Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Toyota Halts Sales of Popular Models - Accelerator Stuck Problem Recall



  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    Not according to the NHTSA report put out by Edmund's. You have any data as to which vehicle is supposedly subject to this UA report. All indications are the Lexus ES is the worst vehicle for UA on the NHTSA. Which makes sense. The 2009 ES350 is the vehicle 4 people burned to death in last year. If you have not read the reports I would be happy to post them for you. They have been on here several times since it happened.

    Toyota is on the stand because they ignored UA thinking they were above the law and the consumers were not important. Nice try at diverting attention to other automakers. Just no reason to believe the others have the UA failure rate that Toyota has. How many people have died as a result of UA in a 2009 VW or Audi? Show us the link.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    In case you missed the real truth about UA and Toyota. Here are the charts again. 6 of the worst 10 vehicles for UA are all built by Toyota. e-of-ua-incidents/
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    If you seem so certain about VW/Audi having more UA complaints on the NHTSA site, you should go look for yourself. I just pulled up the most popular models of VW and Audi for 2009 and this is the only report I found for UA. And when he hit the brakes the car stopped. I think you picked a dog that just won't hunt. Your chart is bogus.

  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    Wehn I took my auto in I stated I wanted electrical checked as for some reason light had switched from front lighting overhead to back seat lighting when door opened. So I had no mirror lighting. Also wanted idle checked as had some unexplained increases when braking, parking ,etc. I also wnted it completely serviced for a long road trip. My complaints were not written on work order. Was a problem when picking it up. Service center attempted to just make me pay without speaking with an agent of work completed. I just requested to speak with agent. Second agent stated I didn't ask, it's not on report. Just had to politiely stay and requested first agent.

    Thye first time there was an issue was when I bought the vehicle. They let me take it home, but was to return it to have door painted as there were scratches on door. Service center just attempted to pass vehicle back to me with just a buffing out of the scratches which did not visibly correct. Was so easy to still see scratches. Was resolved and door painted.

    We had never had any history of problems in past with other manufaturers. So now am just evaluating if just this dealership, or a general practice at Toyota dealerships. I plan to watch what happens in future and make sure all documented each visit. Was aware of these issues long before all of the investigations started, and had plans in place for my future interactions already.
  • tomjavatomjava Posts: 136
    you're saying that NHTSA chart is bogus? Read this chart below!
    Same things many of the complaints in Toyota, VW, Volvo, GM, Ford are stupid and can't be duplicated! title
  • revitrevit Posts: 476
    Toyota coverup

    Two weeks ago in this column I called Toyota's investigation into its unintended acceleration problem a coverup. I was one of the first reporters to use the "C" word, which resulted in an appearance on the CBS Evening News to repeat those charges.

    While I had no inside information to draw that conclusion, looking at what's transpired from the perspective of an engineer with product development experience, it was obvious that Toyota was being untruthful. The company had failed to provide details about the tests it had conducted, and didn't make its engineers available to discuss the issues. Since my column first appeared, much more evidence has come out that has substantiated these charges.

    We've learned that over the past seven years Toyota and NHTSA, our government regulatory agency, have received more than 1,600 complaints. Sudden acceleration has allegedly caused as many as 34 deaths, including an off-duty highway patrolman and his family here in San Diego.

    Internal Toyota memos now show that it bragged about saving $100 million in recalls by successfully negotiating with NHTSA regulators to curtail its investigations. During this time Toyota told complaining owners that their problems were due to faulty floor mats, including one owner that later died when his car crashed after suddenly accelerating ... with his floor mats stored in his trunk.
    Even the most recent fix, adding a metal shim to the accelerator mechanism to prevent full engagement of a toothed part, seems a stretch to me. The fact that the problem of unintended acceleration increased dramatically when Toyota went to a computer controlled accelerator system, leads me to think the problem may be related to an electrical or software glitch.

    Incredibly, the coverup continues. A Toyota vice president, Bob Carter, recently stated at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in Orlando, Fla., that "Testing by Toyota, NHTSA and Exponent, an outside consulting firm hired by Toyota, has found no evidence of problems with Toyota's electronics.
    "There is no problem with the electronic throttle system in Toyotas," Carter said. "There's not anything that can even remotely lead you in that direction." Carter said Exponent was told to "tear the components apart to try to find anything wrong and initial tests could find nothing."

