Toyota on the mend?

jimbres

Makes sense.

ateixeira

There's a sharp turn, so no way no how was it driver inattention.

I wonder if the autopsy can determine if he was conscious when the collision occured? German crash investigators are among the world's best.

There were no skid marks, so it didn't slide wide.

ateixeira

Crash pic for people to get an idea of the severity of the crash:



The maroon car used to be a BMW 3 series. Both cars were toast.

ateixeira

Naruse' passing puts the rumored MR2 in jeopardy, too.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/24/rumormill-again-toyota-working-on-mr2-supra-s- uccessor/

Though that's not really a true MR2 successor, more of a CR-Z competitor (1.5 liters, hybrid).

fintail

These days it's 1.5l, hybrid, 3450 lbs :shades:

gagrice

Let's hope they scrap that one. It is butt ugly. I would not think the loss of a test driver would make any difference on what they build.

ateixeira

So true...those batteries weigh a ton.

I'd still love to see a CR-Z that is NOT a hybrid. Give it the 140hp engine from the Civic LX and keep the price down, you'd have a modern CR-X.

Honda says it'll be sporty but it's carrying around that boat anchor of a battery pack. Imagine the same car 800 lbs lighter.

Gary: hybrids with odd-ball styling have actually done better. The buyer wants to stand out. Prius has been killing the HCH.

I'm not sure if the MR2 would do well, though. I doubt it would be much cheaper than the Prius, and like fintail said hybrids are too heavy to truly appeal to the enthusiast.

I'd prefer to see the Aygo sold here to compete with Smart ForTwo.

xlu

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Toyota Motor Co is recalling and temporarily halting sales of its 2010 Lexus HS250h gasoline-electric hybrid due to a potential fuel leak problem, the company said on Friday.

More recalls

imidazol97

Toyota's test DIDN'T find their deficiency in fuel containment!!!!!

"...it is notable because it was ordered by NHTSA after the regulator spotted a defect that Toyota did not find in its own testing."

They are currently running ads on TV about how dedicated they are to safety and how they are spending a million dollars (or yen?) an hour on safety!!!

tbone_rare

We're spending a million dollars per hour to make sure our vehicles are safe. We made billions of dollars in profit recently. Sorry we killed some of you.....we promise to do better now that we've been busted on safety issues. We promise we won't lie again when we appear before Congress. Toyota quality??? Just like every other manufacturer.....they screw up too!

busiris

iPhone 4 drops calls due to interference by the operator's hand.

The company line: You're holding the phone the wrong way!

Lexus hybrid leaks too much gas and fails in fuel containment.

The company line: You're putting gas in the wrong way!.

iluvmysephia1

that doesn't seem ta apply ta this particular Honda.

Gary: hybrids with odd-ball styling have actually done better. The buyer wants to stand out. Prius has been killing the HCH.

Honda's Insight didn't sell well and it was a butt-ugly hybrid, huh? The Prius is improving but still falls into the same category overall.

Don't tell me Honda's only making a new CR-Z with a hybrid drivetrain? Might as well send the Sonics back to Seattle, then, too. I mean the Thunder. Arggh!

ateixeira

Insight failed because it was a weak attempt. Mild hybrid and not a very good one at that. Styling didn't help or hurt it, really.

CR has a love affair with Honda and even they crucified it, rating it surprisingly low. They rate the Prius very highly.

The Prius puts function over form and became the poster child for hybrids, which helped Toyota a great amount.

ateixeira

It was easy to understand Naruse's sway. Within Toyota, he loomed as an Obi-Wan Kenobi figure commanding cultlike reverence

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100628/OEM02/306289955/-1#i- xzz0s9hkyEpQ

ateixeira

Toyota's test DIDN'T find their deficiency in fuel containment!!!!!

That is misleading. Here's the full story:

Toyota said the action was taken due to a fuel leak found after a government-sponsored crash test. The cause is under investigation. Toyota said there was no leak following its own crash test.

So Toyota conducted crash tests and no leaks occurred. Sounds like NHTSA observed a leak, likely after the US NCAP tests, I'm guessing.

