What exactly are you guys experiencing? My experience is pretty much what is outlined in the TSB:
* downshift lag when accelerating at speeds from 10 to 20 mph * gear hunting when driving on/off accelerator pedal at 20 to 30 mph (i.e. rush-hour traffic) * slow response rate during heavy acceleration from a stop
Definitely not a 2 or 3 second delay.
What I'm experiencing: I still don't feel it's a safety issue, even given my experience at the driveway. More of a driveability annoyance. My friend has an ES330 and has never mentioned any problem.
Mert2- I am experiencing the exact same thing with my car. Did you have the new TSB done on your car? I am going into the arbitration without having it done, but I did have a solenoid valve replaced which helped a little. My argument is not going to be overly technical. I have dated documentation dating back to 4 days after purchasing my car ( I tried to "unwind" the purchase agreement when I soon discovered the transmission "irregularity". Also, Toyota's DSPM told me he was aware of the problem and the valve replacement should improve some of the shifting irregularities. Then, Toyota PR admitted a problem. In addition, I will show the Edmunds Engine Hesitation forum. Bottom line is, I feel I did not get what I paid for, and I feel the car and it's performance is not what was represented. Maybe that will be good enough to win the arbitration.
I haven't had the TSB done. I'm a little scared to, to tell you the truth. By the way, I called up my friend and asked him if his car shifted "funny". Then he started listing off all the weird things it did. Basically what we've been talking about. Funny he never mentioned it until I brought it up. I was asked by a '00 camry owner about the new ones, and I had to tell him it was a great car, except ...
This may be a dumb question: If the arbitration is successful, what exactly do you want Toyota to do? Replace the transmission? Replace the car with the same model? Replace your car with a different Toyo model? Give you back your money? Give you credit for a future Toyo product? Issue an apology? Promise to research the underlying problem and fix the transmission for future purchasers?
I have never been to an arbitration. Maybe those who have been through arbitration could give some reflection of what was done, what could have, or should have, been said, etc.
I got an OBDII scanner recently. It's an Actron 9145, and one of their better models. But it can't do what's needed for transmission analysis. Turns out there's OBDII "Generic" codes (use by all manufacturers), and then a whole lot more "Manufacturer-specific" codes. Info on what mode and gear the trans is in, is not a generic code. Remember, the OBD system is all about emissions control. And yes, that can and does help fuel mileage, and driveability.
The point is, I can hook it up, and read a whole bunch of interesting info in (nearly) real time - water temp, air temp, engine load, engine timing, O2 content (pre- and post- Cat), throttle position, etc. etc. It's a fun toy, and I've used it to diagnose problems. But it can only read "generic" info on the data bus. To do what has been proposed would take a Toyota-specific data reader. I'm not running out to buy one of those anytime soon.
I'm not trying to dash any hopes - just don't want folks running out to buy $100-$250 scanners, and not being able to do what they want with it.
this is one reason i pointed people to an OBD-II reader that appears it can read toyota specific information, but also save the real-time parameters collected.
actually, it appears to be a cable / electronic signal conditioning / interface unit with the appropriate software functionality to emulate typical hand-held reader functions, but also acquire data over the link and store it on the computer. in addition - as you mentioned, besides "generic" info, it handles manufacturer specific information.
does the Actron 9145 provide a means to dump the information it acquires to a laptop? it doesn't look like it to me.
that is really what is required for the exercise, a hardware interface that not only speaks the appropriat protocols, but also has features to allow one to select the parameters of interest, and to sample and *store* off-reader, the data which you acquire over the link to the vehicle.
the 9145 seems like a hand-held device. it appears about twice as expensive as compared to the unit i suggested and not as capable because I don't think it can't interface to a laptop computer.
my investigation was admittedly rather shallow and i stoped looking when i hit upon a product that appeared it could do the job.
if you're going to do this right - one has to inquire and verify what is possible outside the reader / interface. i think a generic laptop interface (either direct to the car, or indirect through a hand-held reader) and the device being able to talk the specific manufacturer codes (toyota in this case, but could be other) are two critical product capabilities someone needs to look for.
In my arbitration I requested Toyota to buy the car back. The arbitrator determans a reasonable deduction for mileage on car. In some states this calculation is determined by a preset formula. Toyota is bound by the decision but the customer is not.
The regnal Toyota rep told me that other people had won arbitration on this very issue even though I lost.
I am requesting a full refund (cap cost reduction, tax, license, gap, etc.) for the lease and cancellation of the contract. In response to bettersafe, I don't know what kind of car I would get next. I've always loved Toyota. (Maybe the new 2007?)
I ended up with a used one owner 2000 Acura TL with 65,000 miles. I love it. It's not really what I went looking for but I ran across a deal I could not pass up. I do miss the softer ride of the Camry though.
Just passing thru again--saw a recent post about introducing this forum as evidence in Arbitration. Here's some advice for anyone considering doing so. Internet forums entered as evidence in any Judicial Hearing will be viewed as "Hearsay." (aka something said by others and unproven) Even though Arbitrations fall into the category of Administrative Law where rules of evidence are somewhat relaxed as opposed other forms of Justice such as Criminal, Civil, etc., "Hearsay" evidence will always be considered suspect. More often than not, "Hearsay" will not be considered evidence---unless it can be corroborated in testimony by the person presenting it, or by other witness testimony during a hearing. In other words, it has to be supported by proof that it is a true and correct. Moral of the story? Don't be fooled into believing anything in an Internet Forum will be accepted as evidence in Arbitration. Forums like this one, where authors are anonymous and statements posted are unverifiable, cannot by definition qualify as evidence. It is highly likely any such "Hearsay" evidence from such Public Forums won't even be considered. Some like to portray Arbitration as a cakewalk--ie,anyone can be a winner. Big misconception!!! The vast majority lose. Don't even consider one unless you've got hard evidence to support your contentions. Reams of unverifiable rhetoric from the internet certainly won't make a case.
