Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
As for the Edmunds "contest", sometimes these things are set up to generate participation in the discussion.
Of course, if someone, somehow, someway, was able to come up with a viable explanation of the problem, then so much for the better.
IMHO, there is no substitute for the proper education and an understanding of the operation of a vehicle. No amount of safeguards will ever remotely compensate for a driver unprepared even the most basic surprises that one will most likely see over their driving lifetime.
No other country in the world has comparable problems with cars accelerating on their own. In the US, though, "sudden unintended acceleration" is a mass phenomenon. It has become the topic of various nonfiction books and online self-help groups -- indicators to those affected that they aren't alone.
NHTSA has received 12,700 complaints of unintended acceleration in the last decade, across the spectrum of brand names. Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Honda, and nearly every other carmaker have been affected. The causes of the phenomenon are as difficult to track down as are reported UFO sightings -- partly because those affected don't take kindly to doubters.
Wow!
Those 2 paragraphs speak loudly...
WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - U.S. regulators on Wednesday reviewed 10 complaints that fixes made to recalled Toyota Motor Corp (TM.N)(7203.T) vehicles did not resolve unintended acceleration.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said it is reviewing reports that have been received since mid-February and are interviewing vehicle owners. The regulator said the allegations were unconfirmed.
From Toyota - March 4th - 5 days prior to the DerSpiegel article
As NHTSA is now reviewing the results of our evaluations, it is inappropriate for Toyota to provide specific information about the company’s conclusions. However, the evaluations have found no evidence of a failure of the vehicle electronic throttle control system, the recent recall remedies or the brake override system.
It is important to note that many complaints submitted to NHTSA either are unverifiable or lack the vehicle owner information required to facilitate follow-up. Nonetheless, Toyota is quickly investigating verifiable complaints of unintended acceleration and doing everything it can to ensure that our customers are confident in their vehicles and the remedies.
Busiris, with the disparity in reported cases, I also wonder if that somewhat reflects the litigious nature of the US vs most other countries. If there's no chance of winning anything at trial, maybe owners in other countries don't even bother complaining to their NHTSA equivalents.
But Toyota owners better not spend their anticipated winning too soon - most of the class action cases seem to result in small payouts to the plaintiffs.
Automotive Liability Law Suits Don't Always Equal Big Money (Edmunds Daily)
Visiting Host
The WSJ article could have pointed out that in their listed examples (and all others I can think of) there was a significant difference. All the cases they pointed to had demonstrable defects that dozens of independent sources could verify easily. That's not the case yet with Toyota. I can't wait to see the expert witness who is going to stand up in court on this one. Who ever it is can kiss their reputation as a credible expert good bye.
Basically, in my personal opinion, suing Toyota over this is a maneuver so as to balance how much pain Toyota can stand in the arena of public opinion versus the tenacity of a lawsuit against them.
If for instance you wanted to sue me for being a bad Host and leading you astray (don't try this or I will have you killed :P ) and you want $29.95 in damages, and you start broadcasting this all over the 'Net, I might come to the conclusion that $29.95 is worth it to keep you quiet.
As for media reports, you'll notice that some, like Edmunds, do offer a wide range of opinion and possibility, whereas others are merely local affiliate news feeds, uncensored and probably not even reviewed for content.
American media, especially the mainstream, has a nasty feedback loop to it that makes it a very unlikely candidate for "journalistic excellence" vis a vis some European (or even one Middle Eastern) outlets.
Visiting Host
Yes, I also noted a couple of comments in the article that I suspect were slightly mis-translated.
Busiris, with the disparity in reported cases, I also wonder if that somewhat reflects the litigious nature of the US vs most other countries. If there's no chance of winning anything at trial, maybe owners in other countries don't even bother complaining to their NHTSA equivalents.
Regarding the litigious nature in the US, you're dead-on. While our cases are generally decided by a group of our "peers" (and, in many cases one would consider the folks on a jury something much less than a "peer"), most of these cases in many European countries are decided by a panel of 3 or more judges, who are quite often well versed on the subject areas in which they rule. And, they are much more apt to issue much smaller awards in cases...
