is unhappy with his new 2009 Lamborgini.
Last point....living in the 'salt belt' (upstate NY) my daily drivers die of rust before anything else lets go.. because I maintain them religiously. I gave up on a '94, 4 cylinder sedan last year. It ran fine, the valve cover had never been off, the transmission out once only for a clutch replacement. It had 240,000 miles. And if I didnt live where the salt kills cars, Id still be driving it. Peace. Thanks to anyone who read all that.
I'd agree that loaner cars don't get the care that they should. I also wouldn't be surprised if the mats weren't secured as they should have been.
Maybe the problem has worsened in recent years, because thick, carpeted mats have become common in all cars. Back in the day, only luxury cars had carpeted mats. More ordinary vehicles had either no mats at all or thin rubber ones. This may be the reason that the securing hooks (or velcro) have become the norm over the last decade or so. There is no federal standard requiring such hooks or velcro.
I still don't understand why the gearshift couldn't have been moved into neutral, nor do I think drive-by-wire is inherently more dangerous than the old school mechanical linkages or cables, which were subject to binding or breaking.
Vega a 'higher than average' rating for frequency of repair, based on previous small cars built by Chevrolet
That's funny, for several reasons.
First, people accuse CR of bias for the imports, since a similar thing happened with the latest new Camry.
It had been historically reliable, so they forecast the new one would continue to be so. The new 6 speed transmission turned out not to be. Everyone bashed CR for a supposed bias.
To me, it seems perfectly reasonable to look at the past for a model to predict how it will do in the future. In fact, that's about the only thing you can do.
CR now will say "new" as in unknown for new models from Toyota.
Hindsight is 20/20. Yes the Vega was junk (we owned one) but when it came out CR's prediction actually seemed reasonable. Was CR pro-Chevy biased back then? I don't think so.
I highly doubt CR gave the Vega a predicted better-than-average rating for reliability went it was introduced. More likely, they gave it a good score on the basis of the car's in-house testing. This is because the car seemed good in comparison to many other small cars at the time -- Car and Driver for one gave the Vega its top ranking out of 6 small cars tested in a 1971 issue. (The rest, in order, were the Simca, Toyota Corolla, Ford Pinto, VW Beetle, and AMC Gremlin.)
I know for sure that when I bought my new 1975 VW Rabbit (first year for that model) CR gave it a good review, but explicitly stated that its future reliability was unknown. So I knew I was rolling the dice. It was a nice little car as far as handling and room, when it ran. However it was highly unreliable and stranded me several times (somehow always at home, fortunately).
Hindsight is 20/20. Yes the Vega was junk (we owned one) but when it came out CR's prediction actually seemed reasonable. Was CR pro-Chevy biased back then? I don't think so.
I'm surprised that CR gave the Vega a high rating initially, because while GM's mid- and full-sized cars have traditionally been pretty good, that wasn't always the case with small cars. The Corvair was temperamental, as were the 1961-63 Tempest/F-85/Special. I don't think the Chevy II was especially highly-rated, either. Not the '62-67 version, nor the '68+. In contrast, the Falcon tended to be pretty reliable, but I heard they had like three moving parts, so there just wasnt' much to break. In those days, CR's favorite among small cars was usually the Dart/Valiant.
I don't think the Camaro/Firebird were too highly rated either, but I think CR tended to bash all the "pony cars" in those days. I guess it would make sense, that they tended to be driven harder,so they'd be more likely to break.
FWIW, I think most of the old Motor Trend COTY winners seemed reasonable at the time, too. First off, in order to even qualify for the running, the car had to be either all-new or at least substantially new. So that's going to often mean new technology that may not have all the bugs worked out yet. And first-year introductions tend to be more troublesome than a design that's been out a year or two. Also, they tend to go for "ground breaking" when they pick their winners, and tend to shun "more of the same".
For instance, in 1977, the Chevy Impala/Caprice won car of the year. It seemed radical at the time, a car with then-midsized external dimensions that boasted more interior room than the mastodon it replaced. Smaller, lighter, more space-efficient, more economical, and in many cases, better-performing even with a smaller engine. It was the right car at the right time, and pointed the direction of the future.
However, in 1978, the downsized Malibu didn't win COTY, nor did any of its siblings, because it was just more of the same. Basically, what GM did to big cars the year before, they now did to midsized cars. And because of cars like the Dart/Valiant and Aspen/Volare, and the new-for-78 Fairmont/Zephyr, the distinction between midsize and compact was really starting to blur, anyway.
For 1978, I think the Horizon or Omni won COTY, and looking back, I guess that would make sense. It seemed pretty radical for the time, for a domestic car at least (nevermind the fact that Simca and VW helped them out immensely)
My recollection is the same as yours -- that CR rated the GM midsize and large cars favorably back in the late 60s and early 70s, and they were reasonably reliable too according to the annual owner survey responses. The Dart/Valiant ruled the compact class, as you've stated.
Motor Trend picked a lot of what would prove to be dogs for their Car of the Year awards -- with the Vega being one of the more infamous ones back in '71. Of course at the time, no one knew how bad the car would turn out to be (except for GM beancounters?), and it did seem more advanced with its aluminum engine, etc. IMO, their best choice for COTY in the 70s was the 1977 Impala/Caprice.
