I'm sorry for the diversionary post here, but the current story with Toyota is a fairly big one and I'm not sure that Toyota owners in Australia are being treated fairly with respect to the situation and it's importance for Australian consumers.
This effects me because we have a Toyota work vehicle, my stepdaughter owns a Corolla, one of my colleagues, below, owns a current-generation Camry and I've got numerous other friends and relatives (Mother and Sister) who drive Toyotas.
Toyota are the biggest fish in a small pond here in Australia. But that small pond doesn't mean that they should be able to answer legitimate questions with soggy answers.
------
One of my colleagues has a 2006 Toyota Camry and whilst that puts his car one year prior to Camrys being recalled over in the United States, he was still anxious enough to contact his local dealer about it.
Here's the response he received:
Please see that attached bulletin from Toyota Australia relating to the accelerator issue in the USA - this has no impact on vehicles in Australia.
Sure enough, there was a PDF attached to the email and that PDF contained the following in a Q&A section:
Q1: Are Australian sold vehicles affected?A1: No, the supplier of accelerator pedals that are fitted to vehicles for the Australian market is a different supplier to that used for North American production vehicles.
Different supplier?
That's all fine and dandy, but the problem isn't necessarily a supplier problem, as those following the issue in the United States will know. It appears to be a design issue.
In fact, Toyota's own response in the United States has not been to use new supplier and get a few million pedal assemblies manufactured at a new plant for installation into effected vehicles.
Their response is to provide a cut steel plate that dealer service staff will install into the pedal assembly that will "reduce the surface tension between the friction shoe and the adjoining surface. With this reinforcement in place, the excess friction that can cause the pedal to stick is eliminated."
------
I wasn't happy with the initial response that my colleague received as it danced around the design problem and blamed the issue on a supplier.
So I sent off an email to the dealer myself, which he bounced up to Toyota Australia staff. My colleague also forwarded the same email to his dealer, separate from me.
With respect to the release you've received, it's understood that the supplier is different from the supplier used in US vehicles.But is the design of the pedal the same, or is it different as well?
Information that I've seen from the US indicates that the problem may be with a pivot pin and bushing in the pedal mechanism, where grit is able to get into the bushing, causing the sticking problem and premature wearing of the bushing. That would indicate a design flaw rather than a manufacturing problem, making the place of manufacture less relevant.
Can you please comment on this, or pass this question on to someone who can?
The response we both received from Toyota Australia - an exact replica to the word - was as follows:
Thank you for contacting Toyota Motor Corporation Australia.We understand the expectation that our customers have of their Toyota as well as the National Dealer Network and we apologise for the disappointment you have expressed.
We wish to reassure you that Toyota is committed to delivering a high quality product to our customers at all times.
Toyota Australia advises that Toyota vehicles it sells in Australia are not affected by the accelerator pedal recalls announced overseas. Accelerator pedals for Toyota vehicles sold in Australia, and those manufactured in Australia for export, are provided by a different supplier.
Thank you for contacting Toyota and giving us the opportunity to respond.
Kind Regards
Jessica Bosden
Customer Experience Consultant
Customer Experience Centre
Toyota Motor Corporation Australia
As you can see, this response does nothing but quote the same supplier-related stance as received in the first instance from the dealership.
Toyota are concerned enough about US vehicles (and now selected models in Europe and China, too) to issue a recall and physically alter the pedal assembly itself.
If the same action is required in Australia, then why not do it?
If this is not necessary in Australia, then why not state the full reason?
Pinning this on a different supplier doesn't explain the inherent design fault that's being addressed in other markets. It's reasonable to assume that the same pedal design is used globally, so why don't we need to have ours checked?
Do we need an unintended acceleration incident on the Sydney Harbour Bridge to get Toyota's attention?
I can arrange that...
http://jalopnik.com/5461945/apple-co+founder-claims-toyota-prius-has-scary-software-problem-he-can-dupilcate
My parents have a Lexus RX (the 9-7X simply was not in the same league, my father does like the 9-4X though) and are pretty nervous - with good reason. There have been many reports that the recall should involve Lexus and Scion as well. For those who don't know, Scion is Toyota's brand marketed towards generation Y. This video is now starting to surface, further supporting speculation that Lexus' own pedals are the same ones used in the recalled Toyotas. Warning - audio in link is very disturbing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03m7fmnhO0I
Peugeot and Citroen are also analyzing their products which are siblings to the Aygo to ascertain whether these vehicles should be recalled. There is however no mention as to whether RHD vehicles would be affected.
On a side note, how freaky is it that we can talk about Toyota mismanagement and unreliability on a Saab message board...who would have thought this post would be up here a week ago before the sale was finalized? Freaky stuff.
from an engineering point of view I can only say, that the pedals from LHD and RHD don't have to be equally designed.
