Prius headlamp troubles could dim Toyota brand's reputation
C. E. White
Lawsuit, online complaints come as automaker launches new model
Jean Halliday
Advertising Age
June 30, 2009 - 1:57 pm ET
DETROIT -- Amid the launch of the third-generation Prius hybrid,
Toyota Motor Corp. is taking a beating online and in court by owners
who charge that some older models of the popular car have faulty
headlights that can cost more than $1,000 to replace.
Owners have complained to federal safety officials and in online chats
that Prius' upgraded optional lights, known as high-intensity
discharge headlamps, have a tendency to fail. U.S. federal safety
officials started looking into the matter in late April, and a lawsuit
was filed last month against Toyota on behalf of Prius owners. The
suit called the situation "a dangerous but undisclosed safety defect."
The complaints began online as early as August 2006, according to a
scan of chat rooms and owner forums by Advertising Age, an affiliate
of Automotive News. Owners are upset that their warranties don't cover
the HID bulbs, which can cost between $300 and $1,800 -- with labor --
to replace all or part of the light system.
Feds query carmaker
An arm of the U.S. Transportation Department opened a "preliminary
evaluation" into the matter in late April after getting 338 complaints
and took the next step by asking Toyota about the matter in a letter
dated May 13, a spokesman for the carmaker said. Toyota is complying
with the request, he said.
Owners on the online forums encouraged other Prius owners experiencing
the headlamp problem to report it to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, which did not return calls by deadline. If
NHTSA finds that the headlamps pose a safety threat, it can order
Toyota to recall them and replace them at no cost to Prius owners.
Toyota is cooperating with NHTSA and is required to provide the
information at the end of the month, the spokesman said.
He said Toyota is also looking into its other models equipped with
upper-end HID lights and referred owners to the customer-service line
at 800-331-4331. He added that some of the owners' complaints have
come after their warranty expired, which makes them responsible for
repairs.
A second Toyota spokesman said, "We have seen the complaints and are
looking into it."
Consumer lawsuit
Meanwhile, Toyota will need to respond soon to a lawsuit filed last
month by Girard Gibbs in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on behalf
of a Putnam County, N.Y., Prius owner that seeks class-action status.
According to the complaint, "Toyota is concealing the problems from
owners" even though the automaker has "long been aware of Prius' HID
headlight problem," which the suit calls a "dangerous but undisclosed
safety defect."
Partner Eric Gibbs said his San Francisco firm has been contacted by
hundreds of people experiencing faulty HID headlights on the Prius. He
said the defect seems most prevalent in 2006 and 2007 models, although
the firm is also looking at 2008 and 2005 models.
Bryan Rupp, owner of a 2006-model Prius, wrote on an owner forum that
his dealer quoted him a price of $1,726 to replace both HID headlights
and two related computers.
"I talked to Toyota customer relations (800-331-4331) today and they
offered to pay for the parts, about $1,350, and asked me to pay the
labor cost of $400," he wrote. He complained that the company wanted
him to pay for it up front and reimburse him after four to six weeks.
He wrote: "I do not think I should pay a dime. This sounds like it
should be a recall."
In an interview, Rupp said he ultimately was reimbursed for the parts
portion of the repair but is still out about $450, the cost of labor
that Toyota would not cover.
The timing couldn't be worse for the car that has built Toyota's image
as the nation's most eco-friendly carmaker.
Toyota now is launching its third-generation Prius, a 2010 model, with
a glitzy, integrated ad campaign that includes a heavy national TV
rotation. Two launch TV spots from Publicis Groupe's Saatchi & Saatchi
Los Angeles, in Torrance, Calif., are running. They ranked first and
third in the top 10 most-liked and most-recalled new TV commercials in
May, according to Nielsen IAG Research.
Experts said the situation doesn't have the makings of a crisis for
Toyota, but indicated it could pose a problem because Prius is the one
model in Toyota's lineup apt to be sold to "sensitive people with a
clear sense of right and wrong and their obligation to society," said
Andy Fletcher, CEO of marketing communications firm Fletcher-Martin,
Atlanta. "This is the wrong group to mess with, particularly now."
Attracting potential buyers
Americans are evaluating all their brand choices during this recession
and are more apt to change brands, especially automobiles, given the
woes of General Motors and Chrysler Group LLC.
"The danger to Toyota is the effect on Prius owners and non-Toyota
owners, many of whom are starting to evaluate why they weren't a
Toyota owner before," Fletcher said.
Toyota has somewhat of a track record for dragging its heels on
similar issues, such as the engine sludge problem in the Camry earlier
this decade, said Peter DeLorenzo, founder of blog Autoextremist.com
and a former auto creative at several ad agencies.
"If Toyota moves quickly, the whole thing will blow over," he said.
But if not, there will be "ill will" among owners because
"word-of-mouth is still the most powerful form of advertising," he
said.