i wonder, can you help us pilot130: is the person seeking arbitration allowed to have his/her lawyer contact the manufacturer corporate HQ and/or his/her dealership and inform them to reveal the number of complaints, technical tip line notes to service personnel, the number of related TSB summaries, distribution of complaints per model related to engine / transmission behaviors, etc?
in other words, is the manufacturer (in this case Toyota) obligated to reveal anything numerical with respect to number or frequency or distribution against model complaints, technical correspondences (TSB or other), arbitration cases, buy-backs etc? i mean, isn't this minimal information tracked by the manufacturer and available to the complaintant if the complaintant's lawyer notifies the manufacturer?
i guess i'd do some additional stuff besides capturing objective datum via the OBD-II interface when i drove my vehicle, like getting my lawyer to hop on contacting corporate and the dealership, i'd contact one or more human factors specialists dealing in the automotive domain (google) or complex systems / automation (but the former would be preferable for papers dealing with gulfs in system behaviors and learning and cognitive loading when system does not respond, etc etc , and i'd contact the writer of the news story that indicated the government was considering an investigation and see if you could get contacts to follow up with, and i'd research and print all complaints on the government web-site and contact them by voice for a spreadsheet showing the number of complaints against manufacturer-x for this sort of problem, vs. other manufacturers, etc, etc.
there seems to me to be some additional evidence of a quantitative nature one could collect in *great* preference to relying on the notes or threads from this forum...
You can try asking a Lawyer to get the info you suggest. Some info may be held confidential by the Manufacturer--and they can usually make a strong case to do so--making certain info public can allow competitors an unfair opportunity to exploit it. The one concern I have is costs. Lawyers won't do this sort of thing for free--it involves a lot of time and effort. You will have to pay for this, and any other such legal costs to make your case. Recovering your legal costs (Lawyers, research, phone calls, copying, etc.) in Arbitration is dicey--most Arbitrations don't award legal costs one way or the other, either against the Litigant or the Manufacturer. If they did, and Litigants who came to Arbitration and lost were required to pay Manufacturer's costs (and perhaps even court costs), then you probably wouldn't see too many Arbitrations anywhere on the continent. Like I said, Arbitration isn't a free ride as some are suggesting here.
Please don't think I'm in any way dismissing some of the info which has appeared in this forum. Some of it was good stuff. Just don't expect any of it to be admissible in Arbitration--it's plainly hearsay, by definition.
Unsubstantiated claims are an "easy target" in arbitration. Paper trails are best for anything you say.
I don't do this type of arbitration we are talking about, but rather more along the lines of value disputes for totalled cars, where dollar amount awards are given out----and I have to say that most consumers come to arbitration with lots of passion and very little evidence. The arbitrator is bound by certain rules (varies with the type of arbitration) but in general I can say that good paper is very beneficial to the outcome.
What could I imagine as "good paper" for this type of complaint we are talking about? Something like a stack of repair orders with the same complaint written on them, time after time---that's powerful. Maybe stats (hard numbers) from complaint boards, texts of TSBs or recalls of course.
Paper trails are fine, but any "good" paper must be "original", or "certified true copy of an original document" in order to be admissible as evidence. Stats from Complaint Boards are fine too, but must be corroborated in order to be admissible as evidence. A stack of repair orders might be fine too, but the originator of those repair orders might be required to testify as to their authenticity. Even TSBs would be subject to corroboration, just to ensure their authenticity and accuracy. As you said Shifty, any claims must be substantiated to be admissible as evidence, otherwise they're fair game for conjecture--aka "an easy target"..
This will undoubtedly get some acrimonious reaction from some. That being the case, all I can suggest is "Welcome to the Real World folks!!"
This will undoubtedly get some acrimonious reaction from some.
possibly - but it's clear you are helping people prepare themselves properly. they can do that to a much better extent with the valuable information you are providing to them.
"(It) is wise to retain all documentation received at the time of purchase, in particular the bill of sale or retail installment contract as this details the amount paid for the vehicle and whether any down-payment was tendered. More vital than the purchase documents are the repair invoices received each time the vehicle is serviced, as these documents evidence the repairs performed to the vehicle. It is important to retain each invoice received; however, should invoices be lost consumers can obtain a printout of warranty work performed from any dealership which specializes in the particular make of vehicle the consumer possesses.
If consumers have no documentation an attorney may be able to subpoena records from the dealerships that serviced the vehicle." (from The Insurance Consumer Advocate Network)
The Center for Auto Safety website (www.autosafety.org) has contact information (name and address, VIN #) for each of the complaints posted on their site. You could contact someone there who has reported a similar problem and get documentation from them. I just don't know how many with the hesitation problem have bothered to post there. I know I have seen a few in the past.
I would seriously question the veracity of any complaint at that site. It has been shown repeatedly that complaints can be posted there with no follow up verification by the website itself, so no one can be sure that any complaint is legit, because they haven't been verified. I sometimes think sites like that are more interested in creating impressive numbers than verifying any of the complaints. VINs and addresses appearing with a complaint are no guarantee of authenticity--especially VINs--they can be easily made to look real. I would hate to think of some litigant going into Arbitration with what he thinks is "Good Paper" from a site like that, only to have a Company Lawyer blow it all away by showing how easy it is to fake a complaint there. Just a word of caution. Any "documentation" from there would have to be squeaky clean to be of any convincing use in Arbitration.
You have made a point to question the veracity of complaints here as well, so your comments don't surprise me.
