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
Engine Hesitation (All makes/models)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
My comments about "bogus" information related to general strategy during arbitration or whatever. Always have good factual information and try to avoid making hysterical or hyperbolic statements about anything or anyone.
I would like to address it, and furthermore, express concern re what might be motives for creating/promoting a website like that.
This thread is about engine hesitation--all makes.
Its intent is to discuss an issue which, from all information seen so far, affects a percentage of Toyota as well as several other manufacturer's products--actual numbers unknown, altho' evidently not large numbers overall.
This hesitation, as presented to date, evidently ranges from "momentary" (most reports), to "two or three seconds" (some reports).
Evidently, it occurs only when certain conditions are present, ie, low speeds, downshifting, heavy accelleration.
No injuries or accidents have been reported which relate to this issue.
Toyota, the only automaker to do so, apparently recognises its existence, and states a fix of some description is in the works.
Other editorialized comments aside, that's about it.
Now to the Bash Toyota website.
Shifty, a quality site it ain't! On the contrary. it's nothing more than a sleazy and deliberate attempt to draw attention to the issue.
It qualifies as "tabloid material", but I think even sleaze media like National Enquirer wouldn't show any interest.
It's touted as an info source.
If so, why does it headline Hesitation as a "body bag" issue, and follow with reams of hyperbole laced with "bogus" rhetoric?
What might be the motive?
I believe any rational person will immediately recognise it for what it is.
'Nuff said.
Question for Shifty.
I often have to make a half dozen attempts to log on from Australia before being recognised by Edmunds.
Are there some gitches in your system, or might it be because I'm located here, ie. distance, different system, etc., or might it just be this PC?
I did defend josh5 as a poster here at Edmunds, as all he has done here is relate his personal experience with the hesitation problem. Last I checked this site IS about the hesitation problem and not about people and other's perception of their "motives".
Shifty, Thank you for the clarification. Glad to see it was just a misunderstanding on my part.
factually, we don't know how widespread the problem is.
factually, we don't know all the makes and models affected.
factually, we don't know objectively how severe the problem is for all vehicles.
factually, we don't know the conditions under which it is exhibited for all vehicles.
factually, we don't know it's a non-safety issue.
factually, we don't know if there have been ANY accidents or injuries.
factually, we cannot judge that people are bashing toyota.
factually, we cannot judge that people's reports are bogus.
factually, we don't know how widespread the problem is.
factually, we don't know all the makes and models affected.
factually, we don't know objectively how severe the problem is for all vehicles.
factually, we don't know the conditions under which it is exhibited for all vehicles.
factually, we don't know it's a non-safety issue.
factually, we don't know if there have been ANY accidents or injuries.
I agree. We do not know if any of these things are difinitive. I think Pilot is saying the same as you only in different words. I read into his posts that is why he questions some posters who insist they know everything that you say-factually we don't know enough about.
I also wonder about the last two sentences you posted-
factually, we cannot judge that people are bashing toyota.
factually, we cannot judge that people's reports are bogus
I think Pilot was talking about that Toyota Bashing site having bogus information, and not about posters here at Edmunds. I went there also, Its a low form of toyota bashing for sure and full of bogus information-saying exactly opposite of what you said in your post. So if you are right-we really don't know enough about the issue- then the toyota bashing site must be full of bogus information.
your conclusion that the toyota basing site must be full of bogus information is not supported by what i've written. i haven't visited the site and i wouldn't know.
here goes:
it should be clear that someone can have a very serious hesitation problem with their vehice, it can be widespread, the generic problem can affect a number of manufacturers (not just toyota), we haven't been given objective / quantitative information beyond the approximate length of the delay when it occurs and so we don't know how to classify its severity (i've argued even a small hesitation can be of serious consequence), it can exhibit itself under a number of scenarios (or perhaps just one - slowing and reapplying the gas), it can be a safety issue (i've argued it is), it can have caused accidents and injuries (where would we go for that data - and who is likely to report it as probable cause at the time of the accident) - and NONE of that would be inconsistent with what i've written.
would it?
User777, I think we're going around in circles.
I think Kraft is correct; evidently we are in agreement and saying the same things, but from opposite directions.
As you stated, all things considered there is no factual information supporting whether or not this hesitation problem is serious; what it's severity interval is; what its safety assessment is; how widespread it is; and so on.
