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
Oh, a Scotch man???
I figured you to be more of a Labatts Blue type, being from Canada and all ...
Between friends, family, co-workers and acquaintances in my own little myopic corner of the world that own Toyotas - I have been informally asking them if they had any problems. Not one report of a vehicle out of control - even momentarily.
My sister-in-law had the only negative report that her late model Prius "seemed" to have a pulsing sensation sometimes and that was it.
100% of them said the vehicle was not on the selling block because of UA fears.
100% of them would buy a Toyota again.
Between friends, family, co-workers and acquaintances in my own little myopic corner of the world that own Toyotas - I have been informally asking them if they had any problems. Not one report of a vehicle out of control - even momentarily.
.
.
.
100% of them said the vehicle was not on the selling block because of UA fears.
100% of them would buy a Toyota again.
That pretty much mirrors what I have seen.
If one considers the millions of "affected" cars on the road, coupled with with the 100's of millions of miles and the 100's of millions of vehicle "run-times" (each time the vehicle is started and run) and then compares that to the relatively few reported incidents, you quickly come to realize that you aren't looking for a single needle in a haystack, but a needle within a farm full of pastures, each with hundreds of haystacks.
I have yet to personally find a single Toyota owner that would not buy another Toyota due to the UA "scare". I am sure they are out there, but I haven't run into any of them yet.
Chrysler recalls more than 25,000 vehicles (MSNBC)
Nowadays the line pressure is controlled in "real time" so it is relaxed to a lower pressure, MUCH lower, unless/until needed/required. So your 20% throttle depression shifting delay is the result of the need to quickly "build-up" line pressure enough to accomplish the shifting.
No real evidence? just theories? might work in this forum but not in the real world fellas - no money for you
http://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/ford-wins-in-case-of-runaway-car/107- 5319
The second explanation for what happened is that someone stepped on the gas instead of the brake. When a jury weighs the two, there is a definite logical tendency to choose the far simpler explanation.
"...multiple redundant systems..."
NOT...!!
GM has recently stated that by 2012 they will have a brake over-ride system embedded within the firmware for their engine/transaxle ECU control systems.
Really...??!!
Redundant....??
NOT...!!
Put me in a jury of my piers and I will find it very easy to convince the 11 other people of the very distinct, but purely circumstantial, possibility.
Especially in the Sike's Prius case.
your brake system is hydraulic and your cruise control is electronic and your ignition switch is also electronic on a different circuit.
both your brake system and your ignition system are engineered to completely defeat your cruise control or your electronic throttle controls.
For a car to be able to accelerate out of control without you pressing on the gas, your brake system would have to fail, your ignition system would have to fail, and say in the case of the Prius, your neutral safety system in your transmission would have to fail----all at once----AND then leave no trace of any of these 3 failures.
Now some might argue (and it's not a bad argument) that it is harsh to say that not turning off the ignition, or putting the car in neutral, or stomping on the brakes, constitutes "driver error" --- I think it does constitute driver error, but the issue is whether such actions represent a reasonable demand.
In a plane, failure to do these things would certainly be called "pilot error". In Alaska, when we flew around, if your plane stalled and you did nothing about it and crashed, no one said "well, it couldn't be helped".
I think you overestimate your powers of persuasion.
I remember once when a friend wanted to go to trial on the basis of an "Act of God" defense---I told him that's going to be very tough unless you can get God to testify. (Part of his tree house fell on a neighbor's car).
Lexus needed, desperately needed, a palatable explanation, one that the public would buy into, that an experienced CHP officer and his family would all die under circumstances beyond Lexus "control".
So the Bernard "story", previous driver statement, was cooked up.
Better the dealer be responsible, have responsibility, rather than Lexus/Toyota have corporate responsibility...like BP.
Look how long the Saylor car ran SUA and think about how many efforts the CHP officer would have made to overcome the problem.
Apply the brakes, certainly, Aggressively so, look at the post SUA photo's of the front rotors and pads.
Try shifting into neutral...of course, a given.
Try ignition shutoff....maybe, but the engine/transaxle MUST be paying attention, monitoring, "polling", the "start" pushbutton for the entire 3 seconds of depression, NOT in a deadly embrace executing cruise control "accelerate" mode.
And listen to the testimony of the southern (TX, TN, ??) lady before congress. Cruise control light came on as the SUA began. She turned CC off but no help. Brakes had no effect on stopping the car until reaching the grassy medium wherein the front drive/DRIVEN wheels no longer had enough traction to overcome the rear brakes/braking.
