I do; his outfit is just a shill for trial lawyers. He has exactly one engineer on his staff, with a bachelor's degree only. We don't know what Kane's degree is in -- try finding his resume.
You shouldn't like him either, given that he's built in the mold of his predecessors like Joan Claybrook, Ralph Nader, and especially Clarence Ditlow (the longtime head of the Center for Auto Safety). :P
Your approach does not seem to be with an open mind. As you consider customer complaints as unimportant.
I never said consumer complaints are unimportant, but they have to be carefully vetted for accuracy, completeness, and veracity. Some complainers are just....well complainers, griping if the radio can't pick up their favorite station when they're in a deep valley. You must carefully analyze all complaints about a particular problem to see if there's some kind of trend or pattern. And you have to do this for every single complaint that comes in. It's a tough job; I wouldn't want to do it.
What I do know is you can't take one or two complaints at face value and say to the world, "See, I just knew there was a software glitch!" That goes for the Woz too.
However, I don't know how anyone could possibly impeach Dr Gilbert. He had a lot to lose by coming forward (namely, free vehicles and 10s of thousands of dollars in Toyota donations). He had much more to lose than he had to gain by his testimony (what Kane paid him was really a pittance vs what Toyota donated).
Ah, but you underestimate the cleverness of man! Follow the money! He undoubtedly will be called as an expert witness by the trial lawyers who contribute to Sean Kane's company and who will sue the pants off Toyota for any future crash that could be blamed on sudden acceleration. Gilbert could stand to make far more, maybe millions, in comparison to a mere professor who happened to have consulted with Toyota. Being an expert witness in high-profile product liability cases is a very lucrative profession.
I am sure you know that I am a big proponent of Tort reform. I just wonder why suing a company like Toyota is less desirable than suing a doctor? Both are out to make a killing on some one else's misery.
I also feel you are dead wrong about Dr. Gilbert. I agree with others that he has more to lose by telling the truth, than he would by being part of the Toyota coverup. And the two cases of failure in Prius Cruise controls was very credible. They were not after any settlement from an accident. Just hoping Toyota would fix whatever is wrong with their electronics.
I just wonder why suing a company like Toyota is less desirable than suing a doctor?
Where did I say or imply that? It's beside the point of this debate anyway.
We can agree to disagree on Gilbert. We can see where he goes after this is over.
And the two cases of failure in Prius Cruise controls was very credible. They were not after any settlement from an accident.
On the face of it, they are credible. Still, we're talking about only 2 complaints.
But what about the other side? What did Toyota really say? We don't know, because we have only the consumers' accounts. If I were NHTSA, I'd want to question the consumers and the dealers. I'd also want to examine and thoroughly inspect the cars. NHTSA does have contractors capable of such vehicle inspections.
I hope you see my point. Scientific inquiry can't be based solely on testimony, however credible, especially from one side only.
I am not being facetious in my following remarks: You'r older than me, so surely you remember the various UFO "sightings" that were commonplace in the late 1950s through the mid 1960s. We even had the Air Force investigating these sightings, so they weren't taken lightly. You may recall that testimony from airplane pilots, military men (and they were all men back then), and police officers were taken to be far more credible than reports from ordinary citizens.
But in the end, all we had was testimony. The photos and "footprints" of alien spacecraft were found for the most part to be readily identifiable fakes. And some people saw things like weather balloons and the bright planet Venus that were mistaken for UFOs.
No scientist today takes these reports at face value, and the Air Force officially closed its investigations by the end of the 60s. (You'd also think today that with everyone having a camera, video recorder, or cellphone, somebody might finally capture a "true" image of one -- hasn't happened of course.)
To officially "force" a recall, the NHTSA has to establish clear evidence of a defect
My understanding is that the NHTSA also won't force a recall unless there is a fix available.
"Not one witness who appeared before the two House Committees this week -- and likely those who will appear before next week's Senate Committee - could definitively say what causes unintended acceleration. Not Transportation Secretary chief Ray LaHood. Not Toyota's top executives. Not outside experts."
Yeah, like the pedal shaving and the pedal shim. A bunch of quasi-fixes.
"Though no smoking circuit has been found so far, a picture is emerging that shows the automobile industry's technology is racing ahead of quality-control testing and regulators. It's troubling not only for Toyota owners but for drivers of any modern car that's basically a computer on wheels."
(The airbag story on page two is interesting - "An automaker who declares bluntly that uncontrolled acceleration cannot be caused by electromagnetic interference because they have fully tested their vehicle is a liar, or naive," he said.)
You don't have to test the "shift to neutral" function in Camries at 120 MPH. It is driver error to let the car accelerate to 120 MPH before shifting it into neutral.
As soon as you encounter UA, you should be shifting into neutral immediately, and even as strong as an ES 350 is, it takes a long time to reach 120 MPH.