Look at some of the others:
1972 Citroen SM :confuse: 1974 Ford Mustang II :sick: 1975 Chevy Monza V8 :surprise: 1976 Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare :lemon: 1978 Dodge/Plymouth Omnirizon
I was going by doug's word that it was the "frequency of repair" rating. I wouldn't have a way to verify that. Anyone got back issues from the 70s?
MT can pick 'em, eh?
Still, we have to put those in context. It was an awful era for small cars. The Japanese imports were only starting to become good, and the domestic small cars were lacking.
I remember reading the issue where they picked the 1972 Citroen SM. Back in those days, COTY was limited to domestic cars, but that year MT made an exception because they said there was nothing new for '72 that was even noteworthy on the domestic front.
And looking back, I think the only new domestics that year were the Ford Torino and Mercury Montego, cars that were midsized in theory, but by the time they put the 5 mph bumpers on them, some body styles were actually slightly longer than the full-sized Fords! And they got so heavy after a few years that I think Ford just gave up and started making the V-8 standard.
I vaguely remember that they didn't like the Firesweep, calling it nothing but a rebadged Dodge. Which, in all fairness, is all it was. As for the "real" DeSotos, the Firedome and Fireflite, CR griped about them being over-powered for their class (I guess to them too much power was a bad thing), but liked them otherwise.
They also had a diagram of what they thought would be the perfect 1957 car. It had a 1957 Plymouth in the middle of the diagram, indicating that would be a good base to start with, and little call-out bubbles to various parts of the car, mentioning features they'd like to see taken from other cars. One of the things they mentioned was the DeSoto Firesweep's larger brakes (so I wonder if that meant a Firesweep had bigger brakes than a Dodge). I forget what other things they liked, but I think they preferred the higher seating position of the 1957 Chevy. However, a 1957 Chevy is a pickup truck compared to a low-slung 1957 Mopar, so if you tried putting its seats in the Plymouth, you'd probably end up with your head in the ceiling.
There was also a cartoon in one of those 1957 issues, meant to slam the horsepower wars that were in full-swing. In this one cartoon, a car that looked somewhat like a '57 DeSoto, (but with 4-stacked taillights instead of 3), was going airborne at the crest of a hill.
Also, CR never actually did a test on a 1957 DeSoto. I think the last DeSoto they tested might've been a 1955 Fireflite, which scored pretty well. They put it up against an Olds Ninety-Eight and, IIRC, a Nash Ambassador. CR did test three 1957 Plymouths though, I believe. I think they did one 6-cyl, one 277 V-8, and one 301 V-8. They also tested a 1957 Dodge Royal with a 325 V-8. In a rare luxury car test, they pitted an Imperial against a Cadillac, and for the life of me I can't remember which one won. I also remember seeing a picture that they took of all the cars in a group that they were planning to test, and there was a 1957 Chrysler Windsor in there. However, either they never got around to testing it, or someone ripped that issue out of the U of MD's library! I was bummed too, because that '57 Windsor would have been the closest match to my '57 DeSoto.
The University of VA also has back issues, and my recollection on what they said about the '57s is basically the same as yours (but with far less detail in my case). They didn't care for the trends that were very evident by 1957 -- lower, longer, wider, and heavier, with more power (too much in many cases) and inadequate brakes (on those newfangled, smaller 14-inch wheels). That explains why the '57 Chevy was preferable for its seating; it still rode high and proud. (Of course that would change the next year.) They especially disdained the "hotted up" high horsepower V8s, stating that they were much more finicky to keep in tune and required premium gas.
One other thing I remember, was a picture that they took to show just how pedestrian unfriendly cars were getting. They had a 1957 Buick parked at a curb with a 1957 Plymouth parked behind it, and a little girl standing in between the two. The Plymouth had a strong forward thrust. It's probably an optical illusion, but I swear it looks like the tops of the front fenders actually extend ahead of the bumper! Similarly, the back of the Buick had the fins coming out to a fairly sharp point, and the whole thing has sort of a rearward thrust, and it looks like the fins stick out beyond the bumper.
I think they also meant that picture to demonstrate how vulnerable these cars were getting to body damage, and how useless the bumpers were becoming for protection.
And yeah, in general I don't think CR liked bigger, more luxurious cars in those days. They didn't see any added value in a Pontiac, Olds, or Buick over a Chevy.
They didn't see any added value in a Pontiac, Olds, or Buick over a Chevy.
Remarkably prescient, given the state of GM today.
Now that you mention it, I do remember that photo of the Buick and Plymouth parked together. Bumpers at that time were beginning to recede into the bodywork, instead of projecting out as they had in earlier years.
Actually, just for the record, I've never been much of a believer in bumpers anyhow... A lot of times it's just as expensive - or more - to repair the bumper as it would be to repair the body if there were no bumper.
My LS 430 has two hooks on each side in the front. I promptly removed all of the hooks as, imo, they are not needed and are a nuisance. My mats have those little sharp points on the bottom and would not move in a 100 mph wind or an earthquake.