    While it may be true that during the couple of months Exponent ran its tests it found no problem, Carter's conclusion that "there is no problem" is neither accurate nor a logical conclusion. Two months of testing six or eight randomly chosen cars does not prove that there is not a problem. First, the sample size of the test is far too small to be able to make any valid conclusions concerning its entire fleet of cars. Second, it did not test the specific cars already known to have the problem. Statements such as Carter's continue to mislead the public and demonstrate that Toyota is still not serious about getting to the bottom of the problem.

    It's now time for Toyota's president, Akio Toyoda, to move aside the marketing, PR and damage control people who just obfuscate the issues. He needs to take personal charge, do what's in the best interests of its customers, and make safety its first priority, ahead of profit.

    Here's what Toyota should be doing if it really wants to find the cause of unintended acceleration:

    1. Instruct every engineer or Toyota repairman who has had any involvement in the design, manufacturing or testing of unintended acceleration to come forward with what they know and report their findings to Mr. Toyoda directly.
    2. Request that every customer who's experienced the problem of unintended acceleration bring their cars into their Toyota dealer in exchange for a loaner.
    3. Bring 1,000 of Toyota's best engineers to the United States to fan out and examine these cars that have been turned in to the dealers. Subject these cars to extensive testing to try replicate the reported problems.
    It's much more likely that a population of cars that have experienced the problems will yield better results than testing a few new cars.
    4. Buy back samples of these cars that indicate anomalies and subject them to additional testing in Japan.
    5. Have this team of Toyota engineers present their findings for peer review to a team of U.S. experts in electronics, software, testing and quality control from academia, the automotive industry and NHTSA, and then report directly to the public.

    Mr. Toyoda's testimony this past week was filled with apologies, but did little to reassure us that they are doing everything possible to get to the bottom of these problems. He has still failed to explain why the company did little to test for electronic problems, yet keeps ruling that out as a cause, saying he was "absolutely confident" there was no problem with the electronics, and repeated the company's stance that sudden accelerations were caused by either a sticking gas pedal or a misplaced floor mat.

    I predict that comment will come back to haunt Toyoda and his company. Evidence is already surfacing that some university experts have been able to prove the contrary.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 24,954
    >2. Request that every customer who's experienced the problem of unintended acceleration bring their cars into their Toyota dealer in exchange for a loaner.
    3. Bring 1,000 of Toyota's best engineers to the United States to fan out and examine these cars that have been turned in to the dealers. Subject these cars to extensive testing to try replicate the reported problems.
    It's much more likely that a population of cars that have experienced the problems will yield better results than testing a few new cars.
    4. Buy back samples of these cars that indicate anomalies and subject them to additional testing in Japan

    Have toyo buy back all the cars where anyone has had a problem, whether toyo's service writer kept it off the work order or not.

    Ship those cars to Japan and have the toyota engineers, marketing, heads, all drive them. Give cars to the US head honchos as well. Let them take the chance on being the one with the jackpot car that has UIA :sick: .

    That will show their confidence in their product. :blush:

    I'll bet the problem's etymology would be found a WHOLE lot faster with the toyota folks having to drive the cars that had at least once exhibited the problem

    Bet they wouldn't tolerate having the UIA problem blamed on the driver, either. :P

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    edited March 2010
    "..At WOT the two sensor voltages can in fact overlap.."


    Someone is reading the chart/graph incorrectly.

    The useable range, actual voltage "span" for the gas pedal position sensors, from idle to WOT, is 0.80 volts to 2.6/4.5 volts for sensor #1 and 1.6 to 3.4/5.0 volts for sensor #2.

    There is NO question that the Toyota/Denso system should have "faulted" when the two signals were initially shorted together. From reading the factory shop/repair manual it is pretty clear that the voltage tolerance, less than 0.02 volts, for detecting that the two sensor signals are shorted together was not well thought out. IMMHO less than 0.40 volts, or even 0.20 volts, would be more in the proper range.

    So the "mistake" Dr. Gilbert made was not using a more robust short, say a copper buss bar. ;)

    The way you describe the Kia system sounds very much like they use the very same NipponDenso system as does Toyota, highly likely so in any case.

    Has anyone shorted, "casually" shorted, these two signals together on a Kia to confirm that the monitor detects the short ..??
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    edited March 2010
    I posted that very chart to show just how little research these people do before they put something online. The bottom line. Where do these reports come from? I have gone over the NHTSA ODI website and fail to verify what any of them are trying to get US to believe. They all seem to cherry pick bits and pieces to strengthen a position. Take the NPR link you just posted.