The Auto Safety site is the only one I have seen where contact information is provided, so it is a good potential source to connect with others having the same problems. As a matter of fact, the site states that allowing owners with common problems to connect is one of the purposes. Unfortunatley it is just name and address that are provided, no phone number or e-mail, but that is better than nothing. I suppose there is the possibility that people have posted false accounts, but then, if that is the case, the letter won't go through or the person wouldn't be able to respond to a request for more details, but there is no harm done in trying. There really doesn't seem to be enough complaints on the site for it to be used for ulterior purposes as you accuse.
You mention lawyers involved in arbitration in your post. Do automakers bring their attorney's to arbitration? I am not up to speed on the process, but I thought the whole idea was to arbitrate to see if an agreement can be reached prior to going the attorney route.
Was to caution anyone contemplating using info posted on the internet as worth thinking about when considering it for an Arbitration. Especially vulnerable to misuse are sites (like Autosafety.org--and others) where no verification exists as to whether or not complaints are genuine. I stated that any "documentation" used from these sites in an Arbitration claim should be "squeaky clean"--that is to say, above reproach, and must be able to stand up to scrutiny by the opposing side. Rest assured, if you present evidence, it will be challenged, mostly by the opposing side, and even sometimes by the Arbitrator. And yes, I have questioned the veracity of SOME, not all stories seen here at Edmunds for the same reason. It is just as possible to take advantage of this site, if a poster wishes to do so. Please do not imply that I consider ALL stories posted as suspect. I'm not suggesting that in any way. If you don't believe some take advantage of the anonymity these websites afford, so be it. I suggest to you that if the opportunity exists, it will be exploited by a few--fortunately not by the vast majority. Just keep in mind that a smart litigator can destroy your case by casting doubt on ONE instance of a "frivolous and vexatious" complaint in your website of choice.
Re your last question: Not all manufacturers are represented by Lawyers. Many use skilled "Case Presenting Officers" who may not be Lawyers but are every bit as good--and in some cases even better..
I just want to go here to read about Engine Hesitation, nothing else ! Maybe Mr_Shiftright should move unrelated topics to somewhere else like "Arbitration forum".
I was asked several questions about Arbitration--in specific reference to your obviously revered topic, "Engine Hesitation", and responded accordingly, and in good faith. Evidently that minor digression offended you. Why anyone would protest about that is unusual. It only involved a few posts, and from all accounts it was considered beneficial. If it did pique your sensitivities, I apologize, but there was no intent to, and it won't continue. Enough has been said about it anyway. If, on the other hand, your post was a case of "internet road rage", perhaps you should consider another internet forum more to your liking.
The arbitration discussion was specifically related to providing advice to someone who is going to arbitration over their hesitation problem. So it is related, IMHO, but the final call is up to Mr. Shiftright. It is easy to skip over the posts that don't interest you or you can raise a new point to begin another line of discussion.
I've said about as much as there is to say about the subject. This topic is back in your good hands Cam. Rest assured, your rules will prevail from now on.
I think the arbitration information was useful to people here, since some of them are indeed facing arbitration, so some advice from arbitrators can't be "off topic".
But I agree, perhaps enough has been said about the subject for now. I think everyone has gotten the point, that preparedness and documentation are very important.
so maybe we can move on to any new data/information on Toyota's response...
Just finished the arbitration and all went very well. A Toyota Customer Relations Field Rep was there as well as the arbitor. I presented my case and she hers(Toyota's). We then went on a long test drive where the car displayed some hesitation and sudden jumps in RPM. First I drove, then the Toyota rep drove while the arbitor rode in the back. When we got back, the Toyota rep said that she too noticed about a 1 second delay in acceleration and that was designed for the "safety of the transmission." My reply, of course was " I understand about the safety of the transmission, but what about my safety when I am driving defensively in L.A. traffic?" She further said that the new TSB would correct most if not all the other problems associated the the transmission, but it would not correct the hesitation issue which she said was "normal" for the car and for which they had no fix. I have so much more I could report, but I don't want to use up too much space. Regardless, I left the meeting with a very, very optomistic feeling and I think the arbitor noticed the Toyota rep making key mistakes in her (their) argument. I will know the results of the arbitration in about one week. Meanwhile, I feel so good, I may apply for the Bar Exam. Thank you all for your support these past couple of months.
I have so much more I could report, but I don't want to use up too much space
i am 100% sure no visitor to this forum would mind if you used more bandwidth / space to explain as much as you can possibly remember (and are not bound from revealing) relevant to what may ultimately help others.
The meeting was relaxed and informal. I was totally prepared. I had documentation I had gathered during the past 4 months which included the Post Gazette article, Automotive Journal, Association of Auto Dealerships. E-mail from Wade Hoyt (Toyota PR)., Consumer Guide, current Lemon Law investigations, as well as other objective collateral. I mentioned this forum, but offered that it probably would not be considered "objective". They seemed to nod their heads. When the Toyota rep said that the hesitation was a chacteristic of the design which would insure transmission "safety" i.e. longevity, I immediately thought of wwest and what he has been saying all along. I feel the victory was in the fact that the Toyota rep admitted a one second delay (hesitation). I got the feeling that the arbitor agreed with me that one second was too long in some situations. I also feel that an advantage I had is the fact that I had documentation dating back to 4 days after my purchase, when I tried to return the car because of what I considered an unacceptable transmission (or characteristics therof). They received copies of everything I brought including the purchase agreement and gap insurance agreement. Whatever the result, it was an interesting and dare I even say enjoyable experience; not at all what I had anticipated.