Toyota Orders Inspection of All Lexus Floor Mats After Fatal Accident
After improperly fitting all-weather floor mats in a Lexus sedan were named as a possible cause of a fatal car accident near San Diego, Toyota is ordering its dealers to inspect the mats in all Lexus and Toyota vehicles.
Plastic floor mats that were not the right size for the 2009 Lexus ES 350 are suspected of causing the August 28 accident that claimed the lives of an off-duty California Highway Patrol officer, his wife, their daughter, and his brother in law.
CHP Officer Mark Saylor was driving the loaner vehicle from a Lexus dealer while his car was in the shop when the accident occurred. A preliminary investigation into the wreck concluded that all-weather floor mats in the vehicle were not the proper size for the vehicle and may have slid forward and pinned the vehicle’s accelerator to the floor, causing it to speed out of control.
NHTSA Investigation Fingers Floor Mats
A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigation found the all-weather floor mat recovered from the wreckage of Saylor’s Lexus was a few inches longer than that mat that is supposed to be installed in that vehicle and could not be properly attached to the floorboard. Such mats are installed by dealers or car owners as accessory items in vehicles.
In a “specific order” notice sent to all dealers today, Toyota ordered mandatory inspections of all Lexus and Toyota vehicles to determine whether the floor mats in the vehicles are the right size and that they are properly fastened to the floor to prevent them from sliding out of place.
The car maker also called on other auto industry professionals to help ensure that floor mats are the right size and model for the vehicle.
“We urge all other automakers, dealers, vehicle owners, and the independent service and car wash industries to assure that any floor mat, whether factory or aftermarket, is correct for the vehicle and properly installed and secured,” Toyota Motor Sales USA said in a statement.
All new, used, and loaner Lexus and Toyota vehicles are covered by the mandatory inspection order.
The family was in a 2009 Lexus ES 350 that was loaned by a dealer, Bob Baker Lexus El Cajon, while their own vehicle was being serviced.
a while back, there was a post of a picture of the the gas and brake pedals. i thought it was kind of strange that the gas pedal went all the way to the floor. seeing that i have two sets of floor mats stacked on top of each other in my fusion, and the upper unsecured set is always moving up behind the pedals, i took a closer look. the gas pedal does not touch the floor. think top hinged instead of bottom hinged. the other thought i had was that some cars have 'electronic brake assist' or something like that, so the brakes are not strictly mechanical.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Possibly they were cheap Chinese knock-off, one size fits all, to protect their carpets. May have been a poor way to save money. I would assume the NHTSA knows the difference between rubber and plastic floor mats. Of course the size being too long is significant. I am still curious about the shift system. That seems so obvious to shift into neutral, if that was working. You can bet that Toyota will try to pin it on the dealer or the driver.
You can bet that Toyota will try to pin it on the dealer or the driver.
Yes, if that's where the blame belongs.
Another thing I don't understand is why, if the car has throttle by wire, isn't all gas to the engine cut off (or at least reduced to a very small amount for driveability reasons) when the driver uses the brake pedal.
I'd hate to think it isn't done that way simply so that C&D or MT can preload the torque converter in pursuit of the fastest possible 0-60 time.
I would say Lexus needs to redesign that gas pedal along with checking the mats. This article shows again just how easy it would be for this tragedy to happen.
Witnesses told San Diego 6 News they saw fire coming from the wheels of the 2009 Lexus ES 350 before it crashed. That indicated "long, constant, heavy braking," said San Diego Sheriff's lead investigator Scott Hill in an interview with the U-T.
Hill thinks Saylor had trouble with the car's accelerator about five miles before reaching Mission Gorge Road. Several people called 911 to report the car was speeding and weaving in and out of traffic with its emergency flashers on.
Hill told the Union-Tribune there was prolonged “heavy, heavy, hard braking.”
“He did everything he could to stop that car,” he said.
Saylor, a 19-year CHP veteran, must have worked extremely hard to maneuver the Lexus to avoid other cars on the heavily traveled roadway, only hitting the one vehicle, Hill told the paper.
“We were very lucky that there were not more deaths,” Hill said.
Investigators say they don't know if officer Saylor tried to shift the car into neutral or if he tried to shut off the engine.
The National Highway Transporatation Safety Administraton recall report from 2007 found some Lexus drivers with stuck accelerators tried to turn off the car with the engine control button but didn't know the button must be held for three seconds.
I don't think the caliper would glow orange, but the rotor certainly would. It's my bet that what the witnesses saw were the red-hot rotors. I've had this occur to me once, as my college-age daughter's SAAB Classic 900S' emergency brake didn't release on the RF wheel on her one time, and she drove it home that way. The early Classic 900 used a ratchet mechanism on the front pads for the emergency brake. Her overheated RF brake rotor was a translucent orange-red when she finally pulled into the driveway!
Something was hot enough to cause the car to burst into flames on impact. I think Ford got a lot of bad press over the Pinto bursting into flames when it was struck from behind. This will be a crash with a lot of investigators. Most findings are just preliminary at this point. Where did the gas come from? I would not think a gas tank should burst in a rollover accident. That is problematic in itself.
I think Ford got a lot of bad press over the Pinto bursting into flames when it was struck from behind.