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identified 251 complaints alleging sudden acceleration and related problems for vehicles in model year 2009. A breakdown by vehicle make follows.

    What are the related problems to UA? Is it the fact that you cannot stop a Toyota when it is at high speed with WOT? It is all a way to spin any data to say what you want it to say. I don't own a VW Audi. I own a Toyota that has never had a recall. The last of the well built Sequoias. So it makes no difference to me. It is just such a large number of complaints on the newer Toyota and Lexus vehicles that even the lazy bunch at the NHTSA could not ignore them.
  • kent19kent19 Posts: 1
    Accelerator problem is in the electronic "drive by wire". I had the identical problem in my new 2003 Mercedes SL500. The accelerator suddenly would shoot up to 6000 rpm. I had it towed to Mercedes 3 times and each time I was told there was nothing wrong and the "computer check" was normal. They inferred that I "didn't know how to drive a Mercedes". On the 3rd time, the mechanic who had just completed his "normal computer analysis" drove out of control out of the service area and nearly killed someone and nearly wrecked the car. Mercedes sent someone from Germany who spent a month before deciding it was the "accelerator actuator" in the drive by wire. Since then, Mercedes has installed a brake by-pass in case of unintended acceleration. I have have no problems since. Toyota needs to check with Mercedes
  • tomjavatomjava Posts: 136
    Nice try to spin the UA compliant data from NHTSA. The death in ES350 is due to the wrong carpet and caused a gas pedal stuck, and that Toyota is at fault. So the confirmed deaths in Toyota UA is how many? Based on your assumption, all manufacturers are suck and above the law by simply ignoring UA,

    UA is not only Toyota problem but many others even European brands that have a brake override in place. And some posters are insisting that UA is only Toyota problem!

    Even in Audi 5000 fiasco, there were so claims of UA deaths, and the end NHTSA confirmed that all due to driver's error.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    The first rule of trouble-shooting is to find a way to reliably replicate the failure. Once you can do that then finding the solution is usually fairly simple and straight-forward.


    I pity Toyota/NipponDenso in/for this case.

    Replicating this seemingly extremely rare failure will be hard enough, but what if it has something to do with the surrounding environment, say driving through an area of numerous cell towers? Or even a combination of the surrounding environment and driver activity, say, simultaneous "set/accel" actuation and inadvertent braking due to left foot "resting" on the brake pedal.

    Sometimes, in the end, you find that you simply cannot replicate the failures and then you have to go into fall-back mode, shot-gunning the problem. Make best guesses as to what/which might be the causative factors and begin applying "patchwork". In this case I would start by applying voltage snubber, "surge protector", networks to all of the inductive devices.

    But then if you resort to this latter method just how long, how much (end-user..??)testing before you can say the problem is fixed, and which "patchwork" worked..??

    Pity Toyota/NipponDenso, I wouldn't want to be in their position right now.

    Ms Smith's UA incident started just as she was entering the highway, just about the time one might normally actuate "set/accel" mode. Then later the engine begins acting "normally" once the braking gets the speed down to ~35MPH, the approximate speed that cruise control is automatically disabled.

    I have had instances myself wherein I felt the CC engagement was too "abrupt", too much "instant" acceleration, downshift/acceleration, for my "taste". And I almost always use the brakes to disable CC. Actually I don't even remember a time of using the CC "knob" to disengage CC, its simply too easy to "tap" the brake pedal lightly.

    So if my brake light switch should ever fail I might find myself in BIG trouble.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    So this NPR does have other available years. Wnet to site and found. Sorry, I retract what I said earlier.
  • graphicguygraphicguy Edmunds Poster EmeritusPosts: 12,499
    revit....I think most of us could see where this was going a month or so, ago.

    Toyota's goal was never to get to the real fix. They've traded quality and safety for quantity. More disturbing, they've gone to great lengths to hide and cover up some known safety issues, all for money.

    Time and time again, the opportunity for them to do the right thing has been their own alleged investigations, in their dealings with NHTSA, before Congress, and now back with the NHTSA.

    Time and time again, they choose to hide information, make information inaccessible, and thwart efforts to get to the root causes.

    As bad as it is for Toyota right now, it will get worse. They've got NHTSA rooting through their documents (if they haven't been destroyed already). They've got members ov Congress ready to level huge fines on them. They've got the SEC investigating them. They've got the FBI looking at their suppliers (which will eventually lead them right back to Toyota). They've got lawsuit on top of lawsuit being filed against them. Consumer complaints are coming fast and furious over a variety of problems. They've even got their home country government putting the squeeze on them to "come clean".

