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
I found myself going from first to second and then to fourth fairly often, and then sometimes even from fourth directly into fifth.
WHY?
Speed limit was 35 and 45 at various places along my mostly flat route and once I went to shift out of second I "knew" I didn't need the torque of third as I was already at or near the speed limit.
I keep hearing of these systems learning our driving habits and on doing a bit of research I agree, to a point. The engineering white papers I have located on the subject here on the internet shed some light. Apparently the historical "memory" used to "learn" your driving habits is erased each and every time you shut down the engine. So each time you restart the vehicle a new driving history log is opened. Within 60 seconds of initial forward motion the system has categorized you into one of four driving styles and then within the next 120 seconds it finalizes your style more finely, into one of sixteen "types". Thereafter it keeps a continuous record of only the past 3 minutes of your driving and will recategorize you if your driving style changes "on the fly".
So, you need not worry about how or what the previous driver did or did not do.
But back to my shifting habits. Without going into the detail of why I did what I did lets look at what the "learning" system might infer from my style if I were in the Lexus.
From a stop I accelerate moderately until I reach or approach the speed limit and then I let off the gas to simply maintain the posted limit. After repeating this a few times the system decides that when I let off the gas in this way it's okay to upshift all the way into O/D (from second..??). Me, I don't care, the car is taking care of things nicely, so far.
A point point to remember....
Most of us have noted that for the first 2 or 3 minutes in the morning the transaxle does not shift into O/D. Obviously therefore we accept the fact that it does shift up, all the way into O/D, normally, even at a fairly low road speed.
But now I suddenly have a need to accelerate rather quickly and press the gas pedal accordingly. But since I am NOT an aggressive driver (in actuality but more importantly this is what the ECU now "thinks") unless I press that gas pedal down aggressively (even rapidly..??) the ECU simply pops me down one level, out of overdrive.
Comparable actions In the manual six speed I would KNOW I need to go back down into second, skipping the downshift in third altogether.
But in the Lexus the vehicle hasn't yet responded as I expected so I press further down on the gas pedal. But a shift from O/D to fourth is already qued up, or in process so the "new" shift into 3rd must wait until the previous shift has completed.
Now, regardless for my reasons, or mental thought process in shifting the manual, skipping gears, the result will be improved fuel economy and lower emissions.
So maybe what Toyota has done is apply a little AI, Artificial Intelligence, within the engine/transaxle ECU to use the inference of how we drive normally to improve the vehicle's EPA and CARB ratings. Unlike us, it cannot see the road ahead nor be aware of the speed limit. So it must infer "this" totally from our actions on the gas pedal.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe that this problem, "engine hesitation" has existed since 2003 and Toyota hasn't yet come up with a fix. So for me the only answer to that enigma is that they are constrained from providing a fix by some regulatory agency.
Look how difficult it is, still, to convince the naysayers on this thread, first, that the problem actually exists, and second, it can be or is potentially dangerous. Now think about Toyota trying to "sell" the needed fix, significant degrading the vehicle's fuel economy and increasing the emissions, to the beaurocacy at the EPA or CARB.
If you peruse the RX400h thread you will discover lots of new owners trying to figure out how best to drive it, change their driving style, in order to get decent MPG ratings, closer to the EPA estimates.
I am absolutely NOT in favor of anyone changing their driving style, habits, to accomodate an unusual characteristic, poor human ergonomics, in a vehicle.
But on the other hand there is the issue of how to best take advantage of a bad design you, or I, are stuck with.
Good luck, and be careful out there.
That being said, one could just as easily make a case for it being a "Good Design", could they not?
Most assuredly, there are those who would point to the TSB as being a sign that Toyota recognises a "problem" with the design.
The fact that there's a TSB out means there's something wrong, right?? (Or so they claim, right?)
Is it, however, really a "Bad Design?"
In your opinion perhaps.
To be respected indeed, but does your opinion any measure of proof?
Because you say so, does that really show conclusive evidence that it is a "Bad Design?"
Please explain how you've reached this unilateral conclusion.
It could just as easily be shown that Toyota's TSB may be an example of how to make a "Good Design" even better.
I do not agree that Toyota's 5 speed auto is a bad design.
I have already stated there may be some unique characteristics there that people need to learn about, but to condemn it as a bad design??
I don't think so.
There are some public concerns that your judgement on the issue may be clouded with some personal feelings about yours truly.
More often than not you have unilaterally characterized yours truly in some not so "politically correct" terms--completely unjustified I might add--given that you don't know me and aren't in any position to make such condemnations.
A nine year old child? Your words! (This forum)
A "jerk"-- or "Having no common sense." Again, Your words! ( 2004+Sienna Forum)
My goodness.