Yeah, but there's a difference. That Lexus was doing triple digit speeds when it slammed into the Ford Explorer, and that was probably enough to sever a fuel line somewhere, or at least cut the lines to some other volatile fluids. And then it went airborne over the embankment and smashed up on the rocks, which could have torn into the gas tank. Honestly, if a car DIDN'T burst into flames after all that, I'd say it's a miracle.
Yeah, I remember hearing about GM's '78-88 RWD intermediates being prone to blowing up if you hit them hard enough. And scarily enough, I owned three of them! A 1980 Malibu coupe, '82 Cutlass Supreme coupe, and '86 Monte Carlo.
I think one of the first instances I recalled reading was about a 1980 Malibu 4-door in Texas, that stalled out along the road. A woman had her two small kids sleeping in the back seat. A flatbed truck came along and smacked into the car hard enough to make it go airborne, and spin around in a 180. The gas tank ruptured and caught fire, and the back doors were wedged shut...the back doors with the infamous stationary windows. IIRC, the mother survived, but the kids died a horrible death.
I also read about an '83 Cutlass Cruiser wagon that got rear-ended at high speed while stopped at a toll booth in Jersey or someplace like that, and burst into flames, with resulting fatalities.
I wonder how hard of a hit it takes to make one of these cars leak fuel? I'm sure it's gotta be a harder hit than a Pinto, but still, it shows how dangerous some of those old cars (even not-so-old) can be.
Just for comparison, I went and checked underneath my '76 LeMans. The gas tank looks like it's about 18" from the closest part of the rear bumper. And the bumper itself is a massive thing. The frame is also doubled-up in back, which I guess is what they call "boxed"? There's also a fairly beefy looking piece between the gas tank and bumper that connects the two frame sides. And another clever trick they did was with the fuel filler tube. It's behind the license plate, which is nice and convenient, but I guess not exactly good for safety, since it could punch into the tank in a collision. However, this nozzle has two fairly sharp curves in it, so it would probably bend before puncturing the tank.
One thing I remember about those downsized intermediates is that there really wasn't much room underneath for a gas tank. For one thing, to improve trunk space the spare tire was stowed upright on the right side, in a well that forced them to move the gas tank to the left. As I recall, it was really hard to do a dual exhaust on these cars, too, and the result usually had the pipes hanging a little extra low.
I'm also sure the bumpers on the downsized cars wasn't as sturdy, and I can't remember now if they boxed the back part of the frame or not? All things considered, 10" off the rear bumper doesn't sound too bad, considering the Pinto was something like 2"! Other gross offenders were the Ford Falcon and Mustang, which had the added bonus of a "drop in" fuel tank, where the top of the tank doubled as the trunk floor, and it didn't take much of an impact to buckle the floor and spill fuel into the car!
Still, cars are much better today, where they figured out how to put the gas tank under the back seat, which is probably about the sturdiest part of the car. It's actually easy to do with a FWD car, and with an independent rear suspension, you can do it with RWD since the driveshaft doesn't move up and down. I dunno if they can do it with a live rear axle, though.
Y'know, speaking of problems swept under the rug, I do think it's interesting how whenever a Ford blows up (Pinto, Explorer, Crown Vic if you rear end them at 70+ mph), the media blasts it from the rooftops. But then with GM's examples, such as the RWD A-bodies, and the '73-87 pickups (I have one of those too...I guess I'm a glutton for risk!), it just doesn't get played up as much.
Were any Chrysler products ever famous for blowing up on impact? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any, but I'm sure they were there.
that toll booth incident was in ct, which is why they are gone. bringing them back is now being discussed. ez pass makes it more viable, especially with the high speed sensors now in use.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Comments
Right. Plus poster didn't understand the DexCool problem nor that there were multiple types of problems with various upper intakes not all DexCool. Bet he didn't know DexCool got reformulated early in this. The Prestone Mixes with All Colors coolant is the same formula as the redone DexCool, but folks swear it's better.
Nor was the poster knowledgeable on the years most prone to one of the multiple types of failure.
The cost of repairing an upper failure on the engines for someone doing normal checks on coolant level once a week or so, and getting it checked out was moderate. Lack of care was contributory.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I know that the brake pedal is really stiff if there is no vacuum assist. I can understand someone used to the vacuum assist no being able to press hard enough to slow the car against a strong motor pull. But without power assist the pedal is lower, I believe, so the mats may have resisted pushing the pedal far enough, and with enough pressure, to effect the braking needed against the motor.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I realise it's harsh to say with no evidence but I suspect that the presence of the drivers in-law may have contributed, as in "let's see what this baby can do".
It's really too bad. :sick:
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Also had a runaway police cruiser in the 70's, on the interstate travelling about 95 in pursuit, the accelerator linkage to the carb jammed full down, that makes sense since when it broke I had the pedal buried.
Bottom line, no sweat, calmly put gear shift in nuetral, now engine is taching 7000 RPM and howling, still no sweat, then reached down and switched ignition one click toward me killing the engine, then calmly pulling over.