Congrats!!!!!! If everyone who went to arbitration could educate the next unfortunate soul, then the manufacturers would not have a chance to blow smoke and hide a real defect. Let us know what ultimately happens. Thanks Better Safe (than Sorry)
i think you are proving the point made by pilot130 and supported by shifty that being prepared and having objective documentation to support your case gives you a much better chance for a positive outcome.
i had always been struck by the fact that you did document your troubles trying to return the vehicle so soon after purchase.
preparing copies of your documentation for the other parties was a nice smart touch for several reasons.
did the issue of other people claiming NO hesitation ever come up in the context of the toyota rep claiming it was a purposeful design artifact to increase the longevity of the transmission...
perhaps pilot130 could help us again - why is there a delay in the finding / result? is the arbitrator going to perform more fact finding / research or do they need time to write up or file their decision? what is actually going on during this period? does the manufacturer rep have to consult corporate for a decision on what they are willing to do on their part? if so - it would appear and re-inforce the fact that the arbitrator is really working for the manufacturer...the arbitrator being bound as to what is awarded based on what the manufacturer is ultimately willing to do.
There will be no more input from yours truly on the subject of Arbitration. There was some flak from the peanut gallery, and we've been asked to move on--remember?? Good luck to Bkinblk. A word of caution-- It might be a bit premature to start the celebration.
I am not celebrating, but thanks for your support nevertheless. This forum is dedicated to discussing and discovering a solution to the Toyota-Lexus hesitation problem (99%). It seems to me that any information that Toyota reveals through the arbitration process brought on by any poster in this forum would be beneficial to all affected with this problem. This forum should be dedicated to finding a solution, if there is one, to the hesitation problem and not just talking about it ad nauseum. The forum should not be used for anything else , IMHO. The Toyota rep said during the meeting that the 1 second hesitation that she noticed while driving my car was "normal" for the car, and that Toyota had no solution. Whether the arbitor (of Japanese descent, and working with Toyota and Lexus only), accepts Toyota's position is unknown, at least until his final decision next week. Whatever their decision is, I will accept it and move on.
i think the one poster and perhaps one host were premature in suggesting the thread was off topic. on the contrary - it was exactly on topic. this thread originally started as a highly-focused thread in the Toyota Highlander P+S forum if I'm not mistaken. It was migrated to it's own forum based on the fact that other people in non-Highlander vehicles were experiencing something similar and it could have general relevance to non-Toyota vehicles.
as i wrote before - you should continue to stay and contribute.
What information/argument did you present regarding a 1 sec. lag being a safety hazard? Just curious since that has been somewhat a bone of contention here (both whether it is a hazard and whether it is a point that should be presented at arbitration).
Also, did you bring up loss of value? If so, how was that argument presented.
Thank you for all your information. It has been most helpful.
I was reluctant to bring up the safety issue, however, when the Toyota rep stated that the hesitation was for the "safety of the transmission", I saw a very fortunate opening. I stated, "I understand you are looking out for the safety of the transmission, but there have been times while driving the car, when I have been concerned with my own safety. While driving in LA traffic, sometimes it is important to make split second decisions while driving defensively. A one second hesitation is not only potentially dangerous, but unacceptable". I did not bring up loss of value, but I stated that the car was not what it was represented to be. Toyota essentially admitted this when they came out with the Post-Gazette article about a month after my purchase, and subsequently with the June TSB, (which the Toyota rep said would not correct the inherant hesitation issue).
An additional caveat-- The Toyota rep told me, after my request, that Toyota does not take back or buy back cars. Surprised, I said - "They have in the past", to which she said nothing.
I think it was merely the rather abtract posts about arbitrations that irritated someone, not *specific* posts about actual arbitrations. But things in the forum are fine, please continue...
I wasn't suggesting anyone was "running me off". Evidently someone didn't like what I had to say, but that doesn't bother me in the least. I simply feel that enough has been said about Arbitration, and I have nothing further to offer. I said as much well before Shifty asked us to get off it. Besides, if I told you what I thought about Bkinblk's case from this Arbitrator's perspective, it would probably get more people ticked off. I wished Bkinblk luck, and that's quite enough for now.
I was able to fix my problem by cleaning the MAF (Mass Air Flow) sensor with electronic cleaner I bought at Auto Zone. This is very easy to do on the prizm. You only need to move a wire bracket by loosing one bolt, then two screws will remove the MAF sensor from the side of the Air Filter. You will also need to remove the 4 ro 5 wire electrical connector from the MAF sensor.
After cleaning mine the car ran much better. This did fix my problem. Judging from other discussions, this seems to be a common service item. It is usally fixed by spraying a good quality cleaner that will not leave any residue.
Some time ago the service manager at Lexus of Bellevue told me that using premium fuel grades would help to alleviate the engine hesitation symptom. My thought at the time was..."yeah, RIGHT!".
Last week I was in Memphis and the Lexus service manager there told be the same thing.
"where there's smoke there's fire..."???
So during the subsequence "windshield time" (I'm now in Tucson) I gave the fuel issue some considerable thought. The only thing premium fuel would directly affect would be the knock sensor.
I have posited in the past that these transaxles are being upshifted during closed throttle coastdowns either to extend fuel economy or reduce the potential for loss of control due to engine compression braking or possibly both. Assuming the truth of that if I were to quickly open the throttle while the transaxle remained in an inappropriately high gear the engine would certainly have a high potential to "knock". Obviously less so with Premium fuel "loaded".
But why would the knock sensor "going off" at this particular instance result in a delayed/changed shift pattern?
Software.
Having the engine develop knocking at this particular junction might be an indication to the ECU that a lower gear ratio needs to be selected "next" than would have been selected otherwise. Possibly resulting in two shifts in sequence? The first downshift due to the initial pressure on the gas pedal and now another, yet lower one due to the knocking?