Shifting to neutral makes UA about as dangerous as getting a tooth filling done at your local dentist.
So unless your testing your vehicles top speed, you should be able to shift to neutral during UA at speeds closer to 80 MPH at the highest.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Toyota's always had a reputation for reliability, quality, and dependability, and still does to this day.
I do not believe anyone has EVER bought a Toyota for SAFETY reasons. Toyota's never been a leader for safety in any way, and they don't really market their vehicles as such. They've always been middle of the road when it comes to safety.
People buy Toyota's because they routinely go 200,000 miles plus without any problems.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
You guys are assuming that the electronics work and the shift by wire accepts the command. That may not be the fix in every situation. There could be a whisker short in one of the circuit boards that tells the transmission to stay in drive for example.
"Though no smoking circuit has been found so far, a picture is emerging that shows the automobile industry's technology is racing ahead of quality-control testing and regulators. It's troubling not only for Toyota owners but for drivers of any modern car that's basically a computer on wheels."
I think it is time to step back a bit. I don't have a problem with critical safety systems like airbags and stability control being controlled by computers. Stability control in particular would be terribly clunky without electronics. I also think electronic fuel injection, gasoline direct injection, and throttle-by-wire are meaningful advances and we shouldn't turn back the clock.
However, why do we need so much complexity for comfort and convenience items inside the car? I like my '04 Camry, with its simple 3-knob manual climate control, "straight-through" auto tranny shift gate, and old-school CD player.
Then just take a look at the festival of buttons on the center stack of a current Honda Accord. Now step up to a Mercedes E class, with all kinds of user-adjustable settings for everything from the operation of the automatic door locks to the loudness of the warning chimes. And I'm not even going into Bluetooth, SYNC, nav, USB ports, web access, DVD players, massaging seats, and maybe power cup holders. Enough already!
I like the electronics too. Airplanes are getting quadruple redundancy and shielded systems, so maybe that's the way we'll have to head. Not going to help keep the MSRP down though.
Steve....good article. But, the issue here is Toyota, not other manufacturers. If you look at the article (and something I believe strongly in), they do quite a bit of real world testing. Toyota appears to be in a huge hole here because they're in a hurry to get models out the door (their self proclaimed goal of becoming #1).
GM suffered through this for a long period of time, holding that #1 slot. Their reputation was shot for quality and safety was shot....probably from the period of time from the late '60s, early '70s, to probably the mid 2000s. They finally "got it" after almost going defunct. They're re-emphasis on quality with at least some of their vehicles. But, they have seemed to "get the message".
Adres...I don't disagree that people in the past bought Toyota for their reputation for longevity and quality. They've seemed to have wiped that reputation out, pretty emphatically, over a very short period of time....which is a real shame.
You look at how some of the reviewers have thrown darts at the quality of the Camry and Venza, some of Toyota's recent models of those vehicles, and it becomes pretty clear that it's no longer a goal of Toyota to build quality vehicles.
As far as longevity, well.....those who have had issues with UA and braking problems in both Toyota and Lexus vehicles, I doubt they'd be willing to say that they will experience that former longevity. And, THAT reputation will take a very long time to regain. It's not like those problems haven't been public...not with Lentz, Inaba, and Toyoda testifying before Congress, and almost daily bad news in the newspaper and in the newscasts.
I like my '04 Camry, with its simple 3-knob manual climate control, "straight-through" auto tranny shift gate, and old-school CD player.
delray....ain't that the truth. Sometimes I think all car manufacturer's try to outsmart themselves.
I've had this discussion with oh so many people who tell me how wonderful their "push button start" feature is. I never knew it was so much of a trial it was to put the key into the ignition and give it a twist. Instead, now you put the FOB in your pocket and push a button. Or, instead of hitting a button on the key FOB to unlock the doors (or horrors, having to insert the key into the door and twisting), you have to put the key into your pocket, press a button on the door to lock/unlock it.
I'm not seeing that as an advantage. Then again, I learned to drive on a car that had crank windows, a cassette deck to play my own mixes, too. So, maybe I'm the only one who doesn't get it.
You look at how some of the reviewers have thrown darts at the quality of the Camry and Venza, some of Toyota's recent models of those vehicles, and it becomes pretty clear that it's no longer a goal of Toyota to build quality vehicles.
But these are primarily gripes about fit and finish, gloss of the plastics, or softness thereof, not things that matter all that much in terms of long-term durability. My '98 Frontier has a rock-hard dashboard, but it hasn't cracked, faded, or othewise lost its original appearance after nearly 12 years of exposure to the sun, heat, and cold.
If you look at Consumer Reports (I know, I know...) and TrueDelta, it's readily apparent that Toyota products are holding up quite well and are still among the leaders in the industry along with Honda, upstart Hyundai, and to a certain extent Ford.
You guys are assuming that the electronics work and the shift by wire accepts the command.
