More owners of Toyota vehicles say recall repairs aren't working

[divideandconquer]

More owners of Toyota vehicles say recall repairs aren't working

Some of the more than 60 drivers reporting incidents say sudden unintended acceleration has happened to them more than once since having modifications done at dealers.

More than 60 drivers have complained of sudden acceleration incidents despite the fact that their cars were repaired by Toyota Motor Corp. in the current recalls, new data released Thursday show.

The latest figure, released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, significantly increases the total number of complaints involving repaired vehicles, which was less than 10 on Tuesday. The new complaints allege several accidents and at least three injuries resulting from runaway unintended acceleration despite the vehicles' undergoing a series of modifications at Toyota dealerships designed to resolve the issue.

In response to the rising number of complaints, federal regulators said they would contact each motorist to find out more about what happened. NHTSA also said it would ask Toyota for similar complaints it may have received from customers. The agency does not normally verify individual reports, posted anonymously on its database.

"If it appears that a remedy provided by Toyota is not addressing the problem it was intended to fix, NHTSA has the authority to order Toyota to provide a different solution," the agency said in a statement.
--------------------------------------
<http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-toyota-complaints5-2010mar05,0,1386834.story>

Why isn't Consumer reports focusing on this instead 1 alleged fraud case? Must because they have so much invested in the Toyota myth they've become part of the problem.

[blue_onyx]

1. Exactly

Consumers Reports has spent years automatically recommending Toyotas. They even recommended Toyotas as their "top picks" this year. They're trying to defend their reputation.

[CreekDog]

16. Consumers has withdrawn those recommendations

And its earlier recommendations were based on performance and reliability. Consumer Reports doesn't have and didn't claim to have perfect knowledge. Nevertheless, they attempted to create tests that compared all vehicles performance to each other in an objective way and from that recommended Toyotas.

Now, if they weren't supposed to recommend Toyotas on the basis of a *future* recall, then why would they have recommended GMs, Fords, and other makes who have had recalls all along?

In other words, I think the standard you are setting up is less fair than you claim Consumer Reports is.

[blue_onyx]

17. Oh really

"Typically, Consumer Reports will recommend a vehicle only if it has at least one year of reliability data. New and redesigned Toyota models had been exempted from that standard because of the company's record. The magazine said today it no longer will recommend any new or redesigned Toyota-built models without reliability data on a specific design."

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/Advice/ToyotaIsSlippingConsumerReportsSays.aspx

[CreekDog]

27. that would be unfair if it only applied to Toyota, but it wasn't based on them alone

but on a make's reliability. so other makes got that same consideration and immediate recommendation if reliability warranted such.

but don't act like Toyota got the exception only because they were Toyota but because they had reliability of a certain level.

[blue_onyx]

34. Are you reading the same thing?

It was only Toyota that was exempt.

Even if other companies had the opportunity to be exempt, it's a crappy way to do research. Judging a current model's quality based on past performance (rather than current performance) is not reliable.

Seriously...what has Toyota done to make you so blindly loyal. It's a corporation that cares about nothing other than making money.

[CreekDog]

35. Where are you reading that only Toyota was exempt? They've recommended Hondas the same way

and with good reason.

Consumers' reasoning was stated for all to see and it was that a brand that had a record of excellent reliability and based on that they recommended new models without a track record.

[blue_onyx]

36. Acutally, you are correct...

Honda and Subaru have also been exempt. This still, however, proves that Consumer Reports has poor research standards. It makes no sense to exempt any vehicle from quality studies. To just assume that the 2010 Toyota is a high quality vehicle because the 2000 Toyota was high quality is insane. You seriously can't see the problem with this "research" technique?

[CreekDog]

38. Doing otherwise means they could never recommend a new model, even if it was stellar

which would penalize innovative designs that perform well in their tests and give older designs (that are reliable) the edge.

I've been a subscriber for years and I can't think of any organization that has been as thoughtful about doing objective testing and giving good advice as Consumers Union.

And I'm not just referring to their auto tests but advice across the board. Among their most intelligent advice was a graph they posted several years ago on refinancing showing how quickly the savings on an adjustable rate mortgage can be eaten up by the first adjustment --frequently as little as 18 months. Heck, they even try to break bicycle helmets to see how well they hold up.

They aren't a perfect organization, none exists, but the care and effort they put into their work just knocks me out.

No I don't work for them, but sometimes I wish I did.

[NoGOPZone]

2. Why would someone accuse Consumer Reports of focusing on one alleged fraud case

When they reported A MONTH AGO that the problem may affect more Toyota's then were recalled

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/02/nhtsa-consumer-complaints-include-more-toyota-models-than-recalled.html

and have a whole page, complete with links, dedicated to the issue?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/resource-center/sua-unintended-acceleration-recall/index.htm


Must be a coverup by means of excessive publicity ;-)

[divideandconquer]

4. They're on NPR all the time shilling for Toyota

[NoGOPZone]

5. Some shilling. Did you even look at the page?

"Competitors look to gain" "rental agencies hold back Toyotas" "CR suspends recommendations" "More Toyotas recalled"

You're pretty silent about the Edmunds video and article. Why is that? 'Shilling' bothers you depending on the source?