You make it sound like Toyota didn't notice a leak. No leak happened in those circumstances, so of course none was observed.

US NCAP is different than Euro NCAP which is different than crash tests in Australia and so on. I remember when the 2005 Legacy came out it earned the best rating in Australian side impacts but did poorly in the US NCAP, so Subaru redesigned the side air bags for 2006 Legacys.

It's impossible to duplicate NHTSA's test and that's why we're very likely to see the HS250H re-tested once a fix is applied. Toyota foots the bills for that car, by the way, NHTSA buys only the first car tested. The manufacturer has to pay for the 2nd car if they want a re-test.

gagrice

I think the NHTSA has been lax allowing the automakers to test and pass on their results. Look for more failures being exposed as this whole mess with Toyota has been a wake-up call for the agencies.

ateixeira

I don't think they do that...the EPA is the one that allows that.

Fuel economy tests are conducted by the automakers, using EPA guidelines, but by the automakers themselves. EPA will check only if they suspect foul play.

NHTSA buys a car and tests it themselves, but only once.

When an automaker wants a "mulligan", let's call it, they pay for the 2nd car if they want the test re-done and new results published.

Toyota will surely do that. They will apply their fix, supply a 2nd car to NHTSA (Toyota footing the bill this time), and that car gets re-tested.

Look for more failures being exposed as this whole mess with Toyota has been a wake-up call for the agencies.

Agreed 100%, great for the consumer.

anythngbutgm

link title

ateixeira

So much for xlu's forecast: "the beginning of the end".

busiris

I think the NHTSA has been lax allowing the automakers to test and pass on their results. Look for more failures being exposed as this whole mess with Toyota has been a wake-up call for the agencies.

I agree. IMO, its just another example of self-regulation not working in the real world. The logic of "a company would never do anything to harm its customers" plainly doesn't apply in today's market.

So, something like the Toyota UA episode may wind up having a positive effect, after all.

ateixeira

Generally I agree, but NHTSA conducts the NCAP crash tests, not Toyota.

gagrice

Do they test on each new model or just the platform when it first comes out? There are a lot of models that have no crash test results by anyone. For instance the Sequoia from 2001 till now. Same for the Land Cruisers. Of course I realize that the big SUVs are about as safe as personal transportation ever gets. Except the new Lexus GX460. Its a pig anyway. Just a 4runner with too much pork attached.

tlong

Of course I realize that the big SUVs are about as safe as personal transportation ever gets.

...unless you need to take evasive action -- then they like to roll over.

gagrice

Just one of many advantages of being up high. You see impending problems long before they force evasive action. Most rollovers are a result of driving too fast for conditions or just careless driving. The Sequoia is rated higher than any sedan by the IIHS for personal injury protection. I do not buy a vehicle to protect the eco-nut in a Yugo. I want a vehicle that protects me from all the crazies on the road.

tlong

Just one of many advantages of being up high. You see impending problems long before they force evasive action. Most rollovers are a result of driving too fast for conditions or just careless driving. The Sequoia is rated higher than any sedan by the IIHS for personal injury protection. I do not buy a vehicle to protect the eco-nut in a Yugo. I want a vehicle that protects me from all the crazies on the road.

Just sayin'. A business associate and her husband rolled a two-week old Land Rover after avoiding a car cutting in front of them on the freeway. And my brother's friend watched a mom die in an SUV rollover in Minnesota.

I believe that statistically, large cars (lemko?) are safer overall than SUVs.

gagrice

I believe that statistically, large cars (lemko?) are safer overall than SUVs.

Big Buicks and Mercury are the best rated sedans. Still not close to large luxury SUVs. It is an old old ongoing battle here on Edmund's. The anti SUV thinking vs those like myself that like them. Both sides from a very selfish viewpoint. The small car aficionado is afraid of getting hit by a big SUV or PU and the SUV driver wants as much protection as is possible. And the gas hog element gets tossed in to try and put a guilt trip on those that do not consider the cost of fuel more important than their life.