Front, DRIVEN, wheels were still spinning wildly, WOT engine, even once the car was stopped on the grassy knoll, er...median.
And even if you buy into the gas pedal being trapped on the floor mat you still have to accept that the CHP officer was too stupid to try shifting into neutral.
Or else the true explanation is that the engine/transaxle controlling ECU firmware was stuck in a "deadly embrace", executing ONLY a tight CC acceleration instruction "loop" sub-routine.
Obviously the latter might also explain the Sikes SUA episode.
1. Brakes had no effect on stopping the car
comment: This seems, on the face of it, very hard to believe. The brakes are not electronic.
2. you still have to accept that the CHP officer was too stupid to try shifting into neutral.
comment: Not "stupid", but it's certainly possible he panicked and forgot the sensible thing to do. Or, he did shift into neutral, making that 3 systems failing simultaneously (CC, brakes, neutral shut off) --pretty hard to believe.
3. the true explanation is that the engine/transaxle controlling ECU firmware was stuck in a "deadly embrace",
comment: And leave no record of the event whatsoever? Also hard to believe.
The same type of failure in a RWD vehicle might have resulted in entirely different, less deadly, results.
The rear brakes, additionally, may have been being compromised by ABS activation to prevent them from slowing much more rapidly than the ~60MPH rate of the front wheels.
2. Only one system "needs" to fail, the single "threaded" engine/transaxle ECU instruction execution sequence. The ECU inadvertently gets "locked" into a "deadly embrace", executing ONLY the cruise control's "accelerate" instruction execution sequence. That might result, easily result, in NO polling of the ignition "start" pushbutton nor the shifter position electrical "command" switch set/group.
3. And leave no record of the event whatsoever?
"No record" is typical for those of us in the industry.
Once you "reboot" all evidence is typically lost unless you had a "trace" mode embedded or active. That "trace" procedure is typically only used as a trouble-shooting technique "after-the-fact" in the hope some way may be found to repeat the failure event.
More Thoughts:
Oh, not THREE failures, but FOUR simultaneously----also the rev limiter would have had to fail.
Also, driver's bad judgment on many counts:
1. Not turning off ignition
2. Not putting vehicle into neutral
3. Not bending down and yanking accelerator pedal
I think what *might* have happened is that the gas pedal and brake were being pushed simultaneously.
This actually explains all the symptoms perfectly.
It's interesting that there are never any reports (that I've read) on this happening to manual transmission cars.
So the Bernard "story", previous driver statement, was cooked up.
Better the dealer be responsible, have responsibility, rather than Lexus/Toyota have corporate responsibility...like BP.
Lets not disparage a witness that gave testimony, telling to the best of his ability what he experienced....which, by the way, has never been questioned by any authority.
Anyone who read the accident report knows just how idiotic that comment sounds. Cooked up?!? By who?
One really has to stretch to take that "theory" to its logical conclusion.....REALLY STRETCH!
IMO, anyone who wants to put a theory forward should be able to do so, but not at the expense of modifying the conditions or changing the facts in order to make his theory workable.
Yes, but a good scientist doesn't change the facts to fit his theory. His theory must fit within the known facts.
That's one reason Dr. Gilbert's demonstration went nowhere. It was factual, but there was no way he could show how the cause he used to "activate" the event he demonstrated could have been introduced into the actual "live" event.
Simply discarding the evidence contrary to a proposed theory may work in the court of public opinion (ie, death panels), but not in a scientific setting.
Wrongly downshifting is another issue.
In all three of the above 911 cases if the rev-limiter is "hit" hard, fast rise in RPM, it feels as if something serious in the drive train BROKE, the retardation is at a serious level and INSTANT. Rise to the limit somewhat slowly and you can "nuzzle" along right at the limit continuously.
Besides which with Saylor's engine so heavily loaded with the brakes firmly applied there may not have been an over-rev condition to limit, certainly not a continuously one.
1. Not turning off the ignition....
Or holding the "STOP" pushbutton down CONTINUOUSLY but with the ECU in the tight deadly embrace, only executing CC accelerate mode, and thus no polling of the PB.
2. Not putting the car in neutral.
Same as #1
3. Not bending down and yanking the accelerator pedal.
Anyone willing to say Saylor didn't do exactly that, maybe even two or three times,... or more..??
"..I think what might have happened..."
To make that assumption you have to consider Saylor an idiot. As you said, if the gas pedal being stuck was the base problem the neutral shift or the ignition PB should have worked.