While at the same time a rather low supply of fully pressurized ATF due to the low engine RPM just prior to the current incident?
The Lexus rep said the hesitation was a design charactoristic to provide for "Safety of the transmission....".
Trying to engage a new set of clutches with low ATF pressure would undoubtedly result in premature clutch wear and subsequent failure!
QUICK!
Close the transaxle pressure regulating solenoid to the next few engine revolutions (800RPM = 13 revolutions/second) can build enough ATF pressure.
I used premium fuel my first 1500 or so miles, then the car started getting 'worse'. I thought it was just getting used to my driving before deciding to act up, but I think I might try some more premium next fill up.
I wonder if TSB + Premium will solve 90% of the problems??
Last week 60 Minutes was about de-bunking myths. One of those was about premium fuel. Unless you are driving a Ferrari, or some other high performance car that requires it, they said that you get no benefits from premium.
I have not seen or read of anyone else getting any benefit from premium fuel in helping the hesitation problem.
"Both the Customer and the Representative test drove the vehicle. It was demonstrated that the cited problems were valid."--------"The Customer's request to have the Lease Agreement terminated and all cost returned including the TLP is hereby denied." "I have reached this conclusion because: 1. The customer has only had one service on record on these problems since May 20, 2005. (The Valve Replacement). It is reasonable that the Dealer/Manufacturer should have the opportunity to diagnose the problem for a possible fix". 2. Technical Service Bulletin TC005-05 was issued on June 21, 2005 that addresses the specific issues that were cited by the Customer. 3. I believe that the Manufacturer should be given the opportunity to correct the cited problems by the Customer."
Toyota admitted during the Arbitration that the TSB would not correct the hesitation, but that it would somewhat improve the erratic shifting! However, I will have the TSB performed and resubmit the case to the National Center for Dispute Settlement. I think with due diligence, I still have a chance. I was told by the NCDS that cases are commonly revisited and reopened when subsequent repair orders are submitted and reviewed. Stay tuned.
Darn. Sorry it didn't work out for you. It does seem that their points are valid, with the exception of #2, since, as you pointed out, the rep said the TSB wouldn't fix the hesitation problem.
I hope you stick to it, jump through their hoops, and if still no resolution, go back to the National Center for Dispute Settlement. I would suggest acting quickly, though.
Now I can state my piece re your Arbitration. Based on what you had posted previously, I figured the case would be a loser, and cautioned you accordingly ( Remember my admonition: "Don't celebrate just yet"?) There were two key issues to be concerned with in your situation. The first being that the Manufacturer must be given ample opportunity to address the problem. This was the one the Arbitrator picked up on. You never did quite confirm this was done--and as it turns out the dealer had only been given one kick at that issue. (If my memory serves, your story at one point mentioned four attempts, but only one was confirmed--was that an oversight?) The second possibility has to do with the actual hesitation interval reported in the hearing, namely "one second". This isn't much by any standard. You would have had to show this was beyond the norm and weren't able to. In fact (again, if memory serves) the Toyota Rep stated in testimony that a one second delay was "normal", and that the TSB wouldn't change that as it was the way the tranny worked. Most of what else you said you did during the proceedings was not really germain to either of these two issues. One thing to remember when presenting any case: "There's a huge difference between Evidence and Argument". You argued well, but most of it was wasted because you didn't identify the key issues and present evidence re those issues.
One more opinion, if I may. A delay of one second? Sounds to me like the hesitation you say you are experiencing isn't a significant problem under any circumstances. It certainly isn't a safety issue, and loss of value shouldn't be a concern. An annoyance, perhaps, but even that might be a stretch. Seems to me you might be making more of this than it really deserves. In the end, is it really worth worrying about?
I agree with most of what you said right up until you question weather a one second delay is significant. True that for most people driving toyotas the hesitation seams to be a non issue, but for some of us it is (was in my case) significant to the point of getting rid of the car at all costs. For me it was the few times that I felt a wreck was about to happen when the car would not go. I cant tell you for sure if I was actually ever in any real danger but the point is that it felt like I was. For me that was enough. From an arbitration stand point that is a week argument. It's so hard to get any real evidence beyond personal experiance and I do agree that you need hard evidence to win.
The Toyota rep commented on the 1 second hesitation while driving my car and it was noted by the arbitrator as a "valid" problem. In fact, after test driving the car, the Toyota rep excused herself and made a call to Toyota Corp. She reported that they told her the TSB was not to correct the hesitation problem, because the DBW 5-speed setup ( as wwest reported) was designed for the "safety of the transmission". To me, I can't stand any hesitation, especially while driving in LA traffic all day. So, it is definitely an annoyance and quite possibly a safety issue, in my opinion. The "door" was left open by the arbitrator, so I'll go ahead and see it though by having the TSB performed and faxing the work order to the Dispute Settlement people in order to satisfy the arbitrator and to reopen the case. Whatever happens, at least my experience might benefit others on this forum.
All I can say to you is "Good Luck" with the Dispute Settlement avenue. You're going to need a lot of it to obtain the satisfaction you seek. In truth, however, given that you have issue re a mere one second of hesitation, then in all honesty, you're wasting your time--not to mention a lot of the public's time and money. I hope it's worth it.
Comments
* downshift lag when accelerating at speeds from 10 to 20 mph
* gear hunting when driving on/off accelerator pedal at 20 to 30 mph (i.e. rush-hour traffic)
* slow response rate during heavy acceleration from a stop
Definitely not a 2 or 3 second delay.
What I'm experiencing: I still don't feel it's a safety issue, even given my experience at the driveway. More of a driveability annoyance. My friend has an ES330 and has never mentioned any problem.
