By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I'm not, no system can defy the laws of physics.
Having said that, in this case the stability control failed completely. It should at least have maintained direction control, even if the speed was too high and the vehicle could not complete the turn (in other words, understeer vs. oversteer).
Congrats. I'm on my 2nd Forester.
Please invite her to join us in the Subaru Crew. I'm a Community Leader there and we've been chatting it up for more than a decade.
Link: http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ee99548/31801#MSG31801
The dozens of lawsuits reviewed by the AP, spanning the past decade, dealt with allegations of vehicle rollovers, faulty air bag deployments, defective transmissions, bad brakes and crashes blamed on sudden acceleration — the issue at the heart of the company's current recall of some 8 million vehicles worldwide. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has linked 52 deaths to accelerator-related crashes.
Tragic for sure, but that number is dwarfed by the 1,800 the CAS says the GM side-saddle gas tanks caused, and those were never fixed:
http://www.autosafety.org/history-gm-side-saddle-gas-tank-defect
I think the sad conclusion to this thread may be that automakers hide and evade, sure, but they basically get away with it. :sick:
Just to clarify...the GX is a "no buy". That's the SUV that skidded.
The GS is the sedan that slots between the ES and LS. The GS currently earns the "Recommended" pick from CR.
Names are similar so I'm sure that was unintentional.
it still is your fault, you took up someone else's space on the road.
you just happened to get there first.
Of course I've been in an accident that wasn't my fault, I live in CA after all.
Negative on just happening to take up space first. If the space if already taken, then it can't be someone else's space to take as it is NOT available for the taking.
Next; we'll see someone like you suing a guy's grandpa for planting a tree 100 years ago when you T-bone into that tree in 2010.
My understanding from listening CNN to CR, other experts, and reading articles stability control system activation delayed too much. And then results in possible spin out. CR had experienced test driver testing this GX SUV.
If the spin out takes rear of vehicle off the road, or hits a side rail or curb, etc.; risk of accident or rollover could be quite high.
The reason an accident would occur is because you drove your SUV way too hot (too fast) into a turn. That is purely 100% driver error.
Solution: Brake before turns appropriately in your high center of gravity SUV's.
ESP/ESC is designed to help you avoid accidents. However, it NEVER causes an accident.
Consumer Reports said they lifted off the throttle, but did not brake. They definitely went in to that curve way too fast. In fact, that's the idea. Intentionally go beyond the limits in order to test how effective the stability control corrects it.
Straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. their own blog says:
All four of our auto engineers who conduct the test experienced the problem in an exercise used to evaluate what’s called lift-off oversteer. In the test, as the vehicle is driven through a turn, the driver quickly lifts his foot off the accelerator pedal to see how the vehicle reacts.
Even still, you'd expect the stability control to do the correction sooner and more effectively. They also wrote:
When pushed to its limits on our track’s handling course, the rear of the GX we bought slid out until the vehicle was almost sideways before the electronic stability control system was able to regain control.
Sounds like it worked, eventually, but allowed more oversteer than most people would be comfortable with.
I don't want to speculate, but I read in another forum that the tester they use is a competitive drifter, so he'd know how to force a vehicle sideways. Another of the CR testers had a Viper as a daily driver. So these are not simple tests, they really push the cars and trucks to and beyond the limits.
However, it exist for one reason - to correct driver error and get a vehicle back under control.
As CR stated the GX was "almost sideways before the electronic stability control system was able to regain control". Basically I interpret that as the VSC failing at its core mission.
What puzzles me is my Sienna's VSC is hyper-active and intrudes WAAAAAY to soon, WAAAAY too much. Thankfully there is an Off button.
The GX is taller so if anything it should have the more aggressive program.
On the 2010 "no buy", your CNN report said the 4Runner passed the test. They are supposedly the same platform. So where did Lexus screw up? Other than making them uglier than the 4Runner.
Test drivers pushing these SUVs is good - I personally feel. But yes, vehicle was being pushed going into that curve. I have noticed some SUV drivers do this. Have seen this here in Marin.
I would assume test is not rigged though. CR would have too much to lose. And CR did say none of the other 95 SUVs in their rating system spin out as far as this GX SUV.
