Toyota knew that uncontrolled acceleration was electronics-related

[likearock 1]

Document: Toyota warned dealers of throttle surging in 2002

By Drew Griffin and David Fitzpatrick, CNN Special Investigations Unit
March 23, 2010 6:25 a.m. EDT

Boston, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Auto manufacturer Toyota warned dealerships in 2002 that Camry owners were complaining about throttles surging and recommended adjustments in an electronic control unit to fix the problem, according to a document obtained by CNN.

The technical service bulletin went to every U.S. Toyota dealership in late August 2002 after some customers reported their vehicles were speeding up unexpectedly.

"Some 2002 model year Camry vehicles may exhibit a surging during light throttle input at speeds between 38-42 mph," the bulletin states. "The Engine Control Module (ECM) calibration has been revised to correct this condition."

Read Toyota Service Bulletin

Toyota, the world's largest automaker, has blamed acceleration surges on floor mats it says can trap accelerator pedals and recalled more than 2.3 million vehicles in January for sticky accelerator pedals. It has said that independent testing failed to find problems with its electronic throttle controls.

But Clarence Ditlow, the head of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, said the 2002 document doesn't talk about mechanical issues.

"If you look at this document, it says electronics," Ditlow said. "It says the fix is reprogrammed in the computer. It doesn't say anything about floor mats."

The internal Toyota document was given to CNN by a group of attorneys now seeking a nationwide class-action lawsuit against the company. Ditlow said the document -- not previously made public -- indicates Toyota knew much earlier about an electronic connection to sudden acceleration problems. He also said the bulletin was apparently ignored or hidden from the public not only by Toyota, but also by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Read National Highway Traffic Safety Administration memo

"The government is really hiding this information from the consumer," Ditlow told CNN. "They're in a conspiracy with the auto industry to keep these out of the public's sight."

The attorneys now suing Toyota say the repair bulletin is proof the car company knowingly lied to the public about the causes of sudden acceleration, blaming floor mats or stuck gas pedals instead.

"They can fix these problems easily," said Tim Howard, a Northeastern University law professor who heads the legal group suing Toyota. "But it would cost them about $500 a car nationwide. If you have six [million] to seven million cars, you add the numbers -- it's between $4 [billion] and $5 billion. It's hard to actually tell the truth when those numbers are at the bottom of that truth."

NHTSA did not respond to requests for comment. And Toyota did not respond to questions about the bulletin, but it issued a statement to CNN attacking Howard and his fellow lawyers.

"Toyota strongly disputes these completely baseless allegations being driven by plaintiff's attorneys like Mr. Howard," the statement said. "Toyota intends to fight against these unfounded claims vigorously."

Howard and his legal team say they plan to appear in federal court in San Diego, California, later this week, trying to persuade a federal judge to combine the 88 individual lawsuits so far filed against Toyota into a single class-action litigation.

[kelpdiver 2]

umm, this isn't quite the smoking gun you think it is.

[billvon 2,477]

>"They can fix these problems easily," said Tim Howard, a Northeastern
>University law professor who heads the legal group suing Toyota.

Spoken like a lawyer with no engineering background whatsoever.

We have a poster up in our lab of all the funny things people here have said over the years. One of the funniest is "X should fix this, and nothing else will be affected." Heard it dozens of times and it's pretty much never true.

[likearock 1]

Quote

>"They can fix these problems easily," said Tim Howard, a Northeastern
>University law professor who heads the legal group suing Toyota.

Spoken like a lawyer with no engineering background whatsoever.

We have a poster up in our lab of all the funny things people here have said over the years. One of the funniest is "X should fix this, and nothing else will be affected." Heard it dozens of times and it's pretty much never true.

What about the substance of the article? The fact that Toyota knew that there was an electronics related cause to the acceleration problem for a significant number of its cars? Don't you think they had an obligation to fix it no matter what the cost?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

It is a Technical Service Bulletin covering a specific year, model, engine, and complaint. If you read the bulletin you will see that Toyota covered the modification under its emmisions warranty.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,477]

> The fact that Toyota knew that there was an electronics related cause
>to the acceleration problem for a significant number of its cars? Don't you
>think they had an obligation to fix it no matter what the cost?

If it caused surging in a small number of cars around 38-42mph? No, I don't think they had any obligation to fix it. (Although they did anyway.)