Why, because on LHD cars the gas pedal is on the centre side of the car, and on RHD the gas pedal on the outer side. The driver always uses the right foot.
Being Japan RHD also, it could well be that they have a "good" own design for RHD cars and outsourced the LHD pedal design (which may have been cheaper, but did not fulfil Toyota high quality standards).
If I would get a response on a technical question from a Customer Experience Consultant from a Customer Experience Centre, I would throw the mail/e-mail directly into the bin.
First, I want to thank you for the work you have done to save Saab. Second I want to comment about Toyata. I find it hard to beleive, as a person of a certain age, that anyone in Australia, would own a Toyata. Have memories faded so fast? Owning up is not something folks at Toyata do well. I send them repeated emails on their offenive U.S. ads and never received a reply. I simply asked them if GM were to run similar ads in Japan, how do you think they would be recieved?( i.e. Americans are morons) The people siting in Japan are making these decisons, this is not local management, we all know that.
They need to change their attitude. I think this is a great chance for all other car companies to pick up market share. And I hope Saab does the best at this.
Anybody knows how the Japanse newspaper and TV channels are approaching this story? We shall be very happy this is not happening to Saab. All Swedish news channels and newspaper would have gather all journalists available and done their very best to kill the Saab brand by writing negative storys.
More seriously, the fix -according to German broadcast- also includes astronger return spring, and I believe that this could really solve the problem. A different supplier may manufacture under different tolerances and MAY not have the problem, though a simple statement that there is a different manufacturer for Australia can only be half the story.
Renaul/Nissan may also be affected, from what I heard.
Googletrans
Muller has no money to purchase Saab
SEK 175 million is still missing for the purchase of the Saab, it allows Spykers CEO Victor Muller in an interview with Svenska Dagbladet Näringsliv. While he refuses to say whether the former owner of a large Antonov is involved in the deal - for reasons of principle.
Victor Muller is lyrical when he talks about the big day last week when he met the Saab employees in Trollhättan. He can not voluntarily stop talking about the reception made him feel like a pop star - as he himself puts it. But there are many who are not cheering. Saab affair has raised several questions and Victor Muller is determined to allow more of them remain unanswered. Despite pressure from the media, the Swedish government and other critics, he refuses to reveal what is his secret financiers.
They want to remain anonymous for that reason that they do not want to be the official person. Had they wished it had been able to invest directly in Spyker and become partners in a listed company. That is why they asked me to create this company to get money and I have been able to use their funding to make this acquisition. I have signed a contract with my sponsors that no one will know who they are. And we must respect their decision.
Are there one or more funders?
It is more than one.
Can you understand that this seems strange and raises a lot of criticism?
I understand it, but I can not change that. They do not want to be known in the media. Just how much attention this deal has been all over the world, "he said, while denying reports that one of the financiers, the Dutch billionaire Marcel Boekhoorn.
We have been friends for 23 years and he is one of my best friends. As an entrepreneur you want to have someone to talk to and he was my first inspiration, but he is not helping to finance the deal.
Tenaci your company will pay 25 million U.S. dollars for the purchase price. But the price is 74 million U.S. dollars. Take away the rest of the money will come?
The other $ 25 million were to come from the GEM Fund. And the third part, we have not decided yet. But we have quite a lot of time to see where we are going to get the $ 24 million were from.
So it still made 24 million U.S. dollars, equivalent to 175 million crowns?
Yes, but we have many opportunities to see where we are going to get the money from, we have half a year for us.
Can you guarantee that you will not take money from Saab's cash to save the Spyker?
I can guarantee that Spyker will never ever touch any of the EIB money, it's impossible. I can guarantee.
But it was not my question. Saab's cash will, according to data, would be around 1 billion.
Spyker finance their own business and Saab to finance their own business. So no money will go from one to the other.
How much you pay for the previous major shareholder, Russian family Antonovs, shares in Spyker?
It depends on what happens that the deal is terminated. I buy shares of him on the day the deal closed, and only if the deal with Saab lose, because I do not want to buy him out if the deal goes off without a hitch.
Do you see a risk that the deal will not be on?
Yes, there is still a risk to the Bank is now looking at our request. And all believe that we have the loan, but no one can assure us that we really get it.
Antonov is involved in Spyker in any way?
I would not go into the reasons of principle. I want to avoid talking about them. I have arranged this financing itself, "said Victor Muller.
How do you comment on reports that the Swedish government stopped Antonov as a financier of the deal after allegations of serious crime?
This is just rumors. There is no evidence that this is true.
In both 2007 and 2008 and first half of 2009 was Spykers losses more than twice as large as proceeds. Is there anything that says that the development should be changed?
