Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
At this time I think we are simply going to sell the piece of crap and be finished with Toyota. Oh and by the way, since Toyota says there is nothing wrong with the vehicle I don't see the legal abligation to disclose the maint. history when selling it. :lemon:
Those of you that have not yet gone through arbitration should check out the 2005 US FTC audit of the NCDS/Automobile Warranty Arbitration Program [awap]. The audit report is found at WWW.ftc.gov/os/rule703/2005auditncdsawap.pdf
It is 87 pages of history,procedures,methods, training,and statistical data. The report basically said that the NCDS was doing its job within federal rules. However, the statistic that shows just how difficult it is to win was the overall awap reported numbers. In 2005 3,317 dispute cases were filed. Some were ineligible for review, some were closed by mediation [with the dealer], and 1,888 were actually arbitrated. Only 364 [19.3%] were in favor of the consumer. 1,524 [80.7%] were adverse to the consumer. HAL
It seemed to be a fair and straight forward hearing. We felt our case was a winner.
However, considering that only 19.7% of consumers win at arbitration, we are not surprised. I would never recommend arbitration to anyone.
If a case exists skip arbitration and go straight to the lemon law. Arbitration just slows efforts to get a resolution, and kind of muddies the waters. HAL
I'm also working toward a Lemon law settlement. HAL
Jacksafe, Good luck getting it fixed. My dealer told me Toyota was working on a fix but in the arbitration hearing I was told that it was a "characteristic" of the vehicle not a problem and that Toyota had no intentions of addressing the situation.
again good luck
As far as the comments are concerned I too think they are totally out of line. I think that the majority of us found this forum "after" buying the RAV 4, 4 cylinder and realizing the problem it had with the cruise control. If anyone that is considering buying a 4 cylinder RAV 4 found this forum before buying do you really think they would have bought one? Everyone here has had to deal with enough grief over this without someone trying to make things worse.
I have had 6 Toyotas, and never had a problem with any of them.
Since the newer RAV4s use DBW the DBW throttle valve positioning servomotor is also used for CC (and idle airflow) throttle positioning rather than have a separate servomotor(s) as was required with a mechanical coupling.
How did he manage to rig the '96 CC servomotor system into the DBW throttle valve/body..??
"The Toyota representative had to admit that what we presented was true. Yet, he indicated all RAV4 2wd. 4cyl. have this characteristic."
Not true really. Mine stopped misbehaving. That means that it can perform properly. If yours doesn't, it is broken. If it is broken, they should fix it. That's what the warranty is about.
Even if all of them did, it isn't desinged to buck like a bronco. It's stll broken.
Good luck. Hope they fix it for you.
"If this problem was a "characteristic of the vehicle" it would do it when you are "NOT" using the cruise control. The one we had would operate perfectly when the cruise was off. It would not even drop out of overdrive when going up an incline without pushing the pedal further.The motor has plenty of power for the vehicle. "
This is exactly right. If the car is gear hunting when the cruise is on, the cruise is broken. That's why we have a warranty. Toyota should fix it.
You know, I reported to them that mine had stopped gear hunting. You would think they would want to examine it to see why mine is different than the 4 cylanders reported here. They don't seem to interested.
"Well guys, I got my problem FIXED, not from Toyota tho, I have an old friend that is quite the car expert, I told him of my problem and he said "no problem" , he checked out my cruse and had a real ha,ha. with that he said he could not believe how much Toyota has come down hill with their quality control problems but looks like they have got to being bigshots and no longer care about their customers, they just want to sell more cars than GM.... but anyway, he went down to a local auto parts store and paid $140.00 for a cruse control that would fit a 1996 Camry 4 cyl. 4 speed, he pulled the computer module out of my Rav's computer and just disconnected the darn thing... he installed the 1996 cruse control, than we took her out for a spin.....FOLKS IT WORKED PERFECTLY."
This is an importent post. It shows that Toyota can fix this warranty issue today. They just have to do it.
For me, I'm quite satisfied that all this "shiftiness" going on with the '07 and later models are directly related to industry efforts to improve FE, even in rather small increments.
The basic idea is to keep the engine operating at the LOWEST possible RPM, LOWEST frictional losses, at which the engine can JUST BARELY maintain your desired speed. "Set" speed in the case of CC. On vacation this past February I drove a new Mazda Minivan the first week and a new Chrysler Sebring the second week, both with V6 engines. I was astounded, literally, at the number of shifts these vehicles would go through, especially in CC, traveling over only slightly rolling terrain.
At first I thought that I could do better not using CC, but that proved to not be the case. What was happening was the fact the the transaxle was doing more shifts than a expected, a lot more shifts, made the CC shifts more noteable.