    They could have avoided a good portion of this. They have chosen a different that's going to take them years if not an entire decade, to recover from.
    2019 Kia Stinger GT2
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    They've got lawsuit on top of lawsuit being filed against them.

    I think Juries will be a bit more sympathetic to the consumers, with all the evidence of Toyota lying and hiding information. I know the family from San Diego has filed their suit. That should be a BIG one against Lexus and the Dealer. Both are responsible if Lexus did not make it clear to the Dealers on the Floor mat issue.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    My question on the Biller papers and Tracy not being interested. If they are not all Biller says they are, why has Toyota blocked their release into evidence all the way to the TX state supreme court? has Tracy had some handsome settlements in all those cases he tried against Toyota? Something fishy going on. I say put them out there and let the juries decide.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    I realize NPR is public radio outlet.

    As for their study:
    (1)Study Explanation vague - unclear how calculated, methods used, etc.. Can be challenged by analytical experts.
    (2)Doesn't state which year they did this for??? Multiple years?? Etc.
    (3) No clarification what they mean legally - saying "model year" & how they are using "model year"? What does this actually mean???
    (4)Study Explanation does not explain if all SUA/UA included or not. When not stated definitively - problems & questions?
    (5)What/why/how are they breaking down by model years???
    (6)Who provided this info to NPR???
    (7)If NPR did analysis - who did it???? Were they paid? Associations with who asked??
    (8)How does it compare with other studies done?? Can it be compared?
    (9)Can you clearly deduct info with presense of unknown issues??

    Second glance I just thought it was for model year 2009. I was busy and did not analyze when I saw reports. Went back a 3rd time since I saw blogs going back and forth. Just questions you can ask yourself when evaluating any data study report & is food for thought.

    tomjava I do thank you for submitting for all of us to review. Many data study reports available for SUA/UA do have a purpose, and must carefully break study down into an objective analysis format. And studies should have.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    Which study by Edmunds were Truth About Cars using?? The first or the second study??? First was the long study results. The second study released in their press releases on February, 2010.

    Appears more studies by groups are coming out. That is good.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    Well, Exponent hired by Toyoita is out to now prove Dr Gilbert wrong. Any of their reports will be highly questionable?? They are just a good litigation, defense type firm. Have too much proven info on them here in California. And there are more claims re: other reports as well.

    Any rate - glad to see you have reviewed Dr Gilbert's preliminary report findings. Dr. Gilbert may be limited on how much further he proceeds ahead. University funding related aspects maybe? Toyota donated autos and also $100,000 - to his department. We shall see? And all depends on how University administration views, if any applied pressure from Toyota??

    QUESTION - You do see some Toyota problem from reviewing Dr. Gilberts actual study, diagrams, etc.???

    Seems like Toyota has already stated that what he did in no way indicates real world situations?? Exponent to give report on findings.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 24,954
    >Seems like Toyota has already stated that what he did in no way indicates real world situations??

    That's a profound statement on the part of toyota; but it says not what it appears.

    To have a problem with the dual sensors not properly working would not be a real world situation either.

    To have your car race out of control is not a real world situation either.

    To have the brakes not work is not a real world situation. And reminds me of another question about the one-way valve to keep air from going into the vacuum booster when the intake manifold rises in pressure above the booster pressure. Is it possible those are not working? It's really odd people are saying the brakes don't work from the beginning. They DON'T say the brakes don't work as well the second or fifth time they depress the pedal: it's the brakes don't work.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    I was just relating what was reported. I am waiting for the report from Exponent challenge of Gilbert's findings to be released to public. Better be. If not - h-mmmmm.

    I agree with you, regarding Toyota's alleged statement. I have lots of questions.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    The loaner that family had while their car was repaired - dealership had placed wrong model floormats in vehicle. Also am not sure if CHP officer familiar with the 3 second delay ignition push button? Etc.
  • roho1roho1 Posts: 318
    edited March 2010
    This an excert from a Businessweek article posted here some time ago. No one here commented on it.

    ....we were treated to Dr. David Gilbert of Southern Illinois University, also a guest of Mr. Kane's, who claimed to have found how Toyota's electronic system could totally malfunction, creating a runaway car—and claimed he'd found the error in less than four hours. Spoiler alert: Dr. Gilbert was assigned this work by Kane's safety advocacy firm, with at least partial funding by trial lawyers.