[likearock 1]

Quote

It is a Technical Service Bulletin covering a specific year, model, engine, and complaint. If you read the bulletin you will see that Toyota covered the modification under its emmisions warranty.

It sounds like the bulletin was sent to dealerships only to fix at their discretion. Is that SOP for a defect that is as critical as sudden acceleration? Shouldn't it be have been publicized a little more? I know if I had one of those models, I would have wanted to know about it.

Beyond that, don't you think its interesting that when all the acceleration problems came out this year, Toyota refused to consider the possibility that any of the problems were electronics related. Considering how they soft pedaled an actual electronics issue leading to those same problems, I'd say their credibility is pretty shaky to say the least.

[billvon 2,477]

>Toyota refused to consider the possibility that any of the problems
>were electronics related.

Where do you get that? I think they considered it quite a bit.

>Considering how they soft pedaled an actual electronics issue leading
>to those same problems . . .

So has every other car company out there. Heck, Ford has had quite a few deaths from unintended acceleration. Why didn't Ford recall all their cars, or at least fix them all? Why did they cover up such a fatal flaw? Heck, there were over SIX HUNDRED reports of sudden acceleration in Jeeps as of 2002! Why were there still Jeeps on the road?

Either there's a massive coverup that involves every car company out there - or we're seeing the sort of mechanical failures that happen when a very large number of vehicles are used hard with minimal maintenance. In addition, most of the incidents have occurred with older drivers. So one solution might be to require junking vehicles after, say, 80,000 miles. Another might be pulling people's drivers licenses at age 50.

A third one might be just to buy a car that you think works well, maintain it well, and learn how to drive it. (Absurd, I know.)

==========================
Ford Had 20 Acceleration Deaths as Regulators Cited Human Error

By Jeff Green, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Angela Greiling Keane

March 15 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. regulators have tracked more deaths in vehicles made by Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Group LLC and other companies combined than by Toyota Motor Corp. during three decades of unintended acceleration reviews that often blamed human error.

he NHTSA death database included crashes of 56 different models from various years. Among the models generating multiple complaints were Chrysler Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles that took off and crashed after idling at car washes or service stations and Ford vehicles in which the speed control allegedly failed to disengage or otherwise surged.

According to data compiled by Bloomberg News, the average time NHTSA spent investigating reports of unintended acceleration dropped in each of the past three decades. Agency probes of the issue averaged 221 days before 1990, 196 days from 1990 to 2000 and 161 days in the past decade.
=============================
One of the earliest sudden acceleration deaths in the NHTSA records prepared for Bloomberg News came on June 7, 1995, when a 1988 Lincoln Town Car in Mountain Home, Arkansas, accelerated in a parking lot and hit two boys, killing one and requiring the amputation of the other boy’s leg, according to a 1999 letter filed to the agency by attorney Sandy S. McMath in Little Rock, Arkansas.
==============================
In March 2002, two expert witnesses sent NHTSA an 84-page report on crashes involving Grand Cherokees, asking the agency to reconsider its 1989 sudden acceleration findings. The report was prompted by lawsuits against drivers who had been sued because their Grand Cherokees crashed after accelerating out of control.

That 2002 report pointed to 665 acceleration complaints involving 1987 to 1998 Jeep models and about 300 complaints each for 1993, 1994 and 1995 models. Many of the complaints focused on cars that accelerated unexpectedly from car washes and service stations, said David Bizzak, an engineer who co-wrote the report.

Chrysler had recalled Jeeps from 1989 and 1990 because of a sensor that could fail and cause a high idle, the 2002 study said. It had also recalled 1984-to-1995 models to add a “shift interlock,” requiring drivers to apply the brake before they can put the car in gear.
=====================

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

It is a Technical Service Bulletin covering a specific year, model, engine, and complaint. If you read the bulletin you will see that Toyota covered the modification under its emmisions warranty.

It sounds like the bulletin was sent to dealerships only to fix at their discretion. Is that SOP for a defect that is as critical as sudden acceleration? Shouldn't it be have been publicized a little more? I know if I had one of those models, I would have wanted to know about it.

Considering the millions of cars and trucks they sell every year, and the relative rare instance of the problem....yes, I would consider it normal. Most people never even heard of unintended acceleration until this media fiasco with Toyota. Now, suddenly, everybody's car/truck does it.
But only in the US.

