TOYOTA SEZ IT HAS [another] FIX FOR PEDAL ... DO YOU BELIEVE IT?
slightly horny
I kinda think the problem is more technologically related than just an
ordinary "pedal."
You?
----------------------
"Toyota tells dealers parts on way to fix pedals"
By KEN THOMAS and TOM KRISHER
The Associated Press
Monday, February 1, 2010; 8:52 AM
WASHINGTON -- Toyota Motor Corp. said Monday its dealers should get
parts to fix a sticky gas pedal problem by the end of this week as the
automaker apologized to customers and tried to bring an end to a
recall that has affected 4.2 million vehicles worldwide.
The company said in a statement that it has begun shipping parts and
is training dealers on the repairs. Some dealers will stay open 24
hours to fix the 2.3 million cars and trucks affected by the recall in
the U.S.
Technical bulletins on how to install the new parts should arrive at
dealers by midweek, the company told dealers in an e-mail. It was not
clear exactly when repairs would start, although dealers have said
they'll begin as soon as possible.
The automaker also said Monday it would suspend production of eight
U.S. models affected by the recall for this week. The company also
suspended sales of the models last week until repairs can be made.
Jim Lentz, president and chief operating officer of Toyota Motor
Sales, said in the statement that nothing is more important than
customer safety.
In a video clip released by the automaker, Lentz said he wanted to
"sincerely apologize to Toyota owners. I know that our recalls have
caused many of you concern and for that I am truly sorry."
"Toyota has always prided itself on building high-quality, durable
cars that customers can depend on and I know that we've let you down,"
Lentz said.
Lentz, in an interview on NBC's "Today," said the automaker was
"confident that we have the fix" for the gas pedal system. He said the
company first developed a report on the problems in late October, and
he denied that Toyota had delayed addressing the problem.
"I drive Toyotas. My family members drive Toyotas ... I would not have
them in products that I knew were not safe," Lentz said.
Tammy Darvish, a dealer in the Washington, D.C., area, said she
expects to get parts Thursday night or Friday morning, and her
dealership will begin repairs immediately, staying open around the
clock.
Darvish said she has set up a 24-hour hotline for her 30,000 Toyota
customers and had already begun to schedule appointments for later
this week. She estimated it could take about two weeks for all the
vehicles to be fixed.
"No matter what Toyota does, they always do it right," Darvish said.
"They might be a little slow in coming out, but that's because they're
diligent."
Toyota recalled the vehicles on Jan. 21, determining that excess
friction in the gas pedal assembly could in rare cases cause the
pedals to stick.
Engineers traced the problem to a friction device in the assembly that
is supposed to provide the proper pedal "feel" by adding resistance,
Toyota said in a statement.
The device has a shoe that rubs against a nearby metal surface during
normal pedal use. But wear and environmental conditions can over time
cause the pedals to not operate smoothly or in rare cases stick
partially open.
The company said a steel reinforcement bar will be installed, reducing
the friction.
"With this reinforcement in place, the excess friction that can cause
the pedal to stick is eliminated," the statement said. "The company
has confirmed the effectiveness of the newly reinforced pedals through
rigorous testing on pedal assemblies that had previously shown a
tendency to stick."
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration told Toyota last
week that it was satisfied with the repair plan. Legally Toyota did
not need NHTSA's approval, but the company would be unlikely to
proceed without the government's blessing.
Toyota told its dealers in an e-mail that they should determine what
vehicles to repair first. The company said it "strongly recommends
dealers prioritize consumer vehicles first, followed by dealer owned
inventory." The repairs are expected to take about 30 minutes of work,
and drivers should not notice any change in the feel of the pedal.
Owners are expected to receive information by mail beginning this
week. The company will cover all repair costs.
Since the recall was announced, dealers have been in the difficult
position of telling angry customers that they have no parts to fix the
cars.
The recall in the U.S. includes the 2009-10 RAV4 crossover, the
2009-10 Corolla, the 2009-10 Matrix hatchback, the 2005-10 Avalon, the
2007-10 Camry, the 2010 Highlander crossover, the 2007-10 Tundra
pickup and the 2008-10 Sequoia SUV. It also has been expanded to
another 1.9 million vehicles in Europe and China.
Toyota said that not all the models of Camry, RAV4, Corolla and
Highlander listed in the recall have the faulty gas pedals, which were
made by CTS Corp. of Elkhart, Ind. Dealers can tell which models have
the CTS pedals. Models made in Japan, and some models built in the
U.S., have pedal systems made by another parts supplier, Denso Corp.,
which function well.
All Matrix, Avalon, Tundra and Sequoia models covered by the recall
have the faulty pedals.
Toyota announced late Friday that it would begin shipping new gas
pedal systems to dealers as well.
On Sunday, Toyota took out full-page ads in 20 major newspapers to
reassure customers.
But crisis management experts said the company's reputation for
impeccable reliability has been damaged.
Meanwhile, Consumer Reports, an influential publication for car
buyers, on Friday suspended its "recommended" status for the eight
recalled Toyota models.
The pedal recall is separate from another recall involving floor mats
that can bend and push down accelerators. The two recalls combined
affect more than 7 million vehicles worldwide.
The repairs will not bring an end to public scrutiny on how Toyota
handled the problems.
The U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is launching
an investigation. It has scheduled a Feb. 10 hearing titled "Toyota
Gas Pedals: Is the Public at Risk?" and asked Yoshi Inaba, chairman
and CEO of Toyota Motor North America, to testify. Separately, a House
investigative panel is planning a Feb. 25 hearing.
---
[Tom Krisher reported from Detroit.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020100275.html?hpid=topnews
hls
"slightly horny" <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd41af9d-1273-4337...@b10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> Time to buy another BROOM?
>
> I kinda think the problem is more technologically related than just an
> ordinary "pedal."
>
> You?
>
> ----------------------
>
anything....
The Henchman
"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:e96dneGWwqoF1frW...@giganews.com...
if by "feds" you mean the HTSA they have been investigating Toyota's
acceleration problems since 2004. Those models involved dated back to
model year 2000. Throttle control was lost in reverse. In that
investigation 1 million automobiles, Toyota and lexus models, were thought
susceptible.
Ashton Crusher
<lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Time to buy another BROOM?
>
>I kinda think the problem is more technologically related than just an
>ordinary "pedal."
>
>You?
>
>----------------------
>"Toyota tells dealers parts on way to fix pedals"
>
>By KEN THOMAS and TOM KRISHER
>The Associated Press
>Monday, February 1, 2010; 8:52 AM
>
>
>
>
>WASHINGTON -- Toyota Motor Corp. said Monday its dealers should get
>parts to fix a sticky gas pedal problem by the end of this week as the
>automaker apologized to customers and tried to bring an end to a
>recall that has affected 4.2 million vehicles worldwide.
>
>
>
>Tammy Darvish, a dealer in the Washington, D.C., area, said she
>expects to get parts Thursday night or Friday morning, and her
>dealership will begin repairs immediately, staying open around the
>clock.
>
>Darvish said she has set up a 24-hour hotline for her 30,000 Toyota
>customers and had already begun to schedule appointments for later
>this week. She estimated it could take about two weeks for all the
>vehicles to be fixed.
>
>"No matter what Toyota does, they always do it right," Darvish said.
>"They might be a little slow in coming out, but that's because they're
>diligent."
>
If they "always do it right" they would not have this problem. Nor
would they have locks that burn up and trap the people inside and burn
them up too. Or sludged up engines. Or bad head gaskets.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
EVERYBODY has bad head gaskets. Not a manufacturer in the business
that uses head gaskets hasn't had a problem.
Electrical problems are far from strictly a Toyota problem. More FORDS
have burned from bad electrics than Toyotas - and many more have had
less spectacular electrical failures.
Also engine sludging is not a Toyota Specific problem - or even
Japanese specific - and vehicles serviced by the "extreme conditions"
oil change schedule do NOT SLUDGE, whether Toyota, Honda, or Chrysler.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>>"No matter what Toyota does, they always do it right," Darvish said.
>>"They might be a little slow in coming out, but that's because they're
>>diligent."
>>
>>
>
> If they "always do it right" they would not have this problem. Nor would
> they have locks that burn up and trap the people inside and burn them up
> too. Or sludged up engines. Or bad head gaskets.
How many had bad head gaskets? Besides the 7M series?
And that was because the US required the use of non-asbestos head gaskets.
I've crawled throuh many cars, and some of the best built are Toyotas.
so there.
A VFW
"The Henchman" <y...@yup.org> wrote:
ya, know the engineers have to keep re-designing things to justify their
jobs. Lots of time the reason given for need to re-design is the new
idea "costs" less to manufacture. And in this case it was false economy.
Oh, well. That's why I like driving a classic. a daily driver that you
can and sometimes have to/ fix yourself. I drive a 50 y.o. VW. sometimes.
If the sun is out.
Mike Hunter
serviced properly, that led to Toyota giving up on the poor owner
maintenance excuse and issuing a recall.
You are correct however in you belief that all manufactures had gasket
problem. That was a result of the feds banning asbestos without allowing
the companies that actually manufacturer gasket for the auto companies,
enough time to field test new replacement materials
<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:bq9fm5l4kl2dbrq0f...@4ax.com...
Mike Hunter
other manufacturer today. The problem that Toyota has in this instance is
they try to sluff it off but got caught.
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.02.02....@e86.GTS...
C. E. White
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.02.02....@e86.GTS...
> I've crawled throuh many cars, and some of the best built are Toyotas.
And some aren't.
Ed
ransley
Could it be computer related.
Hachiroku ハチロク
Right. Generally GM. Nissan, too. Not very well put together.
Fords are OK, and I actually like the way Chryslers are built.
GMs are the worst.
Ashton Crusher
So? No one disputes that except the guy I quoted for his silly
statement that they, Toyota, "always do it right". It's rather ironic
to make such a claim in a story about something they got so wrong.
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
It's funny to see the Toyota folks get their panties in a bunch when
it's revealed that the emperor has no clothes.
Ashton Crusher
<Mark_R...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 1, 8:38�am, slightly horny <lilhor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Time to buy another BROOM?
>>
>> I kinda think the problem is more technologically related than just an
>> ordinary "pedal."
>>
>> You?
>>
>> ----------------------
>> "Toyota tells dealers parts on way to fix pedals"
>>
>> By KEN THOMAS and TOM KRISHER
>> The Associated Press
>> Monday, February 1, 2010; 8:52 AM
Feb. 10 hearing titled "Toyota
>> Gas Pedals: Is the Public at Risk?" and asked Yoshi Inaba, chairman
>> and CEO of Toyota Motor North America, to testify. Separately, a House
>> investigative panel is planning a Feb. 25 hearing.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> [Tom Krisher reported from Detroit.]
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR201...
>
>Could it be computer related.
Since some people who have experienced the problem have claimed they
put their foot under the pedal and pulled it up to no avail I have to
wonder that too.
IYM
Just saw the new story about Toyota's beloved Prius having problems with
the brakes....Looks like it is limited to Japan right now, but may
expand....Never rains, but it pours....Toyota looks like it's getting a
bloody nose right now....
dr_jeff
Let's see you make a product line with absolutely no problems at a
reasonable cost.
Mike Hunter
"IYM" <"S U N risr"@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hkbp90$u2h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
willshak
(100 to 14).
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/a-prius-brake-issue-adds-to-toyotas-woes/19342920/
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
Mike Hunter
"willshak" <will...@00hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:DLCdnb14Fd8FN_TW...@supernews.com...
willshak
> The Japanese are more subdued individuals
>
Probably. We haven't heard of any Toyota execs committing harikiri. Yet!
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:29:46 -0500, C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2010.02.02....@e86.GTS...
>>
>>> I've crawled throuh many cars, and some of the best built are Toyotas.
>>
>> And some aren't.
>>
>> Ed
>
>
>Right. Generally GM. Nissan, too. Not very well put together.
>
>Fords are OK, and I actually like the way Chryslers are built.
>
>GMs are the worst.
>
My experience too. But you can add Mitsubishi in with Nissan and GM.
Mazda is closer to Ford the last few years, pulling ahead of Nissan
and GM. Honda is somewhere in around Chrysler/Toyota
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
SO WRONG?????
Are you a mechanic??
Do you understand AT ALL what is involved in this recall???
It's so darn close to RIGHT it isn't funny.
There have only been TWELVE verified cases of the accellerator
actually sticking from this fault - and the conditions have to be just
right for it to happen. From confirming the problem to finfing and
"proving" the solution has been a VERY short time - I'd say they are
handling it very well.
They are, again, DOING IT RIGHT.
It's not like it was an "obvious" problem
Same thing with the sludging. If a vehicle is maintained according to
the applicable schedule, the engine does NOT sludge up.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:44:37 -0800 (PST), ransley
They pulled up the bottom of the pivoted pedal, not the actual
control arm the pedal mounts on.
The "throttle control" is a non-contact sensor - a "hall effect" unit,
which is totally solid state and measures magnetic flux from a moving
magnet - Those sensors are extremely robust - have no sliding parts or
mocving contacts.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
"potential brake defects" covers a LOT of territory.
Every car I've owned sinceabout 1976 has had "potential brake defects"
- and most of them met their potential. Ever since asbestos was
removed from brake materials and CAFE standards enticed manufacturers
to make everything" just a little lighter than possible" BRAKES have
been a problem. Corrosion, pulsation, warpage, premature wear,
squealing, sticking sliders and calipers - you name it - and the
manufacturer - it's been there.
Right now Toyota is a handy whipping boy with GM staggering back to
life, Chrysler/Fiat being an uncertain marriage, and Ford having just
returned from the dead.
Mazda and Nissan are not big enough or strong enough to be a threat
and warrant anyone's undue attention.
Does Toyota make mistakes? Do they sometimes handle them differently
than an "american" company might? Is the pope Catholic???
But they still, on the whole, build an exceptional product line, if
not terribly exciting - and have provided much better customer
service, overall, than any of the big 3 domestics over the last 30
years.
dsi1
>
> Just saw the new story about Toyota's beloved Prius having problems with
> the brakes....Looks like it is limited to Japan right now, but may
> expand....Never rains, but it pours....Toyota looks like it's getting a
> bloody nose right now....
My neighbor had to have the power steering pump replace on her 2 year
old Camry Hybrid. That's the breaks. Nobody has much experience with
electrically powered PS pumps or computer controlled engine throttling.
This is new technology that soon could be standard on all cars. Glitches
like this are to expected and should we expect rare transient events to
be easy to diagnose. Whether you are a Toyota fan or not, the truth is
that Toyota is paying the price for being a consumer technology leader.
Personally, I don't buy that sticking brake pedal business. :-)
dsi1
Better make that:
> Glitches like this are to expected and we should NOT expect rare
> transient events to be easy to diagnose.
:-)
Hachiroku ハチロク
The emperor is dressed fairly well.
There's a reason I buy "J" VIN Toyota products, and that's because I've
seen some of the 'quality' from NUMMI and the US plants.
I have had few problems with my Japanese made Toyotas.
I haven't had any problems with my US made ones, because I only buy
Japanese made ones.
Hachiroku ハチロク
I have
'89 Mazda 626
'05 Scion tC
'89 Soob GL coupe
'88 Supra
'97 Soob Legacy wagon
'92 Dodge Grand Caravan
'85 Corolla GTS
The Supra and the GTS are really well screwed together.
The Mazda and the '89 Soob are fairly well made and easy to work on. Never
did a timing belt before, and replacing the TWO on the Soob was child's
play.
The Scion is about like any modern car, light materials and quick assembly.
The Caravan is made like all Caravans, pretty well.
Also in my stable were a '90 240SX. UGH! Held together with SHEET METAL
SCREWS!!!! I thought since the car had been through the mill it was a slap
together job by the seller, but when I went to get parts out of another
one, SHEET METAL SCREWS!!!
Chevys? UGH! We're not talking you Father's Chevrolet here.
Fords are OK, better made than Chevy's
My '94 LHS was a fairly bullet-proof car, but repairs were NOT easy.
