Engine Hesitation (All makes/models)

wwest

Someone on another post asked why the Lexus cruise control is so sensitive that the automatic transmissaxle downshifts at the slightest hind of the need to accelerate..."why does it feel as if the CC is punching it...??"

"Punching it...."

Remember that the automatic transmission/transaxle is heavily biased toward wanting to be in O/D, with the lockup clutch engaged, in order to achieve the best possible fuel economy.

If any level of additional torque is required of the drivetrain the lockup clutch must be quickly released in order to bring the torque multiplication aspect of the torque converter into play. And again, to help achieve the best fuel economy now that the car is no longer simply cruising but under acceleration.

So even the slightest additional throttle opening will often result in the transmission/transaxle ECU commanding a downshift out of O/D.

Also keep in mind that even absent being in O/D modern day engines are running right on the "cusp", the leanest fuel/air mixture ratio possible using the downstream oxygen sensor for long term, slow reacting, feedback and the engine knock sensors for instantaneous feedback when the mixture gets too lean, the timing too early, or the engine is "lugging".

Engine knock or pinging can pretty severely damage an engine if not quickly corrected or if allowed to often occur even on an intermittent basis.

Engines knock or ping because the fuel/air mixture "flamefront" is expanding too rapidly for the cylinder volume or in the alternative the piston itself cannot move downward as fast as possible to accomodate the rapidly expanding flamefront.

The latter is typically the result of "lugging" the engine.

Most of us who often/still drive stick shifts know by experience and instinct to downshift a manual transmission before we get into the "lugging" range of the engine.

But what about modern day automatic transaxles/transmissions...??

They LEARN.

Over time, as you drive the car, the engine/transmissaxle ECU will build a "map" of parameters which it then uses to avoid engine operational circumstances that are detrimental. The ECU literally "wants" to achieve the absolute best in fuel economy but not at the detriment of mechanical failure of the drivetrain, short (knock/pinging) or long (transmissaxle clutch wear) term.

Think about what happens if you fuel a car that requires premium fuel with regular. The ECU detects pinging in some areas of the previously learned and stored parametric mapping and adjusts, accordingly, the operational charactoristics, parameter mapping, of the engine ignition timing, Fuel/air mixture vs RPM & loading, and transmission shift points.

But that's the simple part...

How does it know to re-adjust all of those parameters once you refuel with premium?

Because it pushes the fuel economy "envelope", continuously!

In order to continuously, ALWAYS, operate with the very best parametric mapping for the best fuel economy it continues to "experiment" with the parameters. So, not long after you refuel with premium "it" will have discovered that the previous, more conservative parameters are no longer valid and build a new set.

wwest

and now think about this.

You're in the freeway acceleration lane and you spy an upcoming opening in the traffic and so you depress the gas pedal slightly to begin accelerating. When you were just previously in coastdown mode, waiting for that opening, unbeknownst to you your transmissaxle upshifted.

Now it begins to downshift (to 4th?) for "moderate" acceleration but in the meantime you have become impatient at the lack of "GO" and depress the gas pedal a little more. "Oh, says the ECU, he's more serious about accelerating than I first thought, given the gas pedal position and the presently LOW engine RPM if we remain in 4th the engine will undoubtedly knock/ping due to lugging so as soon as you finish that moderate downshift to 4th then go down one more, to 3rd(??).

But all this time the engine has not yet responded to the position of the gas pedal and now you have become worried about missing that upcoming traffic opening completely. So now when the impatient driver in the car behind you honks you go to WOT.

"WOW, now says the ECU, this guy is really serious, after you complete the previously commanded downshift into 3rd lets go down into 2rd!".

I wonder how many seconds it takes to shift down from O/D, to 4th, then down to 3rd, and finally down to 2nd??

user777

stupid question on my part, if you are coasting down, and the ECU/TCU is commanding upshifting, won't you see the effect of the upshift on the RPM indicator? to shift, won't an AT like a MT have to engage the clutch and then make the gear change? do people with the hesitation see the blip?

confused, if you are already in lockup and you lay off the accelerator, won't the unit be commanded out of OD, and then take you to 4, then 3 than 2 than 1?

So is it upshifting or downshifting in coastdown?

wwest

the throttle is completely closed so the only reason for the engine to be above idle is due to it being driven by the friction of the drive wheels on the roadbed. Torque converters traditionally do not provide very forceful engine compression braking unless the engine speed and the driveline speeds differ substantially. The shop manual for my Lexus indicates a reasonable level of engine braking, assuming manually shifting, can be, should be, experienced in 1st or 2nd but doesn't address the issue at all in 3rd or 4th.