I am making that assumption based on what I know of the 911 call/tape from the CHP officer in that Lexus in the San Diego area where all this UA talk got riled up.
Since the officer nor the 911 operator ever mentioned trying to put it into neutral (at least in the portions of the tape I've heard on the news), the logical conclusion is that neither of them thought to do so, hence, driver/operator errors.
If shifting doesn't work, then you turn off the car via the ignition/key/button.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Then again, I learned to drive on a car that had crank windows, a cassette deck to play my own mixes, too. So, maybe I'm the only one who doesn't get it.
LOL, I go back a little farther! The car I learned to drive on had crank windows, no a/c, no power steering, no power brakes (with drums on all 4 wheels), an AM radio, and 3-on-the-tree. If you had a tape deck, it would have been an early 8-track. This was a big Chevy also, no twerpy cars in our family at the time! Come to think of it, the car wasn't all that far advanced from the '59 Chevy the IIHS crashed against an '09 Malibu last fall. And talk about poor quality control -- we got one of the UAW's finest "Monday" cars, complete with loose bolt inside the starter motor. :sick:
You guys are assuming that the electronics work and the shift by wire accepts the command. That may not be the fix in every situation. There could be a whisker short in one of the circuit boards that tells the transmission to stay in drive for example.
Exactly Steve! The pro-Toyota posters seem to assume there's always a direct mechanical or electrical (as opposed to electronic) link between the controls and the components. Shifting to neutral doesn't necessarily mean that neutral will be physically accepted, it can just mean that a request is sent for a selection of neutral to be made...big difference. Likewise pushing the stop button doesn't break the ignition circuit, it sends a request to terminate the ignition.
A mechanical or electrical failure is fairly easy to troubleshoot and fix, while an electronic failure, especially if caused by a software conflict, can be be much more difficult.
dleray....as some may argue, with the quality gaps (in some cases, literal gaps) in assembly and materials has fallen in recent years for Toyota, it's just one more "hmmmmmm" moment when thinking...."if they cut corners on careful assembly and materials, where else did they cut corners?"
I think those who had "sludge" complaints might disagree on the longevity issue, too. By the way, Toyota dismissed them out of hand, even blamed their routine maintenance regiment too, until enough people had problems they made a large enough "stink" about it.
I was thinking of doing that to our obnoxious busybody neighbor who always has to stare at us when we pull into the cul-de-sac. She'd probably call 911, but I could always tell the responding officer that my Toyota suddenly accelerated! :P
delray...agreeing with you again.....WOW, twice in one day. What's the world coming to.
Most drivers only know PRD, as you pointed out. I made it a point to teach my son how to drive on a manual tranny. He didn't want to. Now, he says he'll never buy an automatic. Of course, I said the same thing at 16.
Now, the only manual tranny car I'd consider is a Mustang, Porsche, Camaro, Vette.
I've been looking for a new car and have narrowed down my choices to an Infiniti G37 or an Acura TL. I have to say, that the newer sports manumatics in those cars are pretty darn good.
My guess is, anyone with a manual transmission Toyota will never have to worry about UA. Hit the clutch, pull the shifter to the neutral position, problem solved. Engine can race all it wants to. You've manually and mechanically disengaged any gear.
Hmmm...would you be satisfied if Toyota installed one of those drag chutes like dragsters and the space shuttle use? Manual release of course. I can see where they might cause a little havoc but...
This is what I have been saying from the start.....I am glad that you did your own test! How does a car "shoot" from whatever speed you are doing to 100 mph. over coming the weight of a vehicle, the base HP produced by the motor etc..... Let say any of these people were doing around the speed limit....Lets say 70 mph...A car just cant go to 100 mph in a split second. If you or I were driving a car and it started to go faster, the very first thing I would do is apply the brake pedal and then if that did not work......neutral and then shut it off..... They have to be missing something or not getting the whole story? I heard one eye witness account of a ladies vehicle who shot to 100 mph before she knew it....I think she said it was God who finally slowed her vehicle down....Anyways the witness said that the rear tires were smoking....like it was doing a burn out/smoke show? Ummmm it is a front wheel drive vehicle. If it was her parking brake applied, her tires wouldnt smoke, they would just leave a big skid mark.......Something seems fishy here?
Yes, God ultimately slowed her down. She said she had jammed on the parking brake, not that those tiny "drum in top hat" designs are going to be very effective at 100 mph!
I am so glad that someone else had the sense to see that it wasnt Firestone's fault. Not only to blame on Ford...In the few cases were I actually read into what the causes were.....Very high temps and excessive speeds for a sustained period of time. There isnt a truck tire out there that is capable of those conditions. Hell! you would have to get into speed rated tires to take those conditions. I hate to say it but that onus should be on the driver! Yes you can say "they didn't know" but......Its about time that unknowledgable drivers be held accountable. Or at the very least....Learn what their vehicles are capable of what not to do. I mean not only is it illegal, but driving your SUV at 100 mph for an extended period of time in + 100 degree temps......Pretty stupid and unsafe unless you are driving a car designed for the 24 hr at Lemans.