Anyone driving a manual transmission car, even a rank amateur driver, with sudden unintended WOT, would instinctively depress the clutch pedal and/or shift the tranny into neutral. Insofar as I know there is of yet NO DBW clutch or manual transmission linkage in the marketplace.
I wouldn't even call a computer glitch a "theory" at this point---it's a speculation. For it to be a theory, it would have to be a lot more specific...such as "the reason the engine went WOT is because X lines of code were buggy, causing component Y to over-ride circuits Z & X, blah blah". THEN you have a real theory.
Theories have to be "falsifiable". You can't falsify a speculation, because really, it's rather based on belief...it's an opinion, not a theory.
" Ford showed that cruise control devices shut off both mechanically and electronically when the driver presses the brake."
Sorry, that's just plain BS and Ford knows it.
"Electronically..."
The only "source" of CC shut-off in the Ford Aerostar, and most Ford's of that era, is the brake pressure switch mounted on the master cylinder that applies power to the brake lights when the master cylinder brake fluid pressure rises above a certain level.
That's the very same switch, self-same switch, that is now under FLEETWIDE recall due to the fact that the brake fluid can leak into the low pressure side, the electrical circuit side, of the switch, which has resulted in spontaneous combustion of numerous Ford vehicles.
"Mechanically..."
Not in any Aerostar I own ('92 and '94, both R/awd), or have owned (previous '92 and 94, also both R/awd).
The Aerostar is a base RWD, 30/70 F/R bias even with R/awd, so yes, the brakes should STOP the vehicle is applied FIRMLY.
Most modern vehicles now have BA, Brake Assist, since it was decided that even with power brakes many LOLITS (descriptive term, not used derogatorily) did not have enough strength to apply the brakes firmly enough in certain conditions.
I do believe, firmly believe, that any short term SUA is more likely attributable to gas/brake application confusion. But "long" term...NOT...!!
Then you haven't read the accident report. Its about a 30 page report done by the San Diego sheriff's dept, and it covers it in detail.
You can view the pdf file at this link.
http://autos.aol.com/article/toyota-tragedy-saylor-family/
I can't say if he refuses interviews or not, but if so, I can easily understand why. There are several dead people that might well be alive if he had simply taken the floor mat and put it in the car's trunk, along with being more forceful in reporting his experience. Personally, I wouldn't want to explain that myself in front of a reporter with a camera looking for his "big breaking story".
I agree. However, you can't change facts already in evidence in order to promote your theory. In the case here, the sheriff's report clearly documents the floor mat issue, and in no way even hints at some type of "cover up" or "pay off" by Toyota or anyone else. Suggesting otherwise, without a single shread of evidence is no different than a dog chasing his tail. Sure.. Its fun to watch, but it gets the dog nowhere.
I don't object to the possibility that Saylor's death may have been caused by something other than a floor mat jammed under the gas pedal, but there isn't a single piece of evidence to suggest that any "shenanigans" were being orchestrated by Toyota or anyone else. If one can support an alternative theory with actual facts, then by all means, do so. Just don't attempt to dispell a competing theory by slinging mud at it. The fact that those making such claims haven't even read the official accident report demonstrate they aren't aware of the facts in the Saylor's case.
I wouldn't even call a computer glitch a "theory" at this point---it's a speculation. For it to be a theory, it would have to be a lot more specific...such as "the reason the engine went WOT is because X lines of code were buggy, causing component Y to over-ride circuits Z & X, blah blah". THEN you have a real theory.
Agreed.
Theories have to be "falsifiable". You can't falsify a speculation, because really, it's rather based on belief...it's an opinion, not a theory.
Again, I agree. The real question here isn't whether or not vehicle UA exist. Given the large number of "events" (# of cars X times in service), its almost a sure bet that it does.
If one's definition of a single vehicle experiencing UA a single time is faulty in design, then I would guess all cars meet that criterion. Cars are mechanical, and mechanical things break, regardless how well they are designed.
Again, given the sheer number of "events" for UA to occur, if it were as widespread as many like to claim, we would see cars piled up all along the roadside on every highway.
.
You are correct, the Aerostar uses a microswitch actuated by the brake pedal position. No excuse, but I guess I was confused by having personally done the brake switch recall adaption kit on our Ford E350 MH. I had actually gone out and looked at our '94 Aerostar to be certain, but the 2 wire connection to the brake cylinder was actually the reservoir brake fluid level sensor.
My bad.
But that really doesn't change the fact that Ford intentionally mislead the court, the brake actuated microswitch has the SOLE responsibility for disabling CC upon brake application.
"Witness (Jessica) Martin-Dunleavy was contacted on 09-17-09..." Stated "she had never received a complaint about any loaner vehicle.."