But Toyota owners better not spend their anticipated winning too soon - most of the class action cases seem to result in small payouts to the plaintiffs.
The Audi episode proves this statement to be correct. I suspect all the posters here will be long dead and gone before the final judgment has been rendered on Toyota.
As a side note, I don't really know where these folks are going that are suing for diminished value in their vehicles. Personally, I have never signed any car purchase contract that implied a residual value of an automobile. My father used to say that buying a car was the worst financial deal anyone could make...at least, value-of-money-wise. Maybe there might be more to it in the case of leasing, but I have never leased, so I can't say....
In SC, if you have damage to your vehicle due to an accident (and you have the appropriate coverage), your car will be repaired back to "factory standards" (however that is determined). Obviously, a damaged, yet repaired vehicle, as compared to the same exact vehicle with no damage at all will bring less in a sale. Good luck on getting the insurance company to pay you that "diminished value" difference... It isn't going to happen....not here.
Maybe other states are different.
IMO I think it's interesting to consider who might be the next hired gun in front of a judge or camera given the automotive history being written here. If we could figure it out maybe Edmund's could be the first to interview them well before they become national celebrities and they could give us a hint or two as to their theory of Toyota SUA. Something we are interested in here.
As for the offer to settle at $29.95 thanks, but I'd be tempted to push for more than LaHood did given that if $29.95 is the same percentage of your assets as 16.9 million was of Toyota's assets you should be good for much more since your assets should be approx $525,500.(hope I didn't violate any privacy laws) I guess it all hinges on how much you value your reputation and how much I'm willing to spend to wreck yours and promote mine. IMO its not about maneuvers its all about money.
I for one can't wait to see who is going to have this impossible historic task. The drama is killing me. Toyota is a titan who is going to get a shot at knocking them down?
Toyota says it will investigate story of Mankato acceleration (Kare11.com)
Ironically, he rear-ended the Audi sitting in front of him. Three times. :shades:
This problem sounds more like the Lexus ES lurch issue that the LA Times is writing about today.
Once again, this is not "evidence"---this is just anecdote.
More UA "mush".
I wish someone would come up with a FACT, then I'd get really interested :shades:
Visiting Host
Unintended consequences of biodiesel not evaporating like normal diesel.
I don't remember anyone pointing any fingers at fuel systems in US spec cars as a potential cause of SAU. But my memory isn't what it used to be.
Don't know about the police video. The ECM data was shared and retained by all parties, NHTSA, Toyota and the Police. It was analyzed like all the rest and the result of driver error was determined. The Chief waited a few days to make his mia culpa then recanted his earlier claims.
People are not adjusting to vehicle computers as well as they should and I'm one of them. I own three vehicles, a Jeep Grand Cherokee HO V8, 300C and Buick Enclave. Some companies program their computers so they can brag about gas mileage. I'm talking automatic trans shift programs. The Buick is the worst. After years of driving V8s all I got used to was push a little bit (20%) on the gas and immediately pass someone or attain a higher speed. The Buick (I've owned over 75 vehicles) responds much differently, push the gas 20% - you feel a hesitation where you actually slow down a bit followed by a downshift and increase in speed for 2 or 3 seconds then back into overdrive a second later. Its maddening since I'd like the car to accelerate for a while longer but it doesn't even though my foot is still down 20% I now know to push the gas 75% to get the desired result. I know the Buick is a V6 but it should still respond the same way just with alot more noise.
When companies make these changes without testing it on a focus group (and I don't mean Car and Driver) they can expect all kinds of acceleration related complaints. That goes for adaptive cruise controlas well.
"We are urging customers to keep an eye on their oil level, which they should do anyway. If it is under the maximum level they don't need to do anything. If it has risen above the maximum level they should contact their Volvo shop and they will remove the extra oil," Froberg said
Hmmm...
I've owned a lot of vehicles in my time, and some were oil-burners...one leaked like a sieve...but I have never had a single one that I had to periodically drain the excess oil.