[divideandconquer]

6. Edmunds has a lot invested in the Toyota myth as well

What about CR saying without proof that some of the Toyota problems are fraud?

[NoGOPZone]

8. I haven't seen or heard that yet

You said you heard it on NPR. I didn't.

On edit: Seems CNN as well as Edmunds is investigating. I can't wait until CR runs their own test so I can hear how biased they are.



http://www.ireport.com/blogs/ireport-blo...-story?hpt=Sbin

[divideandconquer]

9. On Consumer Reports auto blog TODAY they run interference for Toyota

Why are the focusing on and promoting the one ALLEGED and unproved fraud case and not on the dozens of supposedly fixed Toyota that are acting up?
---------------------------------
More questions raised on Toyota Prius sudden acceleration cases
March 12, 2010

Following two unintended acceleration cases involving Toyota Prius hybrids earlier this week, reports have begun to emerge questioning the credibility of the San Diego event that we reported on Tuesday.

On Monday, James Sikes made a 9-1-1 call reporting that he couldn’t slow down his Prius. During the 23-minute call, the Prius would exceed 90 miles per hour on the I-8 outside of San Diego. Since then, the situation has been been questioned, as has the driver’s character. Recent reports claim Sikes had declared bankruptcy in 2008 and was five months behind on payments for the Prius. (See Jalopnik and Forbes.)
--------------------------------
<http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/>

[NoGOPZone]

10. you must like going in circles

I've already shown you that they aren't focusing on the one case. Futhermore, in regards to that one case, their official position is "We can’t ascertain the veracity of Sikes’s claim"

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/03/questions-raised-on-toyota-prius-sudden-acceleration-cases-san-diego-new-york.html

They're really taking sides there. :rofl:

[divideandconquer]

11. TODAY on their website they shill for Toyota, it's a fact

[NoGOPZone]

12. you need to learn the difference between fact and opinion

and your statement, even as written, doesn't prove that they are focusing on one issue.

[divideandconquer]

13. They're throwing a one alleged fraud incident in front of dozens of deaths(so far

if thats not running PR for Toyota what is?

[NoGOPZone]

14. but they're not throwing it in front as demonstrated in my OP

like I said, you like going in circles

Here's a link to an Forbes where the author calls the incident a 'horror hoax'

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/12/toyota-autos-hoax-media-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento_2.html

When can I expect outrage from the CR epitomizes evil crowd regarding the interference this magazine is running for Toyota?

[divideandconquer]

18. Forbes is known to hate the US working class, CR is more quietly subversive

[lutefisk]

21. Do you think Toyota is paying off Consumer Reports?

Maybe secret off shore accounts? Fabricating test and survey results to damage Toyota's competitors?

The intrigue...:crazy:

[NoGOPZone]

26. read post 18. Evidently those payoffs

are because Consumer Reports is a quiet subversive in the attempt to keep the working class down

[Odin2005]

3. Toyota is a bunch of LIARS!?! Who'd of thunk it?

[LiberalFighter]

7. But but but.... Toyota's commercial says they have made over 1 million modifications.

[spoony]

15. And I just read in another thread that everyone's making it up

to beat up on poor Toyota. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

[Brickbat]

19. Toyota, get your damn shit together already.

What a joke.

[depakid]

20. If the problem can't be identified or replicated how is supposed to be fixed?

[harun]

28. They can replicate it. Truth will come out eventually.

[depakid]

30. Haven't seen anything consistent yet

[Dappleganger]

22. Of course they're all lying...

as their problems can't be recreated by the powers that be.

:sarcasm: <-------that's the snark sign, don't miss it!

[Edweird]

24. Well, the forensic accountants had bad news....

[Earth_First]

23. What problem?

I thought we've moved on to the Toyota owners are making it all up? :shrug:

[harun]

29. Certainly hear enough people talking that way.

[Edweird]

25. Well, damnit, they changed the floor mats 6 times! They've done all they can do...

[HopeHoops]

31. Wow, what a shock! A stupid litle placebo shim didn't solve the computer problem! Go figure.

:eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

32. The people reporting this go right onto a list of suspected crooks and thieves

You know that is the way Toyota headquarters is looking at this.

I bet Toyota's enemies list looks like a NY city telephone book by now.

Don

[Atman]

33. They're all STUPID!

They don't know how to properly use the newly installed repaired. Every car is stoppable if you just point it at an immovable object.





















:sarcasm:

.

[Fumesucker]

37. Umm...

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

We included the powerful Roush Mustang to test—in the extreme—the theory that “brakes are stronger than the engine.” From 70 mph, the Roush’s brakes were still resolutely king even though a pinned throttle added 80 feet to its stopping distance. However, from 100 mph, it wasn’t clear from behind the wheel that the Mustang was going to stop. But after 903 feet—almost three times longer than normal—the 540-hp supercharged Roush finally did succumb, chugging to a stop in a puff of brake smoke.

[NoGOPZone]

39. Interesting test. Car and Driver has its own reputation

as being critical of domestic automobiles, a fact which evidently is lost on many here claiming CR is biased.