    Here, too, is a problem: Dr. Gilbert said he relayed the results of that test and his concerns directly to Toyota. In short order Toyota looked into Dr. Gilbert's claims and found them not to be valid in terms of creating unintended acceleration. Then, to the company's surprise, it watched his appearance with Brian Ross on ABC News this past Monday night, Feb. 22.According to Toyota, it now appears that Dr. Gilbert had done something completely different in order to get a Toyota Avalon to accelerate under its own power. Toyota offered to evaluate Dr. Gilbert's Avalon, with ABC in attendance, and see what he did electronically to cause it to accelerate.

    Additionally, Toyota is fairly adamant that Gilbert's "test evaluation" on ABC News was not the original "discovery" he relayed to them on Feb. 16.....

    I have not heard anything since on him. I guess this what Exponent is studying?
    So who do trust? Kane trial lawyer funding or a consultant Sharon doesn't trust?
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    The article I read on Dr Gilbert said when all the news came out about UA with Toyota vehicles, he became curious and experimented with his own brand new 2010 Tundra. What he found was disturbing and he tried to get Toyota to respond. They showed their usual arrogant attitude and paid no attention to him. Kane did not get involved until later. Did ABC or Kane pay for the Avalon used in the test? According to the CNN article Toyota is not interested in finding their problem. They are just interested in discrediting Dr Gilbert. That has been their MO from the start. Discredit the customers story or pay them off if they have to. If Toyota was serious about getting to the bottom of their UA electronic problems they would send engineers not Exponent.

    "Dr. Gilbert's demonstration, as shown on the ABC News web site, amounts to little more than connecting three of the six pedal sensor wires to an engineered circuit to achieve engine revving," said Exponent, a research firm hired by Toyota, in a report obtained by CNN that was prepared for Toyota attorneys.

    So how many automotive engineers does Exponent have on their staff? I know several here would like to discredit Kane's group for lack of expertise. How about putting the same scrutiny on Toyota and Exponent. Those interested in fair and balanced.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    I already knew Exponent and Toyota were going to present report contradicting Dr Dave Gilbert's study findings. I had reported earlier today - this fact. Said - gues we wait to see Exponent's report. And report had better be released for public reviewing. If report is withheld there will be lots more issues to think about and address.

    As why I see problems with Exponent. Here are some links that I have. At work during medical managers meetings we analyzed medical research studies with our so-called Champion MD Expert. Exponent was discussed and we reviewed their studies. Long before this all started I already knew of Exponent and who they were, type of work they do, and questions existing regarding their work. My professional work was medicine.

    Here are some links re: some info on Exponent. I have more on other issues they were involved in also. I have had many bookmarked for several years. These links undeniably help undestand how corporations influence laws, views, etc. Drug companies also attempt to influence medical research. Helps reveal types of reports Exponent does. They are good at what they do. They win - no one investigates findings. If they lose - someone has fought back and researched their findings. Just providing only small sample. vich_x.htm

    UCSF medical center San Francsco mentioned in this article did indeed carefully avoiding legal liability issues make claim against Exponent that they are not a neutral firm because of their reports that showed smoking does not cause cancer. This University of California Medical Center San Francisco Cardiologist was interviewed on CNN and I saw the interview. Tobacco use and medical research are one of his areas of expertise. UCSF medical center is one of the top teaching medical centers in US.,0,6775660.stor- y


    This is why I highly question any type of report Exponent produces for Toyota. Any firm that writes reports that say tobacco doesn't cause cancer, reports written that asbestos doesn't cause mesothelioma(similar to lung cancer), etc., writes & publishes proven fraudulant research study chromium 6 doesn't cause high rates of cancer, etc will always have questions about type of reports they write. And links I provided are only the "tip of the iceberg."

    Hope this helps when bloggers evaluate Exponent. Why did Toyota hire Exponent?? I don't know?? But was quite disappointed when I heard this news. Someone here provided good insight - like getting exam question answers a day before exam taken. Already know what Exponent will most likely report. This firm is a litigation defense firm and their reports almost always defend their clients.
  • tomjavatomjava Posts: 136
    edited March 2010
    ...Ms Smith's UA incident started just as she was entering the highway, just about the time one might normally actuate "set/accel" mode. Then later the engine begins acting "normally" once the braking gets the speed down to ~35MPH, the approximate speed that cruise control is automatically disabled. ...