Yes but 100 mph didnt just happen in a millisecond either. I would think that if she applied it when she first noticed and at or around the speed limit, the E brakes (especially the drum in hat) should have locked those brakes up solid!
First of all, here's Ray LaHood's explanation during the hearings of what is actually involved in a "forced" recall, backing up what I had stated earlier:
Even after the NHTSA Administrator issues an order directing a recall, the manufacturer can avoid doing the recall until NHTSA proves its case in court. In such a case, the agency has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a vehicle defect exists and that it creates an unreasonable risk to safety. As a result, recalls occur most quickly when a manufacturer announces the recall without waiting for NHTSA to open and complete an investigation. That is what happened here — because of the pressure NHTSA applied.
That he doesn't seem to intend to "throw the book" at Toyota (or hold their "feet to the fire" as said earlier) is evident here:
The information NHTSA has received from consumers concerning unintended or excessive acceleration in vehicles can be divided into general categories that include: engine surging that lasts only a second or two; unintended acceleration from a stopped position or very low speed that results in quick movement over a short distance and sometimes results in crashing into an object; and events that begin at high speeds because the driver intended to accelerate quickly and continue for a sustained period of many minutes beyond what the driver intended. The possible causes of these events that NHTSA has been able to identify include mechanical problems with the accelerator; obstruction of the accelerator by another object; or human error (pressing the pedal) for the high-speed events that last for many seconds or minutes, the only cause NHTSA has been able to establish thus far is entrapment of the pedal by a floor mat. The only exception to this has [sic] may have been a recent event in New Jersey that apparently did not involve floor mat entrapment but apparently did involve a stuck CTS pedal with one exception, NHTSA has not been able to establish a vehicle-based cause for unintended acceleration events in Toyota vehicles not covered by those two recalls. The exception was a recall of model year 2004 Sienna vans in 2009 due to a defective trim problem that could, if loosened during servicing, entrap the accelerator at full throttle.
Motor Trend tested a recent ES 350. It will go 0-100 in around 16 seconds. That length of time would be considerably less since Ms. Smith was already moving.
delray...well, I think NHTSA already has their preponderance of evidence that a problem exists. Matter of fact, they have first person testimony. Further, they have expert testimony showing how it could indeed happen and not be related to floormats or "sticky pedals".
Causes an unreasonable risk to safety? Well, they have deaths. I think that would qualify.
Yeah, I think NHTSA will come down hard, and the justification to do so.
NHTSA only has evidence of floormat interference and sticky pedals, both of which are being addressed by the ongoing recalls. They have not identified any other cause as yet. The woman's first person testimony means nothing without a thorough inspection of the car.
Deaths -- yes, but we have nothing beyond floormat interference as the probable cause. I know of no deaths attributed to the sticky pedals, which makes sense, as this problem comes on gradually, giving ample warning to the driver that something's wrong.
Remember again that the last time NHTSA came down this hard was in the early 80s with the GM X-cars, but GM prevailed in the subsequent court challenge. GM didn't pay any fines either.
It won't get to that stage with Toyota; I'd bet on it.
Further, they have expert testimony showing how it could indeed happen and not be related to floormats or "sticky pedals"
That is not how I understood the reason for or the result of the test or manipulation. I thought he was trying to prove that IF a UA event occurred it would not necessarily show up in the black box data and/or the computer would not recognize the event.
The way I read Dr Gilbert's testimony involved 3 things...
1) That Toyota's electronics/software design could cause UA. 2) That if it was an issue of electronics and/or software design that it wouldn't show up on Toyota's "black box" 3) Toyota, even though they previously ruled out any possibility of UA being cause by electronics/software with exhaustive research, Gilbert was able to replicate it in both his own personal vehicle, as well as one donated to the school by Toyota.
Bad news mounts...this won't sit well. C4C program viewed as a "conquest" by Toyota...meaning, they believe they can lobby their way for anything they want.
OK. That whole story is just one guys opinion, and apparently he can read minds so he knows people's motives. "Towns said that Toyota entered into hefty settlements with plaintiffs to avoid having to disclose their data base". How about if they were trying to avoid even heftier settlements?
More witch hunt stuff. Companies routinely settle liability cases out-of-court with the documents sealed, and the plaintiffs sworn to secrecy. SOP here, folks. We may not like it (I don't), but our legal system allows it.
On another note, I'd like to see what Biller produces. Then we can decide if he's a kook or not.
Hmmm...would you be satisfied if Toyota installed one of those drag chutes like dragsters and the space shuttle use? Manual release of course. I can see where they might cause a little havoc but...