Beyond that, don't you think its interesting that when all the acceleration problems came out this year, Toyota refused to consider the possibility that any of the problems were electronics related. Considering how they soft pedaled an actual electronics issue leading to those same problems, I'd say their credibility is pretty shaky to say the least.

Yes, i do wonder why they are playing off the possibility of software/electronic problems, but then I am not familiar enough with their control system to say it is part of the problem.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Icon134 0]

Quote

Yes, i do wonder why they are playing off the possibility of software/electronic problems, but then I am not familiar enough with their control system to say it is part of the problem.

Who's to say Toyota didn't consider the ECM as a possible cause of the the unintended acceleration?

Just because the manufacture came to the conclusion that ECM isn't the cause doesn't mean they didn't consider it might be...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, i do wonder why they are playing off the possibility of software/electronic problems, but then I am not familiar enough with their control system to say it is part of the problem.

Who's to say Toyota didn't consider the ECM as a possible cause of the the unintended acceleration?

Just because the manufacture came to the conclusion that ECM isn't the cause doesn't mean they didn't consider it might be...

Yep, nor does it mean it was a problem.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Icon134 0]

Quote

Yep, nor does it mean it was a problem.

So then we agree.... good...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Yep, nor does it mean it was a problem.

So then we agree.... good...

Yep, pretty much. I think the only point we disagree on is the implications of Toyota's denial.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[likearock 1]

Quote

>Toyota refused to consider the possibility that any of the problems
>were electronics related.

Where do you get that? I think they considered it quite a bit.

Well, they considered it but also seemed to have rejected it fairly quickly. Whether that decision was based on a technical analysis or a cost/benefit analysis is an open question I'd say.

Quote

>Considering how they soft pedaled an actual electronics issue leading
>to those same problems . . .

So has every other car company out there.

No argument there. But then again, it's only Toyota that has ended up in this massive shitstorm. Why is that? Is it just bad luck? Prejudice against Japanese? Or is it just possible that the sequence of events (including what is described in the article above) is yet another object lesson of how the cover-up is always worse than the crime itself.

Bill, I know you're an owner yourself. Doesn't it bother you how, even at this late stage, Toyota still refuses to give a full account of what exactly is causing these issues?

[Icon134 0]

Quote

Quote

>Toyota refused to consider the possibility that any of the problems
>were electronics related.

Where do you get that? I think they considered it quite a bit.

Well, they considered it but also seemed to have rejected it fairly quickly. Whether that decision was based on a technical analysis or a cost/benefit analysis is an open question I'd say.

So first they didn't consider it... then they did consider it but rejected it too quickly... How to you know they rejectd it too quickly? Are you an engineer for Toyota?

Without actually being involved in the analysis of the problem and being part of the team that proposes the solution there is no certain way to know what was analyzed and to what level... everyone looking in from the outside is merely able to speculate the cause...

The way I see it while Toyota was analyzing the problems associated with SUA (caused by the wrong floor mats installed in a SUV) they found something else in the mechanics of the pedal assembly that might under some circumstances cause the pedal to stick... and Toyota came up with a mechanical solution to the problem...

Quote

Bill, I know you're an owner yourself. Doesn't it bother you how, even at this late stage, Toyota still refuses to give a full account of what exactly is causing these issues?

Other then the media saying that Toyota hasn't given a "full account of what exactly is causing these issues" who is saying that Toyota isn't giving a full account (to the best of their knowledge...)?

I know you asked Bill but I thought I would add my two cents...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[Andy9o8 0]

"Sorry it's not a Honda."

-George Harrison

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Bill, I know you're an owner yourself. Doesn't it bother you how, even at this late stage, Toyota still refuses to give a full account of what exactly is causing these issues?

Other then the media saying that Toyota hasn't given a "full account of what exactly is causing these issues" who is saying that Toyota isn't giving a full account (to the best of their knowledge...)?

I don't need the media to tell me that something doesn't exist. If it exists, this full accounting as you say, then show it (post a link or doc).

[billvon 2,477]

>Well, they considered it but also seemed to have rejected it fairly quickly.

I don't think they rejected it fairly quickly. I think it was one of several possibilities, but since there was another more likely cause, they went with that.

> But then again, it's only Toyota that has ended up in this massive
>shitstorm. Why is that?