A few years back my wife's stepson rolled her 911, supposedly to avoid an accident. Driving too fast for the conditions. Not paying attention to what is going on 20 cars in front of you. Any vehicle can be rolled. With or without all the fancy electronic avoidance equipment. I just don't like sedans for a myriad of reasons. All good ones in my mind. Some people just don't like SUVs and PU trucks. Not sure how much longer we will have a choice in this country.

jimbres

I believe that statistically, large cars (lemko?) are safer overall than SUVs.

I think you're right. I've read that the geeks who run the side impact tests at the IIHS drive big sedans.

Large body-on-frame SUVs are fine if you're aiming to hit another vehicle but not so good if your plans for the day call for a collision with something that doesn't move, like a bridge abutment or a phone pole. Also, the big SUVs don't handle or brake as well as the better big sedans.

ateixeira

Do they test on each new model or just the platform when it first comes out?

I believe they usually test competitors in one class when a bunch of new models come out. That way they can be compared to each other. I don't think the Miata has been tested, for instance (I verified - it hasn't). Not a volume seller, plus few competitors.

From safecar.gov:

The safety ratings are gathered during controlled crash and rollover tests conducted at NHTSA’s research facilities

So they do conduct the tests at their own facility (not on an automaker's home turf, which could be rigged).

To be honest I'm not a fan of NCAP tests - they're too easy. Everyone gets 5 stars. IIHS tests are done at higher speeds with more energy to absorb, plus the barrier is offset, which is more likely in real life.

Strange things do happen, though. When they tested the last CR-V in a side impact, the SUV rolled over on its side. Same for the previous generation Ford Escape. Ironically, Ford and Honda did nothing. They just said the test wasn't supposed to measure likelihood of rollovers. NCAP results has an asterix by both models until they were redesigned.

Toyota had a gas leak, but they're fixing it. I wonder if that's voluntary or required? Surely they would have done it anyway to mitigate the bad press.

busiris

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/06/30/leaked.apple.docs.mashable/index.html?- hpt=T2

From the report...

According to documents leaked to Boy Genius Report today, AppleCare representatives are being given a strong company line to deliver to unhappy iPhone 4 owners who complain about reception issues.

Employees are told to say that the device's reception performance "is the best we have ever shipped" and that its critical antenna flaws are "a fact of life in the wireless world." They are told not to perform service on iPhones with these problems and instead to give customers a PR-driven recitative instead.

In a nutshell, Apple knows the phone has problems but will insist that users are simply "holding it wrong."

These statements are dead ringers for CEO Steve Jobs' own assertions that the iPhone 4 antenna and reception issues do not, in fact, exist. "There is no reception issue," he told one user. But the very fact that this document exists suggests that Apple execs know there is indeed a widespread hardware flaw, even if they're unwilling to address it publicly at this time.

Seems that all companies have their own "spin" departments nowadays...

ateixeira

Absolutely.

The only reason automakers will build a safer car is when consumers demand it enough that it would increase sales, and therefore profit. They usually fight mandatory regulation tooth-and-nail, until they are 100% sure consumers are willing to pay for it and their sales won't be adversely affected.

Let's face it, these are FOR PROFIT companies. Their one and only goal is to build shareholder value.

They don't make improvements out of the goodness of their hearts. If they can cut 3 cents per unit by making something cheaper and they think consumers will not notice, they will do it. In many cases, they'll do it even when they know consumers will notice, but the PR campaign will cost less than they saved (see Apple, above).

Same with "going green". Companies only started doing this when they had to and/or when their consumers demanded it. Fortunately being less wasteful often does create savings, so at least that often works.

The Apple case is funny, but you can find examples for everyone. Toyota is squeezing the last few pennies out of suppliers and therefore quality has dropped (CTS pedals anyone?). GM made side saddle gas tanks that would blow up, but they were barely legal and that's good enough, sue Dateline and hire a good PR consultant to spin it. Ford and Honda had sport utilities roll over in a NHSTA test but who cares? It wasn't supposed to show a propensity for rollovers, never mind that it DID show a propensity for rollovers. Quick, toss in a fancy marketing name for a stability control system and make it standard next year and pretend it never happened.