GMs are made to please the shareholders, not the customers. That said, we
had a Buick on the lot Park Avanue) that was a very nice running car. I
was going to buy it but someone gave me the LHS, and I bought a Tercel
instead. Even the lowly Tercel was a very well made car.
We also had an 85 Cutlass on the lot. The guy who owned it wanted his wife
an kid in a newer car. It was also a very well running vehicle with
225,000 miles on it, but it had also had a new starter, alternator, AC
compressor, etc installed within the prior year. But it was a decent car.
I sold it to some people looking for a good, reliable car, and saw the
darn thing running 3 years later.
Must have been made on a Wednesday...
Hachiroku ハチロク
The problem is with cars made with a US sourced accelerator pedal.
So far, Japanese made vehicles with Japan sourced pedals don't exhibit the
problem.
Have a look here:
And then here:
http://www.globaldenso.com/en/
Denso supplied pedals to not exhibit the problem.
Ashton Crusher
Wow. You are blind to the irony.
Mike Hunter
<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:pqmjm59ogjdsdo4ft...@4ax.com...
Ed White
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:33:19 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:20:27 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
And CTS didn't supply pedals to the Prius and Lexus models that are
alleged to have acceleration problems. So what can we take from this?
Maybe the problem isn't the pedals after all? Or I suppose we can
agree that Toyota bought defective peal assemblies from CTS for years
after being warned there was a problem and took no corrective action?
Or maybe this is the typical Toyota practice of trying to shift
responsibily to another party . Since blaming their Customers in this
case didn't work, Toyota had to move on tho trying to shift blame to a
supplier. Even you have to admit Toyota has screwed this up big time.
They were warned about this problem for at least 3 years and did
nothing. Maybe the CTs pedals are defective, but Toyota bought them
for years after they were warned of the problem. How you spin that
into making Toyota the "good guy." Don't you get tired of defending a
company that appears to routinely lie to Federal Investigators and
shift blame to their Customers?
Ed
cl...@snyder.on.ca
>On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:48:16 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>>Does Toyota make mistakes? Do they sometimes handle them differently
>>than an "american" company might? Is the pope Catholic???
>
>Toyota denies all problems that have potential widespread repair cost
>or potential human liability concerns until they become so flagrant
>and the uproar so great that they can no longer deny them.
>
>The did it with sludge problem, denying it was their responsibility
>and claiming that it would not happen if the owner changed oil
>regularly. Then enough documented cases of where the owner HAD changed
>the oil regularly and HAD documentation and proved that it still
>happens under proper maintenance. Even so, despite having had it
>PROVED that the problem was NOT directly tied to incorrect oil change
>frequency, Toyota still refused to pay for the extraordinary repairs
>to any car where the owner could not produce detailed documentation of
>changes. Nice policy.
>
>Next we had the truck frame problem... more denials, until the uproar
>became deafening. Now we have the accelerator problem, very wide
>spread, and Toyota again denies any responsibility (for years) until
>every excuse they have come up with is proven wrong and the problem
>grows to most all their car lines.
>
>I had my own experience with Toyota's policy of "deny everything" back
>in the mid 80's. My $300 warranty claim was denied by corporate and I
>quickly worked my way to the regional director. He refused to discuss
>the specific issue, but instead repeatedly read me a letter from the
>corporate lawyers denying responsibility. The issue was not the
>validity of my $300 warranty claim, it was the fact that it exposed
>Toyota to admitting to improper design in an area where loss of life
>was a serious possibility.
Well, I've had different experience with Toyota than you have - from
the other side, albeit quite a few years ago.
I was a dealer service manager.
Warranty on Toyotas was a WHOLE LOT EASIER than it was on American
stuff at that time.
As service manager I had a lot of "discression" - If it was a problem
I fixed it and fought with Toyota Canada if I had to. I can't remember
ever losing the arguement.
There WAS a cultural thing - no "whitey"- particularly a simple
mechanic - could ever tell a Jap - particularly an engineer - how to
fix something.
I made a lot of suggestions - and showed how I had fixed certain
problems - and eventually a little Jap engineer would come up with a
fix for the problem - which very often was the fix I had come up with
- but now it was the Jap Engineer's fix.
>
>>But they still, on the whole, build an exceptional product line, if
>>not terribly exciting - and have provided much better customer
>>service, overall, than any of the big 3 domestics over the last 30
>>years.
>
>This isn's about the "big three". We all know they suck. This is about
>Toyota and their real colors showing, again and again. "We build a
>great product - unless there's a design defect that will cost us big -
>then you are on your own, sucker".
And I dissagree there too. At least to a point.
When a problem shows up and is proven, they come up with a fix - and
they fix it. If under warranty, at their expense. If not, it depends
what the problem is and what the fix is - not what it is going to cost
them. Some of the more expensive solutions were covered, with a lot
less fuss than some of the cheeper ones.
Their solution of buying back and scrapping pickups with possible bad
frames is more expensive than supplying replacement frames on the long
run - but it gets the "problem" solved permanently.
Now the BIG question- - - - - -
IS the pedal sticking the WHOLE problem with the throttle systems???
It is definitely PART of the problem, and I trust the fix they have
come up with will solve THAT problem. And it is a very simple fix .
Is there a deeper problem???? Perhaps - but untill that problem is :
1 - confirmed
and
2- isolated and identified
it cannot be addressed. Just like the pedal problem.
When it IS confirmed and it IS isolated and identified, you can be
sure it WILL be addressed and repaired. And the repair for THAT
problem, whatever it proves to be, will also be done right.
At this point they could dig into and rewrite all the code for the
controller and just make it WORSE instead of better, not knowing what,
if any, problem exists in the code.
They could add layers of protection to hide whatever the problem is -
and just mask it untill it becomes even worse because the real cause
is ignored. Toyota does not do it that way, generally speaking.. They
want to identify what REALLY is wrong and solve the problem at the
source. Generally the most cost effective as well as the most
effective way overall to solve a problem - and learn from it so THAT
problem won't catch them again.
Clive
cl...@snyder.on.ca writes
>My experience too. But you can add Mitsubishi in with Nissan and GM.
>Mazda is closer to Ford the last few years, pulling ahead of Nissan
>and GM. Honda is somewhere in around Chrysler/Toyota
directors knew about it, eventually they all were put on trial. Nissan
is owned/shared with Renault a company that regularly under-performs in
the reliability stakes, luckily my Nissan predates the tie up. Mazda
is a ford and if you look hard enough you'll see all the Ford parts but
Mazda names. Chrysler is in a league of it's own in unreliability,
whilst both Honda and Toyota regularly come out top in "Which?" a UK
based consumer magazine which doesn't take adverts so it's totally
independant of manufacturers.
--
Clive
dsi1
>
> There WAS a cultural thing - no "whitey"- particularly a simple
> mechanic - could ever tell a Jap - particularly an engineer - how to
> fix something.
> I made a lot of suggestions - and showed how I had fixed certain
> problems - and eventually a little Jap engineer would come up with a
> fix for the problem - which very often was the fix I had come up with
> - but now it was the Jap Engineer's fix.
What's yer point? Are you suggesting that "whitey" engineers treat
grease monkeys any differently? That's great! Don't forget that all old
Toyotas will rust away too.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
>In article <yN03EnXB...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>,
>Soon, maybe, car companies will either refuse to sell or will require
>large insurance to cover such incidences, premiums passed down to
>consumers, of course. OR, a waver signed by the consumer, doubtful
>because these instruments do not hold up well in civil courts. Just
>forget it. We'll all be paying more $$$ for just a few incidences.
>
>Hope you like walking, taking a bus or riding the bike. Cheers.
Try buying a Cessna lately????
C. E. White
"Clive" <Cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yN03EnXB...@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
> ....whilst both Honda and Toyota regularly come out top in "Which?"
> totally independant of manufacturers.
Just becasue a magazine doesn't take advertsing doesn't mean it is
fair and truthful. Where does "Which?" get their data? I look at
consumer magazines like this as just a different set of opinions
affected by a different set of biases.
Ed
Clive
<cewh...@mindspring.com> writes
product is complicated like a car it joins forces with like minded other
consumer magazines throughout Europe. They also pole their readership
every two years on each car's previous reliability and publish the
results. It's a totally different product from the JD Power Survey which
we also get over here, who, to be honest I wouldn't trust, any more than
I would any other magazine that runs adverts.
Last year I was in Florida on Holiday for about three weeks and had a
Dodge Avenger 2.4 automatic which I liked very much, but I wouldn't buy
one as it only turned in 340 mile each tankful of petrol (I know you
gallons are smaller than ours) even so I worked out that it was doing
only half the mileage of my own car, a Nissan Almera Diesel 2.2.
--
Clive
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
Different horses for different courses - you can NOT compare gasoline
to diesel.
And it's pretty hard to sell a Diesel in America if it weighs less
than 3 tons.
Clive
<noe...@nothere.com> writes
>>every two years on each car's previous reliability and publish the
>>results. It's a totally different product from the JD Power Survey which
>>we also get over here, who, to be honest I wouldn't trust, any more than
>>I would any other magazine that runs adverts.
>
>not much better than JD Powers. You need a statistically valid survey
>to guage reliability.
>
>In addition, I don't know about "Which?" but most of these studies
>roll up surveyed problems in a way that makes the end product somewhat
>useless (i.e. there's a big difference between "the manufacturer found
>a software defect that caused knocking and recalled all the cars to
>fix it for free" vs "the ECU's have died and the manufacturer fought
>tooth and nail against replacing them for free". But, both tend to
>roll up under the same "engine electronics - good or bad" category.
Toyota accelerator fixes have already begun here in the UK. What would
it take for the Merkin "big3" to get of their arses so quick, and our
government hasn't even mentioned anything about Toyota.
--
Clive
cl...@snyder.on.ca
>On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:10:33 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>>Well, I've had different experience with Toyota than you have - from
>>the other side, albeit quite a few years ago.
>>
>>I was a dealer service manager.
>>Warranty on Toyotas was a WHOLE LOT EASIER than it was on American
>>stuff at that time.
>>
>>As service manager I had a lot of "discression" - If it was a problem
>>I fixed it and fought with Toyota Canada if I had to. I can't remember
>>ever losing the arguement.
>
>Not my experience as a three time owner. Sure, run of the mill stuff
>got fixed. As soon as I ran into an issue that (repair of) would have
>triggered a widespread recall and millions of cars to repair, it hit
>the legal channels. The proof was in teh pudding - My claim was worth
>about $300 for parts and labor to fix, but instead they paid a
>regional manager to talk to me and for the corporate lawyers to draw
>up a letter with specifics concerning my class denying my claim.
What were the details - year and model - failure mode???
>
>Again, their actions in the sludge issue, the frame rot issue, and the
>accelerator issue (years of denial) support my opinion.
>
>>There WAS a cultural thing - no "whitey"- particularly a simple
>>mechanic - could ever tell a Jap - particularly an engineer - how to
>>fix something.
>
>The only "culture" issue I see is not one of ethnicticity, although it
>may be a derivative of cultural heritage and tradition. Toyota comes
>on strong when there is a major issue and refuses to accept fault.
>That is, in many ways, a traditional Japanese style of management.
>
>>When a problem shows up and is proven, they come up with a fix - and
>>they fix it. If under warranty, at their expense. If not, it depends
>>what the problem is and what the fix is - not what it is going to cost
>>them. Some of the more expensive solutions were covered, with a lot
>>less fuss than some of the cheeper ones.
>
>Again, not my experience, or that of people with problems like sludge
>or this sudden acceleration issue. Were you still at a dealer when the
>sludge problem appeared?
No - but I DO know, from talking to they guys still there, that NO
vehicle that had it's oil changed every 5000KM or 4 months ever came
into that dealership with a sludge problem. Not a single one.
Same at the local Chrysler dealerships.
>
>>snip
>>When it IS confirmed and it IS isolated and identified, you can be
>>sure it WILL be addressed and repaired. And the repair for THAT
>>problem, whatever it proves to be, will also be done right.
>
>They've refused to put time into even finding the problem. Hence the
>hard step of the NHTSA into the arena. They kept denying and denying
>as long as they could - until the uproar forced them to recognize it.
>If they'd spent more time believing owners instead of denying the
>problem, it would probably be fixed already.
That is not totally true. This "uninteded accelleration" or "sticky
throttle" issue has been being investigated by toyota dealer, at least
in Canada for quite some time, but untill they could actually get one
to stick while in a mechanic's hands, there was not an awfull lot THEY
could do about it.
At the time of the recall there were LESS THAN 12 CONFIRMED incidents
of throttles sticking in Canada, and NO ACCIDENTS.
>
>>Toyota does not do it that way, generally speaking.. They
>>want to identify what REALLY is wrong and solve the problem at the
>>source. Generally the most cost effective as well as the most
>>effective way overall to solve a problem - and learn from it so THAT
>>problem won't catch them again.
>
>Yeah, now that their reputation is on the line, they want to fix it.
>They didn't seem to care before it reached critical mass - as with
>every major problem.
Again. Not my experience in the almost 13 years I worked at Toyota
dealerships starting from 1971 ( with a long break in between).
Clive
<noe...@nothere.com> writes
>On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:57:26 +0000, Clive <Cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>Toyota accelerator fixes have already begun here in the UK. What would
>>it take for the Merkin "big3" to get of their arses so quick, and our
>>government hasn't even mentioned anything about Toyota.
>let alone a fix.
Toyota UK obviously feel they have. They have started doing the oldest
cars first 2001-2002, and will continue to work through the fleet, the
fix takes about 40 minutes and (on TV) looks to involve a small metal
plate an inch to an inch and a half square.
--
Clive
Clive
cl...@snyder.on.ca writes
>At the time of the recall there were LESS THAN 12 CONFIRMED incidents
>of throttles sticking in Canada, and NO ACCIDENTS.
accidents and no injuries. As Europe has over 500 million people and
USA only 300 million, the problem would seem to be America being a far
more litigate minded society, jumping on the bandwagon of getting
something for nothing.
--
Clive
Derek Gee
news:pes6n591t0kjjohmn...@4ax.com...
> No - but I DO know, from talking to they guys still there, that NO
> vehicle that had it's oil changed every 5000KM or 4 months ever came
> into that dealership with a sludge problem. Not a single one.
>
> Same at the local Chrysler dealerships.
Doubtful. The news articles about the guys who filed the class action
specifically mentioned they had PROOF in the form of receipts for oil
changes from the Toyota dealers for the required service intervals. Unless
the dealers were selling them sub-standard oil, the evidence clearly pointed
to a bad engineering change. Toyota backed down and extended the warranty,
which speaks volumes to me that the problem was very real and they knew it.
Derek
cl...@snyder.on.ca
>On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:57:26 +0000, Clive <Cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Toyota accelerator fixes have already begun here in the UK. What would
>>it take for the Merkin "big3" to get of their arses so quick, and our
>>government hasn't even mentioned anything about Toyota.
>
>Interesting, since they don't appear to have confirmed diagnosis yet,
>let alone a fix.
They have confirmed both.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
cl...@snyder.on.ca
It is not doubtfull at all - and what you said does not contradict
what I said. Read it again. And again -
I said with oil changed ever 5000KM - that is 3000 MILES, or every 3
months. (sorry - I said 4 months - I meant 4 changes per year - every
3 months)
The A schedule required maintenance allows significantly longer drain
intervals - and it is these longer drain intervals that caused the
problem in both Toyota and Chrysler - as well as Honda..
The vast majority of the cars that had the problem TECHNICALLY should
have been following the "extreme conditions" schedule.
Toyota extended the warranty because they allowed the longer drain
intervals and didn't design the engine to be able to accept those
longer drain intervals under adverse conditions.
Derek Gee
<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:4qd9n51sblmthpapc...@4ax.com...
According to the Automotive News, the Extreme schedule is 5,000 miles and
the extended is 7,500 miles. NOBODY should have been changing at 3,000
miles if they were following the service manual recommendation. If they
were changing that often, I would expect there wouldn't be any sludging, but
as you point out, Toyota didn't design for that interval!
http://www.yotarepair.com/Automotive_News.html
Derek
Mike Hunter
"Derek Gee" <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b760e8d$0$4850$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
C. E. White
<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:tnd9n55dkm1b6jmcd...@4ax.com...