" It would not even drop out of overdrive when going up an incline without pushing the pedal farther..."
Yes, exactly, you SEE the upcoming incline and add a bit more gas to hold your desired speed even with the harder climb...The CC, being totally BLIND, must want for the speed to fall off and then command the downshift. In order to reduce the number of those downshifts it might delay to be certain the "event" is sustained. Then the downshift might become HARSHER, double gear "grab", if the incline increases before the decision to downshift is made.
The thing to remember, keep in mind, is that you have forward vision of the upcoming roadbed while the CC does not. So the CC system must wait until the speed falls off before realizing that the going has gotten harder. That often results in a much harsher downshift than if you were driving, and automatically, UNCONSCIOUSLY, depressed the gas slightly as you reached the inclined section of the roadbed.
And obviously a 4 cylinder, lower HP, engine, typically also with fewer gear ratios, 4 speed (WHY??), would be more prone to shifting, HARSHER shifting than the V6 6 speed transaxle counterpart.
This is a horrible thing for me to suggest, but try a full tank of premium fuel and see if the "shiftiness" doesn't lessen.
This is 2007 and gasoline is now above $3.00/gallon besides which general wisdom aside, programmer do learn. Yes, it takes more time than for most of us....
My 2001 911/996 C4 has DBW and I have absolutely no complaints.
"First, no car manufacturer can readily, easily, modify/retrofit any vehicle that has already passed the EPA, CARB, testing/qualification procedures in any way that might affect fuel emissions, adversely or otherwise. "
I am not buying it. Part is broken. They can fix it. I am not so sure you couldn't take it off completely if you want to do so. Not all cars have cruise control.
"The basic idea is to keep the engine operating at the LOWEST possible RPM, LOWEST frictional losses, at which the engine can JUST BARELY maintain your desired speed. "Set" speed in the case of CC. On vacation this past February I drove a new Mazda Minivan the first week and a new Chrysler Sebring the second week, both with V6 engines. I was astounded, literally, at the number of shifts these vehicles would go through, especially in CC, traveling over only slightly rolling terrain. "
I drove the Sebring and that isn't this. This thing is bucking like a bronco and jumping upwards to 5K RPMs and then back to 2K up to 3K. It's broken.
"The thing to remember, keep in mind, is that you have forward vision of the upcoming roadbed while the CC does not. So the CC system must wait until the speed falls off before realizing that the going has gotten harder. That often results in a much harsher downshift than if you were driving, and automatically, UNCONSCIOUSLY, depressed the gas slightly as you reached the inclined section of the roadbed."
If that theory were true it would be consistent both within one particular vehicle and then across the product line. That is, all the RAV4, 4 cylanders would react the same on the same road. They don't. And mine used to buck and then stopped.
This gear hunting isn't engineering. It's broken. And that's why the trade in value has dropped on this particular model.
Congrats on winning your case. I think that is good news for all of us. I am going to alert my dealer, just so he knows.
Also, thanks for the information on the TSB.
If Toyota is using the same co. for it's arbitration than why are we each getting different stories and different results for the same problem with the same vehicle!!!
It is very apparent that the determining factor here has nothing to do with your plea. It seems that the attitude and personal mood of the arbitrater is key in the decision and as with any court case this should not be allowed.
Between the denial verdict I received and constant checking here I get madder and madder (if that's a word) every time I read new posts.
All I can say is that it's a huge load of crap from Toyota not stepping up to the plate when it comes to customer service and I am sick of it :mad: :mad:
I guess I just need to stop reading here to help my blood psi.
:lemon: (Your State) Lemon Law Buy Back :lemon:
It worked for me.......
It's still a load of crap. :mad:
Did I tell you how I felt about the issue? :P
The Rav4 is a nice vehicle except for this issue. My wife loves her's
And by the way, I drove her's yesterday for the first time in a few months and just as others have posted here the problem seemed to be almost nonexistant. I tried my best and could not make it happen. It currently has just over 20K miles.
So go see the dealer, describe/demonstrate the problem, ask for a fix, even plead for a warranty fix. I wish you luck maybe thay will offer you a good deal on a V6. If they do... take it.
If they stonewall and recommend arbitration to settle your case. Don't hesitate, locate and consult with a lawyer specializing in state lemon law cases. I've talked to one who indicated he only takes cases he can win at no cost to the client.
I'm considering the lemon law course of action....However losing in arbitration will make winning more difficult. Good luck !
On another note Cindy loves the Highlander and has not looked back since Toyota bought the RAV back. :shades:
Good Luck Everyone,