Seems this auto may be the solution to the energy problems facing us, if it indeed generates excess oil...LOL!
The part that controls the engine to fire the injectors and spark is the highest priority.
That usually runs regardless of whatever else is going on. It is supposed to keep running even if things fail.
If a lower priority task engaged the throttle for cruise control or mistook the accelerator pedal calculation, it might not be running properly.
And my more general point is that you can neither exonerate nor condemn the software without evidence. And that evidence is not available. Saying I shouldn't be able to look at it is the same as saying floor mats can't possibly be the cause because they are passive.
Also, this is a Prius, not the Space Shuttle. A simultaneous 3...no 5-way failure of different systems (cruise control, engine management, brakes, ignition shut-off, transmission shut-off) shouldn't be so hard to find that we hear nothing but the chirp of crickets right now.
It's all very puzzling and frustrating, trying to get to some sense of it.
Visiting Host
When I offered $2,250 for proof of a faulty part or system that has resulted in a crash of a Toyota back in February I rec'd exactly one submission in 3 months and my rules were far less restrictive then Edmund's. Edmund's rules exclude the single biggest factor that to date, all investigation results point to. I've stated clearly that the evidence then and now points to driver error and that other theories then and now are being excluded.
Questions. 1. Why is Edmund's excluding the most promising evidence to date? 2. To date how many contest entries has Edmund's received?
I'll let you know their answer when it comes in
Thetruth, the contest overview says "We are not looking for variations on causes that have already been identified before your Submission is received." I think that's to rule out causes like floor mats. We're looking for unknowns.
"We are not looking for variations on causes that have already been identified
This rule strongly implies either one of two things. 1. Real causes have been identified. (which makes the purpose of a contest moot) 2. Applicants must come up with a solution that has never been discussed publically which is highly unlikely.
Looks like its back to buying Powerball Lottery tickets for me...
I'm pretty sure the odds of me winning either of the 2 is just about the same (ie., non-existent).
LOL!!!
Seriously, I have no idea what's going on...How about it, Steve?
About the same odds as being involved in an "unintended acceleration" and not being able to control it with.....
Common sense.
In the news, Gov't: 89 deaths tied to Toyota acceleration (AP)
"None of the complaints have been verified."
Driver is alarmed to find vehicle NOT doing what "I thought it was going to do" and slams into side of convenience store.
Straytrons have been identified in a centralized human electronic control unit and went at light speed to a biophysical actuator unit (commonly called the "foot") that actuated much more primitive electronic sender in vehicle involved with negative interaction with plate glass window of convenience store.
Patron of convenience store buying a power ball lottery ticket at the time, just past the plate glass was, amazingly, not hurt.
Do I win???
About the same odds as being involved in an "unintended acceleration" and not being able to control it with.....
Common sense.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127121561&ft=1&f=1001
Apparently the U.S. government takes the claims seriously. (story is via AP News, not NPR directly)
(quote)
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that from 2000 to mid-May, it had received more than 6,200 complaints involving sudden acceleration in Toyota vehicles."
So they've been having complaints for ten years and only now told the public about it? In a way I'm a bit shocked, but in another, it does show that something is going on that Toyota (and likely other manufacturers) don't want the public to be aware of, especially as these same vehicles are approaching 10+ years old. As I've pointed out, the problem is that any of the other technologies in use other than Hall Effect Sensors would work without any incidents because they are not dependent upon software or complicated redundancy and safety systems, that may or may not be programmed correctly, to function properly.
A simple throttle cable, by comparison, has nothing to be a problem. In an absolute worst-case scenario, it breaks and the throttle snaps shut.
I once owned a 1986 Ford E150. One day at a stop light, my E150 suddenly went to full throttle. I could NOT shift it of anything but "Drive". I kept my foot on the brake and turned it off. I had it towed to a mechanic at a gas Station whom I trusted.
He called and told me a motor mount had failed, my engine tipped and pulled the throttle cable on full. When he called Ford for the new motor mount, he found out the parts were free. Ford knew about the problem and did a "silent" recall.