In experiments with my 2001 AWD RX300 if I know I am in O/D and depress the gas pedal just enough to command a slight downshift, only OUT of O/D, then I do see a single uptick in engine RPM. If I then release the gas pedal and watch fairly closely I sometimes see two separate "down-ticks" of RPM. I assume one of these is the upshift to 4th and the other is the engagement of the torque converter lockup clutch.

But a more important point is "who amongst us would take the time to check the engine RPM during one of three scenarios described in the TSB?". You could of course watch for the RPM to decline during closed throttle coastdown but then how do you differentiate between the fact that the engine RPM IS going to decline when you close the throttle vs it declining at an even greater rate due to an upshift?

"So is it upshifting or downshifting in coastdown?"

I have absolutely no doubt that my 2001 AWD RX300 upshifts, providing it isn't already in O/D and the lockup clutch engaged, when I fully release the gas pedal. Over the years I have grown accustomed to it but If I remember to pay particular attention I can still feel the effect, "being bumped lightly from behind" just before coming to a full stop, and the "slingshot" effect when the transaxle upshifts during coastdown at moderate roadspeeds and thereby further reduces the already slight "retardation" effects of engine compression braking.

Additionally both of the Lexus shop manuals, the 2001 RX300 set and the 2004 RX330 set indicate upshifts with closed throttle coastdown circumstances.

Assume you were accelerating lightly to gain ground with the vehicle ahead that has just moved forward in position in the acceleration lane, and now you are maybe a little to close so you not only get off the gas pedal but apply light braking briefly. In that circumstance I can assure you that the transaxle will upshift.

Now you find yourself as the lead vehicle and that traffic opening is upcoming.

Depress the gas pedal lightly, just enough, by your judgment, to accelerate and match speeds with the traffic.

WHAT? Nothing is happening!

Wrong! It's just that the throttle opening is being delayed until the downshift is complete and the newly engaged clutches are firmly seated.

But we happen to be not very patient. So we add a bit more pressure on the gas pedal.

But the first downshift is now already in process and due to the transaxle design cannot be aborted. Your "new" gas pedal position, your throttle "command" position, were it to be carried out with the transaxle in the upcoming gearset, would result in lugging the engine, knock, ping, the whole gammit.

So the ECU must yet again delay the throttle opening but this time until the currently commanded downshift is completed so it can then command another downshift into a yet lower gear ratio.

And on and on.....

Some folks have complained about instances of hesitation in a tight turn while under heavy acceleration. I was able to experience that in my own RX300 but at the instance the engine seemed to stall I instinctively, automatically, released the gas pedal quickly and then re-applied it just as quickly and the vehicle then surged forward.

I suspect my instinct to quickly release and re-apply the gas pedal in that instance is a holdover from the days of carbureted engines and I had/have learned that sudden reapplication of the gas pedal gave the engine a quick extra dose of fuel via the caburetor's accelerator pump.

wwest

The "rubber band" effect of the torque converter provides the functionality of a manual transmission clutch. And yes, for each and every shift if the torque converter's lockup clutch happens to be engaged then it is always released during the shifting sequence.

At low engine speeds, idle or close by, the torque converter design is such that very little of the engine torque is coupled to the driveline and virtually NO driveline torque resulting from low roadspeeds are coupled to the engine, otherwise the engine would stall when you slow or come to a complete stop.

In previous models the lockup clutch was never used except when the transaxle's O/D gear ratio is engaged. Nowadays torque converter lockup is often used in some of the lower gear ratios.

wwest

It has bothered me a bit that Toyota and Lexus are recommending that premium fuel will alleviate some of the problems of engine hesitation. Even more bothersome is the fact that some posters have stated that going to premium fuel was helpful in alleviating the symptoms.

WHY?

So I first went to my 2001 RX300 shop manual to read up on the knock sensor and how it was used. Other than the obvious I found no new information there.

But the knot on my head was still festering and I couldn't stop scratching it.

So yesterday out of curiosity I dug into the 2004 RX330 shop manuals regarding the use of the knock sensor.

Surprise...!

My RX300 uses a RESONANT knock sensor and the RX330 uses a NON-RESONANT knock sensor.