I hope so. We can not have it so for ever. One of the reasons why we have moved production to England is that we can make cars where faster and cheaper than in Holland. So it will change. But what makes Spyker does not Saab. Sure, we get Spyker profitable again, but the major focus must be on Saab. Everything we do with Saab have much greater impact on the bottom line than we do with Spyker.
You own 30 percent today. Do you have a plan for who to sell all shares to come under the mandatory bid threshold?
I have 30 days for me to adjust it after the deal is complete. Either I will make a public bid, which would be a total nightmare. Or issue shares to a third party that dilutes my ownership. Alternatively, can I get rid of shares, only a few percent would be needed. But I have not decided yet.
I think we both know that german media are quite biased, and now it does spread rumours about non german carmakers to help the own industry.
Reanult/Nissan also being affected from what?
I heard today in the radio PSA was also afected and would call back some cars; fact is PSA is invetigating if the Toyota Aygo problem is also afecting the Peugeot 107 and the Citroen C1, so they are not calling back no cars at this moment ( at least related to the Toyota problem).
If they want to be fair they should list every brand that are calling back cars as of today, but I don't think they would do it as the german brands would also be there.
@Mikael This is the old song swedish media has been singing for the last week. I hope VM doesn't get fed up with the swedish media prior to the 12. of Febraury and cancel the whole thing.
Off topic here, but even my beloved DI.se report that Spyker do not have clear to 100 % the financing of the deal. Cannot really understand why Muller talked to media with such an open mouth, he must have been aware of what happened to the proposed deal with Koenigsegg when Swedish media uncovered, questioned and criticised all details of the group, their financing and their business plan. In my view, it had a large impact on the Koenigsegg deal that there were too much rumours around it. After a while, even mainstream media around the world bought the version "still questions regarding the Saab deal". And this is precisely what is going to happen now. A medial witch-hunt on Spyker, and lots of negative headlines on Saab.
However, if it is true that Muller does not yet have the financing clear, this clearly is a critical point and a real obstacle to the deal and to the future of Saab. So even if I would prefer more balanced reporting in the Swedish media on Saab, given these news, it is fully legitimate to raise critical questions. Either Muller finds the remaining millions of dollars, or he cannot do the deal. Remember btw that even Koenigsegg and GM had signed a "binding agreement". Alternatively, Muller could take the money out of Saabs pocket. In terms of media echo, this would be the total meltdown. In my view, there is only one solution that works, and that is a quickly provide additional funding.
Merbanco, Genii, where are you to join the deal to give it a proper financing?!
At least on a Saab if you turned off the ignition you wouldn't lock the steering, but you would loose power assist to brakes and steering - prob not a big deal as far as things go. I think I feel very safe in a Saab.
I seem to recall a 4 WD of some sort with the cruise control stuck on in OZ recently & caused a frantic ordeal for the driver and emergency services.
GB
Toyota should be given a break as they've done the right thing and got negative publicity, other brands (including SAAB) would just pretend that there was no problem.
if you read the last posting from Swade
Spyker press release you will see that spyker has to make those details public before the Shareholders meeting, and being VM a lawyer, I'm quite sure he will only be telling what is needed and not more.
But you can also see on that press release, that Tenaci Capital B.V. has time till June to get those 24 Mill US$, so I'm not that worried about it, it seems like only the swedish press is worried about it. And maybe the swedish press should read alittle more carefully
I repeat it once again,
I do hope Mr. Muller doesn't get fed up with this journalistic vouyerism and thows the towel prior to Feb. 15.
http://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Die-Liste-wird-laenger-article707392.html
Maybe he is still negotiating about that because one of the offers is from a direct competitor in the bidding process ;-)
I'm quite sure he has his hands on a secure offer, otherwise the binding purchase agreement would not have been signed.
Software used for critical applications like ESP, engine control and similar are also not written like normal computer software. Such software is much simpler than computer software and is dependant on much fewer lines of code which makes it much less likely there is a flaw in the code.
Toyotas throttle pedal problems have been related to a pedal supplied by CTS. CTS have commented the pedal issue here: http://www.ctscorp.com/publications/press_releases/nr100129.htm
and a comparison between the CTS and the Denso pedal, the other pedal used by Toyota, can be found here: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/why-toyota-must-replace-flawed-cts-gas-pedal-with-superior-denso-pedal/
Why have Toyota specified the use of a steel plate to fix the problem? Most likely because it would take too long to manufacture the required volume of pedals to fix the issue on all affected cars. It would probably be cheaper for Toyota just to replace the pedals with new ones, after all, they only cost something like $15 each.
My mom's 9-3 convert had a lot of software issues with the tranny... it would upshift and downshift in opposite order. They had to upgrade the software but you can still detect some odd grinding.