    Speaking of Ms. Smith, NTHSA bought that car from a second owner at full MSRP (lucky [non-permissible content removed]). link title

    So Ms. Smith drove the car for 3000 miles, had a scary UA, and sold it. The second owner drove the same car for 30,000 miles and never had a single incident of UA. I am glad NHTSA bought that car to prove that she's full of it.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    When you are referring to how much Dr. Gilbert was paid - realize at hearing this was disclosed. $1800, $150 per hour, $4000 for equipment needed. Quite minimal amount of money!! Also was disclosed Gilbert had startd this all out on his own as he had purchased a Toyota Tundra. One of his teaching areas of expertise is auto electronics. The publicity of SUA/UA enticed him to investigate, and since he had all at his disposal proceeded ahead. Once he had a breakthrough he contacted Toyota, NHTSA, and Sean Kane. Kane called him back right away. NHTSA and Toyota did not. Kane got financial assistance and provided the tiny amount of "peanut" money. All was approved by University of Southern Illinois before proceeding ahead.

    Now compare to what Toyota pays Exponent. In hearing Toyota declined to answer this question to committee. Toyota has used them in other legal lawsuits. Reports seen have estimated at least $1,000,000+ each year if not more paid to Exponent by Toyota.

    So who do we believe??? The defense firm??? Or Dr Dave Gilbert a University Professor??? You must relaize Dave Gilbert has lots to lose, Toyota donates autos and gave $100,000 to university auto technology department where he works. Why would he want to hurt his program for only a small amount of money?? Dave Gilbert has always maintained he is not out to harm Toyota. His pursuit is to help Toyota and all other manufacturers address SUA/UA.
  • tomjavatomjava Posts: 136
    You would think so. Even there is a brake override in place, there are still UA complaint with NHTSA. Is it because the driver or the car? I can't believe that Audi/VW had 21.6 UA complaints in FY2008 while Toyota Lexus only had 6.8 UA complaints. If those complaints are garbage than the UA incident is likely to be extremely rare.


    source 1

    source 2
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    The Truth is Dr Gilbert has integrity. Toyota and Exponent have absolutely ZERO integrity. The more I read about Toyota the more despicable I find them. It would not break my heart to see them go bankrupt. They have done things much worse than GM or C ever thought of doing.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    Lexus already had repaired Smith's auto. As police would say - that auto should have already been considered excluded because of Lexus repair. Any legal stance, findings are lost due to no outside professional oversight as witness to/during actual repair.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    You are becoming a broken record and a joke. Name one VW vehicle with UA reported to NHTSA. You keep posting the same anonymous chart. No one will take credit for it as it is Bogus.
  • krzysskrzyss Posts: 849
    I have reasonable theory.

    Since VW has brake override feature more people are able to control UA and survive.
    Dead people do not log complaints with NHSTA.

    Just a theory.

  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    I like your theory. More truth than fiction.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    I had provided the links earlier on one of my blogs for everyone to review. Dr Gilbert already had these autos which were donated by Toyota to the auto technology department. Everyone this is claimed to be #1 school in US.

    Gilbert explained in his study quite well how each model was selected. There were four moels. He also investigated other manufacturers as well. His report did not get into those findings. ABC news reports did report Gilbert as saying some other manufacturers autos had better fail safe systems. Toyota was the easiest system to enter. Gilbert introduces error problem electronically all the time to enhance teaching diagnostic problem solving for students. Always teaches no code registered, does not mean problem does not exist.

    Please review provided prior posting blog w links regarding testimony & actual written study reporrt.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    That is good question??? Seems that Kane that hired Gilbert has detrimental posting on Biller also. ??? Guess we will see what happens. How could Towns who is chair send the letter to Toyota claiming Biller documents reveal Toyota avoiding US legal system. Chair would have/should have gotten vote of committee for allowing him to send letter. Letter head states he is chairman??? He is addressing and writing to Toyota as chairman??? Then Issa attacks Towns saying just the opposite. And the fight begins.
  • tomjavatomjava Posts: 136
    Are you too lazy to look at the source data? Or simply ignoring the study done NPR which has more credibility than your rants to single out Toyota as the only manufacturer having UA issue.

    You think NHTSA reporting is bogus then the whole thing about UA is garbage.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    tomjave - I already sent you some items to review when evaluating NPR's report. NPR report lacked good definitive explanations of their study. Please review my prior post.

    There are several studies out there and we must attempt to fairly analyze each study. Edmunds has done two excellent data studies. CR has data study. Etc.