They "say" they have a confirmed diagnosis. I looked into how Toyota
diagnosed the problem with Tacoma pick-up truck sudden acceleration
complaints from 2 years ago...they said that was caused by the
internet.....and blamed it on the Customers.
This is now a question of trust. Given Toyota's long history of
dishonesty when it comes to "diagnosing" problems, do you think it is
wise to believe them now?
So far Toyota's handling of the unintented acceleration / stuck
throttle issues have involved the following sorts of explainations:
- It wasn't a problem
- It was the Customer's fault (incompetent drivers)
- It was the non-Toyota all weather floor mats
- It was improperly installed non-approved floor mats of all sorts
- It was the Customer's fault for improperly installing floor mats
- It was the shape of the accelerator pedal, but this was still the
Customers fault for improperly installing floor mats
- It was something else too (not just the floor mats), but we are sure
it is the Customers fualt
- It was the pedal assembly Toyota was forced to buy from those
incompetenet Americans (or Canadians).
- Oh yeah, We (Toyota) will look back at those Tacoma complaints from
2 years ago too...but We are sure it is the Custoemrs fault...
- There is nothing wrong with the Prius...well except incompetent
Customers don't understand how the brakes work and panic when they
don't stop the car...
Untill forced by NHTSA, Toyota seemed perfectly willing to blame the
Customers. Once forced to admit there was a problem they immedaitely
tried to find a scape goat (CTS, Customers, floor mat suppliers,
etc.). Oh What a Feeling.
Ed
jim beam
> <cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:tnd9n55dkm1b6jmcd...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:32:06 -0500, me<noe...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:57:26 +0000, Clive
>>> <Cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Toyota accelerator fixes have already begun here in the UK. What
>>>> would
>>>> it take for the Merkin "big3" to get of their arses so quick, and
>>>> our
>>>> government hasn't even mentioned anything about Toyota.
>>>
>>> Interesting, since they don't appear to have confirmed diagnosis
>>> yet,
>>> let alone a fix.
>> They have confirmed both.
>
> They "say" they have a confirmed diagnosis. I looked into how Toyota
> diagnosed the problem with Tacoma pick-up truck sudden acceleration
> complaints from 2 years ago...they said that was caused by the
> internet.....and blamed it on the Customers.
>
>
>
> This is now a question of trust. Given Toyota's long history of
> dishonesty when it comes to "diagnosing" problems, do you think it is
> wise to believe them now?
how does that stack up against frod deciding against a recall because it
was cheaper to pay off the families of the bereaved? frod have done
that many times.
>
>
>
> So far Toyota's handling of the unintented acceleration / stuck
> throttle issues have involved the following sorts of explainations:
>
> - It wasn't a problem
wow, imagine if that was actually true - you'd look like someone trying
to be deliberately deceitful!
>
> - It was the Customer's fault (incompetent drivers)
wow, imagine if that was actually true - you'd look like someone trying
to be deliberately deceitful!
>
> - It was the non-Toyota all weather floor mats
wow, imagine if that was actually true - you'd look like someone trying
to be deliberately deceitful!
>
> - It was improperly installed non-approved floor mats of all sorts
wow, imagine if that was actually true - you'd look like someone trying
to be deliberately deceitful!
>
> - It was the Customer's fault for improperly installing floor mats
wow, imagine if that was actually true - you'd look like someone trying
to be deliberately deceitful!
>
> - It was the shape of the accelerator pedal, but this was still the
> Customers fault for improperly installing floor mats
wow, imagine if that was actually true - you'd look like someone trying
to be deliberately deceitful!
>
> - It was something else too (not just the floor mats), but we are sure
> it is the Customers fualt
wow, imagine if that was actually true - you'd look like someone trying
to be deliberately deceitful!
>
> - It was the pedal assembly Toyota was forced to buy from those
> incompetenet Americans (or Canadians).
wha???? oh, wait, you're trying to be deliberately deceitful!
>
> - Oh yeah, We (Toyota) will look back at those Tacoma complaints from
> 2 years ago too...but We are sure it is the Custoemrs fault...
see above.
>
> - There is nothing wrong with the Prius...well except incompetent
> Customers don't understand how the brakes work and panic when they
> don't stop the car...
now that is deliberately deceitful bullshit.
>
>
> Untill forced by NHTSA, Toyota seemed perfectly willing to blame the
> Customers. Once forced to admit there was a problem they immedaitely
> tried to find a scape goat (CTS, Customers, floor mat suppliers,
> etc.). Oh What a Feeling.
personally, i'm much more interested in why people prostitute themselves
and spew deliberate deceit on the interweb. is it inferiority? money?
lack of self respect? you got bullied at school? there has a be a
reason.
>
> Ed
>
>
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Clive
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>> There is nothing wrong with the Prius...well except incompetent
>> Customers don't understand how the brakes work and panic when they
>> don't stop the car...
>now that is deliberately deceitful bullshit.
disc brakes are engaged, it's only under partial or light braking that
you get the regen. then a swap to the discs to finally bring you to a
stand. All that Toyota are doing is reprogramming it's software so
the isn't a slight pause between both.
--
Clive
C. E. White
It is not the fact that Toyota has a minor problem with the Prius
brakes, or sudden acceleration, or bad ball joints, or rusting frames,
or leaky fuel systems that bothers me...it is that in every case,
Toyota's first reaction is to deny there is a problem, the second
reaction is to blame the Customer, the third reaction is to blame a
supplier,, etc......at least in the past they never seemed to be
willing to face up to facts - they designed the vehicles, they built
the vehicles, and they sold the vehicles to what they keep claiming or
incompetent Customers......When is Toyota going to honestly admit,
they screwed up? So far all I've heard are a bunch insincere sounding
apologies and promises to do better in the future.
Ed
C. E. White
"jim beam" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:zLSdneVUS98y6OTW...@speakeasy.net...
<clip, clip>
>> This is now a question of trust. Given Toyota's long history of
>> dishonesty when it comes to "diagnosing" problems, do you think it
>> is
>> wise to believe them now?
>
> how does that stack up against frod deciding against a recall
> because it was cheaper to pay off the families of the bereaved?
> frod have done that many times.
What bearing does how Ford handled defects in the past have on the way
Toyota is handling the current unintended acceleration investigation?
All manufacturers have had safety defects and recalls. My point is
that Toyota seems to be especially dishonest when it comes to
admitting defects.
Do you believe Toyota has never had to pay off injuried parties in the
past?
>> So far Toyota's handling of the unintented acceleration / stuck
>> throttle issues have involved the following sorts of explainations:
>>
>> - It wasn't a problem
>
> wow, imagine if that was actually true - you'd look like someone
> trying to be deliberately deceitful!
Do you think there is not a problem? Toyota apparently was forced to
admit it was a problem, three years after they were first warned it
was a problem.
<clip, clip>
>> Untill forced by NHTSA, Toyota seemed perfectly willing to blame
>> the
>> Customers. Once forced to admit there was a problem they
>> immedaitely
>> tried to find a scape goat (CTS, Customers, floor mat suppliers,
>> etc.). Oh What a Feeling.
>
> personally, i'm much more interested in why people prostitute
> themselves and spew deliberate deceit on the interweb. is it
> inferiority? money? lack of self respect? you got bullied at
> school? there has a be a reason.
I am just pointing out how Toyota treats its Customers. Why are you so
adamant at defending Toyota? People in my family and my SO's family
that I very much care about own Toyotas (total of 8 - 3 RAV4's. 1
Tacoma, 1 4Runner, 1 Prius, 1 Camry, 1 Highlander). I'd like to think
that I could trust Toyota to handle the engine speed control problems
honestly. So far all I've seen is a string of constantly shifting
explanations. Here is what I think:
1) Toyota was warned about engine speed control problems at least 3
years ago for both Camrys and Tacomas
2) Toyota blew off these complaints as being the result pedal
confusion combined with bad publicity (mostly grass roots/internet
buzz, no real traditional media interest)
3) Toyota managed to convince NHTSA that there was not an actual
engine speed control problem with a smoke and mirrors explanation
(i.e., they baffled them with bullshit). It helped that at least two
former NHTSA employees where hired by Toyota to lobby NHTSA.
4) When the CHP guy killed his family in California in the rented
Lexus, traditional media (TV, newspapers) got interested.
5) Once the traditional media got interested, they started looking
through the NHTSA complaint database and found there were many
complaints related to problems with Toyota engine speed control.
6) Once the traditional media started running stories about Toyota's
problems with unintended acceleration (UA), NHTSA had no choice but to
review the previous NHTSA stand. In the light of day, the way NHTSA
had dismissed the previous complaints looked bad.
7) In order to cover their rears, NHTSA had to force Toyota to come up
with a better explanation of why there appeared to be a large number
of UA (unintended acceleration) incidents for certain Toyota models.
8) Toyota tried to kill off the investigation in the fastest and
cheapest manner - blame pedal entrapment under aftermarket all weather
floor mats.
9) When it became apparent that the first explanation wasn't going to
fly in many cases, they decided it was the shape of the accelerator
pedal, combined with improperly secured floor mats. I actually agree
this was a problem and the fix was reasonable but, it didn't explain
all the complaints.
10) In an effort to explain the remaining complaints, they decided the
CTS pedal assemblies could result in slow pedal return. Again this
seems reasonable. However, again, it doesn't really explain all the
complaints. A pedal returning slowly is not the same as the throttle
seeming to go wide open on its own. Toyota would like for the
investigation to end here. They definitely do not want to even admit
there could be a problem with the equipment or programming that
controls the fly by wire throttle. It appears NHTSA is going to force
them to look in this direction.
11) Once the flood gates were open, the traditional media starting
looking at other complaints lodged against Toyota. The Prius brake
problem is unrelated to the general UA frenzy, but real. I wonder how
Toyota would have handled it before they came under fire in the press
for the UA concerns. Oh wait!!! We already know how they were handling
it - they changed the programming for new Prius's and didn't tell
owners of old ones there was a problem and a fix...until they got
their feet held to the fire.
You can make all the excuses you want, but Toyota's handling of safety
defects in the past has been dismal. Trying to deflect criticism by
saying that other manufacturers have had problems is weak. For years
people have told me how much better Toyotas were than domestic cars.
Now it seems the story has changes - now it seems the line is -
domestic cars are just as bad as Toyotas....
Ed
jim beam
oh, bullshit. you evidently haven't driven a toyota, and you evidently
don't have any interface with the general public in your work - some
people do nothing but groundlessly whine and complain.
fact is, frod paying off the families of the bereaved while continuing
to sell vehicles it knows to be defective is "insincere". toyota
investigating and concluding that a whiner's complaints are groundless
is not - it's absolutely the right thing to do.
"news at 11 - nasa cancels space program because kook from flat earth
society complains that 'orbit' is impossible."
jim beam
> "jim beam"<m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:zLSdneVUS98y6OTW...@speakeasy.net...
>
> <clip, clip>
>
>>> This is now a question of trust. Given Toyota's long history of
>>> dishonesty when it comes to "diagnosing" problems, do you think it
>>> is
>>> wise to believe them now?
>>
>> how does that stack up against frod deciding against a recall
>> because it was cheaper to pay off the families of the bereaved?
>> frod have done that many times.
>
> What bearing does how Ford handled defects in the past have on the way
> Toyota is handling the current unintended acceleration investigation?
it has every bearing - you're being a goddamned hypocrite spending all
this time on non-issues at toyota when domestics have been killing
people and paying off their bereaved to silence.
> All manufacturers have had safety defects and recalls. My point is
> that Toyota seems to be especially dishonest when it comes to
> admitting defects.
and domestics are not of course. get a grip.
>
> Do you believe Toyota has never had to pay off injuried parties in the
> past?
i believe they have settled, but they have also fixed faults. frod just
keeps on selling if the pay-off is cheaper than the fix.
>
>>> So far Toyota's handling of the unintented acceleration / stuck
>>> throttle issues have involved the following sorts of explainations:
>>>
>>> - It wasn't a problem
>>
>> wow, imagine if that was actually true - you'd look like someone
>> trying to be deliberately deceitful!
>
> Do you think there is not a problem?
i think there's a HUGE problem - with the ridiculous double-standard and
bullshit you're trying to propagate!
> Toyota apparently was forced to
> admit it was a problem, three years after they were first warned it
> was a problem.
and the earth is flat.
>
> <clip, clip>
>
>>> Untill forced by NHTSA, Toyota seemed perfectly willing to blame
>>> the
>>> Customers. Once forced to admit there was a problem they
>>> immedaitely
>>> tried to find a scape goat (CTS, Customers, floor mat suppliers,
>>> etc.). Oh What a Feeling.
>>
>> personally, i'm much more interested in why people prostitute
>> themselves and spew deliberate deceit on the interweb. is it
>> inferiority? money? lack of self respect? you got bullied at
>> school? there has a be a reason.
>
> I am just pointing out how Toyota treats its Customers.
compared to gm, frod & chrysler??? like that's not a double standard!
mean while frod says that a vehicle that rolls and whose cabin crushed
killing it's occupants is the fault of a flat tire and they can't be
held responsible. but you don't have a problem with that.
similarly, you don't have the integrity to admit that there most
definitely is an idiot factor out there - the kind of idiot that can
fail to use the brakes, switch off the ignition or shift the vehicle
into neutral rather than kill their stupid selves. but that's all the
manufacturer's fault.
>
>
>
> You can make all the excuses you want, but Toyota's handling of safety
> defects in the past has been dismal. Trying to deflect criticism by
> saying that other manufacturers have had problems is weak. For years
> people have told me how much better Toyotas were than domestic cars.
> Now it seems the story has changes - now it seems the line is -
> domestic cars are just as bad as Toyotas....
no dude, domestics are crap. i would /LOVE/ to buy a domestic of the
same quality, reliability, handling, economy and value as a toyota, but
domestics won't compete. instead, they whine and complain and lobby for
special treatment. all while shifting their componentry to imports from
china. that is utter bullshit, and you'd admit that if you had an ounce
of integrity.
Clive
<cewh...@mindspring.com> writes
>.When is Toyota going to honestly admit,
>they screwed up? So far all I've heard are a bunch insincere sounding
>apologies and promises to do better in the future.
Auris, and our government hasn't mentioned anything about it.
--
Clive
jim beam
> In message <hlc0l1$mpu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, C. E. White
> <cewh...@mindspring.com> writes
>> .When is Toyota going to honestly admit,
>> they screwed up? So far all I've heard are a bunch insincere sounding
>> apologies and promises to do better in the future.
> As I've already pointed out, I've already received a
need to add: "VOLUNTARY".
unlike our "fine and worthy" [not] domestics that will spend hundreds of
millions of dollars on lobbying and avoidance rather than do the right
thing.
> recall notice on my
> Auris, and our government hasn't mentioned anything about it.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Mike Hunter
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:hlbiue$lc4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
dr_jeff
I told you I am sober. What are you?
Derek Gee
> no dude, domestics are crap. i would /LOVE/ to buy a domestic of the same
> quality, reliability, handling, economy and value as a toyota, but
> domestics won't compete.
I think you've had too many Jim Beams to drink, JB. Buy a Ford Fusion!
Even the biased Consumer Report has flat out said the Fusion is more
reliable than its Toyota & Honda counterparts, you're spouting off nonsense
about domestics being crap. The Fusions are better looking, more fun to
drive, and cost less.
Derek
jim beam
> "jim beam"<m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:qLydncsjSbcQD-TW...@speakeasy.net...
>> no dude, domestics are crap. i would /LOVE/ to buy a domestic of the same
>> quality, reliability, handling, economy and value as a toyota, but
>> domestics won't compete.
>
> I think you've had too many Jim Beams to drink, JB. Buy a Ford Fusion!
> Even the biased Consumer Report has flat out said the Fusion is more
> about domestics being crap. The Fusions are better looking, more fun to
> drive, and cost less.