We do know some report experiencing it and some report not experiencing it.
We do know the intervals reported range from "momentary" to, in some cases, "two to three seconds."
We do know other makes and models are reporting it.
We do know no one has documented any accidents or injuries as a result.
And so on.
So we agree, albeit on different terms.
Basically, this philosophy has been my contention right from the start, ie., not guilty until proven otherwise.
In another context, my interest in this issue is just to point out, much like what you're saying, we shouldn't leap to conclusions without all the facts.
What I have been opposed to from the beginning, simply put, is substituting fiction for fact; drawing conclusions with little information; using inference to support conclusions; and generally running around the forum ringing alarm bells when we don't know if there's a fire yet.
My unflattering remarks about that Bash Toyota site are an accurate portrayal of much of what's in it; basically irrational conclusions unsupported by facts. Linking the hesitation issue with "Body Bags" is ludicrous, not to mention irrational, by any standard you choose.
I truly believe any sensible onlooker would agree. It's mostly comprised of acrimonious hyperbole, which I assume (my opinion) is intended to ring alarm bells, and little else.
Wwest, I think what you're suggesting is that it's OK whenever the end justifies the means.
I sincerely hope you're jesting!
Is that really good advice?
Needless to say, creating interest through Tabloid Sensationalism isn't uncommon these days.
If used, where does one draw the line at going too far, exceeding moral limits, etc. ?
For example, what's the fallout from all that "Tabloid Sensationalism" re WMD?
Is Tabloid Sensationalism at the highest level any more acceptable?
Just food for thought.
That Bash Toyota site is an example of going too far, BTW!
factually, we are in disagreement. of that i am quite certain.
you pretend either there is no issue or that it is if anything overblown, because people can only provide anecdotal information. you claim you're "unbiased" and you are attempting to get to the truth in some of your postings, and in other postings you just flat-out discredit the reports of others. you manipulate what is posted to frame it in a light more consistent with your opinions. you personally attack one particular poster in a rather derogatory manner, and then in another posting, you complement him.
our opinions differ because i accept without question all anecdotal reports i see posted on the subject here at edmunds (i have no basis for disbelieving anyone - what would be their motivation?). i think the problem is both serious and definitely safety-related from a human-factors / performance perspective alone. i would be quite weary about owning one of these vehicles myself.
from an engineering standpoint, there appears a design defect that some manufacturers are grappling with, at least one manufacturer has admitted to working on the problem, and officials are considering an investigation, while other manufacturers with drive-by-wire throttle systems seem not to have a problem. i don't know if it's design (HW/SW or both), implementation, parts quality or what have you at root cause. you don't possess any more expertise on the matter than i or any other poster here does. that's about all we might agree on.
so - why not just let the posters with the issue post and educate them as to the inner workings of arbitration which you are an expert on?
Our society is based on Laws.
There is a fundamental rule of Law.
Evidence goes directly to the charge at issue.
Argument is just that; it has no evidentiary value.
I rest my case.
And Pilot, we don't want to get into the WMD issue. IMMHO the only thing the CIA did wrong was their unwillingness to speak up and tell the Bushies that THEY, Bush & co., were misinterpreting, spinning, the information at hand to benefit their own agenda.
But, what would YOU do if you felt this was a real issue, life threatening and all, and Toyota was taking this long to respond. Sometimes it really is best to go to the court of public opinion as a court of last resort.
the system seems rigged against the consumer, and when you told them many postings ago they signed some of their rights away when they signed for and took possession of their vehicle, that's when i thought you were at your best.
How would you feel Wwest, if you were doing your best to stick to the high road in dealing with a contentious issue, and were faced with a campaign of Tabloid Sensationalism to smear you, impugn your reputation, demean you with misleading rhetoric, etc., as you put it: "misinterpreting, spinning, the information at hand to benefit their own agenda?"
That's what sometimes happens with this hesitation issue, IMO.
The Bash Toyota site is a classic example.
User777, you asked, and I'll correct you because you're wrong.
The system is not rigged against the consumer.
More often than not, the consumer is the author of his own misfortune.
If history repeats itself, you'll be "offended" at my answer, so read some of Shifty's posts on this very subject before going off about it.
Here's one to start with.