    As I said before, I do thank you for providing the links. Always good to review these data studies. I did however, have some valid questions regarding their study.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    Towns the Democrat anti business, Issa the Republican pro business. Toyota becomes the Political Football.

    Subpoenaed Toyota documents cause partisan rift on House Oversight committee

    You may remember last Friday that House Oversight and Government Reform committee chairman Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) accused Toyota of improperly withholding documents that would have allowed liability lawsuits against the company to go forward. The accusations, based on documents subpoenaed from a former top Toyota lawyer-turned-whistleblower, included references to Toyota's secret and ominous-sounding "Books of Knowledge" that contained trade secrets.

    The accusations came in a letter from Towns to Toyota North America president Yoshimi Inaba.

    Well, moments ago, the Republican minority of the committee, led by ranking member Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) delivered a letter to Towns saying that those accusations contained "factual misrepresentations" about the documents and that Issa and the Republican minority should have been consulted before Towns wrote his letter.

    Stronger still, the letter may undercut the credibility of the Toyota whistleblower, Dimitrios Biller, who claims his documents show that Toyota did the wrong thing while handling lawsuits from people who had been injured in accidents involving Toyota vehicles.

    This letter from Issa to Towns represents the first visible rift in the committee's grilling of Toyota on its recall issue. Issa told me in an interview last week that he enjoys working with Towns and that "has kept his word to me." This rift could strain relations between the committee's two leaders and its two sides.

    In the letter to Towns, Issa writes that a Texas lawyer had examined BIller's documents last year in connection to 17 cases he had reopened based on the documents. "I did not see any pattern of concealment, destruction or pattern of discovery abuse," wrote the lawyer, E. Todd Tracy. "I believe Biller, in his own mind, probably thinks something's there. But the documents just don't support it."

    Issa writes: "We have not identified an individual instance in the Biller documents...where Toyota flouted its discovery obligations. This contradicts the understanding of the situation expressed in the Towns" accusations.

    Issa also accuses Towns of inserting language into one of the documents to change the meaning and make Toyota look bad.

    In his conclusion to Towns Issa writes: "Based on staff review and analysis of the documents made available to the committee as a result of the subpoena issued Feb. 18, 2010, the letter sent by Chairman Towns to Yoshimi Inaba is not based on a fair reading of the evidence. In fact, Chairman Town's [sic] letter frequently misquotes and mischaracterizes the underlying material, in one extreme case, actually altering the subject of the underlying document." ts_ca.html
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    edited March 2010
    You are beating a dead horse. Almost every year that NPR studied UA reports from the NHTSA Toyota/Lexus had the most complaints. If it was based purely on sales volume GM and Ford sold a lot more vehicles in the last decade than Toyota. Yet they DO NOT have near as many complaints of UA. Ford had some complaints in the early years of the 21st century and have them under control. Toyota continues to get more and more. The fact is Toyota has had more complaints over the last 10 years for UA than all the other automakers combined. That is why they are before Congress.

    My complaint with the NPR study which is extensive. Is they include similar complaints which muddies the water some. What are "similar complaints" that they included in this study?

    NPR analyzed some 15,000 sudden acceleration and similar complaints consumers filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Here, you can find out about complaints for each brand and model year going back to 1990 models.

    Why has it taken 9 years for Toyota to address their problems with UA? Again from your posted NPR analysis"

    "Toyota's problems seemed go back to 2002," Benincasa said. "That's a few years before these recalls we've been hearing about with the floor mats and the sticky gas pedals. So back in 2002, they had about 10 percent of the U.S. auto market and they had about 19 percent of the complaints on acceleration."

    Is this part of the Toyota cover-up that Congress is trying to unravel??
  • roho1roho1 Posts: 318
    You've well documented more than once here your distrust of Exponent. We get it.

    In my experience, when one hires a consultant they first ask what it is you want to prove. They then set out to show that. Anyone that takes a consultants findings as gospel is a fool. As you say one has to research and investigate their findings when they come out. I assume in this case the findings will be reviewed and poured over the coals hopefully by an independent and not Kane's Attorneys and engineers. We'll see.

    On another note, I saw a news report about how ABC doctored the Brian Ross-Gilbert video. They showed the tachometer racing with the car in park!
    ABC report
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    In my experience, when one hires a consultant they first ask what it is you want to prove.

    I agree that is what is done. If you want to win your case in court you get the sleaziest attorneys and witnesses you can find. That goes for both sides of the case. What I don't understand is why Toyota would not want to find their problems with their cars and fix them rather than just fight it all in Court. Maybe they think that is the cheapest route to take.