The difference??

The resonant knock sensor in my RX300 has a fairly narrow response bandwidth and due to its resonant charactoristics cannot easily be used to discern a fairly light, non-serious, engine knock or ping from a more heavy knock/ping that can quickly result in serious engine damage.

On the other hand the RX330's non-resonant sensor can be used to sense a wide bandwidth of engine knock/ping "sounds" and can readily discern light levels of knock/ping from more serious ones.

What this means is that the RX330's engine/transaxle ECU can "push" the fuel/air mixture ratio "envelope" even further into the regions of engine knock resulting from a "leaner" mixture without unduly incurring potential engine damage. The ECU can "trial run" various lean mixture ratios at all ranges of engine RPM and loading and detect the onset of engine knock/ping before the knock/pinging level
is serious.

The RESONANT sensor in my RX300 is like a stall warning in an airplane, no indication of just how serious the situation really is, might be.

So the newer Toyota/Lexus models equipped with the non-resonant sensor would be able to operate the engine throughout its full RPM and loading ranges much, much closer to the "twilight zone", area of potential damage from predetonation, than would my RX300.

That would, or course, result in the need for greater care, resolution and sensitivity, in selecting the proper gear ratio for a given throttle position commanded by the gas pedal.

jmcdon7230

User777: "...stupid question on my part, if you are coasting down, and the ECU/TCU is commanding upshifting, won't you see the effect of the upshift on the RPM indicator? to shift, won't an AT like a MT have to engage the clutch and then make the gear change? do people with the hesitation see the blip? "

I would see the blip as my Camry's engine would race while the transmission was hesitating. I initially thought it was a transmission problem and didn't realize that the ECU had to be reflashed, until visiting this website.

bkinblk

.........."The position of the Manufacturer is that the Customer is dissatisfied with a feature of the vehicle which is inherent in its design. There is a built in delay of up to one second in the electronic transmission control to protect the engine. This is not a defect in the material or workmanship of the vehicle. The Manufacturer believes that there is no current concern with the Customer's vehicle which impairs its use, value or safety.".............."The Customer's request that the vehicle be repurchased is hereby DENIED. I have reached this decision because the Customer is alleging a nonconformity, hesitation in transmission shifting, which I find to be a normal characterisitic of the vehicle in its design."

scoti1

Crap.

If it is a normal characteristic, why isn't it apparent in every vehicle?
If it is a normal characteristic of the design, why did the issue a friggin TSB to "fix" it (if it ain't broke you can't fix it, can you?).

I hate this, but your experience is really going to discourage others from pursuing arbitration. I hope it doesn't.

ecotrklvr

Sorry to hear the bad news, BNB. You, and by extension everyone with the hesitation, got screwed. Come to think of it, anyone who drives one, or who has to jump out of the way in a parking lot, etc. got screwed as well.

They are vulnerable on the one point, however. I don't expect anyone to rush out and do this, but...

Toyota says this is "inherent" and "built-in", and the arbitrator believed them. I'd be willing to bet that most of the vehicles that the arbitrators drive these days have the hesitation. So, what if someone could ask/force them to drive an identically-equipped model without the hesitation? It would destroy Toyota's claim.

Just a thought.

user777

yes, the "ruling" seems quite arbitrary, and the impartiality of the arbitrator questionable.

user777

and a good thought it is, but i believe the arbitrator doesn't have to drive the vehicle or even ride in it to make a ruling. i like the forcing part of your suggestion though...

anyway, i was thinking of this angle to the general argument: if you knew a person with a one second delay in reflexes to sensory input, would you let them drive you or your family anywhere in a vehicle that had absolutely zero hesitation between control system input and output?

scoti1

Just a thought. bkinblks case was somewhat public, being broadcast here on Edmunds, many waiting to see how his case turned out. If he had won, there could have been a rush to arbitration by many more experiencing this problem. Toyota may have gone out of their way to make this "public" case a losing one for bkinblk on this basis. I thought it suspect that they did a switcheroo on the arbitrator at the last minute.

Like I said, just a thought.

ecotrklvr

Resisting the urge....

No way would I let someone who had a 1 second (or even half-second) delay in their reaction time, drive my car, or me, or anyone I cared about. Tough enough to drive with someone who's yakking on a cel - I fight the urge to get out and catch a cab...

The analogy is beautiful, but with one flaw. To make it more useful, it would have to be a one second delay with everything BUT the brakes.