But I dont know if any of that would work with incident with the Lexus because of the vehicle itself and the floor mat issue, without the facts I'm gonna this guy was screwed, not his fault. If he was trying to hot rod the auto as some have surmised, no way would the family in the car be on phone to 911 yelling for help.
One very important correction - the brakes are not "by wire".
They are hydraulic, it's fluid that pushes the pads against the rotors, not electronics.
In theory, the by-wire throttle could have been stuck open, but what about the brakes? If FULL braking pressure had been applied, the car would have slowed. If NO pressure had been applied, there would have been no smoke from the brakes.
That basically proves the brakes did not completely fail.
Not to mention they're not by-wire anyway.
I said the same thing a while ago, and yes, you're correct.
That's why I believe the carpet mat theory. Could even have been that the mat got stuck between the brake pedal and the gas pedal. That would keep the brakes from working and press the gas harder while trying to stop.
That theory lines up with what happened, to.
Think about it - he kept speeding up. Pumping the "brakes" added throttle.
The brakes were smoking - light pressure due to the pedal not going down far enough would cause the pads to smoke, but not stop the car.
Add to that the recall on the rubber mats, the fact that it was a loaner, etc.
It all adds up.
This is a problem that I would instinctively feel with my two feet down there. I'm not saying that I would've been able to avoid this tragedy but mats have got to be dealt with before one even takes off. Trouble is, it's not something a lot of people probably fret over before taking off.
Heck, I don't even make sure my seatbelt is clicked in before I roll away from my parking spot. I do it as I drive away, somehow thinking I'm saving myself time somewhere in the equation.
This one needs to be researched and damages need to be paid off here, I'm thinking out loud. Horrible and senseless tragedy here.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
This is a loaner, so most likely the dealer just goofed and installed the mats improperly, not following Lexus' instructions.
That's why I think the Lexus dealer is fully liable.
It is indeed looking like these people's dealer is liable for damages here, I agree with you.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I do think it's common practice - my Subarus and Mazdas have the same thing.
I'm not aware of a law, but they all want to be safe.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
My 98 328i had holes in the mats with twist-pins that locked them to the floor.
My last two have had velcro pads on them that held them to the carpets. These work fine... they're big enough to keep the mats from sliding.
However in the Lexus case, I think I read that the dealership had put a mat on top of a mat, and the auxillary mat was the one that (is believed to have) caused the problem.
There are 2 good pics in this link:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.f2217bee37- fb302f6d7c121046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_ws_M- X&javax.portlet.prp_1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_viewID=detail_view&itemID=1- bf2bafceb315110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD&pressReleaseYearSelect=2007
One shows the mat near the throttle cable. If it slips, you can tell it would cover it immediately, pretty much. There is no space under the throttle cable, so it would definitely be on top of the throttle pedal.
You can also see there is space under the brake pedal - so it coule bunch up under there and block it.
The 2nd photo shows one of the hooks - so it does fit the rubber mats when properly installed.
It doesn't show the 2nd hole but if you google Lexus ES350 floor mats a pic comes up where you can see the holes on both sides.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I have noticed that dealership loaner cars in general don't get very good maintenance or much attention.
It is possible that when the recall was sent out, it was not addressed in these loaner cars. It is also possible as some have mentioned that some careless yard jockey in charge of washing the cars tossed a second set of mats in on top of the fabric ones.
My question is, why has this been such an issue in the last half dozen years? What is different about 21st century cars that causes the mats to be an issue? We have had carpeted floor mats for 50 years!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I want to hit on the 'unintended acceleration' thing. Audi went through this years ago, as mentioned. And changes were made by all brands. (yeah, we all have to step on the brake before shifting out of park now) Was Audi at fault? No, and I dont think Lexus is now, either. A very tragic accident, but floormats or not, I'll bet my retirement that it was driver error. Tragic, but blaming the car is pointless.
I also have to comment on the publicized 'ratings' of cars, and how we perceive this. I think a few posters are old enough (like me) to remember the 70's. I was still in high school when the American car companies finally decided to fight the small 4 cylinder imports. In the school library, I read 'Consumer Reports' test of the new Ford Pinto and the Chevy Vega. CR, with all their knowledge, gave the Vega a 'higher than average' rating for frequency of repair, based on previous small cars built by Chevrolet. (as in the Chevy II and Nova) Those same posters of my age group will not argue that the Vega was possibly the biggest POS ever presented to the American car buyers. So much for basing your car purchase on a magazine's rating. It has spoiled me on CR forever. lol.
There is not one car make you can mention that hasnt had a 'blooper' or 2 (or 3 or 4 or..) And as has also been said in this thread, its all too easy now, with the internet and blogs, to have everyone 'pile on' and add their tales of woe. I'll bet there is someone out there that will tell me they owned a Vega and it was a fine car. I also bet there is a rich dude out there who is unhappy with his new 2009 Lamborgini.
Last point....living in the 'salt belt' (upstate NY) my daily drivers die of rust before anything else lets go.. because I maintain them religiously. I gave up on a '94, 4 cylinder sedan last year. It ran fine, the valve cover had never been off, the transmission out once only for a clutch replacement. It had 240,000 miles. And if I didnt live where the salt kills cars, Id still be driving it. Peace. Thanks to anyone who read all that.