    I think Dr Gilbert's research was legitimate if a bit naive. He probably thought that Toyota would welcome his evidence as a means to resolve their UA problems. When they snubbed his efforts he went to the media, as any honest researcher would do. It was only smart business on Kane's part to snatch Gilbert up as an expert witness. Just another screw up by Toyota. Probably attributed to the US executives inability to make any decisions. And Toyota policy of secrecy.
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    And I have not seen any reports written regarding Town's response to Issa's letter. Interesting.
  • tomjavatomjava Posts: 136
    Lexus already had repaired Smith's auto.." The exterior fix is most likey. Do you think they replaced the engine, ecu/ecm? Do you NHTSA didn't verify the car engine, ecu/ecm with its VIN before bought it? I don't think so.

    NHTSA intentionally bought this car to molest it in A-Z ways to find out whether UA is possible as Dilbert and other experts in this forum claimed.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 24,954
    >tachometer racing with the car in park!

    If you read the discussion, you see that ABC said the video shot during the moving event was shakey (imagine that, GAWKER fans) so they used a stationary shot of the tachometer. Interestingly the tachometer was racing due to the same kind of event that caused the runaway acceleration while moving.

    A little bit of poetic license to get a good video shot of an actual event that wasn't shaking.

    No surprises here folks. Move along.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • roho1roho1 Posts: 318
    Agreed the results weren't different but the point is ABC didn't tell you that in their report. Only after it was discovered that they doctored the video did they offer a qualification. Sleeze reporting not poetic license here. This is about safety.
  • roho1roho1 Posts: 318
    Stanford research versus research at Southern Illinis Univ. This should be interesting.

    yahoo report
  • sharonklsharonkl Posts: 660
    Toyota legally would not want to admit any electronic problems. If they do these statement admissions would be used against them in court. Federal investigation, SEC, FBI raid of three of their suppliers, law suits from individuals in accidents are already present.

    Toyota's attorneys appear to have hired Exponent. Attempt to hide/suppress any Exponent reports regarding Gilberts findings may come.

    Most Universities usually must demonstrate more nonbiased stances. And most times are the least biased. Since University had approved the study, I would assume University had already reviewed the possible legal, monetary repercussions, details of Gilbert's study w financial payments & auto manufacturers corporate pressure that could result. Toyota does donate autos and had given $100,000 to auto technology department. None of us know if Dr Gilbert is still researching or not. He presented study findings as a preliminary report. University could force Gilbert to drop his investigation, and not allow him use of auto technology department service center for further study..
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 24,954
    >Only after it was discovered that they doctored the video did they offer a qualification. Sleeze reporting not poetic license here. This is about safety.

    I think that would pretty well describe toyota's handling of these problems from 2002, wouldn't it. :P

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • jdm9jdm9 Posts: 38
    Sorry some of you (sharon, gag, ww so forth have to see my preamble but Ive been busy in the shop) and have come up with a gadget. Im gone again but am always interested in your comments. .

    To all the people saying , just turn off the key. Under normal, (gas pedal stuck) circumstances, turning off the key works. You still have enough brakes to stop and the steering reverts to manual with no power assist ,it is much harder to turn but its still manageable to most able bodied people, It seems preferable to crashing at full throttle. I have tried shutting the key off under full throttle in a 2010 Tundra several times up to 150kmh and it worked. HOWEVER , what we dont know is what exactly is happening with the computer when someone is experiencing electronic unintended accelleration (EUA). The limited data available from when this is occuring , if you beleive that it does in fact occur, (I beleive that the reports of EUA are too numerous to discount and so have chosen to accept that it does indeed happen) primarily comes from people that are in a panicked mode or sadly comes from their vehicles after their deaths. I beleive it is possible that the computer, when a vehicle is undergoing EUA is acting similarly to your own home computer when it has frozen. Since the computer in the drive by wire vehicles controls some or all of the braking , throttle, ignition, transmission and other systems incorporated into the vehicle, it is also possible that in its frozen state, similar to your home PC, the cars computer will not respond to placing in nuetral, shutting off the key or application of brakes. The parking brake has limited stopping power. I have installed a proptotype switch in my Tundra that bypasses and is isolated from the computer. When you switch it on the motor dies instantly. Call me paranoid, but it gives me peice of mind that I did not have before I installed it.


    Read more: it.html#socialcomments#ixzz0hW3jWdgb
Sign In or Register to comment.