>
> Derek
>
>
consumer reports??? let's have this conversation again in five years
derek - you can tell me all about your experiences.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
C. E. White
Toyota problems by ranting about other manufacturers>
Your whole line of reasoning seems to mirror the Toyota corporate
philosophy deny, deny, divert attention. It seems to me you have the
following opinions:
* Toyotas are perfect
* Toyotas have no problems
* Any problems associated with Toyotas are the fault of the people who
buy them
* All other cars except Toyotas are crap
* Whenever it is discovered Toyota aren't perfect, it is acceptable
start yelling and screaming about other manufacturers to try and
change the subject.
* It is OK to lie as much as necessary to protect the Toyota image
You need to get over the "Toyota are perfect" / "domestic cars are
crap" opinion. Reasonable comparisons show almost no difference in
quality between the major domestic manufacturers and Toyota.
I can't understand why you think it is a good idea to sweep all these
Toyota vehicle speed control problems under the rug. It you honestly
look at the data available, I believe you would agree that Toyotas has
had more of a problem with vehicle speed control issues than other
manufacturers over the last decade. If you want to argue the chances
of any one Toyota running away are small, I agree with you. However,
NHTSA has to look at the bigger picture. Toyota has at least 10 times
more complaints related to speed control issues than other major
vehicle manufacturers. Is it reasonable for this disparity to be
ignored? These problems were pointed out three years ago. If Toyota
had actually worked the issue back then, it would not be front page
news now. Your attitude is exactly the attitude that has gotten Toyota
in so much hot water now. Hiring former NHTSA execs to help cover up
problems is not the right way to go. Co-operating with NHTSA to
resolve issues is a much better strategy. The domestic companies
figured this out years ago. Toyota needs to figure it out now.
Companies don't always agree with NHTSA opinions/findings, but in
general working with NHTSA is better than trying to work around them.
Ed
dr_jeff
> <I clipped all the repetive attempt to defelect attention from the
> Toyota problems by ranting about other manufacturers>
>
> Your whole line of reasoning seems to mirror the Toyota corporate
> philosophy deny, deny, divert attention. It seems to me you have the
> following opinions:
>
>
>
> * Toyotas are perfect
That sounds like teachers:
Rule #1: Teachers are perfect.
Rule #2: If teachers appear to make a mistake, they are really testing
the students.
<...>
jim beam
> <I clipped all the repetive attempt to defelect attention from the
> Toyota problems by ranting about other manufacturers>
eh? why would you snip all the stuff that you can't address and which
illustrates the hypocrisy of your "argument"??? [rhetorical]
>
> Your whole line of reasoning seems to mirror the Toyota corporate
> philosophy deny, deny, divert attention. It seems to me you have the
> following opinions:
>
>
>
> * Toyotas are perfect
i've never said that. honda are perfect. toyota merely excellent.
>
> * Toyotas have no problems
see above.
>
> * Any problems associated with Toyotas are the fault of the people who
> buy them
i never said that. but there is an idiot factor, and you simply refuse
to address it.
>
> * All other cars except Toyotas are crap
see above.
>
> * Whenever it is discovered Toyota aren't perfect, it is acceptable
> start yelling and screaming about other manufacturers to try and
> change the subject.
you of course simply snip the whole argument. oh, the hypocrisy
>
> * It is OK to lie as much as necessary to protect the Toyota image
utter hypocrisy. see above.
>
>
>
> You need to get over the "Toyota are perfect" / "domestic cars are
> crap" opinion.
it's not an "opinion". it's an observation based on many years
experience. oh, and one more thing - i know stuff about vehicle design
and manufacture that you evidently don't.
> Reasonable comparisons show almost no difference in
> quality between the major domestic manufacturers and Toyota.
you mean jd power reports? - that fine research establishment that asks
new car owners whether their new car has broken down yet? sure, that's
a great measure of reliability and component quality!
go to a junkyard ed. the evidence of domestic vehicle longevity vs
import longevity is laid out for you by the thousand. and there's about
a 10 year delta between them.
>
>
>
> I can't understand why you think it is a good idea to sweep all these
> Toyota vehicle speed control problems under the rug.
i'm not - i'm merely pointing out the bullshit and hypocrisy in ignoring
the facts - other manufacturers are way worse and kill many more people,
but you resolutely and unswervingly refuse to acknowledge that.
> It you honestly
er, you are the one that needs a little honesty here bud. see above.
> look at the data available, I believe you would agree that Toyotas has
> had more of a problem with vehicle speed control issues than other
> manufacturers over the last decade. If you want to argue the chances
> of any one Toyota running away are small, I agree with you. However,
> NHTSA has to look at the bigger picture. Toyota has at least 10 times
> more complaints related to speed control issues than other major
> vehicle manufacturers. Is it reasonable for this disparity to be
> ignored? These problems were pointed out three years ago. If Toyota
> had actually worked the issue back then, it would not be front page
> news now. Your attitude is exactly the attitude that has gotten Toyota
> in so much hot water now.
that's bullshit and you know it. address the facts - proven toyota
mechanical issues are insignificant. especially in comparison with
domestics that kill hundreds of times more people. and domestic
slaughter is directly attributable to design flaws. toyota is
indistinguishable from the idiot factor.
> Hiring former NHTSA execs to help cover up
> problems is not the right way to go.
as opposed to frod who not only hire nhtsa execs, but who also hire
politicians to change nhtsa leadership they don't like??? what a crock.
> Co-operating with NHTSA to
> resolve issues is a much better strategy.
sure. but pandering to the press and listening to fools whipping up a
frenzy of xenophobic hysteria is not.
> The domestic companies
> figured this out years ago.
yeah, they made all their problems disappear by showing up in d.c. with
cash in brown paper envelopes. used notes, non-consecutive serial
numbers. oh, and by paying trolls to prostitute themselves by making
propaganda on usenet.
> Toyota needs to figure it out now.
> Companies don't always agree with NHTSA opinions/findings, but in
> general working with NHTSA is better than trying to work around them.
would this be the nhtsa that's acting in the consumer interest? or
would this be the nhtsa whose ethicsless and technically challenged
political appointees are merely dancing to the tune of their paymasters?
>
>
> Ed
how much are you getting paid for this ed? what price do your ethics
actually have? not enough for you to retire on i'll bet.
you need to either just cash those checks and get a real job, or you
need to man up and address the ethical issue of domestic manufacturers
who, purely for economics, decide to make and sell vehicles that their
prototype testing has shown to be fatally dangerous.
you should also address the money those domestics pay for political
manipulation to ensure nhtsa stays off their back when inconveniences
like driver deaths start becoming a problem - you know, after the first
few hundred.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Clive
<cewh...@mindspring.com> writes
>* Whenever it is discovered Toyota aren't perfect, it is acceptable
>start yelling and screaming about other manufacturers to try and
>change the subject.
they have notified me that my car is subject to a "voluntary" recall.
>* It is OK to lie as much as necessary to protect the Toyota image
>You need to get over the "Toyota are perfect" / "domestic cars are
>crap" opinion. Reasonable comparisons show almost no difference in
>quality between the major domestic manufacturers and Toyota.
statistics". I notice with amusement that you've managed the last of
them.
>I can't understand why you think it is a good idea to sweep all these
>Toyota vehicle speed control problems under the rug. It you honestly
>look at the data available, I believe you would agree that Toyotas has
>had more of a problem with vehicle speed control issues than other
>manufacturers over the last decade.
> If you want to argue the chances
>of any one Toyota running away are small, I agree with you. However,
>NHTSA has to look at the bigger picture. Toyota has at least 10 times
>more complaints related to speed control issues than other major
>vehicle manufacturers.
NBC and ABC news during the late evening, both said that as soon as a
recall is issued it was normal for people to come crawling out of the
woodwork, hence the large No. of complaints. Whereas Ford apparently
just incinerate theirs, keeping them under the carpet with secrecy
clauses.
> Is it reasonable for this disparity to be
>ignored?
> These problems were pointed out three years ago. If Toyota
>had actually worked the issue back then, it would not be front page
>news now.
makes sales) then you're even more naive than I first gave you credit
for.
> Your attitude is exactly the attitude that has gotten Toyota
>in so much hot water now. Hiring former NHTSA execs to help cover up
>problems is not the right way to go.
stated that their former employment has not influenced them at all, but
it is more convenient for you to forget that.
> Co-operating with NHTSA to
>resolve issues is a much better strategy. The domestic companies
>figured this out years ago.
issuing orange stickers.
I believe that this is the event that led both the US and UK among
others to mandate the use of P-R-N-D-L for A/T vehicles.
I's also Frightening to know that you are allowed to drive in our
country without passing our test when my fellow country-men can only
drive A/T cars if that is what they passed the driving test on.
> Toyota needs to figure it out now.
>Companies don't always agree with NHTSA opinions/findings, but in
>general working with NHTSA is better than trying to work around them.
>Ed
honest.
--
Clive
C. E. White
> On 02/16/2010 06:22 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> <I clipped all the repetive attempt to defelect attention from the
>> Toyota problems by ranting about other manufacturers>
>
> eh? why would you snip all the stuff that you can't address and
> which illustrates the hypocrisy of your "argument"??? [rhetorical]
I just snipped your repeatitive ranting. I'd already responded to most
of the points at least twice. You just repeat the same unsupported
crap again and again.
>> Your whole line of reasoning seems to mirror the Toyota corporate
>> philosophy deny, deny, divert attention. It seems to me you have
>> the
>> following opinions:
>>
>> * Toyotas are perfect
>
> i've never said that. honda are perfect. toyota merely excellent.
OK. My mistake.
>> * Toyotas have no problems
>
> see above.
So Hondas have no problems, and Toyotas only has a few?
>> * Any problems associated with Toyotas are the fault of the people
>> who
>> buy them
>
> i never said that. but there is an idiot factor, and you simply
> refuse to address it.
OK, you got me again. You never said "any" problems associated with
Toyotas are the fault of the people who buy them. However, you have
implied that the current UA complaints are most/all the result of
driver error. If this is not the case, what percentage do you think
are related to driver error and what percentage are do to defects?
I have said many times that I belive many of the Toyota UA
(unintneded acceleration) episodes were actually caused by pedal
confusion. And I agree that the CHP driver in CA that wrecked a Lexus
ES350 was an idiot, or at least a panicy fool. I've said this more
than once, BUT, if this was simply a case of idiocy, why is it that
Toyota has so many more complaints of UA that most other
manufacturers? In the last decade Toyotas have generated many more UA
complaints than vehicles from other manufacturer (5 to 20 times as
many). I don't think you mean to suggest that people who buy Toyotas
are 5 to 20 times as likely to be an idiot as people who buy
Chevrolets....do you?
>> * All other cars except Toyotas are crap
>
> see above.
OK, Hondas and Toyotas aren't crap. Do any other vehciles fall into
the "not crap" category?
>> * Whenever it is discovered Toyota aren't perfect, it is acceptable
>> start yelling and screaming about other manufacturers to try and
>> change the subject.
>
> you of course simply snip the whole argument. oh, the hypocrisy
You keep repeating the same misinformation that has nothing to do with
the current Toyota probelms. I don't see how repeating unsupported BS
about Explorers or whining about cars from the 70's has any bearing on
the current Toyota problems. Throwing up smoke screens doesn't change
the facts. You never addrses the facts available related to Toyota.
You just go off on a tangent about Fords from 10 to 40 years ago, and
even then you misrepresent the facts.
Do you actually have a theory about why there are so many UA
complaints related to Toyotas? Or do you just assume hundreds
(actually thousands) of people decided to make up stories about
Toyotas and engine speed control problems? Why do you think Toyota is
modifying accelerator pedals and pedal assemblies? Do you think they
took the mats out of my Mother's Highlander becasue there wasn't a
potential problem?
>> * It is OK to lie as much as necessary to protect the Toyota image
>
> utter hypocrisy. see above.
Point out my lies. I have pointed out many times where you had made
incorrect statemetns regarding Ford Explorers. But I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt, maybe you didn't intend to lie, you are just
don't care about the truth if it doesn't fit your biases.
I try to provide refernces for my statements. It is not always
possible. You never provide any refernces. You just say stuff, much of
which is not true. I might not be right all the time, but I'd like to
be. Apparently this is not one of your main concerns. It seems to me
that you are much more interested in proping up Toyota than knowing
the truth.
>> You need to get over the "Toyota are perfect" / "domestic cars are
>> crap" opinion.
>
> it's not an "opinion". it's an observation based on many years
> experience. oh, and one more thing - i know stuff about vehicle
> design and manufacture that you evidently don't.
Possibly you know a lot more about vehicle design and manufacturing
than I do. What is your background? I am basing my opinions regarding
the current Toyota problems based on the facts available to me. Many
of my other opinions on cars are based on cars owned by myself, my
family and my close friends. I know it is not a broad sampling, but it
is the best I can do. Over the years I have owned vehciles from most
major manufacturers. Family and close friends have owned many others.
My SO is a big fan of Toyotas. My Sisters and Mother own them as well.
In fact, I encouraged my Mother to buy a Highlander. It seemed the
best vehcile available for her particular set of needs and desires.
I'd like to know for certain it is not going to experience a UA event
while she is at the wheel.
>> Reasonable comparisons show almost no difference in
>> quality between the major domestic manufacturers and Toyota.
>
> you mean jd power reports? - that fine research establishment that
> asks new car owners whether their new car has broken down yet?
> sure, that's a great measure of reliability and component quality!
So what do you consider reasonable? Your opinion? JD Powers actually
asks a lot more questions than you have indicated. They have surveyed
me twice. They only report a teaser to the press for free. The rest
they sell to interested parties.
> go to a junkyard ed. the evidence of domestic vehicle longevity vs
> import longevity is laid out for you by the thousand. and there's
> about a 10 year delta between them.
Care to provide any proof of this, or do you think it is true becasue
it suits your biases? I don't honestly know. I do know that Chevrolet
claims the Silverado is the longest lasting truck based on Polk
registration data. Unfortunately it is hard to come by this data
unless you are willing to pay for it.
IN my opinion, if you count cars in junk yards you are likely to get a
skewed result dependin on the particualr junk yard and location. I
would guess that the percentage of domestic vs foreign cars in junk
yards is a trailing indicator of the relative sales percentage of
domestic vs foreign cars. I would not put much faith in it. But that
is just me. I suppose I could go down to the local junk yard that
specializes in foregin cars and take a picture to "prove" you are
wrong, but that wouldn't be fair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Age_of_vehicles_in_operation
http://connection.ebscohost.com/content/article/1029486549.html
>> I can't understand why you think it is a good idea to sweep all
>> these
>> Toyota vehicle speed control problems under the rug.
>
> i'm not - i'm merely pointing out the bullshit and hypocrisy in
> ignoring the facts - other manufacturers are way worse and kill many
> more people, but you resolutely and unswervingly refuse to
> acknowledge that.
Have you got any data at all to support that claim? What does way
worse mean? Over the last four years Toyota has been near or at the
top of the list for most recalls by a manufacturers.
Do you ahve any statistics to prove that domestic cars kill way more
people than foreign cars? You keep attacking Ford Explorers from the
1990. Look at http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3507.pdf
. This publication includes driver death rates for many different
vehciles from that era. According to this publication "the
averagedeath rate in all passenger vehicles during 1995-98 is 89 per
million registered vehicle years" For 4 Door 4wd Ford Explorers the
rate was 56 from all causes (including rollovers). This was well below
average. So clearly Explorers from that era could not be considered
especailly dangerous. For sure the driver death rate for Explorers was
higher than for Toyota Camrys (37), but it was still much better than
for Toyota Avalons (80), Toyota Corollas (86), 4 door 4wd Toyota
4Runners (126), Toyota Tacoma Xtra Cabs (151), or Toyota Tacoma
Regular Cabs (211).
So do you still want to rant and rave about how dangerous Explrers
were? If so, what is the basis for this raving? Why aren't you raving
about the Toyotas from that era that were statistically much worse.
Although you seem to be fixated on trashing Explorers from the 1990's,
maybe you think things are a lot different now. If so, take a look at
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf .
For 2001-2004 vehicles, the average driver death rate for all light
vehicle was 79 per million registered vehicle years (much better than
the average in 1998). The 2001-2004 4 door Explorer was still better
than average (47) but now the 2001-2004 Toyota 4Runner was very good
(13). So apparently Toyota can learn from their past problems. On the
other hand, the driver death rates for 2001-2004 Camrys was in the
toliet (55) which was worse than for the 4 door Explorers from those
years. 2001-2004 4 door At least when this study was done, Explorers
were actually less likely to kill their driver in an accident than a
2001-2004 Camry. Explaint that the next time you want to trash
Explorers.
>> It you honestly
>
> er, you are the one that needs a little honesty here bud. see
> above.
Yes indeed, see above.
>> look at the data available, I believe you would agree that Toyotas
>> has
>> had more of a problem with vehicle speed control issues than other
>> manufacturers over the last decade. If you want to argue the
>> chances
>> of any one Toyota running away are small, I agree with you.
>> However,
>> NHTSA has to look at the bigger picture. Toyota has at least 10
>> times
>> more complaints related to speed control issues than other major
>> vehicle manufacturers. Is it reasonable for this disparity to be
>> ignored? These problems were pointed out three years ago. If Toyota
>> had actually worked the issue back then, it would not be front page
>> news now. Your attitude is exactly the attitude that has gotten
>> Toyota
>> in so much hot water now.
>
> that's bullshit and you know it. address the facts - proven toyota
> mechanical issues are insignificant. especially in comparison with
> domestics that kill hundreds of times more people. and domestic
> slaughter is directly attributable to design flaws. toyota is
> indistinguishable from the idiot factor.
Where are you getting the idea that domestic vehicles kill hundreds of
times more people that Toyotas? This is simply not true. It is so
ridiculously wrong it is past hyperbole. I am not sure htere is an
adjective that expalins such a widly inaccurate claims. Look at
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf
or
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4003.pdf
or
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3507.pdf
etc.
Some Domestic vehicles have very high driver death rates, but so do
many Toyotas and other imported vehicles. There is absolutely no basis
for your claim that "domestics .... kill hundreds of times more
people."
And your claim that "proven toyota mechanical issues are
insignificant" is also clearly false. They are not replacing pedal
assmeblies and reshaping accelerator pedals becasue they were just
fine. Or go back further - Toyota has recalled millions of truck to
replace defective ball joints. Thousands were recalled becasue of
rusting frames. Corollas are being recalled becasue of brake system
and steering system problems. Many Toyota have been recalled due to
defective seat belts. The Prius is being recalled for braking
problems. Corollas and Matrix's were recalled becasue of a defect that
could cause the windows to shatter. The list is very long. Millions of
Toyota have been recalled in the last five years for defects that
Toyota has acknowledged. These are not "insignificant," well except
apparently in your mind.
>> Hiring former NHTSA execs to help cover up
>> problems is not the right way to go.
>
> as opposed to frod who not only hire nhtsa execs, but who also hire
> politicians to change nhtsa leadership they don't like??? what a
> crock.
Both Ford and GM denied hiring any former NHTSA execs.
>> Co-operating with NHTSA to
>> resolve issues is a much better strategy.
>
> sure. but pandering to the press and listening to fools whipping up
> a frenzy of xenophobic hysteria is not.
Again, it is my opinion that if Toyota had cooperated with NHTSA back
in 2007 when Toyota was first warned there was a UA problem with
certain models, there would be no hysteria now. Toyota brought this
on by ignoring / covering-up a potential problem.
>> The domestic companies
>> figured this out years ago.
>
> yeah, they made all their problems disappear by showing up in d.c.
> with cash in brown paper envelopes. used notes, non-consecutive
> serial numbers. oh, and by paying trolls to prostitute themselves
> by making propaganda on usenet.
You really do enjoy making stuff up. Care to cite even one reference?
Here is my cite -
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atXvi2msqPOM
I certainly believe there have been cases where manufacturrs (Toyota
included) have used political influence to avoid recalls. I also
believe there have been cases where NHTSA over reacted in trying to
force recalls. NHTSA should be an advocate for safety, BUT, there has
to be limits to this advocacy. I feel that if NHTSA had reacted
properly in 2007, then there would be no hysteria over Toyota UA
problems today. Instead, NHTSA bought a half baked Toyota excuse and
let the complaints slide. It was a mistake then, and Toyota is paying
for NHTSA's mistake now.
>> Toyota needs to figure it out now.
>> Companies don't always agree with NHTSA opinions/findings, but in
>> general working with NHTSA is better than trying to work around
>> them.
>
> would this be the nhtsa that's acting in the consumer interest? or
> would this be the nhtsa whose ethicsless and technically challenged
> political appointees are merely dancing to the tune of their
> paymasters?
Like all government agencies, politics affect NHTSA policies. In my
opinion, durig the Carter administration the trial lawyers held sway
and NHTSA harrassed the domestic manufacturers constantly. During the
Regan years, they tended to be more relaxed. This continued through
the Clinton years. During the Bush II years it seems NHTSA was willing
to ignoe many significant problems. I'll bet if Claybrook had been
running DOT in 2007, Toyota would have been pushed to expalin the
large number of UA complaint received back then. But, I can't prove
that. I know some people feel that the current pressure on Toyota is
some sort of political game being played to appease the UAW. If so,
then it would seem the opposite could also be true, i.e., during the
Bush II years NHTSA may have buried certain problems becasue of
politics. You can't claim one possibility and dismiss the other - can
you?
> how much are you getting paid for this ed? what price do your
> ethics actually have? not enough for you to retire on i'll bet.
I have opinions and I try to present facts that support my opinions.
You have very strong opinions and you seen willing to make stuff up
to defend them. I might be wrong about things, but it is not becasue I
don't try to understand the facts. It seems to me that you don't have
any interest in knowing the facts, you just feel the need to defend
Toyota no matter what the truth is. I know two people can look at the
same facts and reach different conclusions. To me it seem clear Toyota
has a problem. The number complaints regarding Toyota UA incidents is
far to great to ignore or dismiss as driver error. I am sure some are
due to driver error, but I am also sure many are not.
> you need to either just cash those checks and get a real job, or you
> need to man up and address the ethical issue of domestic
> manufacturers who, purely for economics, decide to make and sell
> vehicles that their prototype testing has shown to be fatally
> dangerous.
Care to cite a case? I assume you are again trying to trash Explores
again. I've given you links to lots information related to Explorers.
Go read it. If you are honest, you'll quite picking on Explorers.
> you should also address the money those domestics pay for political
> manipulation to ensure nhtsa stays off their back when
> inconveniences like driver deaths start becoming a problem - you
> know, after the first few hundred.
Proof?
If people payed attention to driver death rates, Toyota 4Runners would
have been banned from the roads during the 1990's. So would Geo
Metros, Toyota Tercels, 2 Door 2 wheel drive Explorers (they are way
worse than the 4 door Explorers but sold in relatively small numbers),
Chevrolet Camaros, Tacomas, Rangers, etc., etc., etc. Lots of vehicle
have very bad driver death rate statictics. In fact, if safety
statistics determined what we should drive, we should all be driving
German vehicles.
Ed
jim beam
> "jim beam"<m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:u7adnTbJUsE9IefW...@speakeasy.net...
>> On 02/16/2010 06:22 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> <I clipped all the repetive attempt to defelect attention from the
>>> Toyota problems by ranting about other manufacturers>
>>
>> eh? why would you snip all the stuff that you can't address and
>> which illustrates the hypocrisy of your "argument"??? [rhetorical]
>
> I just snipped your repeatitive ranting. I'd already responded to most
> of the points at least twice. You just repeat the same unsupported
> crap again and again.
up until not, i was in two minds about you. either you were some
provincial living in a chevy bubble out in the sticks somewhere. or you
were a paid shill. given that you deny reality and that think
repetition somehow transforms bullshit into truth, i'm now convinced of
the latter.
>
>>> Your whole line of reasoning seems to mirror the Toyota corporate
>>> philosophy deny, deny, divert attention. It seems to me you have
>>> the
>>> following opinions:
>>>
>>> * Toyotas are perfect
>>
>> i've never said that. honda are perfect. toyota merely excellent.
>
> OK. My mistake.
>
>>> * Toyotas have no problems
>>
>> see above.
>
> So Hondas have no problems, and Toyotas only has a few?
>
>>> * Any problems associated with Toyotas are the fault of the people
>>> who
>>> buy them
>>
>> i never said that. but there is an idiot factor, and you simply
>> refuse to address it.
>
> OK, you got me again. You never said "any" problems associated with
> Toyotas are the fault of the people who buy them. However, you have
> implied that the current UA complaints are most/all the result of
> driver error. If this is not the case, what percentage do you think
> are related to driver error and what percentage are do to defects?
you seem keen on stats [apart form the ones that contradict your
perverse version of reality of course] so i think you should tell me.
>
> I have said many times that I belive many of the Toyota UA
> (unintneded acceleration) episodes were actually caused by pedal
> confusion. And I agree that the CHP driver in CA that wrecked a Lexus
> ES350 was an idiot, or at least a panicy fool. I've said this more
> than once, BUT, if this was simply a case of idiocy, why is it that
> Toyota has so many more complaints of UA that most other
> manufacturers?
complaint != fault. how many more times to you have to be told this
simple truth? people don't bother to "complain" about domestics because
1. there is no political agenda
2, their expectations are so much lower.
> In the last decade Toyotas have generated many more UA
> complaints than vehicles from other manufacturer (5 to 20 times as
> many).
how many are substantiated??? it's /substantiated/ problems that matter.
> I don't think you mean to suggest that people who buy Toyotas
> are 5 to 20 times as likely to be an idiot as people who buy
> Chevrolets....do you?
no. anyone that buys a chevy is automatically an idiot.
>
>>> * All other cars except Toyotas are crap
>>
>> see above.
>
> OK, Hondas and Toyotas aren't crap. Do any other vehciles fall into
> the "not crap" category?
subaru.
>
>>> * Whenever it is discovered Toyota aren't perfect, it is acceptable
>>> start yelling and screaming about other manufacturers to try and
>>> change the subject.
>>
>> you of course simply snip the whole argument. oh, the hypocrisy
>
> You keep repeating the same misinformation that has nothing to do with
> the current Toyota probelms.
i have to keep correcting your bullshit you mean. when are you going to
man up the facts of frod's deliberate financial decision to sell
vehicles it KNEW would kill people?
> I don't see how repeating unsupported BS
> about Explorers or whining about cars from the 70's has any bearing on
> the current Toyota problems.
1. i've never mentioned cars from the 70's so you can stop that red
herring right now.
2. the exploder stuff is [a rather nauseating] illustration of your
double standard - import deserves criticism and complaint, domestic
deserved ghostly* silence.
* i use that word with irony given the multiple hundreds of deaths at
the hands of domestic manufacturers.
> Throwing up smoke screens doesn't change
> the facts.
hypocrisy, they name is "c. e. white". smoke screen is /all/ you've
done in this thread.
> You never addrses the facts available related to Toyota.
> You just go off on a tangent about Fords from 10 to 40 years ago, and
> even then you misrepresent the facts.
bullshit. and as long as you keep avoiding reality, i'm going to keep
on confronting you with it.
>
> Do you actually have a theory about why there are so many UA
> complaints related to Toyotas? Or do you just assume hundreds
> (actually thousands) of people decided to make up stories about
> Toyotas and engine speed control problems? Why do you think Toyota is
> modifying accelerator pedals and pedal assemblies? Do you think they
> took the mats out of my Mother's Highlander becasue there wasn't a
> potential problem?
i think they took them out because some people are idiots. example:
just saturday, a girlfriend showed up in her prius, opened the door, and
i noticed that she had a show and a sunglass case down in the driver
footwell. and the latter was under the throttle pedal. given some
people's apparent disregard for what others would regard as prudence and
self-preservation, i too would remove the floor mats if idiot's can be
trusted to keep an eye on the things in case they get unhooked.
>
>>> * It is OK to lie as much as necessary to protect the Toyota image
>>
>> utter hypocrisy. see above.
>
> Point out my lies. I have pointed out many times where you had made
> incorrect statemetns regarding Ford Explorers.
you say they are, but each is factually correct. at this stage, you're
clearly too invested or too delusional to admit it, but something that
doesn't suit you isn't automatically a lie.
> But I'll give you the
> benefit of the doubt, maybe you didn't intend to lie, you are just
> don't care about the truth if it doesn't fit your biases.
patronizing hypocrite
>
> I try to provide refernces for my statements.
the only thing you're "trying" to do is avoid the facts. your chevy
sales suppositions were just amazing.
> It is not always
> possible.
that's because you're making them up!
> You never provide any refernces. You just say stuff, much of
> which is not true.
i cite refs regularly. and, yet again, just because you don't like
something, doesn't mean it's not true.
> I might not be right all the time, but I'd like to
> be.
that's a classic passive-aggressive switch statement. you try to set
yourself up as the victim when in fact, you're the one grinding the ax.
> Apparently this is not one of your main concerns. It seems to me
> that you are much more interested in proping up Toyota than knowing
> the truth.
i've stated my position repeatedly, but it doesn't suit you to address
or admit it. i /want/ to see a strong domestic motor industry. but
pouring billions into a dinosaur that doesn't listen to customers is not
the way to go. and "strong domestic motor industry" DOESN'T mean
bullshitting people about its legitimate competition. AND "domestic"
doesn't mean pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into a company that
immediately turns around and out-sources jobs and componentry to china.
strength should be by raising the game and improving quality. end of
story.
oh, and the japanese make batter cars, and create american jobs. fact.
>
>>> You need to get over the "Toyota are perfect" / "domestic cars are
>>> crap" opinion.
>>
>> it's not an "opinion". it's an observation based on many years
>> experience. oh, and one more thing - i know stuff about vehicle
>> design and manufacture that you evidently don't.
>
> Possibly you know a lot more about vehicle design and manufacturing
> than I do. What is your background?
my background is engineering and materials.
> I am basing my opinions regarding
> the current Toyota problems based on the facts available to me.
ah, the passive-aggressive masquerade again... no, you're making
propaganda and denying reality.
> Many
> of my other opinions on cars are based on cars owned by myself, my
> family and my close friends. I know it is not a broad sampling, but it
> is the best I can do.
that's ridiculous - you're delusionally selecting only the stuff you
want, and making the rest up.
> Over the years I have owned vehciles from most
> major manufacturers. Family and close friends have owned many others.
> My SO is a big fan of Toyotas. My Sisters and Mother own them as well.
> In fact, I encouraged my Mother to buy a Highlander. It seemed the
> best vehcile available for her particular set of needs and desires.
> I'd like to know for certain it is not going to experience a UA event
> while she is at the wheel.
you want us to believe this when you so resolutely deny all the other facts?
>
>>> Reasonable comparisons show almost no difference in
>>> quality between the major domestic manufacturers and Toyota.
>>
>> you mean jd power reports? - that fine research establishment that
>> asks new car owners whether their new car has broken down yet?
>> sure, that's a great measure of reliability and component quality!
>
> So what do you consider reasonable? Your opinion? JD Powers actually
> asks a lot more questions than you have indicated. They have surveyed
> me twice. They only report a teaser to the press for free. The rest
> they sell to interested parties.
red herring - what jd power do with their stuff is utterly irrelevant.
>
>> go to a junkyard ed. the evidence of domestic vehicle longevity vs
>> import longevity is laid out for you by the thousand. and there's
>> about a 10 year delta between them.
>
> Care to provide any proof of this, or do you think it is true becasue
> it suits your biases?
you want me to take a bunch of junkyard pics for you?
> I don't honestly know. I do know that Chevrolet
> claims the Silverado is the longest lasting truck based on Polk
> registration data. Unfortunately it is hard to come by this data
> unless you are willing to pay for it.
>
> IN my opinion, if you count cars in junk yards you are likely to get a
> skewed result dependin on the particualr junk yard and location.
yeah, you'd get one that represents the reality of the garbage people
throw away, not the fluffy little dream you're trying to cling to.