Or how about an ejector seat and parachute. Might work too, except for those people that released them under bridges or in tunnels. :P
No, the point I was making was that just because the stop button is pressed it doesn't mean the engine will stop because power has then been removed from the ignition system, as it would have been if the vehicle had a conventional ignition switch. It just means a request has been made which 99.999whatever% of the time will be complied with. It's the view people have who assume that the driver is at fault because if they'd hit the stop button then the engine would have stopped that I have trouble with.
Think of it like a TV. You pull the plug from the wall and it will shut down, no question. That's the equivilant of the 'old fashioned' ignition switch. However, when you command it with the remote control to shut down it almost always complies and goes into standby mode. However, the possibility exists that it might not do so, even though that's not been our personal experience. And the possibility also exists that, because of a power surge, static, or a stray infrared or wireless signal, it could also start up again.
I'm usually criticized for being too cynical, but some of the posters here have got me well and truly beat!
That Toyota's electronics/software design could cause UA.
Well he certainly tried very hard to give that impression and probably a lot of people fell for it, but I think the purpose and result of the test was to show that an event could occur and not be recognized by the system.
If you think about it, he probably helped Toyota's case by having to plug some type of electronic gizmo into the system in order to achieve a UA event.
Also please stop double posting while I am busy responding to your first post.
houdini...you know I'm going to post links that back my position, right? You don't actually think I'd post links that back you and 210 delray, do you? :P
Besides, links that back my position are much easier to come by.......
...........................I think the purpose and result of the test was to show that an event could occur and not be recognized by the system.
I do too. I don't think that the fault he introduced which sent the throttle fully open on the engine is necessarily or even likely to be the mysterious electronic problem. What it does show is that, while the vehicle is being driven, the throttle on the engine can be at 100% while the throttle pedal in the footwell is closed or at 0%, and no fault code is registered.
That's what allowed Toyota dealers to be able to say they'd checked it out and found no fault; and I don't criticize them for that unless each dealer was seeing multiple instances of that complaint.
Toyota's problems were caused much further up the chain.
Comments
I do; his outfit is just a shill for trial lawyers. He has exactly one engineer on his staff, with a bachelor's degree only. We don't know what Kane's degree is in -- try finding his resume.
You shouldn't like him either, given that he's built in the mold of his predecessors like Joan Claybrook, Ralph Nader, and especially Clarence Ditlow (the longtime head of the Center for Auto Safety). :P
Your approach does not seem to be with an open mind. As you consider customer complaints as unimportant.
I never said consumer complaints are unimportant, but they have to be carefully vetted for accuracy, completeness, and veracity. Some complainers are just....well complainers, griping if the radio can't pick up their favorite station when they're in a deep valley. You must carefully analyze all complaints about a particular problem to see if there's some kind of trend or pattern. And you have to do this for every single complaint that comes in. It's a tough job; I wouldn't want to do it.
What I do know is you can't take one or two complaints at face value and say to the world, "See, I just knew there was a software glitch!" That goes for the Woz too.
Ah, but you underestimate the cleverness of man! Follow the money! He undoubtedly will be called as an expert witness by the trial lawyers who contribute to Sean Kane's company and who will sue the pants off Toyota for any future crash that could be blamed on sudden acceleration. Gilbert could stand to make far more, maybe millions, in comparison to a mere professor who happened to have consulted with Toyota. Being an expert witness in high-profile product liability cases is a very lucrative profession.
I am sure you know that I am a big proponent of Tort reform. I just wonder why suing a company like Toyota is less desirable than suing a doctor? Both are out to make a killing on some one else's misery.
I also feel you are dead wrong about Dr. Gilbert. I agree with others that he has more to lose by telling the truth, than he would by being part of the Toyota coverup. And the two cases of failure in Prius Cruise controls was very credible. They were not after any settlement from an accident. Just hoping Toyota would fix whatever is wrong with their electronics.
Where did I say or imply that? It's beside the point of this debate anyway.
We can agree to disagree on Gilbert. We can see where he goes after this is over.
And the two cases of failure in Prius Cruise controls was very credible. They were not after any settlement from an accident.
On the face of it, they are credible. Still, we're talking about only 2 complaints.
But what about the other side? What did Toyota really say? We don't know, because we have only the consumers' accounts. If I were NHTSA, I'd want to question the consumers and the dealers. I'd also want to examine and thoroughly inspect the cars. NHTSA does have contractors capable of such vehicle inspections.
I hope you see my point. Scientific inquiry can't be based solely on testimony, however credible, especially from one side only.
I am not being facetious in my following remarks: You'r older than me, so surely you remember the various UFO "sightings" that were commonplace in the late 1950s through the mid 1960s. We even had the Air Force investigating these sightings, so they weren't taken lightly. You may recall that testimony from airplane pilots, military men (and they were all men back then), and police officers were taken to be far more credible than reports from ordinary citizens.