Toyota is no different, or no better, if you want to put it that way. They're just under the spotlight, so a bad NCAP result means they will fix it now.

Not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because some beancounter probably did the math and found that the lost sales would cost them more then applying a fix to those fuel tanks.

And that's the truth. :lemon:

busiris

And that's the truth.

Yes, it is.

Its ironic that the "gold standard" for company behavior was due in response to a problem totally beyond the company's control (Tylenol recall - 1982).

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/23/your-money/23iht-mjj_ed3_.html

From the link...

"Companies often fiddle while Rome burns."

roho1

More Corporate "spin", outright disgusting.

Papers used in a court case against Dell Computer have revealed that the PC maker sold millions of computers with parts it knew were faulty. According to the New York Times, the 'OptiPlex' PCs in question were sold between 2003 and 2005, most of them going to schools, major corporations like Wal-Mart or Wells Fargo, and well-known groups like the Mayo Clinic.

Reports say an internal study revealed that the OptiPlex line was structurally weak, with expectations being hardware problems would afflict an estimated 97 per cent of all units over a three year period. (Source: betanews.com)
Dell Coached Employees on Motherboard Flaw

Rather than confront the issue and maintain a reputation for selling dependable PCs, Dell skirted the issue. Court documents indicate that the company tried to hide the hardware issues, which included faulty capacitors on motherboards. The company reportedly told its customer support representatives to "avoid all language" that might suggest there were any problems with the parts.

In fact, court documents show many Dell employees were discouraged from sharing information "proactively" when it came to the OptiPlex issues, being told that they should act as if they weren't aware of any problems with motherboards. (Source: zdnet.com)

nippononly

They won't say how many of the 180,000 affected vehicles sold outside Japan made it to the U.S., but they have admitted that several Lexus models are involved. And no recall yet...

TOKYO – Toyota Motor Corp. said Thursday about 270,000 cars sold worldwide — including luxury Lexus sedans — have faulty engines, the latest quality lapse to hit the automaker following massive global recalls.

Japan's public broadcaster NHK and Kyodo News agency said Toyota, the world's No. 1 automaker, was considering recalling the vehicles but didn't name sources.

Toyota spokesman Hideaki Homma said the company was considering measures to deal with the problem of defective engines that can stall while the vehicle is moving. He would not confirm a recall was being considered.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_toyota

I continue to root for Toyota from afar, but I serioously wonder now when we will see the bottom of Toyota's quality problems. Will their lax QA, excessive cost-cutting, and far-too-rapid expansion of the '00s haunt them for a full decade? Setting aside cheerleaderism, can we be sure they WILL recover? It is coming up on five years since the huge spike in Toyota recalls, and eight years or more since 2001-02, when the newly redesigned Camrys and Corollas rattled and squeaked Toyota into its era of poor build quality. I won't even mention the sludge thing from even earlier that so many people love to bring up. Point is, it is close to a FULL DECADE LATER, and Toyota is still turning out problems by the truckload, including the may-never-be-solved UA. Even if the intent to turn it around is finally there with the ascension of this latest chief executive, CAN they turn it around??

anythngbutgm

Damn! :sick:

I agree completely. This is amazing what is happening... :lemon:

imidazol97

>TOKYO – Toyota Motor Corp. said Thursday about 270,000 cars sold worldwide — including luxury Lexus sedans — have faulty engines, the latest quality lapse to hit the automaker following massive global recalls.

From engines that can "stall" to engines that can runaway without control of the car. Not much of a stretch is it...

>when the newly redesigned Camrys and Corollas rattled and squeaked Toyota into its era of poor build quality.

Hmmmm, I thought all these toyota-lexus products were perfect--the wonder of the world's ability to build cars and produce them. Kaizen: remember that?

If toyota-lexus is admitting to 270,000, then the problem is much greater. They have always minimized reality of their problems.