> I
> would guess that the percentage of domestic vs foreign cars in junk
> yards is a trailing indicator of the relative sales percentage of
> domestic vs foreign cars. I would not put much faith in it.
of course - it doesn't suit you! and it's a leading indicator of
consumer fault tolerance. 10 year old domestics are in junkyards in
huge abundance. quite a few even younger. honda/toyota are in the
15-20 year bracket. if you can't admit that speaks to reliability and
driver fault tolerance, you're truly delusional.
> But that
> is just me. I suppose I could go down to the local junk yard that
> specializes in foregin cars and take a picture to "prove" you are
> wrong, but that wouldn't be fair.
"specializes in foreign cars"??? dude, i go to junkyards that take any
car. right now, especially after the cash-for-clunkers backlog is still
clearing, it's frankly shocking how much domestic crap is piling up.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Age_of_vehicles_in_operation
> http://connection.ebscohost.com/content/article/1029486549.html
what use is that if it doesn't break out the producers??? oh, wait,
you're not going to cite a source that could possibly contradict your
position.
>
>>> I can't understand why you think it is a good idea to sweep all
>>> these
>>> Toyota vehicle speed control problems under the rug.
>>
>> i'm not - i'm merely pointing out the bullshit and hypocrisy in
>> ignoring the facts - other manufacturers are way worse and kill many
>> more people, but you resolutely and unswervingly refuse to
>> acknowledge that.
>
> Have you got any data at all to support that claim? What does way
> worse mean? Over the last four years Toyota has been near or at the
> top of the list for most recalls by a manufacturers.
i was going to respond to this specifically, but after searching for
"ford explorer death statistics" on google, i think you'd better do that
for yourself. i think you'll be surprised. or maybe you won't since
your denial is so complete.
>
> Do you ahve any statistics to prove that domestic cars kill way more
> people than foreign cars? You keep attacking Ford Explorers from the
> 1990. Look at http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3507.pdf
> . This publication includes driver death rates for many different
> vehciles from that era. According to this publication "the
> averagedeath rate in all passenger vehicles during 1995-98 is 89 per
> million registered vehicle years" For 4 Door 4wd Ford Explorers the
> rate was 56 from all causes (including rollovers). This was well below
> average.
driver years??? that a bullshit statistic. the nhtsa use dto use "per
million driver miles" - a very different story.
> So clearly Explorers from that era could not be considered
> especailly dangerous.
bullshit.
just start here:
http://www.suv-rollovers.com/ford-rollover-suv-lawyer.cfm
these guys work with data obtained through subpoena, not pulled out of
your fridge.
> For sure the driver death rate for Explorers was
> higher than for Toyota Camrys (37), but it was still much better than
> for Toyota Avalons (80), Toyota Corollas (86), 4 door 4wd Toyota
> 4Runners (126), Toyota Tacoma Xtra Cabs (151), or Toyota Tacoma
> Regular Cabs (211).
>
> So do you still want to rant and rave about how dangerous Explrers
> were? If so, what is the basis for this raving? Why aren't you raving
> about the Toyotas from that era that were statistically much worse.
carefully chosen "statistics" do not a lawyers career make.
>
> Although you seem to be fixated on trashing Explorers from the 1990's,
> maybe you think things are a lot different now. If so, take a look at
> http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf .
>
> For 2001-2004 vehicles, the average driver death rate for all light
> vehicle was 79 per million registered vehicle years (much better than
> the average in 1998). The 2001-2004 4 door Explorer was still better
> than average (47) but now the 2001-2004 Toyota 4Runner was very good
> (13). So apparently Toyota can learn from their past problems. On the
> other hand, the driver death rates for 2001-2004 Camrys was in the
> toliet (55) which was worse than for the 4 door Explorers from those
> years. 2001-2004 4 door At least when this study was done, Explorers
> were actually less likely to kill their driver in an accident than a
> 2001-2004
that's because it was a different explorer with a lower center of
gravity and independent rear suspension!
> Camry. Explaint that the next time you want to trash
> Explorers.
so explain the increase in fatalities and their correlation with suv
sales cited here:
http://www.kentuckyinjurylawyerblog.com/2009/07/ford_explorer_rollover_acciden.html
do you have memos from toyota where executives have decided to not do
recalls or redesigns for problems they knew to exist before they even
sold their vehicles? frod left a paper=trail in abundance.
>
> And your claim that "proven toyota mechanical issues are
> insignificant" is also clearly false.
12 vehicles is not "significant" compared to the millions and millions
of vehicles on the road. sorry.
> They are not replacing pedal
> assmeblies and reshaping accelerator pedals becasue they were just
> fine.
no, they're voluntarily doing it because they're doing the right thing.
did frod do the right thing when their execs decided to sell a vehicle
they know to be fatally dangerous?
> Or go back further - Toyota has recalled millions of truck to
> replace defective ball joints. Thousands were recalled becasue of
> rusting frames. Corollas are being recalled becasue of brake system
> and steering system problems. Many Toyota have been recalled due to
> defective seat belts. The Prius is being recalled for braking
> problems. Corollas and Matrix's were recalled becasue of a defect that
> could cause the windows to shatter. The list is very long. Millions of
> Toyota have been recalled in the last five years for defects that
> Toyota has acknowledged. These are not "insignificant," well except
> apparently in your mind.
apparently the difference between a voluntary recall of a supplier
component defect and a known design flaw prior to manufacture is lost on
you.
>
>>> Hiring former NHTSA execs to help cover up
>>> problems is not the right way to go.
>>
>> as opposed to frod who not only hire nhtsa execs, but who also hire
>> politicians to change nhtsa leadership they don't like??? what a
>> crock.
>
> Both Ford and GM denied hiring any former NHTSA execs.
of course! besides, it doesn't make a lot of difference when you have
the nhtsa's political masters on your payroll.
>
>>> Co-operating with NHTSA to
>>> resolve issues is a much better strategy.
>>
>> sure. but pandering to the press and listening to fools whipping up
>> a frenzy of xenophobic hysteria is not.
>
> Again, it is my opinion that if Toyota had cooperated with NHTSA back
> in 2007 when Toyota was first warned there was a UA problem with
> certain models, there would be no hysteria now.
but they did! both investigated and couldn't find a problem! frod
simply denied and bought off any objections.
> Toyota brought this
> on by ignoring / covering-up a potential problem.
no, it's a politically sponsored attack.
>
>>> The domestic companies
>>> figured this out years ago.
>>
>> yeah, they made all their problems disappear by showing up in d.c.
>> with cash in brown paper envelopes. used notes, non-consecutive
>> serial numbers. oh, and by paying trolls to prostitute themselves
>> by making propaganda on usenet.
>
> You really do enjoy making stuff up. Care to cite even one reference?
strangely, not many politicians spend too much time publicizing their
connections. but you'd know that if you'd experienced this phenomenon
personally like i have.
>
> Here is my cite -
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atXvi2msqPOM
so what? that's the way everybody does business. one rule for
domestics and another for imports, just because they make better cars
and out-sell you???
>
> I certainly believe there have been cases where manufacturrs (Toyota
> included) have used political influence to avoid recalls.
shock, horror!!!
> I also
> believe there have been cases where NHTSA over reacted in trying to
> force recalls.
shock horror!!!
> NHTSA should be an advocate for safety, BUT, there has
> to be limits to this advocacy. I feel that if NHTSA had reacted
> properly in 2007, then there would be no hysteria over Toyota UA
> problems today. Instead, NHTSA bought a half baked Toyota excuse and
> let the complaints slide. It was a mistake then, and Toyota is paying
> for NHTSA's mistake now.
so if a girlfriend drives around with shoes and sunglass cases under her
throttle pedal, is that toyota's fault? it's worthy of a national
recall, right?
>
>>> Toyota needs to figure it out now.
>>> Companies don't always agree with NHTSA opinions/findings, but in
>>> general working with NHTSA is better than trying to work around
>>> them.
>>
>> would this be the nhtsa that's acting in the consumer interest? or
>> would this be the nhtsa whose ethicsless and technically challenged
>> political appointees are merely dancing to the tune of their
>> paymasters?
>
> Like all government agencies, politics affect NHTSA policies.
no shit, sherlock.
> In my
> opinion, durig the Carter administration the trial lawyers held sway
> and NHTSA harrassed the domestic manufacturers constantly. During the
> Regan years, they tended to be more relaxed. This continued through
> the Clinton years. During the Bush II years it seems NHTSA was willing
> to ignoe many significant problems.
see above.
> I'll bet if Claybrook had been
> running DOT in 2007, Toyota would have been pushed to expalin the
> large number of UA complaint received back then. But, I can't prove
> that. I know some people feel that the current pressure on Toyota is
> some sort of political game being played to appease the UAW.
wow, from you, that's some admission!
> If so,
> then it would seem the opposite could also be true, i.e., during the
> Bush II years NHTSA may have buried certain problems becasue of
> politics. You can't claim one possibility and dismiss the other - can
> you?
are you for real?
>
>> how much are you getting paid for this ed? what price do your
>> ethics actually have? not enough for you to retire on i'll bet.
>
> I have opinions and I try to present facts that support my opinions.
logical disconnect - you should explore facts, then draw your
conclusion, not the other way around.
> You have very strong opinions and you seen willing to make stuff up
> to defend them.
no, i simply tell you stuff you don't want to hear!
> I might be wrong about things, but it is not becasue I
> don't try to understand the facts.
but clearly you do! your wriggling and squirming when confronted with
the frod exploder fiasco shows that truth!
> It seems to me that you don't have
> any interest in knowing the facts, you just feel the need to defend
> Toyota no matter what the truth is.
er, exactly the opposite actually.
> I know two people can look at the
> same facts and reach different conclusions.
yeah. some people don't get it!
> To me it seem clear Toyota
> has a problem.
yeah, a political problem.
> The number complaints regarding Toyota UA incidents is
> far to great to ignore or dismiss as driver error. I am sure some are
> due to driver error, but I am also sure many are not.
12 are not. that's a real number you can get your head around i would hope.
>
>> you need to either just cash those checks and get a real job, or you
>> need to man up and address the ethical issue of domestic
>> manufacturers who, purely for economics, decide to make and sell
>> vehicles that their prototype testing has shown to be fatally
>> dangerous.
>
> Care to cite a case?
read the frod memos the lawyers have subpoenaed.
> I assume you are again trying to trash Explores
> again. I've given you links to lots information related to Explorers.
> Go read it. If you are honest, you'll quite picking on Explorers.
no, you're citing aggregated garbage that has a false statistical basis.
>
>> you should also address the money those domestics pay for political
>> manipulation to ensure nhtsa stays off their back when
>> inconveniences like driver deaths start becoming a problem - you
>> know, after the first few hundred.
>
> Proof?
http://www.firestone-tire-recall.com/pages/overview.html
you should also read:
http://www.fordexplorerrollover.com/history/Default.cfm
and view this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrXjsuRFmQI
>
> If people payed attention to driver death rates, Toyota 4Runners would
> have been banned from the roads during the 1990's. So would Geo
> Metros, Toyota Tercels, 2 Door 2 wheel drive Explorers (they are way
> worse than the 4 door Explorers but sold in relatively small numbers),
> Chevrolet Camaros, Tacomas, Rangers, etc., etc., etc. Lots of vehicle
> have very bad driver death rate statictics. In fact, if safety
> statistics determined what we should drive, we should all be driving
> German vehicles.
no, we'd all be 60+ and driving crown vics. you like stat's don't you?
Ashton Crusher
>On 02/16/2010 06:22 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> <I clipped all the repetive attempt to defelect attention from the
>> Toyota problems by ranting about other manufacturers>
>
>eh? why would you snip all the stuff that you can't address and which
>illustrates the hypocrisy of your "argument"??? [rhetorical]
>
>
>>
>> Your whole line of reasoning seems to mirror the Toyota corporate
>> philosophy deny, deny, divert attention. It seems to me you have the
>> following opinions:
>>
>>
>>
>> * Toyotas are perfect
>
>i've never said that. honda are perfect. toyota merely excellent.
>
>
You are in almost complete denial, just like Hausuki is.
jim beam
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:41:19 -0800, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> <I clipped all the repetive attempt to defelect attention from the
>>> Toyota problems by ranting about other manufacturers>
>>
>> eh? why would you snip all the stuff that you can't address and which
>> illustrates the hypocrisy of your "argument"??? [rhetorical]
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Your whole line of reasoning seems to mirror the Toyota corporate
>>> philosophy deny, deny, divert attention. It seems to me you have the
>>> following opinions:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * Toyotas are perfect
>>
>> i've never said that. honda are perfect. toyota merely excellent.
>
> releasing their TSB's to the public - no TSB's, the cars must not have
> any factory confirmed issues.
that's odd - my grandmother never gets tsb's delivered in the mail for
her frod either. is there something wrong?
>
>
>> that's bullshit and you know it. address the facts - proven toyota
>> mechanical issues are insignificant. especially in comparison with
>> domestics that kill hundreds of times more people. and domestic
>> slaughter is directly attributable to design flaws. toyota is
>> indistinguishable from the idiot factor.
>>
>
> Regardless of what those POS domestic cars are responsible for, Toyota
> has a LONG tradition of refusing to acknowledge major issues with
> their cars.
how can you acknowledge a problem you can't replicate? like any fault
diagnosis, you have to actually catch the problem to be able to solve
it. and of course, you have to make account of the idiot/sheeple factor.
> Denial is their game until the public uproar becomes so
> loud that they have to admit to the faults. Just in the last few years
> we've had the sludge problem,
sludge comes from oil breakdown and possibly also excess moisture.
unless a head gasket has gone, it's hard to see how that could be an
engine's fault if a driver is not getting the engine hot enough to deal
with the latter, or running it too long to cause the former. or maybe
toyota just got ripped for a bulk delivery of sub-standard oil.
> the truck frame problem,
toyota are hardly unique in that. and it's the usa-made componentry
that's the problem. if they weren't paying sufficient attention to q.c.
to catch deficiencies, they do indeed have fault. but it's not a
fundamental design flaw like certain domestics we can mention.
> and the sudden
> acceleration problem.
same as above. a sticking throttle - q.c. inspection toyota didn't
catch from a faulty usa supplier - doesn't mean it's stuck in the full
open position. and it also doesn't mean the driver can't use the
brakes, select neutral or turn off the ignition. i've experienced stuck
throttle, and it sucks. but it wasn't on a toyota and was easily
controlled. twelve vehicles [and two crashes] out of many millions
driven literally billions of miles is a statistical non-event. planes
crash all the time, but i don't hear a political hue and cry about the
very real and statistically significant dangers of flying.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Tegger
4ax.com:
>
> Well, Honda would like you to think so. Must be why they stopped
> releasing their TSB's to the public
Who told you that nonsense?
All American Honda TSBs are available at https://techinfo.honda.com
(but only to US billing addresses)
If you have a membership at your local library, you can also get them
through EBSCO-Host's website, accessed through the library's site (in or
out of the US).
Each model year, American Honda typically issues about 90-100 TSBs for
Honda-branded cars, and about 70-80 for Acura-branded cars.
--
Tegger
C. E. White
anyone who look that Toyota has major quality / safety issues.
Sticking your head in the sand and making up "facts" about 15 year old
domestic vehciels isn't addressing the current problems.
As for you trial lawyer Explorer attack sites. They are ridiculous.
The cites trolling for clients usually show pictures of 1996 - 2001
models. The only problem is, by those years, the Explorer had
completely different front suspension than the early 90 models. So
they claim a design defect for late 90's models based on a design from
a completely different version of the vehicle. It is ridiculous. All
the crap about how Ford didn't update the suspenison from a 1990
Ranger is completely wrong when you are talking about vehicles from
1996 on. If you would bother to do any research at all, you would
understand this was a bunch of half baked crap written by a bunch of
trial lawyers looking for a pay day. The time line reference is
unbelieveable. It mixes letters regarding the Bronco II, early
Explorers, late Explorers, etc. They do just about as much research as
you - ZERO. Repeating the lies / misinformation originated by other is
not research. Accident statistics have never supported the idea that 4
door Explorers were particulary dangerous compared to other vehciles
in the class. Find some statistics that say otherwise....