Because of the media echo chamber. Same thing happened with Audi, with about as much cause. In this case the event that seemed to start the shitstorm was the San Diego Prius incident; it got a lot of press, there were a lot of comedians doing routines about it, and the meme "Toyotas all accelerate out of control!" was planted in the public mind. Ironically it now looks like the San Diego incident was faked.

>Bill, I know you're an owner yourself. Doesn't it bother you how, even at
>this late stage, Toyota still refuses to give a full account of what exactly is
>causing these issues?

That's a "are you still beating your wife?" type question, so I'll answer it in a different way.

No, it doesn't bother me that some Toyotas accelerate when the owners don't want them to, since if that happens to me I can stop my car. No, I don't think there's a massive coverup; I think these are the same problems that plague every car company, and I think that Toyota's response is pretty average overall.

Edited to add - here's a good take on that media echo chamber in action:

==========
How Media Took Us For A Ride In A Prius

By MICHAEL FUMENTO
Posted 03/23/2010 06:11 PM ET

For three days, James Sikes held America's highest honor: victim. The nation had been transfixed by his almost half-hour-long 94-mph horror ride in his runaway Toyota Prius. He burned his brakes right down to the metal, unable to even slow the vehicle. Only his prescience in calling 911, followed by a highway patrol officer providing assistance, saved his life.

Then my article "Toyota Hybrid Horror Hoax" at Forbes.com brought it crashing down. But lest you get false impressions from that title, the real hoaxter wasn't Jim Sikes, but the media. Red flags about his story were popping up from the start. Yet the entire Fourth Estate systematically ignored them. Here were some of the biggest.

1. After Sikes stopped, the assisting officer observed that the accelerator was in the proper position. Why would stopping make it pop back up? It was probably gremlins; still, somebody should have asked Sikes about it. Nobody did.

2. Sikes repeatedly says he stood on the brakes but couldn't even slow the vehicle. Yet Car and Driver had recently tested three cars at full throttle at 100 mph and brought them all to a full stop, including a 540-horsepower Mustang. The 2008 Prius only has 110 anemic ponies under the hood. (After my story broke, a leaked congressional memo revealed that tests on Sikes' car showed that, as they were designed to do, when the brakes on Sikes' car were applied, the engine automatically slowed.)

3. You can listen on the Web as the 911 dispatcher repeatedly begs Sikes to either stop the engine with the ignition button or put the car into neutral. Sikes says he was afraid to try them, giving various contradictory or absurd reasons. Regarding his refusal to shift into neutral, one of the many reasons was, as he told CNN: "I was afraid to try to (reach) over there and put it in neutral. I was holding onto the steering wheel with both hands." Yet:

• We know Sikes spent most of the ride with a cell phone in his hand.

• Sikes claimed at a press conference that he reached under the dash to try to physically pull up the floored accelerator. With my average-length arms, I can barely touch the pedal of a 2008 Prius in the full up position. Quite possibly Sikes also cannot reach, but at a press conference with his car behind him, nobody asked him to repeat the motion. In any case, it's incredibly awkward at 94 mph for somebody who insisted he couldn't take his hands off the wheel.

• Finally, as I discovered when I sat in the Prius, the shift knob on pre-2010 models is mounted on the dash inches away from the steering wheel, expressly to allow shifting while keeping both hands on the wheel.

Yes, I'm a good investigative reporter. After all, that used to be my job with IBD! But this isn't rocket science, folks. Reporters trained to think in terms of "if your mother says it, check it out" exchanged that for a new motto: "In Sikes We Trust."

. . .The media have been pursuing a Toyota witch hunt regarding unexplained sudden acceleration. The Prius incident fit beautifully. Too beautifully, as it happens. So skepticism got the boot, as indeed it so often does with the media today. As one person put it in an e-mail to me, "I weep for the state of American journalism."

[likearock 1]

Quote

==========
How Media Took Us For A Ride In A Prius

Yeah, of course people will come out of the woodwork to try to score on the situation. That doesn't automatically discount that the original problem was real however.

The whole reason I posted this was that Toyota was so adamant that the acceleration had nothing to do with electronics. And yet, the service bulletin clearly states that there was an acceleration problem linked to electronics. So the dealerships got this bulletin, some did the adjustment, some didn't. It stands to reason that at least some of the consumer reports of unintended acceleration came from Camrys that were subject to the bulletin but just never got the adjustment. And that flatly contradicts Toyota's claim that electronics was not a causal factor.