Page 22, paragraph 3:
On 10-05-09 Jessica Martin-Dunleavy, upon being shown a picture of Frank Bernard, said that while he looked familiar she did not think she knew him. When asked if she remembered whether Bernard complained about his loaner she stated she did not remember if he complained about the car.
"..I (investigator) noted the differences between the statement Witness Martin-Dunleavy gave me at the dealership and the one she gave me later at Starbucks. At the dealership she stated she had never received any complaints about a loaner vehicle. She also told me if she received a complaint, it would be fielded by the Sales Manager.
At the Starbucks, Witness Martin-Dunleavy said she did in fact remember a complaint about V1 (Saylor crash vehicle) from an "older couple". Also in contrast, was whether complaints were fielded by the Service Advisor, the Sales Manager or the detail Specialist. Specifically, Witness said she told Witness Garcia about the complaint from Mr. Bernard. Witness Garcia is a Detail Specialist."
The investigator, to me, quite clearly, is expressing a suspecion that Martin-Dunleavy has been coached between the two interview dates.
"Sergeant Hill advised me he was contacted by another customer, Frank Bernard. Mr. Bernard is a customer of Bob Baker Toyota/Lexus and one of the customer's listed on the above mentioned "History by Unit Report". Mr. Bernard called sergeant Hill and told him he had unintended acceleration problem when used V1."
Just how, at this point in time, did Bernard conclude it was the loaner he had used that Saylor later crashed...?
Prior to Saylor's cat be observed traveling at high speed some/various observers saw:
Saylor vehicle traveling slowly and surging as if running out of gas.
Saylor vehicle traveling slowly on the shoulder with hazard flashers on.
Saylor vehicle travelling slowly with smoke or fire emanating from the front engine area.
All observers seem to say the Saylor vehicle passed them moment later at very speed with the hazard flashers still going.
Personal conclusion: on the grassy road shoulder/median the front tires might not have had enough traction to overcome the rear wheel braking. But once on hard pavement the brakes, primary front braking, might not be able to overcome the engine HP/Torque.
Travelling slowly and/or surging as if running out of gas. WOT throttle engine and FWD with the brakes firmly applied might do exactly as described by witnesses. Hazard flashers indicate that the driver knew sometime serious was wrong even back when the car was travelling slowly on the grassy road shoulder.
Ran out of grassy shoulder...??
Hard to believe that in all that time the driver would not have realized the gas pedal was stuck on the AWFM. Ever harder to believe that the driver was not able to shut off the engine or shift into neutral.
I don't see any viable explanation other than the throttle wide open and the ECU not paying attention to "other" inputs.
You actually believe that Bernard has made this up, and is somehow being controlled by Toyota? - you're kidding right?
You want a simple plausible explaination? - check a map - the distance for all these things to happen is very short at 100 mph + he stops on the highway - how far from the crash? 3 miles? He was in charge of school bus program, his driving training never included controlling a runaway vehicle - his fellow officers investigated, NHTSA investigated and Toyota investigated - all reached the same conclusion. You want me to believe his fellow officers did a sham investigation because Toyota payed them off? Thats an insult to all his fellow officers at the SDSD
1. Maybe he went "crazy"? People do, you know.
2. Maybe in his panic over hitting the wrong pedal he actually caused the problem by damaging something?
You actually believe that Bernard has made this up, and is somehow being controlled by Toyota? - you're kidding right?
You want a simple plausible explaination? - check a map - the distance for all these things to happen is very short at 100 mph + he stops on the highway - how far from the crash? 3 miles? He was in charge of school bus program, his driving training never included controlling a runaway vehicle - his fellow officers investigated, NHTSA investigated and Toyota investigated - all reached the same conclusion. You want me to believe his fellow officers did a sham investigation because Toyota payed them off? Thats an insult to all his fellow officers at the SDSD
That was my point all along. One can't simply omit the pieces of evidence that conflict with the "preferred" explanation of the incident (well, if one wants to be taken seriously, anyway...).
And, in the later post that put forth the possibility that the driver had some type of "emotional breakdown", I've seen that suggested before. But, as far as I know, once again, there isn't a single piece of evidence existing that would suggest this to be the case.
I don't see any viable explanation other than the throttle wide open and the ECU not paying attention to "other" inputs.
Of course, you see it that way. That was the very same opinion you stated before you even bothered to read the police report. Why should the facts get in the way of a great story?
Oh, I quite agree. After the event began, its quite probable he did things we might view as illogical, as well as not doing what we would think a reasonable person would do.