But in the end, all we had was testimony. The photos and "footprints" of alien spacecraft were found for the most part to be readily identifiable fakes. And some people saw things like weather balloons and the bright planet Venus that were mistaken for UFOs.
No scientist today takes these reports at face value, and the Air Force officially closed its investigations by the end of the 60s. (You'd also think today that with everyone having a camera, video recorder, or cellphone, somebody might finally capture a "true" image of one -- hasn't happened of course.)
My understanding is that the NHTSA also won't force a recall unless there is a fix available.
"Not one witness who appeared before the two House Committees this week -- and likely those who will appear before next week's Senate Committee - could definitively say what causes unintended acceleration. Not Transportation Secretary chief Ray LaHood. Not Toyota's top executives. Not outside experts."
Question Congress' Hearings Won't Answer: Are Cars Safe? (AutoObserver)
"Though no smoking circuit has been found so far, a picture is emerging that shows the automobile industry's technology is racing ahead of quality-control testing and regulators. It's troubling not only for Toyota owners but for drivers of any modern car that's basically a computer on wheels."
Toyota crisis puts spotlight on auto electronics (MSNBC)
(The airbag story on page two is interesting - "An automaker who declares bluntly that uncontrolled acceleration cannot be caused by electromagnetic interference because they have fully tested their vehicle is a liar, or naive," he said.)
As soon as you encounter UA, you should be shifting into neutral immediately, and even as strong as an ES 350 is, it takes a long time to reach 120 MPH.
Shifting to neutral makes UA about as dangerous as getting a tooth filling done at your local dentist.
So unless your testing your vehicles top speed, you should be able to shift to neutral during UA at speeds closer to 80 MPH at the highest.
I do not believe anyone has EVER bought a Toyota for SAFETY reasons. Toyota's never been a leader for safety in any way, and they don't really market their vehicles as such. They've always been middle of the road when it comes to safety.
People buy Toyota's because they routinely go 200,000 miles plus without any problems.
I think it is time to step back a bit. I don't have a problem with critical safety systems like airbags and stability control being controlled by computers. Stability control in particular would be terribly clunky without electronics. I also think electronic fuel injection, gasoline direct injection, and throttle-by-wire are meaningful advances and we shouldn't turn back the clock.
However, why do we need so much complexity for comfort and convenience items inside the car? I like my '04 Camry, with its simple 3-knob manual climate control, "straight-through" auto tranny shift gate, and old-school CD player.
Then just take a look at the festival of buttons on the center stack of a current Honda Accord. Now step up to a Mercedes E class, with all kinds of user-adjustable settings for everything from the operation of the automatic door locks to the loudness of the warning chimes. And I'm not even going into Bluetooth, SYNC, nav, USB ports, web access, DVD players, massaging seats, and maybe power cup holders. Enough already!
I do like GPS, but I'll take it in portable form.
GM suffered through this for a long period of time, holding that #1 slot. Their reputation was shot for quality and safety was shot....probably from the period of time from the late '60s, early '70s, to probably the mid 2000s. They finally "got it" after almost going defunct. They're re-emphasis on quality with at least some of their vehicles. But, they have seemed to "get the message".
Adres...I don't disagree that people in the past bought Toyota for their reputation for longevity and quality. They've seemed to have wiped that reputation out, pretty emphatically, over a very short period of time....which is a real shame.
You look at how some of the reviewers have thrown darts at the quality of the Camry and Venza, some of Toyota's recent models of those vehicles, and it becomes pretty clear that it's no longer a goal of Toyota to build quality vehicles.
As far as longevity, well.....those who have had issues with UA and braking problems in both Toyota and Lexus vehicles, I doubt they'd be willing to say that they will experience that former longevity. And, THAT reputation will take a very long time to regain. It's not like those problems haven't been public...not with Lentz, Inaba, and Toyoda testifying before Congress, and almost daily bad news in the newspaper and in the newscasts.
delray....ain't that the truth. Sometimes I think all car manufacturer's try to outsmart themselves.
I've had this discussion with oh so many people who tell me how wonderful their "push button start" feature is. I never knew it was so much of a trial it was to put the key into the ignition and give it a twist. Instead, now you put the FOB in your pocket and push a button. Or, instead of hitting a button on the key FOB to unlock the doors (or horrors, having to insert the key into the door and twisting), you have to put the key into your pocket, press a button on the door to lock/unlock it.
I'm not seeing that as an advantage. Then again, I learned to drive on a car that had crank windows, a cassette deck to play my own mixes, too. So, maybe I'm the only one who doesn't get it.
But these are primarily gripes about fit and finish, gloss of the plastics, or softness thereof, not things that matter all that much in terms of long-term durability. My '98 Frontier has a rock-hard dashboard, but it hasn't cracked, faded, or othewise lost its original appearance after nearly 12 years of exposure to the sun, heat, and cold.