Saw your wife got a new Forrester. How does she like vehicle? Almost got one two year ago, but cargo area was too small. I have to carry two large wire dog kennels. Trying to get good gas mileage, plus the adequate floor dimensions cargo area, etc. left me with only 3-4 to choose from.
Now we wait to see what Toyota does.
that test does point out one thing i don't like about stability control systems.
it can get implemented to cover up bad handling or overpowered chassis designs.
maybe that Gilbert guy hacked it without leaving a code. :surprise:
I sat in one at the auto show, it's definitely like sitting on top of a throne, way up there.
Breaking news from NBC4 television in Washington - Toyota will actually stop selling the GX until this is addressed.
I think that's a step in the right direction.
I told you Consumer Reports was powerful...
The GX was basically hauling asphalt and then forced to make a decreasing radius right turn at high speed.
Basically they simulated a worst-case scenario (as they should).
Wifey positively loves her Forester. I'm not even allowed to mention trading it in, she gets upset.
Definitely no brake lights, so no braking at all.
They basically took a turn at too high a speed to see how the stability control would deal with it.
It eventually regains control, but there is a notable lag.
Now that's the kind of proactive move they should have made with the runaway acceleration symptoms.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Re: Forester - great to hear. We have a dealership up here in San Rafael. See alot of them here in Mill Valley. Susposed to be a fun and great handling car. Nice to hear such a good owner satisfaction review.
So you saw the test drive video on TV. Yes, test driver was pushing the GX to take that curve. And as a possible worst case scenario.
So you read my CNN article I posted this am. The 4Runner did pass this test. And pllatform is similar. Also 4Runner system is also new 2010 too, same as Lexus GX.
Since Toyota stopped sales this afternoon, seems problem was recognized. Now we all wait to see what happens next. Finally was nice to hear of the temp stop sale, and agreement to provide loaners for those people owning 2010 Lexus GX.
got to work on your driving awareness skills.
300k out of a neon engine what do they know that you don't?
my guess, probably average stuff.
so why don't you own a toyota?
I bought a new '08 Toyota 4Runner in November of 2008. The vehicle was built in Japan in August of '08 when the dollar was fetching 128 yen. By the time I actually bought the vehicle, the yen had fallen to under 120 yen, and from there it headed south fast.
In the past week the dollar has climbed back up above 93 yen, but for most of 2009 it was below 100 yen. There were times in 2009 when it was even below 90 yen.
When the new 2010 4Runner came out (and it's cousin the Lexus GX 460), it was obvious what was going on. I didn't look at the GX, but I did look at the 4Runner and was disappointed at how much it had been decontented. It wasn't surprising, though, since the value of the 2010, at least in terms of currency exchange, was about 30% less than the 2008.
If you're a Toyota bean counter, I wonder if you're thinking some things just have to give.
Seems Toyota paid a visit to University of Southern Illinois Administrators regarding Auto Technology Department, Dr Gilbert got his keys taken away, was ordered to stop any further research, instructed he had to go and be present at Toyota's Webcast dispproving his research, Toyota pulled two advisers off University committee/board. At Toyota Webcast TV demonstration Dr Gilbet was kept in background & never even got to examine how testing was actually conducted.
I am personally disappointed at Toyota and Exponent's "smash the bug" approach and making Dr Gilbert be present to just embarrass him it appears. But I had predicted in earlier posts this would occur, and looks like pressure on University from Toyota had already occurred. Was sort of expected.
Rember Dr Gilbert started his research all on his own. And Dr Gilbert got paid hardly anything to finish preliminary research - was $4,000 for needed equipment which would then be given to school, $150 per hour, and $1800. This was in all aspects "peanuts pay." University had approved of the research. Toyota had a chance to hire Dr Gilbert, but they didn't want to talk with him or pursue. NHTSA never even called Dr Gilbert back. And Sean Kane did call him back, and hired him.
News report estimates Exponent gets $1,000,000+ payment from Toyota.
Dr Gilbert is the most unbiased. He is only a University professor. Exponent is definitely corporate biased and is a for hire defensive litigation firm. Yet Toyota claims Dr Gilbert's test is biased at hearing because they claim Gilbert was hired by firm hired by attorneys. H-mmmm Toyota what about your hired firm Exponent? Exponent is defensive litigation firm.