As for me in my C900, my throttle sticks no matter how many times I clean it... have to clean the AIC valve... but for now when its idling at 2000 rpms at the stop light... i put my foot under the peddle and push up. Works like a charm. :)
Three times -- in 2005, 2006 and 2008 -- Toyota customers asked NHTSA to investigate uncontrolled acceleration in their vehicles stemming from electronic throttle controls. Despite hundreds of complaints, NHTSA found no evidence of a defect in any of the cases. In all cases, Toyota provided data it said showed no evidence of defects, and in the 2008 look into Tacoma pickups, Toyota contended many of the complaints were "inspired by publicity.
During the 2006 investigation, Toyota discovered corrosion inside some throttles on Camry sedans and changed the part in production. But it did not make the change available to vehicles on the road and minimized the change to NHTSA, saying it would only happen "under certain circumstances, such as driving through a flooded road, in the heavy rain, or a hurricane."
"There is no possibility of the pedal interference with the all-weather floor mat if it's placed properly and secured," the automaker told regulators in April 2007.
But by August, federal regulators had found 12 deaths linked to the mats. A survey of 600 Lexus owners found 59 reporting sudden or unexpected acceleration. NHTSA also found evidence that in some crashes, owners were standing on the brakes yet unable to stop their vehicles. Toyota issued its first recall in September 2007 covering 55,000 vehicles.
NHTSA began testing some of Toyota's claims about the problem. It found that the brakes in the Lexus ES350 sedan could stop an engine at wide-open throttle -- but only after 1,000 feet, and only with five times the amount of pressure usually needed to bring the car to a halt.
They've got some major issues!
This is a PR stunt by other manufactures and mainly Obama administration to discredit Toyota. All manufacturers have had similar problems. Give it 2 months and Joe Public will favour Toyota again.
Just because Saab has being saved lets not lose the run of ourselves. Saab have a long way to go to match Toyota.
But I still prefer my Saab. This is my personal opinion, convincing others will be challenging for Saab.
Usually this sort of pumps run when the engine is running. They receive information that the engine has started over the P-bus and then control the pump speed dependand on car speed (från P-bus) and steering velocity.
I am puzzled by the existence of a steering column lock on a Saab. Don't all real Saabs have gearshift locks instead of steering column locks?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/lahood_toyota_had_to_be_convin.html
perhaps some pressure from your govt might ratchet up the attention in Oz as well...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/toyotas-new-problem-prius-brake-complaints-2010-02-02
sounds like a run of bad luck that can happen to any manufacturer, but there has seemed to be a perception in our media (consumer reports anyone?) and among much of the general public that this sort of luck couldn't happen to toyota.
Over 180,000 vehicles will be recalled by Toyota in the UK.
The following cars are affected
Toyota estimates the work will take about 30 minutes to complete.
Auris (Oct 2006 - 5 Jan 2010)
Avensis (Nov 2008 - Dec 2009)
Aygo (Feb 2005 - Aug 2009) - note only AYGO MMT is affected
Corolla (Oct 2006 - Dec 2009)
iQ (Nov 2008 - Nov 2009)
Verso (Feb 2009 - 5 Jan 2010)
Yaris (Nov 2005 - Sep 2009)
No other UK models are affected.
I didn't check to see if any of these vehicles are sold in Australia but if they are there is a good chance they have the same throttle mechanism.
if your vehicle falls into this category, is RHD and has not been recalled I'd contact your dealer immediately.
Eventually they agreed to replace the car with a different model.
assembly plants etc. Our US standards are OSHA, ANSI, SAE, IEEE.
Control Reliable, fail-safe , default to safe, are our terms.
And , we deal with associated legal liability attached daily.
Mr. Gilberts point, does not seem to be well understood
or conveyed very well, unfortunately. I fear he is too "techy".
America needs the "cut to the chase" ... lay view..spread wide.
One of the design paramaters, that all Engineers must weight
when making any design/compromise ,is cost vs. safety .
Back in the 80's... our general engineering practice was to have the electric's for any mechanically redundant system...
also redundant... but also... double redundant...meaning….
oppositely polarized electrically... meaning "2-planes"
and an expensive + - supply voltage requiring a switching inverter
in a car that only has +12 naturally...
it cost's 4 to 8 times as much as 1 wire, only!
This safety idea...of inverse redundant slopes is very old !
We were putting this type of safety anywhere people came in contact
with robots (machines that could kill) back in the 1980’s …
Called category 2 safety...just means "two-chain" rev voltage.
in old controls terms...and this ECM design doesn't have it!
We are now category 5 Control Reliable in all "Greenfield Plants in the US".
“ ROBOTS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE !!! “
We now use a much more complicated system than “Two-Chain” !
Category 5 is a very sophisticated opposed pulse detection system for
detecting wiring anomalies or defects of an unknown nature!
Ed Driscoll driscoll@pzdi.com