I was referring to his losing his composure before the event occurred, thereby causing it.
Again, a great example of trained individuals doing the exactly wrong thing (even when they knew exactly the right thing to do) is the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo that killed 50 people. And, we know for a fact what the pilots did in that case, because of the event data recorder and voice recorder.
No, ABSOLUTELY NOT..!!
Take away the Bernard story and then just how much more thoroughly, deeply, do you think those fellow law enforcement officers would have looked into the causative factor(s)...??
The investigator would probably still be ongoing....
"..some type of "emotional breakdown"..."
Then the rear seat passenger would not have said the gas pedal was stuck in the 911 recording. Besides which, an emotional breakdown wherein the driver so firmly applied the brakes and went WOT simultaneously...???
NOT...!!
But my continuing puzzle is why the driver knew there was something wrong as evidenced by the car's earlier observed actions. On the median shoulder going slowly...flashers working...smoke/fire from under the front engine compartment..
The Officers states that along most of the route concrete barriers do not permit access to the median shoulder, Google maps indicate the truth of that matter.
So, did Saylor get onto the shoulder's low tractive area where the rear brakes could overcome the front tire's DRIVE traction but could not bring the car to a full stop, nor slow enough for the passengers to JUMP. Did Saylor run out of shoulder low tractive space due to the upcoming concrete barriers and was FORCED to return to the highly tractive roadbed wherein the DRIVE easily overcame teh braking bringing the speed to 100 MPH...??
That theory clearly fits with what the southern lady testified to regarding finally reaching the low tractive shoulder.
No.
The intent of post #881 was to bring forth, point out, the statements wherein I am of the belief that the investigating officer, report writer, was expressing a suspecion that Jessica Martin-Dunleavy had been coached prior to their second meeting.
Personally I have VERY little doubt that she was coached, maybe only beneignly so, as would have been clearly justified. But I strongly doubt not, Toyota desperately needed her to support the Bernard "story", even if it was absolutely the truth.
Recall due to potential for an aftermarket, aftermarket, all weather floor mat interfering, trapping the gas pedal in an open position...?
Recall due to gas pedal "sticktion" that resulted in the pedal not quickly returning to "neutral".
Modify the gas pedal and put a dent, "hammer" a dent, in the floorboard just to prevent an aftermarket floor mat from being used in a way that might potentially interfere with gas pedal travel.....???
Smoke and Mirrors, nothing but.
Keep the buying public from looking too closely "behind the curtain".
If there were a secret Toyota UA file, it'd be all over the Internet by now.
The only "secrets" that stay secret are those with very very few participants, in a completely protected environment, and bound by loyalities far beyond those engendered by working for a car company, IMO.
If there were a secret Toyota UA file, it'd be all over the Internet by now.
Correct again.
I like to use the example of Bill and Monica. It wasn't in either one's best interest for the story of what happened to get out, but it did. And, only TWO people knew about it originally.
That's why I made the "tinfoil hat" comment earlier. For some, conspiracies exist everywhere. If any facts get in the way, simply discard them, or if that doesn't work, sling mud at them in an attempt to discredit them.
Then only one "participant" would work, work well...?
Other than the Toyota manager or attorney that flew in from Japan to "hire" Frank Bernard, wouldn't that make Bernard the ONLY conspiracy participant viable as a "leak" source...?
Very much like the single engineer who Lexus flew in from Japan in 1993, obstensively to verify that the firmware in my 1992 LS400 climate control was properly installed and operating properly to factory standards. I was allowed to watch as he removed the CC from the car and hooked up what was clearly a makeshift aluminum "kluge" chasis to the programming port of the CC. He then gave us the "green light" that nothing was amiss with the factory firmware.
It was years later that I was to learn, inadvertently learn, that the climate control in my '92 LS400 did not fully operate as specified by the 1992 LS400 owners manual as it had prior to the "reprogramming". Subsequently I purchased no less than three '92 CC modules just to verify that mine operated uniquely.
I even have written documentation from Bellevue Lexus to that effect.
So, was the Japanese engineer himself even aware that the box was reprogramming my CC, not simply verifying the firmware validity...??
If you wanted to hide, for instance, the Chevrolet steering column defect, there's no way. There is too much evidence at too many dealers to ever suppress such information. Or the VW ignition coil debacle. Or the Toyota engine gel debacle.
All of it came out.
But UA remains unproven and resists all efforts to discover a cause.
Complex explanation: "Someone's hiding something"
Simpler explanation: "No one has yet found a provable defect".
Simplest explanation: "there is no defect"