Let us know how the arbitration goes.
I have never been to an arbitration. Maybe those who have been through arbitration could give some reflection of what was done, what could have, or should have, been said, etc.
I wish you luck.
BetterSafe
The point is, I can hook it up, and read a whole bunch of interesting info in (nearly) real time - water temp, air temp, engine load, engine timing, O2 content (pre- and post- Cat), throttle position, etc. etc. It's a fun toy, and I've used it to diagnose problems. But it can only read "generic" info on the data bus. To do what has been proposed would take a Toyota-specific data reader. I'm not running out to buy one of those anytime soon.
I'm not trying to dash any hopes - just don't want folks running out to buy $100-$250 scanners, and not being able to do what they want with it.
this is one reason i pointed people to an OBD-II reader that appears it can read toyota specific information, but also save the real-time parameters collected.
actually, it appears to be a cable / electronic signal conditioning / interface unit with the appropriate software functionality to emulate typical hand-held reader functions, but also acquire data over the link and store it on the computer. in addition - as you mentioned, besides "generic" info, it handles manufacturer specific information.
does the Actron 9145 provide a means to dump the information it acquires to a laptop? it doesn't look like it to me.
that is really what is required for the exercise, a hardware interface that not only speaks the appropriat protocols, but also has features to allow one to select the parameters of interest, and to sample and *store* off-reader, the data which you acquire over the link to the vehicle.
the 9145 seems like a hand-held device. it appears about twice as expensive as compared to the unit i suggested and not as capable because I don't think it can't interface to a laptop computer.
my investigation was admittedly rather shallow and i stoped looking when i hit upon a product that appeared it could do the job.
if you're going to do this right - one has to inquire and verify what is possible outside the reader / interface. i think a generic laptop interface (either direct to the car, or indirect through a hand-held reader) and the device being able to talk the specific manufacturer codes (toyota in this case, but could be other) are two critical product capabilities someone needs to look for.
The regnal Toyota rep told me that other people had won arbitration on this very issue even though I lost.
Here's some advice for anyone considering doing so.
Internet forums entered as evidence in any Judicial Hearing will be viewed as "Hearsay." (aka something said by others and unproven)
Even though Arbitrations fall into the category of Administrative Law where rules of evidence are somewhat relaxed as opposed other forms of Justice such as Criminal, Civil, etc., "Hearsay" evidence will always be considered suspect.
More often than not, "Hearsay" will not be considered evidence---unless it can be corroborated in testimony by the person presenting it, or by other witness testimony during a hearing.
In other words, it has to be supported by proof that it is a true and correct.
Moral of the story?
Don't be fooled into believing anything in an Internet Forum will be accepted as evidence in Arbitration.
Forums like this one, where authors are anonymous and statements posted are unverifiable, cannot by definition qualify as evidence.
It is highly likely any such "Hearsay" evidence from such Public Forums won't even be considered.
Some like to portray Arbitration as a cakewalk--ie,anyone can be a winner.
Big misconception!!! The vast majority lose.
Don't even consider one unless you've got hard evidence to support your contentions.
Reams of unverifiable rhetoric from the internet certainly won't make a case.
i wonder, can you help us pilot130: is the person seeking arbitration allowed to have his/her lawyer contact the manufacturer corporate HQ and/or his/her dealership and inform them to reveal the number of complaints, technical tip line notes to service personnel, the number of related TSB summaries, distribution of complaints per model related to engine / transmission behaviors, etc?
in other words, is the manufacturer (in this case Toyota) obligated to reveal anything numerical with respect to number or frequency or distribution against model complaints, technical correspondences (TSB or other), arbitration cases, buy-backs etc? i mean, isn't this minimal information tracked by the manufacturer and available to the complaintant if the complaintant's lawyer notifies the manufacturer?
i guess i'd do some additional stuff besides capturing objective datum via the OBD-II interface when i drove my vehicle, like getting my lawyer to hop on contacting corporate and the dealership, i'd contact one or more human factors specialists dealing in the automotive domain (google) or complex systems / automation (but the former would be preferable for papers dealing with gulfs in system behaviors and learning and cognitive loading when system does not respond, etc etc , and i'd contact the writer of the news story that indicated the government was considering an investigation and see if you could get contacts to follow up with, and i'd research and print all complaints on the government web-site and contact them by voice for a spreadsheet showing the number of complaints against manufacturer-x for this sort of problem, vs. other manufacturers, etc, etc.
there seems to me to be some additional evidence of a quantitative nature one could collect in *great* preference to relying on the notes or threads from this forum...
Some info may be held confidential by the Manufacturer--and they can usually make a strong case to do so--making certain info public can allow competitors an unfair opportunity to exploit it.
The one concern I have is costs.
Lawyers won't do this sort of thing for free--it involves a lot of time and effort.
You will have to pay for this, and any other such legal costs to make your case.
Recovering your legal costs (Lawyers, research, phone calls, copying, etc.) in Arbitration is dicey--most Arbitrations don't award legal costs one way or the other, either against the Litigant or the Manufacturer.
If they did, and Litigants who came to Arbitration and lost were required to pay Manufacturer's costs (and perhaps even court costs), then you probably wouldn't see too many Arbitrations anywhere on the continent.
Like I said, Arbitration isn't a free ride as some are suggesting here.
Please don't think I'm in any way dismissing some of the info which has appeared in this forum.
Some of it was good stuff.
Just don't expect any of it to be admissible in Arbitration--it's plainly hearsay, by definition.
I don't do this type of arbitration we are talking about, but rather more along the lines of value disputes for totalled cars, where dollar amount awards are given out----and I have to say that most consumers come to arbitration with lots of passion and very little evidence. The arbitrator is bound by certain rules (varies with the type of arbitration) but in general I can say that good paper is very beneficial to the outcome.