I'm beginning to wonder if you may be clouding your judgement on this issue and letting your personal feelings about anyone who doesn't agree get in the way of objectivity.
There does seem to be one spot where my car will consistently hesitate: As I turn onto my street, there's a yield sign at an intersection with a downhill slope. I'll let off the gas, feather the brake, then depress the accelerator when I'm through the intersection. It always hesitates at that spot.
I've only been driving for 20 years, but I've driven about 20 vehicles over that time on a regular basis (different jobs, parents cars, wives/girlfriends cars).
I can't believe we even have to argue that hesitation and jerky shifting aren't an improvement.
What's the deal, HOST?
Okay?
And for the ROW, I've been very careful of late not to espouse my theories as opinions, not to use "IMMHO". And theories are just that, until proven or disproven.
Sorta of like the sun circling the earth, or NOT!
There are after all, a great many ways to look at this issue--and it's quite open for speculation any way one chooses,as things currently stand.
There are way too many unknowns at this time to make any definitive judgement one way or the other.
No one individual knows the whole story or all the answers at this point, right?
Having said that, what I find just a bit curious is why:
(1) Some claim anyone who takes an opposite position to theirs has no right to be here, (according to their self serving rules)-- thus I question why they feel they have a right to suggest it?
(2) Why so much acrimonious name calling and subtle insults against those who express skepticism, or who take an opposite approach to others? You want to call someone a "Nine year old Child" or a "Jerk" or whatever, or "They have no business disagreeing", or "Get lost, you don't belong here", or "See XXX defending Toyota on such and such forum"--all based on some hormonal driven need to feel superior, then can one really be cosidered a criterion?
Makes me wonder sometimes whether this is a discussion open to everyone, or just a self serving exercise in oneupmanship under the guise of "Engine Hesitation-all Makes and Models". Certainly seems that way sometimes.
How many ways or times does one person need to put someone else down, or tell the world why he/she hates or has beef with such and such an automaker, or finds fault with a tranny, and so on?
BTW, found that mirror yet??
Pilot, take a look back a few years ago to the early stages of the Toyota engine sludge issue. A few who had experienced the problem were at the forefront of the discussions and the naysayers, such as yourself, with no evidence to the contrary whatsoever, were busy sharp-shooting the few. "No, the sludge only happens to those that don't change their oil on a regular basis", was one of the common statements back then.
You seem to be asking for proof that the problem exists and we could simply turn the question around and ask you to prove it doesn't. Sort of the inverse of Bush asking Hussein to prove the WMD didn't exist. How do you go about proving the none-existence of something that never existed?
So, may I suggest that you find some one locally, in your area, that is experiencing the problem, or says they are, and work with that person to prove that it doesn't exist or in the alternative that it isn't potentially hazardous (worthy of Toyota paying attention for that reason alone) to life and limb.
Just because I have never had a UFO experience doesn't mean they don't exist!
Who was it that said (I'm paraphrasing now): "One person sees a UFO, then first thing you know everyone is seeing them."
That (ancient history BTW) sludge business was promoted the same way, and I think this one is as well--to a degree.
As it turned out the lack of oil changes WAS the root cause for sludge--not a design flaw as those in the forefront claimed.
One person gets a problem--and it may be real problem--then talks about it--then everyone thinks they have that same problem.
Only thing is nobody's been able to quantify this one, and nobody's really in a position to say how big or how much--or to a degree, whether or not it really is a problem or a characteristic.
I'd do what you suggested locally, but I just haven't been able to find anyone with the problem hereabouts--not from lack of trying either....
PS
"Sharpshooting"--Me?? Thanks for the compliment but I'm an amateur at that. You and few others here are much more skilled than I !!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If you don't agree with another poster's point of view you don't have to respond at all, you can just "reply" to people you deem are more in agreement with you.
WRT to the Supreme Court thing - hope you aren't retiring soon!
I can agree on this. The inconsistency really is what makes "the thing described in the TSB"
Shifty the Host
Shifty, don't you dare get any ideas about either one of those prospects--retiring OR working until dead!!
Thanks for the watchful eye, and your consumate objectivity.
Ha! I've never really trusted mechanics, I wonder if the Field Tech doesn't either?! :surprise:
Do you know if you will have the same arbitrator? I think that will be a help to you since they already deemed your concerns were valid.
http://myfloridalegal.com/janmar02.PDF
Teusink v. General Motors Corporation, Pontiac-GMC Division, 2002-0033/PEN (Fla. NMVAB
March 20, 2002)
The Consumer complained of intermittent harsh shifting. The Board found the problem to be a nonconformity because, though it was intermittent, the evidence established that the Consumer and his wife limited their use of the vehicle because they believed it was unreliable. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund.