[broncoty 0]

This is about 2002's I thought the unintended acceleration everyone has been up in arms about was in 2009's?

I'm guessing the electronics are quite a bit different seeing as they are 7 years apart in technology.

How is this at all relevant?

“The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires."-William Arthur Ward

[likearock 1]

Quote

This is about 2002's I thought the unintended acceleration everyone has been up in arms about was in 2009's?

I'm guessing the electronics are quite a bit different seeing as they are 7 years apart in technology.

How is this at all relevant?

I'm sure that there are still a substantial number of Toyota's on the road that were manufactured in 2002 and earlier. Toyota is not just responsible for its latest models.

[likearock 1]

Here's a pretty interesting timeline of the Toyota issues with Sudden Unintended Acceleration. It's a little hard to justify Toyota's claims that there's no trend indicated.

Quote

Toyota Sudden Acceleration Timeline

2001

2002 Model Year Camry is substantially redesigned on a new platform. The ETCS-i system was one of several new or revised vehicle systems (including transmission and braking system) introduced for the MY 2002 subject vehicles, consisting of an accelerator pedal sensor, a throttle control motor, a throttle position sensor and the engine control module (ECM). To control throttle position and monitor system operation, the system uses redundant hardware at the APS and TPS main and sub sensor and the ECM (main and sub processor).

Toyota warns that the installation of a mobile two-way radio system could affect electronic systems, including the fuel injection, electronic throttle control system, cruise control system, and other electronics. Owner’s are told to “be sure to check with your Toyota dealer for precautionary measures or special instructions regarding installation.”

2002

February 2

First consumer complaint of 2002 Camry engine surging when the brakes were depressed.

August 30

Toyota issues Technical Service Bulletin TSB EG017-02 to update the Electronic Control Module calibration to address “engine surging” on 2002 Camrys with 1MZ-FE engine.

“Vehicles may exhibit a surging during light throttle input at speeds between 38 – 42 MPH . . . The Engine Control Module (ECM) calibration been revised to correct this condition.”

August 31

First warranty claim noted by Toyota to correct a throttle problem on a 2002 Camry.

2003

April

Toyota experiences an unwanted acceleration incident involving a Sienna that occurred during production Dynamometer testing. The incident was allegedly caused by a missing retaining clip that allowed the center console trim panel to interfere with (trap) the accelerator pedal after it had been depressed. In the aftermath, Toyota reviewed their manufacturing processes and other data and concluded this was an isolated incident. As a secondary measure in June 2003, Toyota changed the design of the trim panel to eliminate the potential for pedal interference in the event the retaining clip is not present.

April 17

Peter Boddaert of Braintree, Mass. reports SUA incident to NHTSA involving his 1999 Lexus LS 400.

April 25

Peter Boddaert petitions NHTSA to conduct an analysis of 1997 through 2000 model year Lexus 300 and 400 series vehicles for problems of vehicle speed control linkages and sudden unexpected excessive acceleration. Boddart cites 271 other complaints to the agency about these vehicles, with 36 referring specifically to SUA, including several crashes. Boddaert previously complained to the agency about SUA when he experienced the first of three SUA events. The final instance resulted in Boddeart rear-ending another vehicle.

May 16

Toyota issues Technical Service Bulletin TSB EG008-03 to update the Electronic Control Module calibration to address “engine surging” in 2003 Camry’s with 1MZ-FE engine.

“Vehicles may exhibit surging during light throttle input at speeds between 38 – 42 mph… The Engine Control Module (ECM)calibration has been revised to correct this condition.”

June 3

Toyota changes the shape of the trim panel on the 2004 Sienna after an incident during production in which trim panel interference resulted in an SUA event.

September 22

NHTSA denies the Boddaert petition (DP03003). The agency says that its analysis of speed control complaints involving the Lexus and other peer luxury vehicles shows that Toyota is not a statistical stand-out..

2004

January 15

Ms. Carol J. Mathews of Rockville, Maryland submits a petition to NHTSA requesting an investigation of 2002 and 2003 Lexus ES300 for a defect in the vehicle speed control linkages. She alleged that the throttle control system in her vehicle malfunctioned on multiple occasions and was the cause of a vehicle crash.

February 17

NHTSA formally begins DP04003 to investigate Matthews request.