Reading this new news admission, I recall the toyota headquarters folks coming out of their castle to talk to those pesty reporters from the US asking about runaway acceleration many months ago WEARING THEIR FACE MASKS BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BE DISEASED FOLK OUT THERE asking about the cars running away and killing people.

lemko

Is it perhaps because cars have become more complex and outsourcing of component manufacturing proliferates reliability falls?

ateixeira

Those stories give me headaches.

I'd take Tylenol, but then again maybe I shouldn't.

ateixeira

Will their lax QA, excessive cost-cutting, and far-too-rapid expansion of the '00s haunt them for a full decade?

Yes.

can we be sure they WILL recover?

Yes, because consumers are shallow (look no further than rebates increasing sales) and have only short-term memory.

Tylenol bounced back, Perrier bounced back. Most do.

gagrice

A $billion loss here and a $billion loss there and soon you have a serious problem. 270,000 defective engines has to be at least a $billion loss.

tbone_rare

Maybe the blind faithful to Toyota will finally realize that every manufacturer will have issues from time to time. It does my little heart good to see Toyota squirm and continue to eat "humble pie". For those who say that Japanese or Koreans or Germans make the best car.....I say....."BALONEY"! No one country makes the best cars. People need to wake up to that fact.

tlong

Hmmmm, I thought all these toyota-lexus products were perfect--the wonder of the world's ability to build cars and produce them. Kaizen: remember that?

Wrong! Toyota grew too fast and put market share ahead of quality. They have been riding on their reputation for the past 5-8 years and are heading down the path that GM did for a long time - they are just not nearly so bad -- yet! Hopefully they can react much quicker than the inept GM management did.

ateixeira

I think those can be fixed with a valve spring swap, so it's top-end work on the engine, no replacements or anything like that. Looks like it was a robot in the assembly plant that was out of alignment and nicked some of the valve springs, creating a weak spot.

Ironically it only affects engines built in Japan, no USA-made engines were affected. So Camry & Sienna are fine, for instance.

Sales figures are trickling out, GM and Ford and Toyota all had gains but all lost market share. Only Chrysler beat the market average. Overall June was weak, though, lower than May for most makes, signaling a stalling economic recovery. :sick:

xlu

See the Jun and YTD numbers. The industry average YTD is 17% over last year; Toyota is only 10% over last year.

Rank Company Mar 2010 volume YTD 2010 % change Market share
1 General Motors 194,716 1,077,601 14% 19.2%
2 Ford Motor Co. 175,690 981,352 27% 17.5%
3 Toyota 140,604 846,542 10% 15.1%
4 Honda (American) 106,627 593,909 12% 10.6%
5 Chrysler Group LLC 92,482 527,219 12% 9.4%
6 Nissan 64,570 440,332 27% 7.8%
7 Hyundai Group 83,111 425,851 21% 7.6%
8 VW 29,768 175,140 29% 3.1%
9 Subaru 21,601 125,960 35% 2.2%
10 BMW Group 23,357 121,741 6% 2.2%
11 Mazda 18,238 115,719 15% 2.1%
12 Daimler AG 19,585 110,382 18% 2.0%
13 Mitsubishi 4,198 26,490 0% 0.5%
14 Jaguar Land Rover 4,408 20,815 15% 0.4%
15 Suzuki 2,035 11,549 -49% 0.2%
16 Porsche 2,141 10,984 14% 0.2%
17 Other (estimate) 294 1,764 -4% 0.0%
18 Maserati 180 912 54% 0.0%
19 Saab Spyker 216 738 0.0%
20 Isuzu 0.0%

TOTAL 983,821 5,615,000 17% 100%

xlu

See the YTD top 20 selling models in the US. All the top Toyota models except RAV4 decline over last year. Most of the models with the biggest increase are from the US automakers.