Maybe the problem has worsened in recent years, because thick, carpeted mats have become common in all cars. Back in the day, only luxury cars had carpeted mats. More ordinary vehicles had either no mats at all or thin rubber ones. This may be the reason that the securing hooks (or velcro) have become the norm over the last decade or so. There is no federal standard requiring such hooks or velcro.
I still don't understand why the gearshift couldn't have been moved into neutral, nor do I think drive-by-wire is inherently more dangerous than the old school mechanical linkages or cables, which were subject to binding or breaking.
That's funny, for several reasons.
First, people accuse CR of bias for the imports, since a similar thing happened with the latest new Camry.
It had been historically reliable, so they forecast the new one would continue to be so. The new 6 speed transmission turned out not to be. Everyone bashed CR for a supposed bias.
To me, it seems perfectly reasonable to look at the past for a model to predict how it will do in the future. In fact, that's about the only thing you can do.
CR now will say "new" as in unknown for new models from Toyota.
Hindsight is 20/20. Yes the Vega was junk (we owned one) but when it came out CR's prediction actually seemed reasonable. Was CR pro-Chevy biased back then? I don't think so.
I know for sure that when I bought my new 1975 VW Rabbit (first year for that model) CR gave it a good review, but explicitly stated that its future reliability was unknown. So I knew I was rolling the dice. It was a nice little car as far as handling and room, when it ran. However it was highly unreliable and stranded me several times (somehow always at home, fortunately).
I'm surprised that CR gave the Vega a high rating initially, because while GM's mid- and full-sized cars have traditionally been pretty good, that wasn't always the case with small cars. The Corvair was temperamental, as were the 1961-63 Tempest/F-85/Special. I don't think the Chevy II was especially highly-rated, either. Not the '62-67 version, nor the '68+. In contrast, the Falcon tended to be pretty reliable, but I heard they had like three moving parts, so there just wasnt' much to break. In those days, CR's favorite among small cars was usually the Dart/Valiant.
I don't think the Camaro/Firebird were too highly rated either, but I think CR tended to bash all the "pony cars" in those days. I guess it would make sense, that they tended to be driven harder,so they'd be more likely to break.
FWIW, I think most of the old Motor Trend COTY winners seemed reasonable at the time, too. First off, in order to even qualify for the running, the car had to be either all-new or at least substantially new. So that's going to often mean new technology that may not have all the bugs worked out yet. And first-year introductions tend to be more troublesome than a design that's been out a year or two. Also, they tend to go for "ground breaking" when they pick their winners, and tend to shun "more of the same".
For instance, in 1977, the Chevy Impala/Caprice won car of the year. It seemed radical at the time, a car with then-midsized external dimensions that boasted more interior room than the mastodon it replaced. Smaller, lighter, more space-efficient, more economical, and in many cases, better-performing even with a smaller engine. It was the right car at the right time, and pointed the direction of the future.
However, in 1978, the downsized Malibu didn't win COTY, nor did any of its siblings, because it was just more of the same. Basically, what GM did to big cars the year before, they now did to midsized cars. And because of cars like the Dart/Valiant and Aspen/Volare, and the new-for-78 Fairmont/Zephyr, the distinction between midsize and compact was really starting to blur, anyway.
For 1978, I think the Horizon or Omni won COTY, and looking back, I guess that would make sense. It seemed pretty radical for the time, for a domestic car at least (nevermind the fact that Simca and VW helped them out immensely)
Motor Trend picked a lot of what would prove to be dogs for their Car of the Year awards -- with the Vega being one of the more infamous ones back in '71. Of course at the time, no one knew how bad the car would turn out to be (except for GM beancounters?), and it did seem more advanced with its aluminum engine, etc. IMO, their best choice for COTY in the 70s was the 1977 Impala/Caprice.
Look at some of the others:
1972 Citroen SM :confuse:
1974 Ford Mustang II :sick:
1975 Chevy Monza V8 :surprise:
1976 Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare :lemon:
1978 Dodge/Plymouth Omnirizon
MT can pick 'em, eh?
Still, we have to put those in context. It was an awful era for small cars. The Japanese imports were only starting to become good, and the domestic small cars were lacking.
And looking back, I think the only new domestics that year were the Ford Torino and Mercury Montego, cars that were midsized in theory, but by the time they put the 5 mph bumpers on them, some body styles were actually slightly longer than the full-sized Fords! And they got so heavy after a few years that I think Ford just gave up and started making the V-8 standard.
I wish I did! I know the U of MD's library has Consumer Reports issued going back to the early 1950's, maybe even earlier.
I remember one 1978 cover that showed an Omni/Horizon locking up its rear brakes with a caption that read "Car of the Year? UNACCEPTABLE!!" :P
I wonder what they thought of the 1957 DeSoto?
I vaguely remember that they didn't like the Firesweep, calling it nothing but a rebadged Dodge. Which, in all fairness, is all it was. As for the "real" DeSotos, the Firedome and Fireflite, CR griped about them being over-powered for their class (I guess to them too much power was a bad thing), but liked them otherwise.