Also Toyota has put pressure on the newspapers too. Toyota sent around a survey about Sean Kane, Dr Gilbert, ABC etc. Special point was made to degrade these individuals/newspaper. Center for Auto Safety was attacked by Toyota as well with claims they were backed by attorneys, etc. But Center for Auto Safety is a nonprofit, and they state no backing from attorneys. Not for sure if true or not. Haven't verified.
Seems Toyota is in attack mode. Sorry for my rant. Exponent is a very "open wound" with me. This firm that knowingly provides false literature/research that can/could detrimentally affect people's health if they are successful, gets no respect from me. I expect no more from them in any engineering reports they provide to support Toyota. Some corporations love this firm to play dirty crooked hard ball. Drug companies love this firm and others like them. And Exponent is quite good at getting away with all legally.
Read this link.
http://www.safetyresearch.net/2010/04/13/you-don%e2%80%99t-tug-on-superman%e2%80- %99s-cape/
You are absolutely correct. Dr. Gilbert owns a new Toyota Tundra. The reports of UA got him interested in testing. He offered his expertise to Toyota FIRST. They were not interested in fixing their DBW systems and his concern for safety was the driving force going to ABC and that is where Sean Kane saw the potential. Toyota Exponent did not prove Gilbert wrong with their so called engineer. They just tried to deflect from the truth. Something Toyota has done for a long time. Dr. Gilbert's point from the start was you can have runaway acceleration and no trouble code is generated. That means joe blow comes in with his UA Avalon and the Tech says, everything tests out good. That is until someone risked life and limb at the Toyota dealers request to bring in a case of UA. All they did is replace a bunch of parts and send him on his way.
My question is what part failed that time?
These actions are bound to infuriate judges; and this is the last thing you wanted to do.
The mainstream media’s big story of the day is Toyota’s “sticky pedal” strategy in the courtrooms across the land. And it has little or nothing to do with actual gas pedals, and everything to do with stalling in producing the court ordered company documents that could show known deficiencies in product design and safety. AP analyzed lawsuits covering a range of complaints, and in response to requests for company documents, Toyota has consistently claimed it does not have them, or simply ignored court orders to produce the documents. The pattern being uncovered supports the claims made by Dimitros Biller, a former Toyota attorney who sued (and settled) with Toyota after contending that the company deliberately withheld evidence in older rollover cases.
A typical and fairly recent example from 2005:
In a Colorado product liability lawsuit filed by a man whose young daughter was killed in a 4Runner rollover crash, Toyota withheld documents about internal roof strength tests despite a federal judge’s order that such information be produced, according to court records. The attorneys for Jon Kurylowicz now say such documents might have changed the outcome of the case, which ended in a 2005 jury verdict for Toyota. “Mr. Kurylowicz went to trial without having been given all the relevant evidence and all the evidence the court ordered Toyota to produce,” attorney Stuart Ollanik wrote in a new federal lawsuit accusing Toyota of fraud in the earlier case. “The Kurylowicz trial was not a fair trial.”
It’s not that the other automotive manufacturers all roll over in court exactly, but Toyota’s reputation among the legal profession is solidly established. “Automobile manufacturers, in my practice, have been the toughest to deal with when it comes to sharing information, but Toyota has no peer,” said attorney Ernest Cannon, who represented the family of 35-year-old Lisa Evans, who died in 2002 in the Houston suburb of Sugar Land.
AP’s review of cases turns up numerous and repeated actions by Toyota that can best be described as evasive, and deceptive. Objecting to turning over documents is one thing; but claiming that the documents don’t exist is another.
Toyota hid the existence of its roof strength tests in numerous cases. A new potential class-action lawsuit filed in California on behalf of two women left paralyzed by separate Toyota rollover crashes contends that recently uncovered company documents contradict sworn testimony by Toyota officials that the company had no written standard for how far vehicle roofs could be crushed. The long-hidden documents indicate Toyota did have such a standard: roofs could come no closer than a half-millimeter from test dummies’ heads in a rollover crash.
“This type of conduct by the Toyota defendants is illegal, immoral and unprofessional,” said attorney E. Todd Tracy in a similar recent lawsuit accusing Toyota of fraud in older cases. “The Toyota defendants’ cloak and dagger games must be terminated.”