If you look at Consumer Reports (I know, I know...) and TrueDelta, it's readily apparent that Toyota products are holding up quite well and are still among the leaders in the industry along with Honda, upstart Hyundai, and to a certain extent Ford.
I am making that assumption based on what I know of the 911 call/tape from the CHP officer in that Lexus in the San Diego area where all this UA talk got riled up.
Since the officer nor the 911 operator ever mentioned trying to put it into neutral (at least in the portions of the tape I've heard on the news), the logical conclusion is that neither of them thought to do so, hence, driver/operator errors.
If shifting doesn't work, then you turn off the car via the ignition/key/button.
LOL, I go back a little farther! The car I learned to drive on had crank windows, no a/c, no power steering, no power brakes (with drums on all 4 wheels), an AM radio, and 3-on-the-tree. If you had a tape deck, it would have been an early 8-track. This was a big Chevy also, no twerpy cars in our family at the time! Come to think of it, the car wasn't all that far advanced from the '59 Chevy the IIHS crashed against an '09 Malibu last fall. And talk about poor quality control -- we got one of the UAW's finest "Monday" cars, complete with loose bolt inside the starter motor. :sick:
Exactly Steve! The pro-Toyota posters seem to assume there's always a direct mechanical or electrical (as opposed to electronic) link between the controls and the components.
Shifting to neutral doesn't necessarily mean that neutral will be physically accepted, it can just mean that a request is sent for a selection of neutral to be made...big difference.
Likewise pushing the stop button doesn't break the ignition circuit, it sends a request to terminate the ignition.
A mechanical or electrical failure is fairly easy to troubleshoot and fix, while an electronic failure, especially if caused by a software conflict, can be be much more difficult.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I think those who had "sludge" complaints might disagree on the longevity issue, too. By the way, Toyota dismissed them out of hand, even blamed their routine maintenance regiment too, until enough people had problems they made a large enough "stink" about it.
Does anyone know anyone who have not been able to shift into neutral?
Is there any REAL PROOF that anyone has not been able to shift into neutral?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
houdini....you and I think too much alike ( :surprise: ) to disagree on everything. :P
I've never heard of anyone not getting neutral, but I bet most people with auto trannies just know about 3 gear positions: P, R, and D. :sick:
Most drivers only know PRD, as you pointed out. I made it a point to teach my son how to drive on a manual tranny. He didn't want to. Now, he says he'll never buy an automatic. Of course, I said the same thing at 16.
Now, the only manual tranny car I'd consider is a Mustang, Porsche, Camaro, Vette.
I've been looking for a new car and have narrowed down my choices to an Infiniti G37 or an Acura TL. I have to say, that the newer sports manumatics in those cars are pretty darn good.
My guess is, anyone with a manual transmission Toyota will never have to worry about UA. Hit the clutch, pull the shifter to the neutral position, problem solved. Engine can race all it wants to. You've manually and mechanically disengaged any gear.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
How does a car "shoot" from whatever speed you are doing to 100 mph. over coming the weight of a vehicle, the base HP produced by the motor etc.....
Let say any of these people were doing around the speed limit....Lets say 70 mph...A car just cant go to 100 mph in a split second. If you or I were driving a car and it started to go faster, the very first thing I would do is apply the brake pedal and then if that did not work......neutral and then shut it off..... They have to be missing something or not getting the whole story?
I heard one eye witness account of a ladies vehicle who shot to 100 mph before she knew it....I think she said it was God who finally slowed her vehicle down....Anyways the witness said that the rear tires were smoking....like it was doing a burn out/smoke show? Ummmm it is a front wheel drive vehicle.
If it was her parking brake applied, her tires wouldnt smoke, they would just leave a big skid mark.......Something seems fishy here?
Not only to blame on Ford...In the few cases were I actually read into what the causes were.....Very high temps and excessive speeds for a sustained period of time. There isnt a truck tire out there that is capable of those conditions. Hell! you would have to get into speed rated tires to take those conditions.
I hate to say it but that onus should be on the driver! Yes you can say "they didn't know" but......Its about time that unknowledgable drivers be held accountable. Or at the very least....Learn what their vehicles are capable of what not to do.
I mean not only is it illegal, but driving your SUV at 100 mph for an extended period of time in + 100 degree temps......Pretty stupid and unsafe unless you are driving a car designed for the 24 hr at Lemans.
Even after the NHTSA Administrator issues an order directing a recall, the manufacturer can avoid doing the recall until NHTSA proves its case in court. In such a case, the agency has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a vehicle defect exists and that it creates an unreasonable risk to safety. As a result, recalls occur most quickly when a manufacturer announces the recall without waiting for NHTSA to open and complete an investigation. That is what happened here — because of the pressure NHTSA applied.