Todd Turner, president of consultant CarConcepts, recommended Toyota
issue a so-called technical service bulletin on the car's HID
headlamps and extend the car's warranty. That bulletin to owners would
instruct them to bring their cars into dealers so Toyota could replace
the parts and study them for a suspected problem.
"That's a smart way to turn it around" and keep owners happy, he said.
Otherwise, he said, Toyota could lose these owners forever.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>
> Prius headlamp troubles could dim Toyota brand's reputation
>
> Lawsuit, online complaints come as automaker launches new model
>
> Jean Halliday
> Advertising Age
> June 30, 2009 - 1:57 pm ET
>
> DETROIT -- Amid the launch of the third-generation Prius hybrid,
> Toyota Motor Corp. is taking a beating online and in court by owners
> who charge that some older models of the popular car have faulty
> headlights that can cost more than $1,000 to replace.
>
> Owners have complained to federal safety officials and in online chats
> that Prius' upgraded optional lights, known as high-intensity
> discharge headlamps, have a tendency to fail. U.S. federal safety
> officials started looking into the matter in late April, and a lawsuit
> was filed last month against Toyota on behalf of Prius owners. The
> suit called the situation "a dangerous but undisclosed safety defect."
WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'?
HOLY CRAP!!!! I'M RICH!!!! I'll sue for all the headlights I've ever had
to replace!
Jeff Strickland
"Scott in Florida" <Mov...@outa.here> wrote in message
news:fsal45pnml76pjsup...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:14:56 -0400, "C. E. White"
>
>>Prius is the one
>>model in Toyota's lineup apt to be sold to "sensitive people with a
>>clear sense of right and wrong and their obligation to society,"
>
>
What are the people with a sense of right and wrong going to do with the
batteries? I tossed a AAA battery last week, and can't sleep now.
bucky3
> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'?
>
> HOLY CRAP!!!! I'M RICH!!!! I'll sue for all the headlights I've ever had
> to replace!
Well, if it costs $400 to replace a bulb, I'd sue too.
Ed White
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 02:45:15 -0700 (PDT), bucky3 <buc...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 30, 4:22 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote:
> >> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'?
>
> >> HOLY CRAP!!!! I'M RICH!!!! I'll sue for all the headlights I've ever had
> >> to replace!
>
> >Well, if it costs $400 to replace a bulb, I'd sue too.
>
> replace them. Maybe the rest of us can see now....
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida
I think it is a lot more complicated than someone buying overbright
bulbs. As I read the article some Prius' come from Toyota with HID
Headlights (which I hate). Apparenty the headlights are failing
unually often and unusally soon. When the owners go to have the
"bulbs" replaced they find out that not only do the "bulbs" cost
hundreds of dollars, but that in some cases Toyota dealers are trying
to replace the entire headight system for thousands of dollars. I am
sure that most of these owners didn't care that the car had HID
headlights and were shocked when an option they cared little about
suddenly generated repair charges in the hundreds or thousands of
dollars. I was under the impression that HID headlights were supposed
to be a liftetime sort of thing (i.e., the "bulbs" are supposed to
last 2000 to 3000 hours which should be about the life of the car in
most cases). Apparently this is just another case of Toyota screwing
the pooch and, as usual, trying to sweep their error under the rug. I
continued to be amazed that some Toyota fanatics defend Toyota when
they pull crap like this. It seems to me that in the last ten years
Toyota has led the industry in screw-up, yet most people have the
impression that they are ultra reliable. I suppose eventually enough
peole will get screwed by Toyota that their reputation will suffer.
Toyota is living on social inertia right now, but eventually pedaling
mediocre, problem riddled cars and trucks will catch up with them.
Fortunately the three RAV4s in my family are all still perfect....
(crossing fingers).
On the otherhand, the whole concept of lawyers turning this into a
class action lawsuit rubs me the wrong way. If the lawyers win,
they'll get millions, and Prius owners will probably get a certificate
for a free oil change that can be redeemed when they pay for their new
headlights.
Ed
matrixxx09
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 02:45:15 -0700 (PDT), bucky3 <buc...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'?
>
> >> HOLY CRAP!!!! I'M RICH!!!! I'll sue for all the headlights I've ever had
> >> to replace!
>
> >Well, if it costs $400 to replace a bulb, I'd sue too.
>
> replace them. Maybe the rest of us can see now....
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida
Agreed- assuming they bought them on purpose.
Same goes for people with bulbs that are high up.
Half the time one of these assholes is behind me I have to move my
side mirror to point down, then readjust when they're no longer behind
me. (and put my rear view in night mode, of course).
matrixxx09
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:51:37 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09
> gigantic pain in the arse to 'dim'. I should not have to.
>
> Maybe if we made HID lights 'targets', the problem would solve itself.