Shifty--Post 507---Quote: Well my opinion is that you can't fight your battles if you don't have good objective information, because the minute you present something that is bogus, the opposition is going to crawl all over you about it and you're dead. You are immediately discredited. With the stakes as high as the price of a nearly new Toyota, you don't want to be shooting from the hip with your "facts". Unquote.
Some advice.
If there wasn't so much misinformation about the hesitation issue being tossed around (please, by just a few, not everyone!!) people who may have a case might be judged by others in a different light.
G'Day.
I'm going fishing.
i imagine this thing could be won on a human factors / performance basis alone...but an owner would have to do their homework. i'm fairly confident of that - but - you'd have to have an arbitrator that understands human factors / performance / cognitive psychology and usability principles. they either get it or they don't. the experts who do aviation inquiry and analyse DFDR data are multi-disciplinary (engineering, psychology / human factors; etc).
you didn't answer the question about evidentiary information and admissibility. go ahead - you are the arbitrator. you know where i'm going perhaps: if joe public wins his case and presents another owner with his information to assist them in their case - i don't think it is admissible. true / false?
you also didn't address the issue of rights put to the side when the consumer signs the paperwork for the vehicle.
"I bought a car that does not perform as a normal automobile should".
The "normal service" argument is powerful, REALLY powerful. Most new cars don't DO THIS is a concept that many judges or arbitrators can get a grip on without a lot of trouble. It makes sense.
The safety argument is entirely speculative IMO, unless you come into the arbitration in a body cast. Even then you'd have problems proving anything.
It's the old "one argument is good, two is better, three is really better" fallacy IMO.
"The court of public opinion is not always wise when you're trying to stick to the high road and be honest."
Implies that I am not honest if I choose not to stay on the "high road". Nothing can be farther from the truth.
Researching "Jurusprudence" is a common practice used by Arbitrators.
It's not exclusive to Judges and Lawyers.
There are extensive databases available for this purpose.
All public decisions of Law (Including Arbitrations) are recorded and available to subscribers for reference.
The only exception in Arbitration cases might be non public hearings--these are fairly uncommon.
I use these reference databases extensively, and often make reference to them in decisions.
Short answer to your question is "yes", precedents can be, and often are used to determine the outcome of Arbitrations.
Re giving up any of your rights when you buy a car--just read the fine print on your contract, and then decide if you want to be bound by the seller's Arbitration terms.
You are not legally bound to any restrictions rhere--unless you opt to their terms.
Wwest, I'll stick with my analogy regardless.
Truth is important in the way I do business in this life.
Obviously a few others here don't share that conviction.
I also disagree that Consumers have the short end of the stick.
Not in this day and age by any means.
Your "power in numbers" analogy is a two sided coin my friend.
It can be used for good, but is equally effective for the opposite.
Re fishing---skunked!
The Lexus ES300/330 site mentions what may be a new TSB regarding the hesitation problem. Anyone else heard about this?
"Lexus ES 300/ES 330"
But first...
1: I never claimed the "bash Toyota" website as mine. I merely knew it was being created and provided the URL to Shifty, and the webmaster's email to you all. The email was taken from the site, which is still up and has had nearly 500 hits this week (taken from the hit counter on the site).
2: IMO, it is funny that Pilot130 gets so defensive about Lexus. Pilot130, do you work for Lexus? It is very unclear if Pilot130 has ever even driven one of the vehicles in question. If not, Pilot130s responses are all speculation. Pilot130 seems to constantly antagonize and "bash" other posters, yet has no experiential basis. IMO, Pilot130 has ceased to provide information relevant to people with the problem seeking a fix. Also, the "Bash Toyota" site says "It shouldn't take a body bag to make a difference." It does not say body bags are associated with hesitation. I think you have misinterpreted it. It means no one should die for Lexus to fix the problem.
3: I have been a very objective and forthcoming poster here on this site, providing information as I get it from corporate, dealerships, mechanics, engineers, in complete detail, perhaps more than anyone. I have seen the "Toyota Bashing" site, and my service paperwork from Lexus verifies some of those "design flaws." Any who doubt these problems exist, I will gladly scan my service paperwork and email it to you as a .jpg.