What could I imagine as "good paper" for this type of complaint we are talking about? Something like a stack of repair orders with the same complaint written on them, time after time---that's powerful. Maybe stats (hard numbers) from complaint boards, texts of TSBs or recalls of course.
Stats from Complaint Boards are fine too, but must be corroborated in order to be admissible as evidence.
A stack of repair orders might be fine too, but the originator of those repair orders might be required to testify as to their authenticity.
Even TSBs would be subject to corroboration, just to ensure their authenticity and accuracy.
As you said Shifty, any claims must be substantiated to be admissible as evidence, otherwise they're fair game for conjecture--aka "an easy target"..
This will undoubtedly get some acrimonious reaction from some.
That being the case, all I can suggest is "Welcome to the Real World folks!!"
possibly - but it's clear you are helping people prepare themselves properly. they can do that to a much better extent with the valuable information you are providing to them.
thank you for the responses to my question..
"(It) is wise to retain all documentation received at the time of purchase, in particular the bill of sale or retail installment contract as this details the amount paid for the vehicle and whether any down-payment was tendered. More vital than the purchase documents are the repair invoices received each time the vehicle is serviced, as these documents evidence the repairs performed to the vehicle. It is important to retain each invoice received; however, should invoices be lost consumers can obtain a printout of warranty work performed from any dealership which specializes in the particular make of vehicle the consumer possesses.
If consumers have no documentation an attorney may be able to subpoena records from the dealerships that serviced the vehicle." (from The Insurance Consumer Advocate Network)
It has been shown repeatedly that complaints can be posted there with no follow up verification by the website itself, so no one can be sure that any complaint is legit, because they haven't been verified.
I sometimes think sites like that are more interested in creating impressive numbers than verifying any of the complaints.
VINs and addresses appearing with a complaint are no guarantee of authenticity--especially VINs--they can be easily made to look real.
I would hate to think of some litigant going into Arbitration with what he thinks is "Good Paper" from a site like that, only to have a Company Lawyer blow it all away by showing how easy it is to fake a complaint there.
Just a word of caution.
Any "documentation" from there would have to be squeaky clean to be of any convincing use in Arbitration.
The Auto Safety site is the only one I have seen where contact information is provided, so it is a good potential source to connect with others having the same problems. As a matter of fact, the site states that allowing owners with common problems to connect is one of the purposes. Unfortunatley it is just name and address that are provided, no phone number or e-mail, but that is better than nothing. I suppose there is the possibility that people have posted false accounts, but then, if that is the case, the letter won't go through or the person wouldn't be able to respond to a request for more details, but there is no harm done in trying. There really doesn't seem to be enough complaints on the site for it to be used for ulterior purposes as you accuse.
You mention lawyers involved in arbitration in your post. Do automakers bring their attorney's to arbitration? I am not up to speed on the process, but I thought the whole idea was to arbitrate to see if an agreement can be reached prior to going the attorney route.
Especially vulnerable to misuse are sites (like Autosafety.org--and others) where no verification exists as to whether or not complaints are genuine.
I stated that any "documentation" used from these sites in an Arbitration claim should be "squeaky clean"--that is to say, above reproach, and must be able to stand up to scrutiny by the opposing side.
Rest assured, if you present evidence, it will be challenged, mostly by the opposing side, and even sometimes by the Arbitrator.
And yes, I have questioned the veracity of SOME, not all stories seen here at Edmunds for the same reason.
It is just as possible to take advantage of this site, if a poster wishes to do so.
Please do not imply that I consider ALL stories posted as suspect.
I'm not suggesting that in any way.
If you don't believe some take advantage of the anonymity these websites afford, so be it.
I suggest to you that if the opportunity exists, it will be exploited by a few--fortunately not by the vast majority.
Just keep in mind that a smart litigator can destroy your case by casting doubt on ONE instance of a "frivolous and vexatious" complaint in your website of choice.
Re your last question: Not all manufacturers are represented by Lawyers. Many use skilled "Case Presenting Officers" who may not be Lawyers but are every bit as good--and in some cases even better..
Evidently that minor digression offended you.
Why anyone would protest about that is unusual.
It only involved a few posts, and from all accounts it was considered beneficial.
If it did pique your sensitivities, I apologize, but there was no intent to, and it won't continue.
Enough has been said about it anyway.
If, on the other hand, your post was a case of "internet road rage", perhaps you should consider another internet forum more to your liking.
This topic is back in your good hands Cam.
Rest assured, your rules will prevail from now on.
But I agree, perhaps enough has been said about the subject for now. I think everyone has gotten the point, that preparedness and documentation are very important.
so maybe we can move on to any new data/information on Toyota's response...
I have so much more I could report, but I don't want to use up too much space
i am 100% sure no visitor to this forum would mind if you used more bandwidth / space to explain as much as you can possibly remember (and are not bound from revealing) relevant to what may ultimately help others.
If everyone who went to arbitration could educate the next unfortunate soul, then the manufacturers would not have a chance to blow smoke and hide a real defect. Let us know what ultimately happens.
Thanks
Better Safe (than Sorry)
i had always been struck by the fact that you did document your troubles trying to return the vehicle so soon after purchase.
preparing copies of your documentation for the other parties was a nice smart touch for several reasons.
did the issue of other people claiming NO hesitation ever come up in the context of the toyota rep claiming it was a purposeful design artifact to increase the longevity of the transmission...
perhaps pilot130 could help us again - why is there a delay in the finding / result? is the arbitrator going to perform more fact finding / research or do they need time to write up or file their decision? what is actually going on during this period? does the manufacturer rep have to consult corporate for a decision on what they are willing to do on their part? if so - it would appear and re-inforce the fact that the arbitrator is really working for the manufacturer...the arbitrator being bound as to what is awarded based on what the manufacturer is ultimately willing to do.