March 5

NHTSA grants Matthews petition request and opens low-level defect investigation into 2002 – 2003 Camry, Camry Solara and Lexus ES300. The agency reports 37 complaints and 30 crashes resulting in 5 injuries in the subject vehicles.

Consumers complain: vehicle may suddenly and unexpectedly surge or accelerate, generally of short duration; some reports allege multiple occurrences or occurrences during slow speed vehicle maneuvers and/or after shifting the transmission and/or at higher speeds under cruise control operation. In most cases, the brake system was reportedly functional and could be used to control the vehicle when the condition occurred.

June 4

Toyota sends response to NHTSA investigation into unexpected acceleration in Camry / Lexus ES 300 (PE04021) Toyota denies a defect exists, claims there is no trend, and that its electronic control system cannot fail in ways its engineers have not already perceived.

July 22

ODI closes its investigation of 2002-2003 Camrys, Camry Solara and Lexus 300ES vehicles without finding a defect (PE04021). The agency concluded with its standard caveat: “A defect trend has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted. Accordingly, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will take further action if warranted by the circumstances.”

November 3

Toyota reports first consumer complaint of engine surging in a 2005 Tacoma.

2005

July 8

Jordan Ziprin of Phoenix, AZ petitions NHTSA to open a defect investigation into SUA in the 2002 – 2005 Toyota / Lexus models for sudden unintended acceleration. Ziprin previously reported an SUA event in his 2002 Toyota Camry which resulted in a property damage crash.

August 5

NHTSA opens Defect Petition investigation (DP05002), based on the request of Jordan Ziprin. Target population is 2002-2005 Camrys and Lexus ES models.

November 15

Toyota files final response in DP05002, in which it says that it believes no defect or defect trend exists. Toyota completely discounts drivers’ experiences noting that the experiences as described could not have occurred without the fault detection system taking note. Toyota also noted that it reviewed the complaints to NHTSA and found that there are two major allegations; one is that the vehicle unintentionally or suddenly “ACCELERATED” and the other is that the vehicle “SURGED” or “LURCHED”. Toyota believes that these two descriptions of vehicle behavior are two completely different issues.

December 15

NHTSA memos document two separate inspections performed, one of Jordan Ziprin’s vehicle in Arizona and another involving a crash in Falls Church, VA. The agency notes no abnormalities or faults other than body damage were found.

2006

January 5

NHTSA closes DP05002 and denies the Ziprin petition. NHTSA says it examined 1172 owner complaints in a population of 7 million vehicles and could find no trend.

July

Toyota changes Floor Carpet Cover on Toyota Highlander and Lexus RX vehicles.

August 24

William Jefferson III petitions NHTSA to investigate 2002 – 2006 Camry and Camry Solara vehicles for incidents relating to vehicle surging. The petitioner owns a 2006 Camry and previously owned a 2003 Camry. He alleges that both vehicles exhibited “Engine Surging” which he described as a short duration (1 to 2 second) increase in engine speed occurring while the accelerator pedal is not depressed. For the 2006 vehicle, the petitioner estimated 6 to 8 surge incidents, of varying magnitude, occurred over the course of 10,000 miles and nearly 7 months of ownership.

September 14

ODI opens Defect Petition DP06003 in response to petition from William Jefferson III.

December 20

Toyota responds to NHTSA request in DP06003. Toyota noted the results of an investigation of the throttle actuator recovered from the Petitioner’s vehicle, and said that it could find no abnormality. During the investigations of other returned throttle actuators, Toyota found that some parts inside the throttle actuator had corroded due to water intrusion, concentrated in specific areas where water could intrude into the throttle actuator from the drain hose. Toyota blamed this on heavy weather conditions such as a flooded road or a hurricane. “Although the rate of occurrence of this type of failure is low, to eliminate any possibility of water intrusion under such circumstances, Toyota modified the drain hose.

2007

February 5

Ezal fatal crash in San Luis Obispo, CA involving 2005 Camry.

March 5

NHTSA denies the Jefferson stating it has not identified a vehicle-based defect, nor was it able to witness such an event when road testing the Petitioner’s vehicle. An evaluation of a suspect throttle actuator removed from the Petitioner’s vehicle did not reveal a component problem. Warranty and parts sales of the actuator are unremarkable. There is no evidence of a wide-spread defect or ongoing concern.