4: Scoti1, well, I am going to pursue lemon law in May if there is no fix for hesitation. Why? After some phone calls, it seems like this ES TSIB info. posted here is true. But it may not work and is not public knowledge yet. So I'll wait and see. However, I did ask Lexus to document on my paperwork that I demonstrated the hesitation, and that it is normal operation. Even though I already have paperwork stating that from a different dealership, Lexus declined, in that they did not want to create any other legal documents associated with this problem. Frustrating in that I can demonstrate my RX330's hesitation, yet they can't acknowledge it in writing at this new dealership...because it is governed by the same factory rep as my first one. It looks like I'll have to go out of the area.
Do you know if the new TSB is just for the ES300/330 or does it include the other models with hesitation?
You mean Lexus or a dealer is refusing to document that the problem exists--just 'because' they don't want to???
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Fair enough--that's what discussions are all about--altho' I wonder why these expressions are decidedly very personal in nature, and seem a little defensive.
There's a good amount of misinformation in those posts, and I'd like to set the record straight.
Poster No.1 says(paraphrased for brevity): "You....weave into nearly all of your posts....that people are not telling the truth.....to convey that you think people are lying. You....... keep getting away with calling some if not all people posting problems liars."
Not true!! Not even close!!
I'm on record--several times in fact--as stating the issue exists, and that most posters come to these discussions to learn, get information, exchange ideas, etc.
I have NEVER called anyone a liar. Period!!
I have stated many times however, that I believe a "'Few" ("few means "a very small number" in my dictionary) of individuals present false and misleading information, seemingly more intended to keep the issue in the spotlight as opposed to helping others.
My opinions in this context are directed at "only those few" who by their repeated interjection of misleading hyperbole ( over a span of almost two years!!), lead me to believe their motives go way beyond the norm of what these forums are all about.
IMO, those few (a small number) are NOT here to participate, but to manipulate.
Why this is happening, God only knows. But the intent of these forums is for objective discussion, not politicized rhetoric. They shouldn't be used as political platforms.
Poster No 2 says (paraphrased): "I never claimed the "bash Toyota" website as mine.......Pilot130, do you work for Lexus.....have you ever even driven one of the vehicles in question......you seem to constantly antagonize and "bash" other posters...you ceased to provide information relevant....."Bash Toyota" site says "It shouldn't take a body bag to make a difference...."
Wow, that's quite a mouthful!!
I fully accept that criticism is fair ball here, I only ask that it be accurate and factual, not just irresponsible venting----as in that expression.
For the record, It is untrue that I named that poster as an author of the "Bash Toyota" site. I never named anyone as its author, period.
I did say it was touted here by two individuals, but there was no naming of author, nor was there any intention to.
It is untrue that I don't own one of the vehicles discussed, nor have not had any experience with them.
I do own a Highlander, and have said so in posts several times.
BTW, it doesn't hesitate, nor do the other 4 or 5 HLs that I've driven over the past couple of years--demos, other owner's cars, etc..
I've also driven a few Siennas, Camrys, and a couple of Avalons----stange but true, no hesitation in any of them. Wonder why?
Insofar as bashing all other posters goes, that is also untruthful.
I've directed the vast majority of criticisms and conrtradictions at only a few (one or two)---see remarks to poster No 1 above for details re why.
I've been very clear and consistent in that regard.
Re the linking of "Body Bags" in the "Bash Toyota" site.
It's quite true that using a tasteless and irrational analogy like that, no matter how it's sliced and diced, is nothing more than Sensationalism, period.
So is the site itself. That's my opinion, and as I've said I'm quite certain most would agree.
As regards my "not helping" people; This is completely untrue also.
Among other things, I've provided what I believe to be considerable accurate and meaningful information on inner workings of Arbitration, how to present evidence and testimony effectively, etc., to answer questions and clarify misunderstandings present in this discussion.
I hope this clears the air.
G'Day.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05084/477261.stm
I am curious as to why this "Business Owner" didn't address one of Josh5's points - is the business owned a Toyota and/or Lexus dealership?
Man, am I glad I read this Forum before buying a new '05 Highlander! Instead, I found a good 2002 Highlander 4-cylinder with the 4-speed automatic. It's a sweet ride, and the gas mileage is better than I though it would be. Already paying over $2.40/gal here in So Cal, and the summer price rise hasn't hit yet.
Keep up the good work, Shifty and Edmunds!
