Your take on the Toyota debacle? - Page 2

Conspiracy theory or not, I simply do not believe that post-bailout GM would be raked over the coals like Toyota has been.  I'm glad the spotlight is on Toyota over this recall but it seems like the government smells blood in the water and is looking to damage Toyota rather than hold them responsible.

As for my personal take, this former Toyota owner will be one again in the future.  I still trust Toyotas much more than any GM or Ford.

We may find out, with GM announcing it's new recall.

That's how Congress always is.  I don't care what the issue is or what the person is being called before Congress for, they always have to be so sanctimonious.  Everybody is treated from go like a hostile witness.  "How DARE you, sir!"  I figure, you called somebody before you to get their testimony, just treat them with respect and let them speak.  But, it's all theater.  "We want to show the folks back home that we are gonna get these suckers!"--whether the "sucker" is a Toyota exec or a baseball player or a little girl selling stale Girl Scout cookies.

The only way they will get called before Congress is if they drag their heels on implementing the TBD fix or turn out to be low-balling the vehicle exposure of the recall. 

As part of their flailing communication strategy, Toyota has been pointing to the number of recalls being implemented by other manufacturers.  All things being equal, this would be a good metric, but it is not a very smart argument to make right after you have been found to be less than candid about your own defects. 

An analogy would be a company I worked with where they tried to incentivize quality by tying executive compensation to warranty.  The problem was that executive bonuses are short term incentives and warranty is a long lead item.  In order to have an immediate impact, the order from on high was to tell service folks to start aggressively denying warranty claims.  This lowered the warranty claim rates, but was anti-customer and had no impact on real quality.

Regards,

 Hmm.  Seems that some "fixed" Toyotas may still have a problem.  I wouldn't be surprised if the claims are false.  Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if they were true either.  

The more I think about it, maybe I will get one of those Toyotas. It might come in handy getting out of a speeding ticket on the way to work.

Quote:
Friggin' classic.  "Officer, I'm just lucky to be alive!!!! My gas pedal went nuts!".

Typical to see the Ambulance Chasers advertizing on TV now.

Sorry, but that reasoning doesn't make sense when you include "a massive loss in reputation" in the equation. In fact, the effect on reputation and the decreased sales that results from it keeps them in check more than any regulations. As for the regulations, they don't appear to have worked, since Toyota has this massive problem.

They didn't expect to get caught; therefore, in their arrogance, they didn't expect a "massive loss in reputation" and therefore the 100,000,000 in extra profit vs fixing the problem was deemed to be a risk worth taking. However, they did get caught and the 100,000,000 they should have spent fixing the problem in the first place isn't looking like such a good deal, considering what it is costing them in reputation, financially through the recall, and the soon-to-arrive financial hit they are going to take when the lawsuits from affected families and individuals start arriving on their doorstep.

If the regulatory structure failed to prevent the problem then all it means is that the regulatory structure needs to be tightened more. If companies like Toyota are unable to act in an ethical manner under the present structure then it means the structure has to be made even more strict. Frankly, the auto industry has had too much say in how they are regulated. The legacy of egregious and criminal actions by auto industry executives tells me that action beyond dictating the safety requirements of cars is required. Every one of the people involved in the decision to allow potentially deadly out-of-control cars to roam North American highways should be charged with pre-meditated murder and go to jail if convicted, instead of home to their comfortable mansions. They should also be left open to be personally sued into bankruptcy by the victims of their crimes. Maybe that would finally send the message that consciously allowing lethally defective cars to roll around on the highways and byways, killing people, is ethically no different than if they had picked up a gun and just shot the people that their rolling car bombs have maimed and killed. 

Would I be able to go on my merry way if it was proven that I knew a car I had sold to someone had a defect that made it a lethal weapon, and the person who bought it was killed or maimed? Not bloody likely. So what makes the suits in these companies immune to being charged for deliberately allowing deadly weapons, in the form of their cars, to roll around killing people?  