They also had a diagram of what they thought would be the perfect 1957 car. It had a 1957 Plymouth in the middle of the diagram, indicating that would be a good base to start with, and little call-out bubbles to various parts of the car, mentioning features they'd like to see taken from other cars. One of the things they mentioned was the DeSoto Firesweep's larger brakes (so I wonder if that meant a Firesweep had bigger brakes than a Dodge). I forget what other things they liked, but I think they preferred the higher seating position of the 1957 Chevy. However, a 1957 Chevy is a pickup truck compared to a low-slung 1957 Mopar, so if you tried putting its seats in the Plymouth, you'd probably end up with your head in the ceiling.
There was also a cartoon in one of those 1957 issues, meant to slam the horsepower wars that were in full-swing. In this one cartoon, a car that looked somewhat like a '57 DeSoto, (but with 4-stacked taillights instead of 3), was going airborne at the crest of a hill.
Also, CR never actually did a test on a 1957 DeSoto. I think the last DeSoto they tested might've been a 1955 Fireflite, which scored pretty well. They put it up against an Olds Ninety-Eight and, IIRC, a Nash Ambassador. CR did test three 1957 Plymouths though, I believe. I think they did one 6-cyl, one 277 V-8, and one 301 V-8. They also tested a 1957 Dodge Royal with a 325 V-8. In a rare luxury car test, they pitted an Imperial against a Cadillac, and for the life of me I can't remember which one won. I also remember seeing a picture that they took of all the cars in a group that they were planning to test, and there was a 1957 Chrysler Windsor in there. However, either they never got around to testing it, or someone ripped that issue out of the U of MD's library! I was bummed too, because that '57 Windsor would have been the closest match to my '57 DeSoto.
I think they also meant that picture to demonstrate how vulnerable these cars were getting to body damage, and how useless the bumpers were becoming for protection.
And yeah, in general I don't think CR liked bigger, more luxurious cars in those days. They didn't see any added value in a Pontiac, Olds, or Buick over a Chevy.
Remarkably prescient, given the state of GM today.
Now that you mention it, I do remember that photo of the Buick and Plymouth parked together. Bumpers at that time were beginning to recede into the bodywork, instead of projecting out as they had in earlier years.
You mean like the front bumper on my 69 Camaro?
Actually, just for the record, I've never been much of a believer in bumpers anyhow... A lot of times it's just as expensive - or more - to repair the bumper as it would be to repair the body if there were no bumper.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
After improperly fitting all-weather floor mats in a Lexus sedan were named as a possible cause of a fatal car accident near San Diego, Toyota is ordering its dealers to inspect the mats in all Lexus and Toyota vehicles.
Plastic floor mats that were not the right size for the 2009 Lexus ES 350 are suspected of causing the August 28 accident that claimed the lives of an off-duty California Highway Patrol officer, his wife, their daughter, and his brother in law.
CHP Officer Mark Saylor was driving the loaner vehicle from a Lexus dealer while his car was in the shop when the accident occurred. A preliminary investigation into the wreck concluded that all-weather floor mats in the vehicle were not the proper size for the vehicle and may have slid forward and pinned the vehicle’s accelerator to the floor, causing it to speed out of control.
NHTSA Investigation Fingers Floor Mats
A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigation found the all-weather floor mat recovered from the wreckage of Saylor’s Lexus was a few inches longer than that mat that is supposed to be installed in that vehicle and could not be properly attached to the floorboard. Such mats are installed by dealers or car owners as accessory items in vehicles.
In a “specific order” notice sent to all dealers today, Toyota ordered mandatory inspections of all Lexus and Toyota vehicles to determine whether the floor mats in the vehicles are the right size and that they are properly fastened to the floor to prevent them from sliding out of place.
The car maker also called on other auto industry professionals to help ensure that floor mats are the right size and model for the vehicle.
“We urge all other automakers, dealers, vehicle owners, and the independent service and car wash industries to assure that any floor mat, whether factory or aftermarket, is correct for the vehicle and properly installed and secured,” Toyota Motor Sales USA said in a statement.
All new, used, and loaner Lexus and Toyota vehicles are covered by the mandatory inspection order.
The family was in a 2009 Lexus ES 350 that was loaned by a dealer, Bob Baker Lexus El Cajon, while their own vehicle was being serviced.
Toyota orders floor mat inspection at all dealers
i thought it was kind of strange that the gas pedal went all the way to the floor.
seeing that i have two sets of floor mats stacked on top of each other in my fusion, and the upper unsecured set is always moving up behind the pedals, i took a closer look. the gas pedal does not touch the floor.
think top hinged instead of bottom hinged.
the other thought i had was that some cars have 'electronic brake assist' or something like that, so the brakes are not strictly mechanical.
That's new info.
Not only was the size wrong, but also they're plastic? The OE mats are rubber.
I imagine the plastic slides easier on the carpet underneath.
Yes, if that's where the blame belongs.
Another thing I don't understand is why, if the car has throttle by wire, isn't all gas to the engine cut off (or at least reduced to a very small amount for driveability reasons) when the driver uses the brake pedal.
I'd hate to think it isn't done that way simply so that C&D or MT can preload the torque converter in pursuit of the fastest possible 0-60 time.