Others may argue that the steering would be exempt as well, but that's not so clear. My biggest concern would be someone who just did the "coast-down", and was stopped (or creeping), and was waiting to make a quick left-hander across traffic. Here, the steering makes no difference - or the brakes, either. With a hesitation, and without forward motion, you can flog that steering wheel all you want - just won't do you any good.

05camry33se

Sorry about the bad news bknblk. It was what I expected to hear though.

The sad part is that when somebody's kid does get run over in a parking lot, the cause likely won't be properly identified...this defect is obviously not something that's easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt like brake failure is.

And if the defendant is charged with vehicular homicide or reckless driving, they'll likely find it won't be easy to find an expert willing to testify against Toyota's. Face it, arbitrators and experts know which side their bread is buttered on...business as usual...

Chris

wwest

the same problem back in 93-94 when I pursued the windshield fogging problem all the way to trial. We were fully aware that the design flaw existed in ALL LS400's of that era. But we were able to convince the court to allow us to proceed to trial by making the case that our only other choice was a class action lawsuit which would be too burdensome considering that very few would actually experience the problem and even fewer would register complaints.

That last sentence strike a note?

Lexus was obviously also aware of the widespread aspects of the complaint and as a result flew an engineer in from Japan to uniquely "doctor" my climate control. I was very suspicious that was what Toyota intended to do with BNB's engine/transaxle ECU second reflash effort when they said they wanted the regional representatives present during the second reflash.

bkinblk

This decision comes as no surprise to myself and others. No heads will roll at Toyota corporate for losing a few dozen future car sales based on the hesitation issue, particularly if other owners either do not notice any irregularity, or don't want to bother reporting it. Like I said, It's always about the money. Millions of dollars are at stake if Toyota admitted an impaired use, loss of value, or safety. The safest thing they could do is try to throw a little water on the fire with the new TSB. Are we on this Forum going to let this fire go out??

dla2

Let's assume that the arbitrator is totally neutral and fair. Toyota has a huge advantage due to the fact that they have gone through many arbitrations on this issue. I can tell by Toyotas side of the argument that they have changed the language they use to create a better defense. In my arbitration back in February Toyota was not nearly as articulate. I still lost, however, the regnal Toyota rep told me that some customers had won arbitration on this issue.

wwest

Not to protect the transaxle (as I have thought), but to protect the engine.

Then they must mean protecting the engine from predetonation, knock/pinging.

You think??

Do you suppose there is any way, aftermarket device/design, to prevent the ECU from so leaning out the mixture that it causes engine knock/pinging?

Opening the throttle prematurely while the transaxle is still in an inappropriate high gear would/could result in lugging the engine especially if the ECU is running the mixture on the "cusp", too lean.

05camry33se

As you said, a lot of money, potentially millions, would be at stake were Toyota to admit this defect. I don't think it's a question of us letting this fire go out. It's a question of a global corporate conglomerate versus a small band of customers with very limited resources in comparison. I believe that the only way any meaningful action would be taken is if a lot of money, potentially millions, is at stake if Toyota fails to do so.

In other words, until some people are seriously injured or killed due to this defect, and it is so documented by the NHTSA or a similar organization (appears unlikely) so that those so affected are able to bring successful lawsuits in which significant damages are awarded and unheld on appeal (which would likely take several years or more after the initial damages were awarded at trial), I highly doubt there will be any significant steps taken to fix this defect. Cest la vie...

wwest

The CAFE & CARB rules and regulations are also in play here....

Any real fix, correction, would likely result in an adverse effect on fuel economy and emissions.

Can some one who is really, REALLY encountering this problem do me a favor?

Each night for say a week or ten days disconnect the battery for about 10 or 15 minutes.

The engine/transaxle ECU will be forced to revert to the default factory parameters for fuel mixture and that may eliminate the engine hesitation symptom. At least until the ECU can re-learn just how much it can lean out the mixture before the onset of knocking/pinging and I doubt that one day would be enough.

You don't suppose that's what the dealers do each night so new customers never encounter the symptom??

scoti1

Sorry to repeat myself, but I must reiterate the importance of reporting the problem, if you experience it, to the NHTSA at http://www.nhtsa.gov. The NHTSA is already supposedly investigating this (remember the Auto News article earlier this year?) so I wonder what they are finding thus far. Again, Toyota has their ear should they have any questions during the investigation, so us lowly consumers are at a disadvantage.