Is there anything to that? Is there a tie-in between that and some people saying the TSB made no difference?
http://myfloridalegal.com/apr_jun04.PDF
xxxxx v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 2004-0149/FTM (Fla. NMVAB April 15, 2004).
The Consumers complained of a pronounced, pulsing engine sensation and an engine surge. The Manufacturer contended that the pulsing sensation was “normal” and did not constitute a nonconformity. The Manufacturer’s witness testified that the pulsing sensation was caused by the normal operation of the vehicle’s exhaust gas re-circulation valve. The operation of the valve could not be altered without violating the federal emissions standards. In finding the problem to be a nonconformity, the Board noted that the issue was not whether the Manufacturer thought the problem to be “normal.” The issue was whether the pulsing engine sensation and the engine surge were so pronounced and significant as to substantially impair the use and value of the vehicle. Ultimately, the Consumers were awarded a refund.
Arbitrators are not supposed to give evidence; only the decision He/She makes and the reasons for it.--sorry, but them's the rules.
Their job is not to argue the case either way, just to consider evidence by the parties and rule on the validity (or not) in the issue before them.
In your case the ruling was not in your favor.
If you want to impress the second arbitration, you will be farther ahead to show that the repair didn't work, that the Dealer was given full opportunity to fix it and failed to do so--ergo. the TSB didn't do the job.
One more thing--the Toyota Tech Rep stated in evidence that your tranny performed as designed.
Which problem (you apparently have two issues--hesitation and erratic shifting) was this directed to?
The reason I ask that is because you may also have to show that one or the other issue isn't working as designed--and that could be quite a challenge for you alone.
Some independent expert testimony on your behalf would be advised in that regard.
Scoti--your info precedents aren't really relevant to the hesitation issue here IMO. They speak to tranny problems, but the way I read it they aren't the same types of problems as this Arbitration issue is speaking to.
You missed the point of my postings. They weren't posted because of their similarity to bkinblk's problems, but because the reasoning the arbitrator used to find in favor of the owner could be relevant/helpful to bkinblk's case. For example, in the Toyota case, it is stated that "the Board noted that the issue was not whether the Manufacturer thought the problem to be “normal.” The issue was whether the {problems} were so pronounced and significant as to substantially impair the use and value of the vehicle. Ultimately, the Consumers were awarded a refund." In the GM case, it is stated that "the evidence established that the Consumer and his wife limited their use of the vehicle because they believed it was unreliable. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund." I would recommend that bkinblk focus some energy on proving that his use and value of his vehilce have been substantially impaired.
bkindlk. I agree totally with scoti1. this is what I would focus on if I went though it again.
The decision rendered by the Arbitrator is being appealed.
I didn't miss the point of your precedents Scoti.
What I said was, those precedents may not be applicable in bkinblk's case.
They may not even be allowed, given that the first decision is the one being appealed.
That decision was (paraphrasing) "to have the TSB done and give the dealer ample opportunity to address bkinblk's concerns"
His concerns were that it hesitated on average for one second, and it shifted erratically.
Your precedents were for different issues, and different arguments were raised in them--different problems, different conditions, different evaluations, different assessment of those problems, and different severity of the conditions under evaluation--these all come in to play in reaching decisions in those Arbitrations.
There is no one "cookie cutter" approach which is universally applicable in these matters. Argument which succeed in one instance don't succeed in others.
He may not be allowed to introduce such claims in a Review Appeal. It may be that only the criteria from the first one is at issue in the second, ie, did the fix work or didn't it.
Regardless, showing that bkinblk's problem(s) are so "pronounced and significant as to impair use and value" isn't as easy to prove as one might think.
One would have to look at the transcript in that case to see what argument/evidence was adduced for the arbitrator to make the decision, and what weight the Arbiitrator placed on the argument in making the decision.
IMO, bkinblk will need significant independent opinion to make that argument work--not an easy thing to get.
In the second case, unreliability was the issue. Again, if it is allowed, this is something bkinblk will need strong evidence on, and quite possibly an independent expert evaluation.
Not easy to prove either way.
But will he be able to bring an entirely different set of conditions into play in his Review Appeal--different from those he argued in the first arbitration??
I don't think so.
In both cases, the issues being argued in your precedents appear to be different from those bkinblk argued in the first arbitration, ie he did not claim "impairment of use and value", nor did he claim "unreliability".
Not having raised these claims in the first instance may inhibit his ability to raise a new set of claims in the second Arbitration.
He will be hard pressed to justify why his position is now changed, and raising a whole different set of reasons for his claim may backfire.