They may not want to throw their own distributor under the bus, so they'll most likely push the "let's be safe and check all mats" strategy.
Perhaps we should change the name of this thread to:
Rug Problems Swept under the Pedals
Witnesses told San Diego 6 News they saw fire coming from the wheels of the 2009 Lexus ES 350 before it crashed. That indicated "long, constant, heavy braking," said San Diego Sheriff's lead investigator Scott Hill in an interview with the U-T.
Hill thinks Saylor had trouble with the car's accelerator about five miles before reaching Mission Gorge Road. Several people called 911 to report the car was speeding and weaving in and out of traffic with its emergency flashers on.
Hill told the Union-Tribune there was prolonged “heavy, heavy, hard braking.”
“He did everything he could to stop that car,” he said.
Saylor, a 19-year CHP veteran, must have worked extremely hard to maneuver the Lexus to avoid other cars on the heavily traveled roadway, only hitting the one vehicle, Hill told the paper.
“We were very lucky that there were not more deaths,” Hill said.
Investigators say they don't know if officer Saylor tried to shift the car into neutral or if he tried to shut off the engine.
The National Highway Transporatation Safety Administraton recall report from 2007 found some Lexus drivers with stuck accelerators tried to turn off the car with the engine control button but didn't know the button must be held for three seconds.
http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story/Santee-CHP-officer-Saylor-killed-Lexus- -accelerator/AzYjOhtvFE2mIuxTtxrK4Q.cspx?rss=800
The brakes catching fire would account for the car bursting into flames if the gas tank ruptured. What kind of gas tank do they use in the ES350?
I don't see how a gas pedal could be designed to be completely fool proof if you stuff an entire plastic mat in front of it.
That could happen in any vehicle.
Yeah, but there's a difference. That Lexus was doing triple digit speeds when it slammed into the Ford Explorer, and that was probably enough to sever a fuel line somewhere, or at least cut the lines to some other volatile fluids. And then it went airborne over the embankment and smashed up on the rocks, which could have torn into the gas tank. Honestly, if a car DIDN'T burst into flames after all that, I'd say it's a miracle.
In contrast, a Pinto would blow up if you if you tap it at 11 mph with a 1971 Impala.
I think one of the first instances I recalled reading was about a 1980 Malibu 4-door in Texas, that stalled out along the road. A woman had her two small kids sleeping in the back seat. A flatbed truck came along and smacked into the car hard enough to make it go airborne, and spin around in a 180. The gas tank ruptured and caught fire, and the back doors were wedged shut...the back doors with the infamous stationary windows. IIRC, the mother survived, but the kids died a horrible death.
I also read about an '83 Cutlass Cruiser wagon that got rear-ended at high speed while stopped at a toll booth in Jersey or someplace like that, and burst into flames, with resulting fatalities.
I wonder how hard of a hit it takes to make one of these cars leak fuel? I'm sure it's gotta be a harder hit than a Pinto, but still, it shows how dangerous some of those old cars (even not-so-old) can be.
Just for comparison, I went and checked underneath my '76 LeMans. The gas tank looks like it's about 18" from the closest part of the rear bumper. And the bumper itself is a massive thing. The frame is also doubled-up in back, which I guess is what they call "boxed"? There's also a fairly beefy looking piece between the gas tank and bumper that connects the two frame sides. And another clever trick they did was with the fuel filler tube. It's behind the license plate, which is nice and convenient, but I guess not exactly good for safety, since it could punch into the tank in a collision. However, this nozzle has two fairly sharp curves in it, so it would probably bend before puncturing the tank.
One thing I remember about those downsized intermediates is that there really wasn't much room underneath for a gas tank. For one thing, to improve trunk space the spare tire was stowed upright on the right side, in a well that forced them to move the gas tank to the left. As I recall, it was really hard to do a dual exhaust on these cars, too, and the result usually had the pipes hanging a little extra low.
I'm also sure the bumpers on the downsized cars wasn't as sturdy, and I can't remember now if they boxed the back part of the frame or not? All things considered, 10" off the rear bumper doesn't sound too bad, considering the Pinto was something like 2"! Other gross offenders were the Ford Falcon and Mustang, which had the added bonus of a "drop in" fuel tank, where the top of the tank doubled as the trunk floor, and it didn't take much of an impact to buckle the floor and spill fuel into the car!
Still, cars are much better today, where they figured out how to put the gas tank under the back seat, which is probably about the sturdiest part of the car. It's actually easy to do with a FWD car, and with an independent rear suspension, you can do it with RWD since the driveshaft doesn't move up and down. I dunno if they can do it with a live rear axle, though.
Y'know, speaking of problems swept under the rug, I do think it's interesting how whenever a Ford blows up (Pinto, Explorer, Crown Vic if you rear end them at 70+ mph), the media blasts it from the rooftops. But then with GM's examples, such as the RWD A-bodies, and the '73-87 pickups (I have one of those too...I guess I'm a glutton for risk!), it just doesn't get played up as much.
Were any Chrysler products ever famous for blowing up on impact? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any, but I'm sure they were there.
bringing them back is now being discussed.
ez pass makes it more viable, especially with the high speed sensors now in use.