Also, if the Center for Autosafety could get behind this, it could help. Their website is http://www.autosafety.org.

user777

and I believe (but could be wrong) that the results of someone else's arbitration is not admissable in your arbitration. it doesn't matter that someone ruled in favor of the complaintant in another arbitration; the information related to that ruling is not admissable. so sorry. more advantage manufacturer.

i do believe however that hooking an OBD-II device which understands the toyota-specific parameters and capturing what the operator is doing (throttle position / request), and what the system is doing in response to the request would be extremely helpful for everyone and provide leverage.

specially if the same scenarios were captured on a vehicle with the problem, and without the problem, we could compare the quantitative data captured and reach some non-refutable conclusions which could be admissible in someone elses arbitration.

i presume there would be an aahhaa/lightbulb moment, and a point of indesputable, objective and quantitative information as a baseline for presenting the problem.

come on shifty - get Edmunds to spring for the $125 interface and software and a round-trip flight to drive the owner's vehicle with the 2second hesitation. get the relevant params in excel format and post them for everyone.

why don't we take up a collection? we can split the cost of the interface 10 or more ways, but Edmunds has to spring for the transportation.

05camry33se

Well, I'd gladly pony up $20 towards the test cost and let my car be the test dummy if someone wants to come to Minneapolis to test it. It'll only take a half a block to the corner with a slow rolling stop and then application of throttle to demonstrate the 2 second delay in response. That's where I've timed it on the two previous occasions.

Since the times I checked the delay previously were a couple weeks apart, and were the same (2 sec.) I highly doubt the delay time has changed at all since. But I'll check it again tonight anyway just to be sure, and post tonight's test result either tonight or tomorrow. If anybody wants to come out, here I am.

Just FYI, I haven't taken any action as far as contacting the dealer about this or anything, since I didn't expect anything would come of it. So, that means my car is untainted by any dealer tweaks, etc., it is as I received it when I bought it from the dealer.

I do think you are right 777 that without the data you outlined, nothing will happen on this, and even on a car by car basis, the chance of prevailing in arb would be low. The part that's too bad is, I don't know if I really want to return the car, so much as just get the problem fixed and keep it. Anyway, I'll post up tonight's results and we'll see...

user777

great. you got the car and 1/6th the cost of the device. i'd toss in another $20. 1/3rd of the way there.

here is a link to the message long ago regarding the reader and the toyota specific parameters:
message link

wwest - would this capture what would be needed?

wwest

.

user777

care to elaborate? i guess i have the honor of being the recipient of your most tersely worded response. is that a good thing or a bad thing?

wwest

Hasn't Toyota just admitted that the hesitation is there by design?

What good would it do to use this OBDII procedure just to prove that what Toyota has now admitted is the truth?

Seems to me that one of the only options left is to somehow prove that the design they now willingly admit to often leads to unsafe operational circumstances.

Good luck there.

Their point is well taken.

If the engine is allowed to develop torque at the level dictated by the gas pedal position while in the upshifted, coastdown, gear ratio then knock/pinging will result. Numerous episodes of this will quickly reduce the engine to a pile of junk.

So the transaxle must be downshifted in order to prevent the engine from "lugging", knocking/pinging, and obviously the engine must be prevented from responding to the gas pedal position until the newly engaged transaxle clutches are firmly and solidly seated.

Grow impatient and depress the gas pedal a little further to try to speed things up, try to get the engine to "catch", and now you can add another second or so to the hesitation.

Remember that my 2001 RX300 doesn't have the hesitation "symptom". But what it does have is a transaxle that will likely fail prematurely due to the fact that the engine does develop high torque simultaneously with transaxle downshifts.

My 2001 RX300 also does not have a knock sensor with enough resolution so that the controlling ECU can fine tune, to the EXTREME, the fuel mixture ratio throughout the engine RPM and loading range.

IMMHO the only possible fix is a "fuel economy vs performance" mode switch so that in performance mode the ECU will hold the transaxle in whatever lower gear it happens to be in when the gas pedal is fully released from a previous position of demanding a fairly high level of engine torque.

Does the EPA and/or CARB get involved if the manufacturer allows the driver the option of degrading fuel economy vs improved performance?