There was some flak from the peanut gallery, and we've been asked to move on--remember??
Good luck to Bkinblk.
A word of caution-- It might be a bit premature to start the celebration.
i think the one poster and perhaps one host were premature in suggesting the thread was off topic. on the contrary - it was exactly on topic. this thread originally started as a highly-focused thread in the Toyota Highlander P+S forum if I'm not mistaken. It was migrated to it's own forum based on the fact that other people in non-Highlander vehicles were experiencing something similar and it could have general relevance to non-Toyota vehicles.
as i wrote before - you should continue to stay and contribute.
no one is running you off!
Also, did you bring up loss of value? If so, how was that argument presented.
Thank you for all your information. It has been most helpful.
Shifty the Host
Evidently someone didn't like what I had to say, but that doesn't bother me in the least.
I simply feel that enough has been said about Arbitration, and I have nothing further to offer.
I said as much well before Shifty asked us to get off it.
Besides, if I told you what I thought about Bkinblk's case from this Arbitrator's perspective, it would probably get more people ticked off.
I wished Bkinblk luck, and that's quite enough for now.
After cleaning mine the car ran much better. This did fix my problem. Judging from other discussions, this seems to be a common service item. It is usally fixed by spraying a good quality cleaner that will not leave any residue.
Last week I was in Memphis and the Lexus service manager there told be the same thing.
"where there's smoke there's fire..."???
So during the subsequence "windshield time" (I'm now in Tucson) I gave the fuel issue some considerable thought. The only thing premium fuel would directly affect would be the knock sensor.
I have posited in the past that these transaxles are being upshifted during closed throttle coastdowns either to extend fuel economy or reduce the potential for loss of control due to engine compression braking or possibly both. Assuming the truth of that if I were to quickly open the throttle while the transaxle remained in an inappropriately high gear the engine would certainly have a high potential to "knock". Obviously less so with Premium fuel "loaded".
But why would the knock sensor "going off" at this particular instance result in a delayed/changed shift pattern?
Software.
Having the engine develop knocking at this particular junction might be an indication to the ECU that a lower gear ratio needs to be selected "next" than would have been selected otherwise. Possibly resulting in two shifts in sequence? The first downshift due to the initial pressure on the gas pedal and now another, yet lower one due to the knocking?
While at the same time a rather low supply of fully pressurized ATF due to the low engine RPM just prior to the current incident?
The Lexus rep said the hesitation was a design charactoristic to provide for "Safety of the transmission....".
Trying to engage a new set of clutches with low ATF pressure would undoubtedly result in premature clutch wear and subsequent failure!
QUICK!
Close the transaxle pressure regulating solenoid to the next few engine revolutions (800RPM = 13 revolutions/second) can build enough ATF pressure.
I wonder if TSB + Premium will solve 90% of the problems??
I have not seen or read of anyone else getting any benefit from premium fuel in helping the hesitation problem.
"I have reached this conclusion because:
1. The customer has only had one service on record on these problems since May 20, 2005. (The Valve Replacement). It is reasonable that the Dealer/Manufacturer should have the opportunity to diagnose the problem for a possible fix".
2. Technical Service Bulletin TC005-05 was issued on June 21, 2005 that addresses the specific issues that were cited by the Customer.
3. I believe that the Manufacturer should be given the opportunity to correct the cited problems by the Customer."
Toyota admitted during the Arbitration that the TSB would not correct the hesitation, but that it would somewhat improve the erratic shifting! However, I will have the TSB performed and resubmit the case to the National Center for Dispute Settlement. I think with due diligence, I still have a chance. I was told by the NCDS that cases are commonly revisited and reopened when subsequent repair orders are submitted and reviewed. Stay tuned.
I hope you stick to it, jump through their hoops, and if still no resolution, go back to the National Center for Dispute Settlement. I would suggest acting quickly, though.
Based on what you had posted previously, I figured the case would be a loser, and cautioned you accordingly ( Remember my admonition: "Don't celebrate just yet"?)
There were two key issues to be concerned with in your situation.
The first being that the Manufacturer must be given ample opportunity to address the problem.
This was the one the Arbitrator picked up on.
You never did quite confirm this was done--and as it turns out the dealer had only been given one kick at that issue. (If my memory serves, your story at one point mentioned four attempts, but only one was confirmed--was that an oversight?)
The second possibility has to do with the actual hesitation interval reported in the hearing, namely "one second".
This isn't much by any standard.
You would have had to show this was beyond the norm and weren't able to.
In fact (again, if memory serves) the Toyota Rep stated in testimony that a one second delay was "normal", and that the TSB wouldn't change that as it was the way the tranny worked.
Most of what else you said you did during the proceedings was not really germain to either of these two issues.
One thing to remember when presenting any case: "There's a huge difference between Evidence and Argument".
You argued well, but most of it was wasted because you didn't identify the key issues and present evidence re those issues.
One more opinion, if I may.
A delay of one second?
Sounds to me like the hesitation you say you are experiencing isn't a significant problem under any circumstances.
It certainly isn't a safety issue, and loss of value shouldn't be a concern.
An annoyance, perhaps, but even that might be a stretch.
Seems to me you might be making more of this than it really deserves.
In the end, is it really worth worrying about?
You're going to need a lot of it to obtain the satisfaction you seek.
In truth, however, given that you have issue re a mere one second of hesitation, then in all honesty, you're wasting your time--not to mention a lot of the public's time and money.
I hope it's worth it.