That he doesn't seem to intend to "throw the book" at Toyota (or hold their "feet to the fire" as said earlier) is evident here:
The information NHTSA has received from consumers concerning unintended or excessive acceleration in vehicles can be divided into general categories that include: engine surging that lasts only a second or two; unintended acceleration from a stopped position or very low speed that results in quick movement over a short distance and sometimes results in crashing into an object; and events that begin at high speeds because the driver intended to accelerate quickly and continue for a sustained period of many minutes beyond what the driver intended. The possible causes of these events that NHTSA has been able to identify include mechanical problems with the accelerator; obstruction of the accelerator by another object; or human error (pressing the pedal) for the high-speed events that last for many seconds or minutes, the only cause NHTSA has been able to establish thus far is entrapment of the pedal by a floor mat. The only exception to this has [sic] may have been a recent event in New Jersey that apparently did not involve floor mat entrapment but apparently did involve a stuck CTS pedal with one exception, NHTSA has not been able to establish a vehicle-based cause for unintended acceleration events in Toyota vehicles not covered by those two recalls. The exception was a recall of model year 2004 Sienna vans in 2009 due to a defective trim problem that could, if loosened during servicing, entrap the accelerator at full throttle.
More here.
Causes an unreasonable risk to safety? Well, they have deaths. I think that would qualify.
Yeah, I think NHTSA will come down hard, and the justification to do so.
Deaths -- yes, but we have nothing beyond floormat interference as the probable cause. I know of no deaths attributed to the sticky pedals, which makes sense, as this problem comes on gradually, giving ample warning to the driver that something's wrong.
Remember again that the last time NHTSA came down this hard was in the early 80s with the GM X-cars, but GM prevailed in the subsequent court challenge. GM didn't pay any fines either.
It won't get to that stage with Toyota; I'd bet on it.
That is not how I understood the reason for or the result of the test or manipulation. I thought he was trying to prove that IF a UA event occurred it would not necessarily show up in the black box data and/or the computer would not recognize the event.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100226/ap_on_bi_ge/us_toyota_recall
The way I read Dr Gilbert's testimony involved 3 things...
1) That Toyota's electronics/software design could cause UA.
2) That if it was an issue of electronics and/or software design that it wouldn't show up on Toyota's "black box"
3) Toyota, even though they previously ruled out any possibility of UA being cause by electronics/software with exhaustive research, Gilbert was able to replicate it in both his own personal vehicle, as well as one donated to the school by Toyota.
Bad news mounts...this won't sit well. C4C program viewed as a "conquest" by Toyota...meaning, they believe they can lobby their way for anything they want.
http://www.freep.com/article/20100226/BUSINESS01/2260434/1322/Toyota-exec-told-o- f-harder-recall-stance
OK. That whole story is just one guys opinion, and apparently he can read minds so he knows people's motives. "Towns said that Toyota entered into hefty settlements with plaintiffs to avoid having to disclose their data base". How about if they were trying to avoid even heftier settlements?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
On another note, I'd like to see what Biller produces. Then we can decide if he's a kook or not.
Or how about an ejector seat and parachute. Might work too, except for those people that released them under bridges or in tunnels. :P
No, the point I was making was that just because the stop button is pressed it doesn't mean the engine will stop because power has then been removed from the ignition system, as it would have been if the vehicle had a conventional ignition switch.
It just means a request has been made which 99.999whatever% of the time will be complied with. It's the view people have who assume that the driver is at fault because if they'd hit the stop button then the engine would have stopped that I have trouble with.
Think of it like a TV. You pull the plug from the wall and it will shut down, no question. That's the equivilant of the 'old fashioned' ignition switch.
However, when you command it with the remote control to shut down it almost always complies and goes into standby mode. However, the possibility exists that it might not do so, even though that's not been our personal experience.
And the possibility also exists that, because of a power surge, static, or a stray infrared or wireless signal, it could also start up again.
I'm usually criticized for being too cynical, but some of the posters here have got me well and truly beat!
Well he certainly tried very hard to give that impression and probably a lot of people fell for it, but I think the purpose and result of the test was to show that an event could occur and not be recognized by the system.
If you think about it, he probably helped Toyota's case by having to plug some type of electronic gizmo into the system in order to achieve a UA event.
Also please stop double posting while I am busy responding to your first post.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
However, at least in my case, when my remote doesn't work it is usually operator error !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Besides, links that back my position are much easier to come by.......
I do too. I don't think that the fault he introduced which sent the throttle fully open on the engine is necessarily or even likely to be the mysterious electronic problem.
What it does show is that, while the vehicle is being driven, the throttle on the engine can be at 100% while the throttle pedal in the footwell is closed or at 0%, and no fault code is registered.
That's what allowed Toyota dealers to be able to say they'd checked it out and found no fault; and I don't criticize them for that unless each dealer was seeing multiple instances of that complaint.
Toyota's problems were caused much further up the chain.
US is pounding Finland in hockey and it's looking like a Canada/US final on Sunday.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460