Ed
C. E. White
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
news:Xns9D22703A...@208.90.168.18...
I think the problem is that Honda (and Toyota) forced third party
sites like Alldata to stop posting the TSB titles for free. This made
it harder to learn of TSBs that might affect your vehicle. You can
still find titles of safety related TSBs at the NHTSA web site.
However, NHTSA only lists safety releated TSBs (and only a brief
description). The vehicle manufacturers get to decide what is safety
related, so the NHTSA site isn't much use if you want to find out if
there is a TSB for a particular concern that Honda doesn't consider to
be safety related. However, if you don't mind the modest fee for
temporray access you can get all sorts of information form the Honda
site mentioned above. Toyota and Ford (and probably others) have
similar sites that give you temporary access to lots of good
information. I especially like the Toyota site. I visit it frequently.
It has helped me with a couple concerns we had with the SO RAV4.
Ed
Tegger
@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> I think the problem is that Honda (and Toyota) forced third party
> sites like Alldata to stop posting the TSB titles for free.
Check out EBSCO-Host. It's all free, except for what it costs you for a
library card at your local library.
> This made
> it harder to learn of TSBs that might affect your vehicle.
Go to your local library and get a library card. The librarians will tell
you how to log on to EBSCO using your library card number. All the TSBs you
could possibly find are there. For free.
--
Tegger
C. E. White
problem...
http://www.designnews.com/article/print/448825-Poor_Plastic_Selection_Caused_Gas_Pedal_Failures.php
Toyota says a high-performance plastic used as friction levers in
accelerator pedal assemblies causes the gas pedal to malfunction in
certain weather conditions. Toyota outlined the problem in a recent
letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
including details of problems dating to March, 2007, when internal
testing on the plastic accelerated.
Chris Santucci, manager of technical & regulatory affairs for Toyota
Motor North America, says:
"Due to the manner in which the friction lever interacts with the
sliding surface of the accelerator pedal inside the pedal sensor
assembly, the sliding surface of the lever may become smooth during
vehicle operation. In this condition, if condensation occurs on the
surface, as may occur from heater operation (without A/C) when the
pedal assembly is cold, the friction when the accelerator pedal is
operated may increase, which may result in the accelerator pedal
becoming harder to depress, slower to return or in the worst case,
mechanically stuck in a partially depressed position."
The problem was first reported in March, 2007 when Toyota received
field technical information of accelerator pedals demonstrating
symptoms such as rough operation or being slow to return to the idle
position.
The accelerator pedal assemblies in the vehicles (Tundras) contained a
friction lever made of the polyamide (nylon) 4/6 material. Toyota's
investigation found that the material was susceptible to humidity,
which could cause the friction lever to absorb moisture and swell. It
is well known that nylon is a hygroscopic (water-absorbing) polymer.
In February 2008, the material of the friction arm was changed to PPS
while investigations continued. "In June 2008, Toyota concluded that
while accelerator pedal feeling could change under certain conditions,
Toyota considered it to be a drivability issue unrelated to safety,"
said Toyota's Santucci in a Jan. 21 letter to Daniel C. Smith,
associate administrator for enforcement at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
Starting in December of 2008, Toyota received field technical
information from Europe that the accelerator pedals using the PPS were
also sticking. The reports predominantly involved right hand drive
versions of the Toyota Aygo and Yaris vehicles. Toyota began a
detailed investigation of returned pedals in March of last year.
"Internal inspection of the sliding surface of the friction lever and
the pedal arm was found to be partially smooth," wrote Santucci.
"Toyota conducted some duplication tests, and it was found that the
internal friction could increase if moisture was attached to the
sliding surface of the friction lever as the surface became smooth.
This made the accelerator pedal stick in a partially depressed
position under the condition where condensation occurs on the
accelerator pedal."
C. E. White
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
Does it include the full text of TSBs, or just the titles? I need to
get a library card (or use my sons).
Ed
C. E. White
to be a drivability issue unrelated to safety." Who would claim a
sticking gas pedal is not a safety issue? And, since they knew in 2007
that these pedals were sticking, or could stick uder some conditions,
why in the heck didn't Toyota change the material sooner? It seem
irresponsible to keep using the same material for 3 years after you
recognize their is a problem. I guess this is a question of the left
hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. If they had spent less
time convincing NHTSA that they didn't need to investigate the
problem, and more time fixing this "drivability issue" [HA HA], then
there wouldn't be any big frenzy now.
A neighbor of mine ran his Tacoma into a building last week. See
http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/driver-stuck-gas-pedal-caused-wreck-15332
I think it is interesting how quickly Toyota snatched up the vehicle.
I suppose if I was a Toyota executive I wouldn't want to let it fall
into the hands of some scum sucking lawyer either. No telling what
they might find. Do 2009 Tacomas include a flight recorder function?
If I had a problem like this, I would not let the manufacturer impound
the vehicle until I had an independent party to look it over and
document the condition of the vehicle.
Ed
Tegger
@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D235F10...@208.90.168.18...
>>
>>
>> Go to your local library and get a library card. The librarians will
>> tell
>> you how to log on to EBSCO using your library card number. All the
>> TSBs you
>> could possibly find are there. For free.
>
>
> Does it include the full text of TSBs, or just the titles? I need to
> get a library card (or use my sons).
>
It has the TSBs themselves, and for just about all makes going back to
about 1990. I don't know how they do it, but as far as I can see, they're
all there. The only ones that may not be there are the very newest ones.
They are separated by year, then by make, then by model, then by sub-model
(LX, DX, etc). TSBs that are applicable to several models are repeated in
the appropriate locations.
I checked just now, and it's still there, just like it has been for years.
--
Tegger
cl...@snyder.on.ca
And under the current conditions, if you were Toyota you definitely
would NOT allow the vehicle to be "inspected" by anyone else without
your people being there and involved. WAY too easy for someone with an
agenda to fake the inspection.
What needs to be done id to have both an independent party and Toyota
investigate co-operatively to determine what the cause REALLY was.
With all the information out there today, there is NO EXCUSE for
someone having a stuck throttle episode. - defective pedal or not. If
the pedal gets stiff/sticky - DON"T DRIVE IT. Not like you have no
idea there might be a problem - and not like they stick without
warning. They get stiff first.
jim beam
c'mon dude - our detroit shill wants to lynch him some non-union
employerz. "reason",
"logic" or "facts" aren't going to get in the way of his burning torch,
rope and hood.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
> When are you going to address Toyota's problems?
when are you going to address frod's issues?
> It is obvious to
> anyone who look that Toyota has major quality / safety issues.
it's obvious to anyone who looks that frod has major safety/executive
ethics issues.
> Sticking your head in the sand and making up "facts" about 15 year old
> domestic vehciels isn't addressing the current problems.
sticking your head in the sand and making up [unproven] "problems" with
domestically produced vehicles that use non-union labor isn't addressing
the fact that detroit produces crap and is prepared to kill citizens
rather than design properly.
>
> As for you trial lawyer Explorer attack sites. They are ridiculous.
yeah, all except for the parts where they subpoena frod's internal
documents that show them to be deciding to continue production, even
though they know vehicles to be fatally unsafe.
> The cites trolling for clients usually show pictures of 1996 - 2001
> models. The only problem is, by those years, the Explorer had
> completely different front suspension than the early 90 models.
no, it's the /post/ 2001 that are completely different.
> So
> they claim a design defect for late 90's models based on a design from
> a completely different version of the vehicle. It is ridiculous.
logical fallacy. see above.
> All
> the crap about how Ford didn't update the suspenison from a 1990
> Ranger is completely wrong when you are talking about vehicles from
> 1996 on.
stick to the correct dates dude. please.
> If you would bother to do any research at all, you would
> understand this was a bunch of half baked crap written by a bunch of
> trial lawyers looking for a pay day.
and yet, oddly enough, trial lawyers have to stick to provable facts in
order to win cases. strange how you'd not want to admit that. or not.
> The time line reference is
> unbelieveable. It mixes letters regarding the Bronco II, early
> Explorers, late Explorers, etc.
"unbelievable"??? it shows the clear and consistent policy of frod
executives to dismiss safety because it would cost more. if you don't
think that's wrong, there's something wrong with you.
> They do just about as much research as
> you - ZERO.
see above.
> Repeating the lies / misinformation originated by other is
> not research.
translation: "daring to point out facts that contradict what i don't
want to see makes me feel uncomfortable."
> Accident statistics have never supported the idea that 4
> door Explorers were particulary dangerous compared to other vehciles
> in the class.
except that their single-vehicle rollover fatality rate - you know,
where no there vehicles were involved, so only that vehicle was
responsible, and the stats you carefully avoided citing - was three
times that of its next rival.
> Find some statistics that say otherwise....
for you to dismiss as "lies and misinformation"???
>
> Ed
you know ed, your arguments always work great. right up until the point
where you ignore/dismiss facts, operate double standards, and won't use
logic.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
C. E. White
> On 02/18/2010 05:33 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> When are you going to address Toyota's problems?
>
> when are you going to address frod's issues?
I did. You just ignore the facts and refuse to see the truth.
>> It is obvious to
>> anyone who look that Toyota has major quality / safety issues.
>
> it's obvious to anyone who looks that frod has major
> safety/executive ethics issues.
Compared to Toyota? I suppose you are ignoring the latest revelation
of how Toyota destroyed documents that discussed how unsafe 4Runners
were. As I pointed out to you several times, 4Runners from the 1990's
were more likely to roll and kill the occupants than Explorers. You
conveniently ignore that FACT when you start trashing Explorers.
>> Sticking your head in the sand and making up "facts" about 15 year
>> old
>> domestic vehciels isn't addressing the current problems.
>
> sticking your head in the sand and making up [unproven] "problems"
> with domestically produced vehicles that use non-union labor isn't
> addressing the fact that detroit produces crap and is prepared to
> kill citizens rather than design properly.
What exactly does this mean? No manufactuerer is prepared to kill
citizens. All manufacturers make mistakes. I am more concerned with
Toyota's unwillingness to address problems. There is plenty of
evidence that Toyota has known about the sticky accelerator pedals for
at least 3 years. I posted a link to a Design News article where the
Toyota engineers discussed how they learned of the problem in 2007.
They knew the pedals might be slow to return, or even stick in place.
And yet, they did nothing. They didn't even change the design until
this year. Explain to me how that is reasonable.
>> As for you trial lawyer Explorer attack sites. They are
>> ridiculous.
>
> yeah, all except for the parts where they subpoena frod's internal
> documents that show them to be deciding to continue production, even
> though they know vehicles to be fatally unsafe.
>
>
>> The cites trolling for clients usually show pictures of 1996 - 2001
>> models. The only problem is, by those years, the Explorer had
>> completely different front suspension than the early 90 models.
>
> no, it's the /post/ 2001 that are completely different.
Not true. The original, generation 1, Explorers used the twin I-Beam
/ Twin Traction beam front suspension. After 2005 the front suspesnion
of the generation 2 Explorers was competley different (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer for a better explanation of
the differences). They used upper and lower A-arms with torsion bars.
The Generation 1 two door models with the twin I beam type suspension
are the ones that are alway talked about in the early engineering
memos regarding the Consumer Reports lane change manuever. The 2 Door
version had a shorter wheelbase and took a lot of work to get it to
pass the Consumer Reports manuver. The Consumer Reports test is not
any sort of regulatory requirement, but if your vehicle fails the
test, CR makes a big deal out of it (ask Isuzu ans Suzuki about that).
Ford wanted to make sure they could pass it. As I recall, even the
Generation 1 2 Door model passed the test when CR tested them. The 4
Door version (the one built in by far the largest numbers) never had
the same level of difficulty with this test. It had a longer
wheelbase. The 4 door, 4WD version was even more stable. In terms of
stability, the 2 door, 2 wd version made before 2005 was the least
stable. All of the Generation 2 models were much better. Ironically
most of the bad Firestone tires were on the Generation 2 models. Most
of the memo's in your long list of memos were dealing with discussions
between Ford and Firestone regarding recalling tires. Read some of
them. Not only was Firestone unwilling to recall the defective tries,
they constantly pressured Ford not to recall them either.
>> So
>> they claim a design defect for late 90's models based on a design
>> from
>> a completely different version of the vehicle. It is ridiculous.
>
> logical fallacy. see above.
Not at all. The problem is you don't care to know the facts.
>> All
>> the crap about how Ford didn't update the suspenison from a 1990
>> Ranger is completely wrong when you are talking about vehicles from
>> 1996 on.
>
> stick to the correct dates dude. please.
Which dates do you want me to stick to. After 1995, the Explorer's
front suspension was completely different than the prior models. You
apparently did not know that. And since you only are willing to read
Trial Lawyer misinfomration sites, you don't have the actual facts,
just their skewed version designed to help them win clients and cases.
>> If you would bother to do any research at all, you would
>> understand this was a bunch of half baked crap written by a bunch
>> of
>> trial lawyers looking for a pay day.
>
> and yet, oddly enough, trial lawyers have to stick to provable facts
> in order to win cases. strange how you'd not want to admit that.
> or not.
Do you really beleive this? That list you sent includes a lot of memos
that are true, but the interpertation is often skewed. The list is
constructed in such a manner as to confuse the issue. The early memos
regarding Generation 1 and even Bronco IIs are highlighted. Yet most
of the conclsuions drawn from these memos have nothing to do with
Generation 2 Explorers. Generation 2 Explorers had a wider front
track. Generation 2 Explorers had the engine lowered to improve the
COG. So the trail lawyers get in front of jury and parade a out a
bunch of carefully selected memos that indicate that some Ford
engineers wanted to widen the track and lower the engine for
Generation 1 Explorers. Other Ford Engineers siad it was not
necessary and they could pass the CR test just by adjusting tire
pressure. The goal was to pass a magazine's BS test. They were able to
pass it. Where is the smoking gun? And none of these discussions about
lowering the engine or widening the track had anythig at all to do
with Generation 2 Explorers (1995-2001). But these are the models that
mostly had the bad tires. So trail lawyers took documents related to
one model of the Explorer and used those to indicate that another had
problem - which it didn't. Is that fair? And the fact remains, that
even when you factor in the bad tires, Explorers did not have a
particualrly high rollover rate. If you average all Explorers together
(the relativvely bad 2 door 2 wheel drive models, and the very stable
4 door 4wd models) the overall Explorer rollover rate was at least
average for the class (mid sized SUVs). As I have pointed out several
times, the Toyota 4Runner from the same era (1990's) was far more
likely to be involved in a rollover accident that an Explorer. Why
don't you address that issue?
>> The time line reference is
>> unbelieveable. It mixes letters regarding the Bronco II, early
>> Explorers, late Explorers, etc.
>
> "unbelievable"??? it shows the clear and consistent policy of frod
> executives to dismiss safety because it would cost more. if you
> don't think that's wrong, there's something wrong with you.
See above
>> They do just about as much research as
>> you - ZERO.
>
> see above.
See above
>> Repeating the lies / misinformation originated by other is
>> not research.
>
> translation: "daring to point out facts that contradict what i don't
> want to see makes me feel uncomfortable."
>
>
>> Accident statistics have never supported the idea that 4
>> door Explorers were particulary dangerous compared to other
>> vehciles
>> in the class.
>
> except that their single-vehicle rollover fatality rate - you know,
> where no there vehicles were involved, so only that vehicle was
> responsible, and the stats you carefully avoided citing - was three
> times that of its next rival.
Show me your link to that statistic.