Rank Brand Model Volume % change
1 Ford F-Series 240,345 16%
2 Chevrolet Silverado 166,782 5%
3 Honda Accord 160,970 11%
4 Toyota Camry 154,239 -14%
5 Toyota Corolla 140,501 -5%
6 Honda Civic 133,601 3%
7 Nissan Altima 112,115 10%
8 Ford Fusion 111,175 23%
9 Chevrolet Malibu 108,317 34%
10 Ford Escape 98,980 14%
11 Ford Focus 89,783 12%
12 Chevrolet Impala 89,491 8%
13 Hyundai Sonata 89,249 49%
14 Honda CR-V 86,870 -9%
15 Dodge Ram 84,869 -4%
16 Toyota RAV4 81,000 9%
17 Chevrolet Cobalt 77,394 48%
18 Chevrolet Equinox 66,990 56%
19 Toyota Prius 66,039 -5%
20 Chrysler Town and Country 60,937 44%

gagrice

Even with the RAV4 increase Ford Escape is kicking tail in that segment. Probably best of the bunch is my guess. Looks like Toyota stole most from Honda on the CUV sales.

2012aveo

I Agree with your post as well as all of your other posts over the years. I just bought a 2010 Yaris Hatchback about 2 weeks ago. No rattles or squeaks yet. Acceleration and electric steering is excellent for New York City stop and go driving. The main reason I went with Toyota was my excellent experience with my 1990 Toyota Celica ST that I still own and plan to for a few more years hopefully. For a company with lax QA, excessive cost-cutting, and far-too-rapid expansion , I would say my Yaris is pretty well assembled. However I think they used a cheap suspension on this car. When driving over poor bumpy New York roads the tires seem to loose contact with the road and the dashboard and all the body panels shake. Will it hold up for 20 years like my Celica? Probably not.
This is my 3rd Toyota. Interesting observation. My 1986 Corolla SR5 had a 74 horsepower engine, My 1990 Celica ST has a 103 horsepower engine. The 1.5L engine in my Yaris at 106 horsepower is the most powerful Yota I have ever owned.
I still have my 2001 Mercedes C240 which is my main car and weekend car.

nippononly

Well "lax QA and far-too-rapid expansion" have mainly been problems in North American-made models, and of course your Yaris was built in Japan.

Excessive cost-cutting has impacted every model they make including Yaris, and I have no shadow of a doubt that your 2010 will last less time than your Celica, but it has pretty good genes, sharing most of its mechanicals with the model that preceded it, the Echo. The Echo is the most durable, problem-free model that Toyota has produced in the last decade, bar none, so your car at least has very good roots! :-)

Having owned an '80s Corolla SR5 and a '90 Celica (GTS) myself, and having driven the Yaris a number of times now, I will have to say that even though your newest Toyota has the most power of all Toyotas you have owned, it is going to be the least fun to drive. But that is a well-known theme at Toyota and has been for the last 15 years, so no surprise there. If you need a good commute car, Yaris is still hard to beat for the money.

I'm not sure I have the optimism of ateixeira - sure Perrier bounced back, but GM never did, and that's the best analogy here. From 2000 on, Toyota has cut the quality, cut costs like mad, and ignored the customer. That is EXACTLY what GM did for a decade in the 80s. Then came the huge recalls and the even huger rebates, exactly what we are seeing at Toyota. If they go bankrupt, I doubt their government will bail them out - instead they will siphon off the company in useful-sized chunks to other Japanese automakers.

lemko

I saw something on television where Toyota plans to cut another 30% of its costs so it can match Hyundai/Kia. Wonder how they're going to do it without further erosion of their quality and reputation?

gagrice

Toyota is going to have to sell more cars in China if it wants to be numero uno in the World.

GM's China auto sales jumped 48.5 percent to 1.21 million units in January through June, compared with the 1.08 million light vehicles it delivered in the U.S. over the same period, company data showed.

Toyota, a relative latecomer to China, sold 362,000 cars in the country in the first six months, up 27 percent.

Its June sales climbed a more modest 8 percent to 61,000 cars, after labor disputes at a parts supplier interrupted production.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38053642

nippononly

Well quality has as much to do with tight QA as anything else, but cutting costs another 30% certainly will only hurt in other areas like the reliability, durability, and DESIRABILITY of their vehicles.