I would think not since some vehicles already have a switch for aggressive AT shift patterns vs not. Maybe if the proposed switch defaulted back into the fuel economy mode upon each and every restart?

wwest

Apparently my 30 minutes expired while I was down at the refrigerator...

user777

err no. your theories are interesting, not sure i follow all of the intricacies. there are cars that are evidently shifting normally, or "more normally" than this persons. let's find out why shall we, rather than rely a bit on speculation.

geesh, i thought you were good for $20 too.

Mr_Shiftright

I would like to drive a "delay car" in the SF Bay Area however. None of my friends cars will do this "thing" for me.

wwest

Hell, I'm good for the entire fee provided someone tries disconnecting their battery 10 nights in a row and still experiences the hesitation

Would shorting out both knock sensors cause the ECU to use the factory default parameter mapping?

user777

ok, well you got to go to the land of the lakes - so will edmunds pay for your transportation, or do we have to have a collection for that as well?

precisely because your friends cars won't do it for you is why it is an experiment which needs to be done. and we need you to do it, because you're going to have to write an edmunds article about it, which can go national, and which will get edmunds a lot of attention and a bigger readership. but more about that later.

now then, we need the data from one car that does (Land o' Lakes1), and one that doesn't (SFBay1) to make things clear to everyone.

have we lost anyone?

wwest is good for the $122 for the ODB-II reader, so now, how much are tickets (not first class) round trip from SF to Minnisota? sorry, you get to bring a bag lunch, and stay at some campground somewhere.

05camry33se

Okay, I fired it up and drove the 1/2 block to the stop sign tonight, slowed down to about 3 mph and turned right as I hit the accelerator and counted "One Miss-". At that point she kicked in. On the 2 previous occasions last summer when I did the same thing, I got to the end of "Two Mississippi" before it kicked in...weird.

I drove over and gave it a wash, drove it on the freeway for about 5 miles to dry it off, and then drove around for about 15 minutes around the back streets. Again, I saw a maximum delay of maybe a couple tenths to maybe half a second tops once or twice, not enough time to generate more than a mild lurch.

Pressing the throttle harder just reduced the response time to almost instantaneous, which appears to run contrary to some theories that have been contemplated here about what is actually happening.

The car was responding very well except for the couple very slight hesitations, which I would not deem a problem at all. All in all, it responded pretty much like I had expected it to back when I bought it to replace my '97 Camry 4.

I've been considering what factors have changed, the only 2 I can come up with is fuel grade (I quit buying premium about a month ago) and air temperature/humidity. It had cooled off to about 60 degrees by the time I got out tonight. That's probably among the coolest temperatures it's been driven in since June, along with low humidity. I'm also wondering if I was driving a little slower tonight than the other times, giving more time prior to accelerating for the tranny to seat in 1st gear.

I think the unpredictability of this thing is a big reason why a solution hasn't been found. It seems there is more than one or two factors that have to add up to cause this.

I still will gladly participate in an attempt to isolate the problem, but based on tonight's results, cannot promise replication of the extreme delay I observed earlier this summer. I was very surprised that it did not recur tonight, but I must say, at bknblk's arbitration Toyota said this car has a 1 second delay designed into it , but I sure couldn't get that to happen tonight either, not even close.

I'll continue to monitor and see if I can find a spot/speed/set of circumstances to be able to replicate the delay at any given time/conditions.

Chris

wwest

that quick application of gas, no previous dithering, then decisive pedal movement from "neutral", to WOT or somewhere nearabouts, eliminated the hesitation.

Am I wrong?

Additionally I have little doubt that the way the ECU has currently, most recently, categorized the driver's driving style plays a key part in this "equation".

05camry33se

Well, I know I advised someone here maybe 4 months ago to try "kicking it down" to avoid the hesitation. That generally works, but of course burns more gas.

The ECU may have learned my typical rolling stop speed as a part of its equation. Like I said, there seem to be multiple factors involved in this, however, I will continue to do what I can to find a reliable way of replicating the excessive delay previously observed.

scoti1

You need to take Toyota to arbitration and say you want your money back because your car is no longer exhibiting the designed-in 1 sec. hesitation and is therefore causing damage to your engine.

bkinblk

I will disconnect my battery (negative terminal) 10 nights in a row for 15 minutes, starting tonight

bkinblk

Now, that's funny

mert2

IMMHO the only possible fix is a "fuel economy vs performance" mode switch so that in performance mode the ECU will hold the transaxle in whatever lower gear it happens to be in when the gas pedal is fully released from a previous position of demanding a fairly high level of engine torque.