One of the key advantages Toyota uses is the Pacific Ocean: company headquarters in Japan are distant, remote and not readily accessible through legal actions:
Said Graham Esdale, a lawyer in Montgomery, Ala., who has sued Toyota. “If Ford or General Motors tells you something and you don’t believe that it’s right, you can get a court order to go get access to the documents instead of relying on them. We can just go there and start poring through documents. We don’t have that with the Japanese manufacturers.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36391413/ns/business-autos/
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Dr Gilbert always claimed his preliminary research findings were only a good starting point for understanding/finding cause of UA/SUA.
Toyota's attack was to be expected, but was in disbelief and shocked they actually actually went to University , with attorneys who got a legal deposition from Dr Gilbert. Dr.Gilbert only commented on facts that were in his documents and testimony provided at the hearing. He was a very wise man. To me - Toyota's extreme forceful strong arm tactics were totally uncalled for. The more appropriate action would have been to just work with Dr Gilbert amiably. They ignored him initially, but could have changed showing ovcersight committee they would really work with him. Toyota would have gained more respect. What Toyota said at hearings and what they actually did is just the opposite.
But Toyota has high stakes to try to keep info quiet and secret. Lots of lawsuits are laying in wait with substantial amounts of money to be lost..
Seems like Dr Gilbert has been muzzled by Toyota. And only because he works for University of Southern Illinois, and University Auto Technology Department depends upon financial assistance from Toyota. I had posted few days ago I expected this. And today I found out it has already happened.
As for Dr Gilbert's findings - I don't think Dr Gilbert fully knows where further research will take him. Think he even testified to this fact. But his findings were an excellent start. As his thank you from the oversight committee indicated, they received good reviews from independent engineers regarding his study.
And then there is University of Southern Illinois - they approved ot Dr Gilberts research. Administrators would have been aware of possible retaliation. University legal department said Dr Gilbert didn't do anything wrong. University comments following Toyota's actions appeared to just be a PR announcement to only appease Toyota.
I doubt if we will ever hear more from Dr Gilbert. Toyota used their influence with University to muzzle him.
The Forester OEM tires are rated 5th from top rated tire. Compared to the Camry Hybrid OEM tires rated 26th from top rated tires. These are Tire Rack rating.
That was my point.
Don't feel alone here. The OEM tires on my top of the line Sequoia Limited 4X4 are rated absolute last by Tire Rack. That is out of 49 tires in that OEM size. The Dunlop Grandtrek AT20s got a 5.1 review rating. They are nearly worn out at 21k miles. Rotated religiously every 5k miles.
By comparison. The VW Passat I owned came with Michelin Primacy MXVA tires that carry a 8.5 rating. They are near the top of 159 choices.
This is just one area that Toyota has gone down hill with their vehicles over the last few years. Putting junky tires on a $51k vehicle is not acceptable.
Agreed.
Let's not give them TOO much credit, though, because they know they are being watched, so it's not like this is routine behavior.
As Sharon mentioned, they're a partial shareholder, but I wouldn't say they control Subaru.
Toyota wanted plant capacity, and now builds the Camry on a 2nd assembly line at Subaru's SIA plant in Indiana (they used to build Isuzus there).
Also, Toyota will use a Subaru platform for the upcoming RWD FT-86 coupe.
They're not really sharing many parts yet, it's mostly a partnership. To be honest I think Subaru could benefit from certain Toyota suppliers, for things like HVAC, stereo/entertainment, etc. Subaru is too small to get economies of scale on those. That's why the Forester doesn't offer a backup cam in any model, yet the Highlander Sport and Sienna LE offer that standard.
Hopefully not throttle pedals. :P
That plus pressures from HQ to maintain quality standards, though, is what caused the deny/stall tactics that ended up biting them.
Toyota grew too fast. They could not maintain former levels of quality at the larger scale.
His test result, although he was TRYING to help solve the problem, CANNOT HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD.
Give him credit for trying to help, but don't canonize him quite yet.
Nope, Bridgestone Desert Duelers on models with 16" wheels, Yokohamas on the 17"s.
Our 2002 Legacy had Blow-tenzas but I replaced them with Falkens as soon as I could.
It's something they did not code for, and did not test for in the R&D phase for the hardware. That's why it has been so hard to find.