You had to experience a failure before Ford acknowledged it.
If I had not been at a stop light, the results may have been a disaster and attributed to"driver error."
That was the last Ford I will ever own.
The point is there are other failure modes for throttle cables
But in your case the cause was easily identified.
6200 complaints and no solution? What does that suggest?
Perhaps that each case has a wide variety of variables attached to it.
Given the massive number of deaths and injuries and accidents occurring yearly in the USA, many of which are attributed to driver error (or driver judgment, if you will), I'm not sure we'll ever get to one "solution" or "answer".
I mean, I can drive each day in my own neighborhood and see a car or two every time I go out, driven by someone who should really have their license torn up. I saw a person drive right into a culvert off a freeway ramp, even SIGNALED before they did it (bad judgment) and someone put their car in reverse at a stoplight (saw the reversing lights) and back right into the front of a schoolbus. (Hard to say they didn't see it).
So who KNOWS what's going on out there, is my point.
And out of convenience and driver psychology - a percentage of them are going to blame the vehicle. I am highly suspicious of the numbers with NHTSA and can see a situation of some of these reports need to be dismissed. You have the entanglement of lawyers and insurance companies after the event do you not?
As the modern American hyper-consumer evolves, more and more I think we're going to see variables introduced (vehicle hiccups) into the equation when what was really occurring was one of those motorists that "needs to have their license torn up"
I am also a veteran of a stuck accelerator years ago..... It just comes with the territory. I really don't think things have changed all that much......
This is completely ridiculous.
You need a central place to collect consumer complaints so that if there's a trend, further investigation can be done.
I'm not sure what the motivation or timing was behind the AP report. There's no similar news release on the NHTSA site yet.
Toyota responds to new report
"The numbers you have to understand, these are reports, nothing has been confirmed or investigated, even the government admits that," Wiseman said. "Having said that, we're trying to move forward on a lot of fronts."
MILLION DOLLAR PRIZE
From the link...
Even more alarming is that Americans are increasingly multi-tasking while behind the wheel, the study found. About 25% of those surveyed admitted to driving while talking on a cell phone, eating, or adjusting their radios or iPods.
While only 5% of drivers said they texted while driving, Bontrager said that the "surprisingly low" number is still higher than it ought to be, adding that drivers may not have responded honestly to this question.
see the answer here: http://www.youtube.com/user/carquestions
Oopsies....
Just another example of "herd" mentality.
Never let the facts get in the way of a great story....especially, a story with political motivations.
I pointed out that a mutimillion dollar government agency has made a claim about deaths related to Toyotas based on faulty complaints but I missed your post where you asked NHTSA for their proof. Why are you holding me to a higher standard? Have I made a glaring mistake? Considering just those two Police accident reports, neither one points a finger at Toyota. NHTSA could have blamed the tires on the car using the same logic. How come you don't take the Police investigators opinion? Do you think both of them are faulty? So you think the Police and me are wrong but NHTSA's claim is correct?
If the first two complaints are any indication of the others then I (or you or anyone else) have just as much right as NHTSA to make public statements and one would think just as much of a duty to back up their statements. I can and will find a lot more faulty complaints you can bet on it, NHTSA on the other hand needs to find a faulty part. I can prove NHTSA has bogus complaints, can they prove Toyota's accelerate by themselves or have killed any one?
Find me a valid complaint and I"ll give you a gold star.
I agree. I also doubt all the claims are bogus.
But, I think you missed the point being made.
Unlike the hypothesized UA in Toyotas, the 2 reports in the video can be ABSOLUTELY verified and corroborated...yet, they demonstrated glaring examples of a simple failure to examine the evidence in its most basic form.
So, in that regard, we already have a better-than-2% error rate based on a simple cursory examination of the "reported evidence"....(89-some-odd-"related" deaths with 2 ruled out immediately).
Surely, you would admit that cast a pretty large shadow on the "conclusions" arrived at supporting the claims.
Now, if I were submitting that report, I would like to think I would have done a better job of proofing it before releasing it. But, that's just me....