Here is one I found:
From
http://hl2.bgu.ac.il/users/www/2673/project/Rollover%20risk%20of%20cars%20and%20light%20trucks.pdf
Single-vehicle fatal rollover crashes per million registration-years,
1995-98, 1-3-year-old selected passenger vehicles
2WD utility Vehicles
Light Chevrolet Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick two-door 1994-95 - 196
Light Jeep Cherokee four-door 1995-96 - 37
Midweight Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo four-door 1996-97 - 150
Midweight Toyota 4Runner four-door 1996-97 - 80
Midweight Jeep Grand Cherokee four-door 1996-97 - 66
Heavy Ford Explorer four-door 1995-97 - 84
Very heavy Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon four-door 1995-96 - 23
4WD utility Vehicles
Light Chevrolet Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick two-doora 1994-95 - 127
Midweight Jeep Cherokee four-door 1995-96 - 12
Midweight Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo four-door 1996-97 - 104
Midweight Toyota 4Runner four-door 1996-97 - 119
Midweight Jeep Grand Cherokee four-door 1996-97 - 27
Heavy Ford Explorer four-doora 1995-97 - 51
Very heavy Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon four-doora 1995-96 - 40
For the 2WD vehciles the Explorer and 4Runner were very close with a
slight edge in favor of the 4Runner (probably not statistically
significant). I assume that these stats included the shorter wheelbase
2 door version of the Explorer. But for the 4WD versions it wasn't
close. The 4Runner had a rollover rate over twice that of the 4WD
Explorer. So again, I ask, if you are so upset about the "dangerous"
Explorer, why haven't you gone super nova over the 4Runner from the
same era. Could it be you are completely blinded by a pro-Toyota bias?
Here is the bottom line from a source I don't think even you could
claim, was pro-Ford:
From
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/before.html
"Is the Ford Explorer more rollover-prone than the dozens of other
SUVs?
"No. According to federal data and safety ratings, the four-door
Explorer's rollover record is pretty typical of midsize SUVs."
>> Find some statistics that say otherwise....
>
> for you to dismiss as "lies and misinformation"???
Do you take lesson from Mike Hunter? This seems like his tactic - make
a ridiculous claim, back it up with "data" no one else can find, and
when challenged lie like hell.
> you know ed, your arguments always work great. right up until the
> point where you ignore/dismiss facts, operate double standards, and
> won't use logic.
It seems to me you don't care about truth. And certainly you son't
use logic. Instead of addressing the original topc of this thread you
try to defelct attention by dragging misinfomration from a decade ago.
Where is the logic in that?
Ed
jim beam
> "jim beam"<m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:q4-dnf5CkvjMSODW...@speakeasy.net...
>> On 02/18/2010 05:33 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> When are you going to address Toyota's problems?
>>
>> when are you going to address frod's issues?
>
> I did. You just ignore the facts and refuse to see the truth.
wow, are you really that delusional? or are you just trying to be
insulting?
>
>>> It is obvious to
>>> anyone who look that Toyota has major quality / safety issues.
>>
>> it's obvious to anyone who looks that frod has major
>> safety/executive ethics issues.
>
> Compared to Toyota? I suppose you are ignoring the latest revelation
> of how Toyota destroyed documents that discussed how unsafe 4Runners
> were. As I pointed out to you several times, 4Runners from the 1990's
> were more likely to roll and kill the occupants than Explorers. You
> conveniently ignore that FACT when you start trashing Explorers.
1. an accusation is not fact.
2. subpoenaed documents from ford have mysterious gaps. surely that
couldn't be because stuff was "destroyed" could it?
3. oh, wait, corporations are only required to retain this type of
documentation for a few years. my company routinely destroys aged
documents. as i'm sure do your paymasters.
>
>>> Sticking your head in the sand and making up "facts" about 15 year
>>> old
>>> domestic vehciels isn't addressing the current problems.
>>
>> sticking your head in the sand and making up [unproven] "problems"
>> with domestically produced vehicles that use non-union labor isn't
>> addressing the fact that detroit produces crap and is prepared to
>> kill citizens rather than design properly.
>
> What exactly does this mean? No manufactuerer is prepared to kill
> citizens.
except the the frod documentation proves otherwise. they deliberately
chose not to make safety improvements to a vehicle they knew had a
problem. many times, over many years.
remember the pinto payouts? [rhetorical] the documentary evidence
clearly showed frod did the math on payouts to the bereaved vs. cost of
recall, and decided to continue with the lowest cost option -
manufacturing vehicles as-is despite the loss of life.
the exploder is exactly the same people making exactly the same decision.
> All manufacturers make mistakes. I am more concerned with
> Toyota's unwillingness to address problems.
unwillingness to get burned at the stake for a bunch of lying hysterical
xenophobic bullshitters you mean.
> There is plenty of
> evidence that Toyota has known about the sticky accelerator pedals for
> at least 3 years.
you mean all 12 vehicles? out of how many million? and how many
billion driver miles?
> I posted a link to a Design News article where the
> Toyota engineers discussed how they learned of the problem in 2007.
> They knew the pedals might be slow to return, or even stick in place.
> And yet, they did nothing.
lying bullshit - they changed the materials because they wanted to fix it.
> They didn't even change the design until
> this year. Explain to me how that is reasonable.
it's not a design issue - it's a supplier issue. there are no problems
with japanese componentry, only domestic crap.
>
>>> As for you trial lawyer Explorer attack sites. They are
>>> ridiculous.
>>
>> yeah, all except for the parts where they subpoena frod's internal
>> documents that show them to be deciding to continue production, even
>> though they know vehicles to be fatally unsafe.
>>
>>
>>> The cites trolling for clients usually show pictures of 1996 - 2001
>>> models. The only problem is, by those years, the Explorer had
>>> completely different front suspension than the early 90 models.
>>
>> no, it's the /post/ 2001 that are completely different.
>
> Not true. The original, generation 1, Explorers used the twin I-Beam
> / Twin Traction beam front suspension. After 2005 the front suspesnion
> of the generation 2 Explorers was competley different
wow, you really do have a twisted mind trying to wriggle and squirm like
that. the problem lies with the rear suspension [leaf springs], high
center of gravity, and narrow wheel spacing. those were not addressed
until the 2002 model year [which came out mid 2001]
> (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer for a better explanation of
> the differences). They used upper and lower A-arms with torsion bars.
> The Generation 1 two door models with the twin I beam type suspension
> are the ones that are alway talked about in the early engineering
> memos regarding the Consumer Reports lane change manuever. The 2 Door
> version had a shorter wheelbase and took a lot of work to get it to
> pass the Consumer Reports manuver. The Consumer Reports test is not
> any sort of regulatory requirement, but if your vehicle fails the
> test, CR makes a big deal out of it (ask Isuzu ans Suzuki about that).
> Ford wanted to make sure they could pass it. As I recall, even the
> Generation 1 2 Door model passed the test when CR tested them. The 4
> Door version (the one built in by far the largest numbers) never had
> the same level of difficulty with this test. It had a longer
> wheelbase. The 4 door, 4WD version was even more stable. In terms of
> stability, the 2 door, 2 wd version made before 2005 was the least
> stable. All of the Generation 2 models were much better. Ironically
> most of the bad Firestone tires were on the Generation 2 models. Most
> of the memo's in your long list of memos were dealing with discussions
> between Ford and Firestone regarding recalling tires. Read some of
> them. Not only was Firestone unwilling to recall the defective tries,
> they constantly pressured Ford not to recall them either.
red herring bullshit.
>
>>> So
>>> they claim a design defect for late 90's models based on a design
>>> from
>>> a completely different version of the vehicle. It is ridiculous.
>>
>> logical fallacy. see above.
>
> Not at all. The problem is you don't care to know the facts.
er, quite the opposite. you're the one refusing to address facts. see
above.
>
>>> All
>>> the crap about how Ford didn't update the suspenison from a 1990
>>> Ranger is completely wrong when you are talking about vehicles from
>>> 1996 on.
>>
>> stick to the correct dates dude. please.
>
> Which dates do you want me to stick to. After 1995, the Explorer's
> front suspension was completely different than the prior models.
see above. it's not a front suspension issue.
> You
> apparently did not know that. And since you only are willing to read
> Trial Lawyer misinfomration
you mean the subpoenaed documentary facts that you don't like?
> sites, you don't have the actual facts,
except that they are actual facts.
> just their skewed version designed to help them win clients and cases.
so, the families of the bereaved should just shut up and take one for
the team? dude, you're a fucking sociopath.
>
>>> If you would bother to do any research at all, you would
>>> understand this was a bunch of half baked crap written by a bunch
>>> of
>>> trial lawyers looking for a pay day.
>>
>> and yet, oddly enough, trial lawyers have to stick to provable facts
>> in order to win cases. strange how you'd not want to admit that.
>> or not.
>
> Do you really beleive this?
this is not a matter of faith - trial lawyers have to stick to the
facts. it's the law. and you think judges don't know their way around
this stuff? disingenuous bullshitter.
> That list you sent includes a lot of memos
> that are true, but the interpertation is often skewed.
translation: "clear, but inconvenient".
> The list is
> constructed in such a manner as to confuse the issue.
no, the facts speak for themselves!
> The early memos
> regarding Generation 1 and even Bronco IIs are highlighted. Yet most
> of the conclsuions drawn from these memos have nothing to do with
> Generation 2 Explorers.
bullshit they are exactly the same issue, and frod are continuing with
their calculated policy of cast savings above safety in the face of a
know problem.
> Generation 2 Explorers had a wider front
> track. Generation 2 Explorers had the engine lowered to improve the
> COG.
but not enough to fix the known problem. read the docs!
> So the trail lawyers get in front of jury and parade a out a
> bunch of carefully selected memos that indicate that some Ford
> engineers wanted to widen the track and lower the engine for
> Generation 1 Explorers. Other Ford Engineers siad it was not
> necessary
ever heard of "management direction"?
> and they could pass the CR test just by adjusting tire
> pressure.
a fatally ridiculous concept - since any tire is subject to blowout.
> The goal was to pass a magazine's BS test.
you mean, a safety test?
> They were able to
> pass it.
no, they were able to fudge it.
> Where is the smoking gun?
er, in front of your nose?
> And none of these discussions about
> lowering the engine or widening the track had anythig at all to do
> with Generation 2 Explorers (1995-2001). But these are the models that
> mostly had the bad tires.
red herring bullshit. no vehicle should roll because of a flat. period.
> So trail lawyers took documents related to
> one model of the Explorer and used those to indicate that another had
> problem - which it didn't. Is that fair?
"fair" would be you manning up to the facts. which you still refuse to do.
> And the fact remains, that
> even when you factor in the bad tires, Explorers did not have a
> particualrly high rollover rate.
but they did. your "stats" are not single vehicle fatalities - where
only that vehicle's faults have killed the occupants. the exploder is a
standout nightmare.
> If you average all Explorers together
> (the relativvely bad 2 door 2 wheel drive models, and the very stable
> 4 door 4wd models) the overall Explorer rollover rate was at least
> average for the class (mid sized SUVs). As I have pointed out several
> times, the Toyota 4Runner from the same era (1990's) was far more
> likely to be involved in a rollover accident that an Explorer. Why
> don't you address that issue?
the 4runner didn't cabin crush like the exploder did. frod know cabin
crush was an issue, not just stability.
>
>>> The time line reference is
>>> unbelieveable. It mixes letters regarding the Bronco II, early
>>> Explorers, late Explorers, etc.
>>
>> "unbelievable"??? it shows the clear and consistent policy of frod
>> executives to dismiss safety because it would cost more. if you
>> don't think that's wrong, there's something wrong with you.
>
> See above
no, see the facts - frod executives fudged and bullshitted to save
money, even in the face of known killer safety issues. that's fact.
>
>>> They do just about as much research as
>>> you - ZERO.
>>
>> see above.
>
> See above
no, see the facts - frod executives fudged and bullshitted to save
money, even in the face of known killer safety issues. that's fact.
>
>>> Repeating the lies / misinformation originated by other is
>>> not research.
>>
>> translation: "daring to point out facts that contradict what i don't
>> want to see makes me feel uncomfortable."
>>
>>
>>> Accident statistics have never supported the idea that 4
>>> door Explorers were particulary dangerous compared to other
>>> vehciles
>>> in the class.
>>
>> except that their single-vehicle rollover fatality rate - you know,
>> where no there vehicles were involved, so only that vehicle was
>> responsible, and the stats you carefully avoided citing - was three
>> times that of its next rival.
>
> Show me your link to that statistic.
like i told you before - it was on nhtsa's website. now removed.
>
> Here is one I found:
>
> From
> http://hl2.bgu.ac.il/users/www/2673/project/Rollover%20risk%20of%20cars%20and%20light%20trucks.pdf
"strangely", just like i've told you, the stats from which that paper
are drawn, ref nhtsa, are no longer available.
>
> Single-vehicle fatal rollover crashes per million registration-years,
> 1995-98, 1-3-year-old selected passenger vehicles
>
> 2WD utility Vehicles
> Light Chevrolet Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick two-door 1994-95 - 196
> Light Jeep Cherokee four-door 1995-96 - 37
> Midweight Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo four-door 1996-97 - 150
> Midweight Toyota 4Runner four-door 1996-97 - 80
> Midweight Jeep Grand Cherokee four-door 1996-97 - 66
> Heavy Ford Explorer four-door 1995-97 - 84
> Very heavy Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon four-door 1995-96 - 23
>
> 4WD utility Vehicles
> Light Chevrolet Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick two-doora 1994-95 - 127
> Midweight Jeep Cherokee four-door 1995-96 - 12
> Midweight Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo four-door 1996-97 - 104
> Midweight Toyota 4Runner four-door 1996-97 - 119
> Midweight Jeep Grand Cherokee four-door 1996-97 - 27
> Heavy Ford Explorer four-doora 1995-97 - 51
> Very heavy Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon four-doora 1995-96 - 40
"registration years", not driver miles. twisted stats again.
>
> For the 2WD vehciles the Explorer and 4Runner were very close with a
> slight edge in favor of the 4Runner (probably not statistically
> significant). I assume that these stats included the shorter wheelbase
> 2 door version of the Explorer. But for the 4WD versions it wasn't
> close. The 4Runner had a rollover rate over twice that of the 4WD
> Explorer. So again, I ask, if you are so upset about the "dangerous"
> Explorer, why haven't you gone super nova over the 4Runner from the
> same era. Could it be you are completely blinded by a pro-Toyota bias?
no, i just hate lying xenophobic bullshitters who can't man up to the
facts. i don't much care for corporate persons getting away with
manslaughter either.
>
> Here is the bottom line from a source I don't think even you could
> claim, was pro-Ford:
>
> From
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/before.html
>
> "Is the Ford Explorer more rollover-prone than the dozens of other
> SUVs?
> "No. According to federal data and safety ratings, the four-door
> Explorer's rollover record is pretty typical of midsize SUVs."
>
>>> Find some statistics that say otherwise....
>>
>> for you to dismiss as "lies and misinformation"???
>
> Do you take lesson from Mike Hunter? This seems like his tactic - make
> a ridiculous claim, back it up with "data" no one else can find, and
> when challenged lie like hell.
how ironic that you would accuse your opponent of precisely the tactic
that you are using. that's sociopathy - you have no shame.
>
>> you know ed, your arguments always work great. right up until the
>> point where you ignore/dismiss facts, operate double standards, and
>> won't use logic.
>
> It seems to me you don't care about truth.
hey mr sociopath, that's the opposite of the truth! surprise?
> And certainly you son't
> use logic.
hey mr sociopath, that's the opposite of the truth! surprise?
> Instead of addressing the original topc of this thread you
> try to defelct attention by dragging misinfomration from a decade ago.
> Where is the logic in that?
raw nerve? don't like to have your lies and bullshit exposed?
>
> Ed
you're a goddamned lying bullshitting paid sociopath ed.
"nomina rutrum rutrum" means "call a spade a spade". i just did.
Mike Hunter
"jim beam" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:q4-dnf5CkvjMSODW...@speakeasy.net...
Mike Hunter
"jim beam" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:cK-dncud4JvEJuPW...@speakeasy.net...
IYM
> (Cross posting deleted automatically)
>
Screw you Mike, you wanna be newsgroup cop. Aren't you late for work at
the Security Kiosk at the mall? Run along now...
IYM
cl...@snyder.on.ca
>On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:24:57 -0800, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> There is plenty of
>>> evidence that Toyota has known about the sticky accelerator pedals for
>>> at least 3 years.
>>
>>you mean all 12 vehicles? out of how many million? and how many
>>billion driver miles?
>
>Funny, everyone else seems to have a different count than you.
12 is the CONFIRMED number in Canada.