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2010-lexus-gx-460-13.htm
4Runner vs. Lexus GX
Height: 70.1" 72.6"
Tread width: 63.2" 62.4"
Tread width for both is listed as the same front and rear.
That means the Lexus is an inch and a half taller, yet the width at the tires is nearly an inch more narrow.
That explains why the 4Runner performed that test just fine, and the Lexus lost control. It's more narrow AND taller.
I expected it to be taller, but 0.8" less width in the track surprised me.
Toyota suspended sales of the Lexus 460. What about those customers that are driving them now ? They won't get away with a carpet caused it.
Oh this is is good.
I agree with that point.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
If speed is reasonable then it is total failure of ESC system.
Krzys
PS Seeing the height and track differences between Lexus and Toyota I wonder if they recalibrated ESC or just assumed that it will work with almost identical vehicle.
And rightfully so. They are the BIBLE of the automotive world, and I believe they've earned that reputation through years of impeccably honest, truthful, straighforward observations and tests. Years and years of loyalty and credibility were built with those who chose to pay attention and not stick their head in the sands.
I think GM & Chrysler stuck their head in the sands with regards to CR, and that led them swiftly to bankruptcy. I think Toyota is wise not to repeat those mistakes and take CR seriously. I'd believe CR employees with a gun to their head over any auto manufacturer.
They keep pushing until the limits are exceeded, but how fast were they going? Is that even a reasonable speed to try to take a turn in a tall SUV?
That was a while ago, but I recall Suzuki putting a video up on YouTube where CR tried to get the Samurai to roll repeatedly before it actually did. I think it was something like 17 times (Edit: it was actually 37!). They test other cars only once or twice, so Suzuki fought them in court using that argument. In the video you also heard CR staff screaming and cheering when the Samurai tipped over, as if they won the lottery.
In the end the court made CR withdraw 3 statements, something like that, but they were not fined, and both sides claimed victory.
CR is selling magazines, and a scandal like rollovers sells a ton of magazines.
Having said that, this case is different.
First, the Samurai actually tipped. IIRC the Isuzu Trooper did as well.
The Lexus GX did NOT tip, instead it slid out.
Still a concern, for certain, but this definitely gives Toyota an opportunity to address the issue and avoid the catastophic backlash that bankrupt Isuzu and nearly killed Suzuki as well.
But at Edmunds, one of the world’s most respected auto-industry watchers, nobody worries about Toyotas in the company fleet. Peter Steinlauf, the company chairman, still drives a Prius.
I didn't like the part where they attributed SUA accidents to elderly drivers and then mentioned the 56 year old woman who crashed her Prius into a wall. (I'm 57, and while I did trip over my lawnmower in the dark last night taking the hot tub cover off, that was just a rare anomaly. :P ).
Mark Saylor, the trooper in the Lexus, was 45.
my guess, probably average stuff.
so why don't you own a toyota?
They probably enjoy draining their life savings into a vehicle that is uncomfortable, guzzles gas, is slow, rattles like crazy, and will kill them in an accident. Since I've maintained and taken care of all my cars equally, I'm a good test subject example of how import cars are vastly superior to the domestics. What I do know is dollars and sense, maybe not what you consider "average" stuff.
This is all from personal experience (oil changes every 3 to 5K miles, auto tranny fluid changes every 15 to 30K, well maintained, cleaned/washed regularly):
DODGE:
First 65,000 Miles will cost you $5,000 + in repair and tow truck costs. Virtually worthless at resale. Loss of use every 3 or 4 months while sits in shop (potential rental car costs +++ $$$)
HONDA
First 65,000 Miles will cost you $0.00 in repair and tow truck fees. Resale value at 50 months with 65,000 miles is 53% of out the door original cost.
Audi
Can only speak to the first 62,000 miles so I'm jumping the gun a tad. $685 in repair and tow truck fee costs. Car still looks and runs like new, no rattles, no squeaks. Tremendously fast and fun, and still gets 30 MPG Highway.
You don't have to be a professional accountant to know that Honda & Audi are good choices, and Chrysler is evil, bad, and Satanic. :sick:
I don't own a Toyota because they don't make anything fun to drive since the Celica and Supra (though the RAV 4 V6 Sport comes close). Honda is just as good as Toyota reliability wise; along with the BEST resale values.
Audi has taken over where BMW fell off a cliff in recent years.