To assume that companies, governments or people in general will act ethically is wrong.  While there are honest people out there you are less likely to find them in positions of power because ethics costs money.  Business and politics are dog eat dog and ethical people often times get chewed up and spit out or go with the flow to save themselves.  Lets face it, Toyota thought the ethical decision wasn't worth a hundred million and went with the cheaper alternative.  They thought they could make a cheap effort to fix the problem as an equipment issue and wouldn't get called out on it.  "Oops, our bad"

The good thing to come from this is the other car companies are now fixing things while Toyota takes the hit for the industry.  Honda did an airbag recall, GM is doing the steering recall and Nissan is doing a brake recall.  Nissan didn't even have any deaths in their recall yet but the effect of Toyota's press tipped the scales so that a recall may actually save Nissan money or earn it more by showing how proactive they are when it comes to safety.  

 I'd be much happier if the "electronic bug" also caused the radio to play the Christine theme every time the accelerator was about to automatically engage. "Beeoooooooo-dum-dum-dum-dum-dum"

As the owner of a 2009 Corolla S, I'm personally affected by the recall. 

Several weeks ago, I called my dealer about the recall and asked to bring my car in before the official Toyota recall letter arrive in the mail.  The dealer told me, at that point in time, that they didn't yet have the parts for the recall repairs for the Corolla.  However, they will take down my inquiry and put me on a list when the Corolla parts come in.  About a week after that, the dealer called and told me the parts for the recall repairs are in and scheduled me for the necessary repairs.  So now, after having the car at their service center for a day, I have my car back with no noticeable difference from before the repairs. 

Do I trust my Corolla?  Oh yes, it's still a better car than my 2008 Honda Civic (which I'm selling).  I also have a 2005 Toyota Highlander FWD that has no problems whatsoever after 70K miles (still on original brakes and battery).  Despite the recalls and the media/political circus that resulted, Toyota will still be at the top of my shopping list when it comes to buying a car (assuming it has a model I'm interested in).

Btw, Toyota, you really need to bring on the FT-86. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would be the best agency to use in this case. Congress is just doing this for show. Doubt me? How about the steroid in baseball hearings? It is their getting in the spotlight to take up tv time, make speeches, act like they are important and doing something, only to resolve absolutely nothing by the end of the day.

The truth is Toyota would have to fix this. With or without Congress summoning them to Washington DC. If Toyota ignored the issue and it got worse, consumers would find out and steer clear of them. It can take years, if not decades, for companies to regain the trust of their customers once that trust has been betrayed.

When I was searching for a vehicle, I looked at Saturn. If Roush Racing had been able to acquire Saturn, it is possible, if not probable, that a Vue would be sitting out in my driveway. However, they didn't. Ultimately, I bought a Nissan. Right car, right price, and was the best possible deal for me.

I am in favor of a much more limited government. One that allows the free market to act on its own and lets the consumer decide what is best for them. Ford made the assembly line. Another company decided to offer vehicles in different paint colors. Look where we are today. You can have anything from a bare minimum car to one that has mood lighting, moon roof, and then some. You can take whatever vehicle you have and modify it how you want. 

To an extent safety standards are required and should constantly be improved. However, the buying public will also make that happen through the normal progression of the marketplace. If people start buying Volvo's in droves, the other companies will take notice and adjust. All without Congress.

Quote:
Edited by DaveF - 3/9/10 at 3:24am

When we start talking "free markets" and "limited government" we're probably veering into no-no territory for the forum's rules, but I have to ask: beyond basic safety requirements like seat belts and air bags, you really don't see a problem with market forces driving safety and quality control? Consumers shopping for automobiles don't have the armies of investigators and inspectors that the government has at its disposal. When the QC is left up to the market, you get situations like the Ford Pinto scandal where market forces dictated it would be cheaper to settle the lawsuits than redesign the problematic faults. Did the resulting outrage shift consumers away from the Ford brand in general and the Pinto model in particular? Sure. But the market forces were reactive; they occurred in response to the tragedies, not in prevention of the tragedies. In the mean time, dozens of people died preventable deaths. Granted, no sane auto manufacturer is going to allow another "barbecue that seats four" to leave the assembly line. But I don't like the idea that there's nothing between my life and a bean counter somewhere who decided that the safer, more durable $20 part isn't worth the premium over the riskier $12 alternative.

Banking scandals, Bernie Maidoff, Enron, tainted food, dangerous drug side effects and other situations all happened with government regulation in place.  I can only image how things would go if regulation stopped and the "free market" could act on its own.    