I am really stoked to drive one of these infected cars. Anyone have one who lives in the SF Bay Area?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05036/453222.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04345/424551.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04343/423383.stm
I overlooked that question, mainly because it's dumb, it smacks of sarcasm, and because it inevitably gets hinted at towards anyone not complaining about Toyota.
However, I'll put those curious minds at ease, and hopefully it won't get asked again.
I'm a semi-retired business owner. The business is not owned by an automaker. It's a proprietership. My Son-in Law and Daughter run it now--I'm now just on the Board of Directors.
It's a very specialized industrial software developer/integrator specializing in robotics and vision systems. Some local automakers do source us for factory/automation problems and solutions. (Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda) A number of their part/component suppliers also use us, as well as John Deere, Cadbury Chocolates, Kraft Foods, and a host of non auto related businesses.
Insofar as me being the most prolific poster here--Wrong!! Really wrong!!
There are many, many more here who can legitimately lay claim to that dubious honor--or was that post just more veiled sarcasm? (I think it may have been!)
But there is one mention of Toyota owning up to a problem, that's interesting.
Also the guy isn't a very good writer.
Read this sentence carefully:
"The vehicle didn't respond immediately when his wife pressed the accelerator while trying to merge into traffic, causing her to narrowly avoid an accident."
No wonder we're all confused :P
or do this - just go to a dealership and test drive one of the cars people have been complaining about? as a moderator, did you sign something that said you couldn't pose as a potential shopper?
I could go to the dealer I guess but I don't like to waste salesperson's time. I'd rather drive a car that has the fault for sure. I'd like to experience it firsthand. The only eligible Lexi I drove recently didn't have the problem unfortunately (well fortunately for the owners I guess).
The following statement was posted yesterday in another Toyota related thread.
Out of the blue, someone asked what "sludge" was, only they erroniously spelled it "sledge."
Here's the immediate response from a poster who, BTW, appears here quite often :-- "Sledge is a type of hammer, a heavy one, maybe like the one used on the Japanese engineer who screwed up the initial V6 engine design that made it subject to sludging."
Perhaps the post was in jest, but it was innapropriate; plus it mirrors the tone of similar remarks by a few about hesitation--and it especially embodies the irrational context of the "Bash Toyota" site I spoke about earlier.
Nothing can be done about it I suppose, but it does illustrate a mentality behind a few contibutions to these forums.
It takes all kinds I guess.
>Even though I already have paperwork stating that from a different dealership, Lexus declined, in that they did not want to create any other legal documents associated with this problem.
You mean Lexus or a dealer is refusing to document that the problem exists--just 'because' they don't want to???
- I contacted the dealership, who contacted the factory rep at corporate about documentation. The factory rep at corporate instructed the dealership NOT to document the problem.
Also, I have no further info. on the TSB at this time, other than all I've heard is that it's for the ES.
LOL!
Toyota is kind of a victim of its own success....the very thought of them having a defect is hard for some folks to believe, and when it appears to be true, it is very disillusioning. We know Jaguars blow up don't we....but a Toyota...it's shattering!.
Toyota owners seem somewhat intolerant of the statistical inevitability of man-made objects to screw up occasionally. Of course, when it's YOUR money Shiftright, you might not be so blase, that's true.
For Shifty. You're probably right about Toyota being targetted because they're on top. My thought is their reputation for reliability is also the cross they bear.
Big Three auto manufacturing in my home Province (Ontario) is really getting nervous about Toyota and Honda these days.
I also agree with Shifty about that Automotive writer in Pittsburg.
Pretty thin stuff!!
Every time his stuff is posted here (Godawmighty the same stuff's been posted about 50 times!!), it reminds me of that old song: "Is That All There Is?"
There are over 10,000 newspapers with automotive columnists in the continental US; one (the only one!) writes a couple of vague bylines about hesitation, and it gets blanketted at Edmunds.
Go figure.
How come nobody blankets Edmunds with reports by JD Power, Consumer Reports, Car and Driver, Road and Track..............?
G'nite All.
“But in the test car, occasional, clumsy-feeling upshifts were felt by passengers. There were enough of them during my test drive that I wondered what had happened to the silky-smooth shifts that I had so enjoyed from the predecessor ES.
I also noticed occasional hesitation, as if the transmission were indecisive about which gear to be in, when I traveled on hilly highways.”