That's my point.
Sorry if you feel I misunderstood or misinterpreted your intent.
I did not miss the point, I merely want to raise a red flag for the guy.
Sending him into an Arbitration armed with invalid or shaky advice, or raising false hopes is doing a disservice.
Not trying to discourage or dissuade, only to assist.
It is sound advice by any standard.
If you disagree with me, or believe I have some mysterious ulterior motive, then do as the Host says, just scroll down.
Maybe it'll help someone else down the road.
#1322 of 1517 arbitration by bkinblk Jul 19, 2005 (11:11 am)
Reply | E-mail Msg
"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."
It does sound like the arbitrator found bkinblk's complaints to be valid with the only issue being that he had not given Toyota the opportunity to fix it. Now that he has given Toyota the opportunity and it was not fixed, then it does seem to be a no-brainer.
Question for bkinblk - is this being handled as an appeal to your previous findings or is it an entirely new (wipe the slate clean, start all over again) situation? Also, still curious, do you know if you will have the same arbitrator?
wouldn't that be nice?
it got me wondering if there isn't a secret hand-shake / communication between arbitrator (paid by the manufacturer) and the manufacturer that the owner isn't privy to based on the results communicated to the owner: in this case "the owner's case had merit - there should be alloted another opportunity to service the vehicle, and if operability doesn't improve, if owner still complains, there should be a buy back of the vehicle".
one can hope.
and manufacturers might be in cahoots.
The manufacturer pays because the Law says so, not because they're being charitable, or because they feel by doing so they can somehow influence the outcome.
Arbitrators are independent, and are by law mandated accordingly.
You are being dreadfully unfair to the process.
I recognize you are just speculating, but if you were to accuse an arbitrator directly and intentionally,you might find yourself in a courtroom having to defend that accusation.
my wife is a lawyer/mediator. if her services were paid for by only one party (or not by an independant party), there would be the appearence of a conflict of interest, which would be sufficient in and of itself to have her recuse herself from the opportunity.
for arbitrators - if their services are retained / paid for by the manufacturer, how can there be true impartiality?
Suffice to say I know you're wrong in suggesting arbitrators are influenced by or biased in favor of, those who pay for the process.
I'm an Arbitrator appointed BY the government to hear appeals by litigants who have been sanctioned BY the government for transportation related improprieties, based on regulations and laws related to transportation matters.
I am required to rule on these appeals and decide who's right, the Govt. or the Litigant.
Some decisions involve monetary sanctions (some in thousands of dollars!),
others involve suspension or loss of licences, operating certificates, etc.
I'm not biased in favor of the Govt. because they pay my per diems, hearing costs, etc.
My decisions are based on evidence and are totally unbiased one way or the other--even though I often must rule AGAINST my employer, so to speak.
The arbitrators you are talking about all work the same way, and by the same set of rules.
It kinda hurts when I hear remarks like yours made in public forums like this one.
It's an opinion to be sure, but how many folks read it and believe what you're suggesting is the rule?
You are being dreadfully unfair to those many who do the best they can and do it professionally and objectively.
One more thing.
Scoti, I won't argue that point.
However it is the Law.
If you honestly believe it's right that it implies bias, or "the appearance of conflict of interest", then you should be complaining to your State Legislators to get it changed so that it doesn't.
Our system ain't perfect, but it sure as hell beats what's in second place!
Inasmuch as this about as much as I'm able to to say on the matter, I wish I could have been of more help.
I do not have a good feeling, however, that what I've seen is everything that should be known about your circumstances.
There seem to be some pieces missing, and some inconsistencies here and there..
For some reason, complete info on the matter does not seem to have been disclosed, and rather than incur the wrath of all who wish you well by appearing to be negative towards you, let's just leave it at that. I'm really puzzled about it, but we'll just have to wait and see what happens now.
Good luck to you in the matter, and in whatever you hope to accomplish here.
bkinblk has clarified the take away from the initial meeting and disposition.
what remarks am i making exactly? i think you may be over-reacting - assuming i am cutting your profession. we are having a discussion, not an attack, counter-attack. i mentioned (a few times) your experience, perspective and your opinions are valued here.
Host
You can read countless professional reviews and lots and lots of consumer comments that say the car is a dream to drive. I can tell you I am very happy with ours. So it is just impossible that Every Highlander is afflicted with a "Deadly Design Flaw". It just does not stack up.
Again, for those of you with real problems, I wish you every success in resolving them. But to exaggerate and blow the shifting differences way out of proportion actually discredits the whole issue. We love our Highlander and I have two co-workers who love theirs as well. It runs and shifts just fine