You know when a plane is discovered to have a defect, the FAA grounds all other planes of that model until they are inspected or repaired. If these Toyotas are known to have a defect that endangers the lives of their owner and others on the highways, why are they not "grounded"?
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/
Also, can't these owners just turn the car off if it won't brake?

Quote:
Has a car every been "grounded"? Was the Pinto or Explorer "grounded"? :)

Unfortunately, people don't usually have the presence of mind to turn off the car when the accelerator is stuck, going 80 mph down a windy road. And if they did, they'd lose power steering and power brakes. And if they panicked and turned the key too far, they'd lock the steering wheel in a sharp turn!

I just think that it is a little hypocritical that we grill Toyota for choosing profits over safety, and yet every Toyota effected car owner is doing the exact same thing each time they drive. The whole country including the owners are aware of this issue, and yet the owners are still choosing the cheaper route (driving the car) over the safe route (parking it until it is fixed). At this point, if I were hit by an out of control Toyota, I would blame the owner equally if not more, than the company.

As the guy in California found out yesterday, the Prius doesn't have a key starter, it has a start button. You have to hold the start button in for 5 seconds before it will shut off. It also doesn't have a traditional shifter with a neutral position. In order to get into neutral, you have to move what has been described as a joystick to a particular position, then hold it in for 3 seconds. However, apparently at highways speeds, you can put it into neutral. With this in mind I don't think I'll be buying a Prius anytime soon.

Of course none of this should apply to the tradition gas powered Toyota cars.

Doug

Well to be fair the owners are only doing what they have been told to do. Last month when a congressman said that if he owned a Toyota he would park it and not drive it till it was fixed, he got pounced on and told basically to shut up.

No one has told the owners that they should stop driving the cars.

Doug

No one has told me not to clean my ear wax out with an ice pick either.

That "particular position" is called "N".  And it is more like 1 to 2 seconds.  And yes you can shift into neutral at highway speeds.  I do it all the time to coast down hills.

Ah interesting. I heard later on the news that the guy yesterday actually tried to put it into neutral, but that nothing happened when he did. He also tried to kill the engine, but it wouldn't shut off until after the police got the car below 50mph.

Doug

Yes, AZ central tried this and found out that in many models, Neutral just won't work at all over a set speed

When AZ News Tested, that's what they found:

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Local-woman-on-her-Prius-Neutral-doesnt-work-in-this-car-87164762.html

 There are options the driver could have tried but didn't.  I don't blame him a bit though because when you're doing 94mph you tend to see the situation a bit differently.  I would be afraid to try neutral since its a joystick shifter that seems to be based on software just like the accelerator that was malfunctioning.  Who's to say he wouldn't get reverse instead?  The Toyota dealer told this poor guy that his car wasn't on the recall list for the floor mats even though he had the letter from Toyota with him.  In the end the floor mats were not the issue in this case anyway as they were in the correct position when he stopped.  news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100310/ap_on_bi_ge/us_runaway_prius;_ylt=AicM8Pr_V8GycRafn6O_cmes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNnZW8xcnZhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzEwL3VzX3J1bmF3YXlfcHJpdXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwM4BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNydW5hd2F5cHJpdXM- 

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/03/track-test-how-does-smart-throttle-brakeoverride-affect-enthusiast-driving.html

Quote from article:

"What did we prove? We performed these demonstrations not just to set race drivers' minds at ease but to undo a fundamental misconception. Brake-override doesn't cut all power to the engine when you hit the brakes. It reduces power enough that hard braking will always easily stop the car even if for some reason--any reason--the throttle mechanism is stuck open.

We think it should be mandatory in every car. It's not a cure-all, but it is an easy-to-adopt safety measure that should halt a runaway car using brakes alone, whether that event is caused by a jammed gas pedal, a stuck linkage, an electrical fault, or by some driver errors."
 

Interesting piece on the actual risk of driving a Toyota:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/toyotas-are-safe-enough/

Russian roulette is relatively safe (relative to a fully loaded gun) but I'm not going to be playing that game any time soon.

Doug

That's a pretty bad analogy.  Playing Russian Roulette is a lot safer than just putting a fully-loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger…but I presume that most people wouldn't do either of those.

The point of the article is that driving any car on any given day is not a lot safer than driving a Toyota, and yet most people do drive cars every day without giving much thought to the very real risk of doing so, while making a huge deal out of the miniscule risk posed by this Toyota problem.