>
I'd like to do the same with "high" lights, but we live in a civilized
society.
matrixxx09
>
> In Florida, if you feel threatened, you can fire....
>
> That is civilized.....
>
haha. Yeah, can you imagine?
We could all shoot each other whenever we got angry (or just got
bored), and all we'd have to tell the cops is "Hey, I felt threatened"
and be good to go.
What a world THAT would be!
matrixxx09
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:46:24 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09
It would be better if someone could walk up to you and shoot you in
the head with no consequences?
Do you have a death wish or something?
>
> Just like the small town my sister lived in. EVERYONE was REQUIRED to
> own a firearm.
There's no crime in my town either, and we have no such law. (I don't
lock my house or cars, and even went away for a week and left only a
screen door closed (unlocked)--- although that was an accident).
Anyway if you apply the same (silly) logic to both situations you're
left with:
1- If everyone owns a firearm there will be no crime.
2- If everyone doesn't own a firearm there will be no crime.
And on a different note:
What town requires you to have a firearm? And what was the penalty if
you didn't? And how was it enforced? Inspections? Did you have to
have ammo too? If so did it have to be in the gun? If it didn't,
how close by did it have to be?
matrixxx09
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09
>
> <matrixx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Anyway if you apply the same (silly) logic to both situations you're
> >left with:
>
> >1- If everyone owns a firearm there will be no crime.
>
>
Hey, you forgot to apply your logic to MY example:
> >2- If everyone doesn't own a firearm there will be no crime.
>
> There will be a HELL of a lot less.....
matrixxx09
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09
>
> <matrixx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A hell of a lot better than now......
>
> >It would be better if someone could walk up to you and shoot you in
> >the head with no consequences?
>
>
> It works well.....
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida
Wait, doesn't Florida rank like the fifth highest in violent crime?
matrixxx09
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09
>
> 25 years murder-free
> in 'Gun Town USA'
> Crime rate plummeted after law
> required firearms for residents
>
> Kennesaw, Ga., City Hall
> As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies
> like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last
> month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and
> violence after mandating residents to own firearms.
>
> In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding
> to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an
> ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun.
> Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and
> increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been
> involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
>
> The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage
> of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually
> significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of
> the law.
>
> Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242
> but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the
> national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available
> – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile,
> the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
>
> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17192576.htm
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~robertcjones/khs/kennesaw20th/kennesaw20th...
> --
>
> Scott in Florida
That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. You can always find an
example of where your idea 'works'.
In this case I could just say "Canada" in response.
matrixxx09
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:35:36 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09
>
>
>
>
>
> <matrixx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 1, 1:13 pm, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09
>
> >> <matrixx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> A hell of a lot better than now......
>
> >> >It would be better if someone could walk up to you and shoot you in
> >> >the head with no consequences?
>
> >> That is the law in Florida.....
>
> >> It works well.....
>
> >> --
>
> >> Scott in Florida
>
> >Wait, doesn't Florida rank like the fifth highest in violent crime?
>
>
Florida doesn't rank fifth (actually, third) highest in violent crime
at your house?
That doesn't make any sense.
Again, you're bending over backwards to keep a tight grip on an
incorrect statement you made when you should really just stand up and
say you were wrong.
You said that the law in Florida works well. I pointed out that
Florida has a very high rate of violent crime, and now you're talking
about your house.
Hachiroku ハチロク
Or buy a different car...
Hachiroku ハチロク
And...what if the car was designed that way?
Did you read my dissertation about my headlights? They are very bright. on
Low beam. But I also have 65W high beams...and 110 more watts of driving
lights. I get people who, instead of giving me a little flash, put their
high beams on HIGH and leave them there. That's when I turn on the entire
aircraft landing light system; low beams, high beams and drving lights.
310 watts of white light comin' at ya!
But most of the time I have sympathy for the idiots and just flash my
highs once. They may never know what almost hit them...
And they are adjusted BELOW the state inspection line, all except the high
beams.
Daniel Who Wants to Know
news:h2emln$36g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> What are the people with a sense of right and wrong going to do with the
> batteries? I tossed a AAA battery last week, and can't sleep now.
>
>
They will call the 800 number on the battery and get $200 from Toyota for
it.
BTW the whole battery vs. cell thing really steams my clams.... technically
a battery is a string of cells so a single AAA is a cell while 2 or more
AAAs connected together are a battery.
Mike
friendly light bulbs," or you will need to call the HazMet team LOL
"Daniel Who Wants to Know" <danielt...@merrychristmasi.com> wrote in
message news:h2hcg2$ho5$1...@news.netins.net...
matrixxx09
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:51:37 -0700, matrixxx09 wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 6:59 am, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 02:45:15 -0700 (PDT), bucky3 <buc...@mail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jun 30, 4:22 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote:
> >> >> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'?