I would gladly sacrifice fuel economy.

Too bad this isn't a maxima - they seem to have a large following of people that like to mod their cars.

wwest

Daily reports...???

scoti1

bkinblk, You have done so much, I hate to ask more of you, but would you consider providing your arbitration results to the NHTSA? My guess is that Toyota will try to persuade (or may have already persuaded) NHTSA to drop further investigation of the hesitation problem on the basis of the TSB's that were presumably issued to fix the problem. It would be good for NHTSA to know that Toyota is telling you that there is no fix and that the hesitation is an intentional component of the design to protect the engine. Also, I believe you have stated that you experienced hesitation in excess of the "normal" one second. I would let them know this too.

Thanks.

bkinblk

Should be able to do that

bkinblk

I will do that

bkinblk

Maybe an aftermarket "chip". Possibly, someone can investigate

wwest

If the battery disconnect procedure works we can simply power the engine/transaxle ECU through the ignition switch. You might have to use the diesel startup procedure, don't start until the glow plugs heat or until the ECU completes its initialization.

Or we can come up with a time delay relay that removes the ECU power for 10 minutes when the delayed window up/down power turns off.

sandiegodriver

I'm only able to catch up on the postings here a couple times a week, so I'm a little late replying to the unfortunate news of the arbitration denial. While disappointing, it nevertheless makes me redouble my efforts to get this issue resolved. I am in San Diego, and will gladly hand over one of my Southwest frequent flyer free tickets for Shifty to come down here and study my '05 ES330 if it will help our cause. I am serious about this.

It just disgusts me how Lexus can claim that a 1-second hesitation is part of its intended design. I would NEVER have bought this car if it had exhibited the hesitation/lurch problem when I test drove it. And I specifically told the saleswoman that I wanted a car that took regular gas (she pointed to the Owner's Manual to prove that the car is meant to run on regular). Of course, now Lexus is telling us we should be using higher-octane gas. Yet another untruth in advertising....

One option I haven't seen discussed here is the option of "outing" Lexus by handing out copies of NHTSA documentation/news articles/blog postings/etc. to potential customers at our local Lexus dealerships. I think potential ES330 buyers will be very interested in reading official Lexus statements that the ES transmission features a built-in delay! If I don't get resolution from the folks at Lexus of Kearny Mesa soon, they can look forward to seeing me out in front of their dealership with a stack of their official TSB's one of these weekends.

I assume the Toyota/Lexus corporate suits monitor sites like this, and frankly wouldn't put it past them or any of their dealers to occasionally plant posts that challenge the validity of our experiences. So I'd take some of the nasty postings with a grain of salt. Methinks there are some hidden agendas....

user777

sandiegodriver, do you know anyone with an ES330 that doesn't have the problem? it would be really great if shifty could drive both vehicles and sample/capture the behaviors of both through the obd-ii interface.

sandiegodriver

FYI, I just posted the following on Edmund's '06 Lexus IS message board. We need to inform others that Lexus doesn't stand behind its product:
__________

Will the new IS have the awful engine hesitation problems that the ES and RX have? Be careful buying a new Lexus, folks. Anyone considering buying a Lexus should make sure you know all about the transmission problems a lot of "05 ES and RX owners are experiencing -- not to mention all the b.s. we're getting from Lexus trying to remedy the problems.

The new IS is beautiful, but don't be fooled with all their Lexus=quality hype. Lexus may claim to make a superior product, but they now offer the worst transmission in the auto business.

Go to http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef4cdbd!make=CATS&model=Transmission&ed_make- - index=.ef4cdbd for more info.

sandiegodriver

Funny you should ask, user777. One of the reasons I bought this particular car in the first place was because a colleague at work bought a new '04 ES330 for his wife back in 2004. When I started experiencing the hesitation problem with my car in the spring of this year, I asked him if his wife had ever commented on it. He said no, but that he would ask. Turns out she hadn't noticed anything up to that point, but about two months later she started noticing it. (I assume she noticed it because he brought it to her attention and she was more aware of it, but who knows.) My colleague told me recently that when his wife took the car in for its regular service at Lexus of El Cajon, she mentioned the problem and was told that they could fix it for her for $90! Needless to say, my colleague was outraged and called them back to ask why they were trying to charge his wife to perform what he knew (from me) was a free service bulletin from the manufacturer.

All that to say that, no, unfortunately I no longer know anyone who doesn't have the problem!