>
> >> >> HOLY CRAP!!!! I'M RICH!!!! I'll sue for all the headlights I've ever had
> >> >> to replace!
>
> >> >Well, if it costs $400 to replace a bulb, I'd sue too.
>
> >> Anybody that buys those over bright bulbs deserves to pay millions to
> >> replace them. Maybe the rest of us can see now....
>
> >> --
>
> >> Scott in Florida
>
> > Agreed- assuming they bought them on purpose.
>
> > Same goes for people with bulbs that are high up.
>
> > Half the time one of these assholes is behind me I have to move my
> > side mirror to point down, then readjust when they're no longer behind
> > me. (and put my rear view in night mode, of course).
>
> And...what if the car was designed that way?
I'm annoyed less by someone who bought a car not knowing that the
headlights were extra bright than by someone who went out and bought
brighter bulbs on purpose.
>
> Did you read my dissertation about my headlights? They are very bright. on
> Low beam. But I also have 65W high beams...and 110 more watts of driving
> lights. I get people who, instead of giving me a little flash, put their
> high beams on HIGH and leave them there. That's when I turn on the entire
> aircraft landing light system; low beams, high beams and drving lights.
> 310 watts of white light comin' at ya!
>
> But most of the time I have sympathy for the idiots
They're not idiots; they think your brights are on because your lights
are so damn bright.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> And...what if the car was designed that way?
>
> I'm annoyed less by someone who bought a car not knowing that the
> headlights were extra bright than by someone who went out and bought
> brighter bulbs on purpose.
>
>>
>> Did you read my dissertation about my headlights? They are very bright. on
>> Low beam. But I also have 65W high beams...and 110 more watts of driving
>> lights. I get people who, instead of giving me a little flash, put their
>> high beams on HIGH and leave them there. That's when I turn on the entire
>> aircraft landing light system; low beams, high beams and drving lights.
>> 310 watts of white light comin' at ya!
>>
>> But most of the time I have sympathy for the idiots
>
> They're not idiots; they think your brights are on because your lights
> are so damn bright.
Can't help it! That's the wat they are.
Funny thing, I have never seen another tC at night, so i don't know how
bright they are. I have an idea, of course, by being able to actually SEE
the road!
I have even adjusted them downwards from factory to try to help...
matrixxx09
> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:43:40 -0700, matrixxx09 wrote:
> >> And...what if the car was designed that way?
>
> > I'm annoyed less by someone who bought a car not knowing that the
> > headlights were extra bright than by someone who went out and bought
> > brighter bulbs on purpose.
>
> >> Did you read my dissertation about my headlights? They are very bright. on
> >> Low beam. But I also have 65W high beams...and 110 more watts of driving
> >> lights. I get people who, instead of giving me a little flash, put their
> >> high beams on HIGH and leave them there. That's when I turn on the entire
> >> aircraft landing light system; low beams, high beams and drving lights.
> >> 310 watts of white light comin' at ya!
>
> >> But most of the time I have sympathy for the idiots
>
> > They're not idiots; they think your brights are on because your lights
> > are so damn bright.
>
> Can't help it! That's the wat they are.
Nevertheless, it's understandable for someone coming toward you at
night to think your brights are on and respond by 'blinding' YOU.
Sharx35
"matrixxx09" <matri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:781bafe9-07b1-4ca6...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
In other words, those high beams are illegal if they are not adjusted BELOW
your state inspection line. Period.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> >> But most of the time I have sympathy for the idiots
>>
>> > They're not idiots; they think your brights are on because your lights
>> > are so damn bright.
>>
>> Can't help it! That's the wat they are.
>
> Nevertheless, it's understandable for someone coming toward you at
> night to think your brights are on and respond by 'blinding' YOU.
Very few just flash the lights. Most turn theirs on and leave them on.
Sometimes I take pity...
Sometimes I *SHOW* them my lows were on, with all 355 watts...
Hachiroku ハチロク
The line is for low beams only.
matrixxxx09
Are there replacement bulbs you could buy that won't blind other
drivers?
hachiroku
I think it's the reflector design.
matrixxxx09
>
> > Are there replacement bulbs you could buy that won't blind other
> > drivers?
>
> I think it's the reflector design.
Is it worth checking into, so you can avoid this potentially dangerous
situation?
Hachiroku ハチロク
>>
>> Just like the small town my sister lived in. EVERYONE was REQUIRED to
>> own a firearm.
>
> There's no crime in my town either, and we have no such law. (I don't
> lock my house or cars, and even went away for a week and left only a
> screen door closed (unlocked)--- although that was an accident).
Where do you live. I live in a small bucolic New England town filled with
small New England people, and I left my Mazda unlocked and got up in the
middle of the night to deliver newspapers and found my XM receiver stolen.
A wekk later someone got into my Scion, but I had removed everything from
the car.
I like Scott's idea better: BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM!!!!