Agency notes: “This in no way implies that we doubt the Petitioner’s reported experiences with his vehicle. Rather, the agency simply lacks evidence of a safety related defect in his vehicle or a trend of such defects in the subject vehicles. In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect as alleged by the Petitioner in the subject vehicles at the conclusion of the requested investigation. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA’s limited resources to best accomplish the agency’s safety mission, the petition is denied.”

March 29

NHTSA opens a low-level investigation (PE07016) into 80,000 2007 Lexus ES350 for accessory floor mat interference with the throttle pedal. ODI notes that these vehicles come equipped with a standard floor mat made from a carpeted material.

April 12

Toyota sends notification to dealers that it will be contacting Lexus customers about proper floor mat usage.

August 8

NHTSA upgrades PE07016 to EA07010 to further investigate unintended acceleration in 2007 Lexus ES350s. The agency notes 40 complaints; eight crashes and 12 injuries. Complainants interviewed by ODI stated that they applied the throttle pedal to accelerate the vehicle then experienced unwanted acceleration after release. Subsequent (and sometimes repeated) applications of the brake pedal reduced acceleration but did not stop the vehicle.

August 30

NHTSA files memo in EA07010 about the inspection of a Lexus ES350 that experienced an SUA incident and conducted a telephone interview with the owners. An inspection of the vehicle found all weather mats are installed at all four seating positions. The driver side all weather mat was found to be installed by itself; it was not on top of another floor mat. The installed mat was found to be unsecured by the retention hooks; the mat did not interfere with the accelerator pedal in the position it was originally inspected.

September

Bookout fatal crash in Oklahoma involving 2005 Camry.

September 26

Toyota issues Recall 07E-082 involving 55,000 Lexus/Toyota with optional All Weather Floor Mats manufactured January 3, 2006-September 13, 2007. All owners of 2007 and early 2008 model year Lexus ES350 and Toyota Camry vehicles are to be notified of the safety campaign and the timing when the replacement mats will become available. Once the replacement mat is available, a second owner notification will be sent to notify owners to return their AWFM for the driver’s seating position to any Lexus/Toyota dealer for an exchange of the AWFM. Toyota also stopped the sale of the Toyota/Lexus All Weather Floor Mat designed specifically for 2007 and early 2008 model year Camry and ES 350 Lexus vehicles.

October 10

ODI interviews another complainant in EA07010, in which she tells investigator about the run-up to a rollover involving a Lexus ES350. The investigator concludes it resulted from an unsecured floor mat.

October 11

ODI closes EA07010 into accessory floor mat interference in 2002 – 2008 Lexus ES350 and Camry vehicles in the wake of Recall 07E-082.

2008

January 10

William Kronholm of Helena, MT files a request for a defect investigation into Sudden Unintended Acceleration in 2006 Tacomas. Kronholm experienced two incidents of SUA and investigated the agency complaints database and found 32 complaints involving the trucks.

January 31

ODI opens investigation DP08001 into Sudden Unintended Acceleration in 2006, 2007 Tacomas, based Kronholm’s defect petition and on 31 complaints to the agency.

April 10

NHTSA opens low-level investigation PE08025 into SUA involving 54,000 2004 Toyota Siennas, based on one report alleging unwanted acceleration on a subject vehicle. The complainant reported that he applied the accelerator pedal to accelerate the vehicle and experienced unwanted acceleration upon release. Field data collected by ODI indicates that when a retainer pin is missing from the driver’s side center stack/console trim panel, the panel can detach from the console and the accelerator pedal can become entrapped under the trim panel causing unwanted acceleration.

April 18

Toyota responds to NHTSA information request in the Kronholm petition and reports a total of 326 unique vehicle complaints of SUA in Tacomas.

As part of PE08025, the NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center is asked to conduct tests of 2004 Toyota Sienna vans for a condition that can cause the engine to produce power when the accelerator is not depressed. NHTSA notes that the driver’s side trim panel, which is secured by a trim clip to the center console, can become detached and prevent the pedal from returning to the fully closed position.

April 25

Toyota response to NHTSA request in response to the Kronholm petition on Tacoma SUA (DP08001) claims that there is no trend; the complaints have been artificially inflated by media attention and by Tacoma web groups.

April 30

ODI issues Final Report in its investigation of floor mats (EA07010). The Vehicle Research and Test Center tested a Lexus ES-350. During its tests of the vehicle electronics, the VRTC said that it introduced multiple electrical signals into the electrical system to test the robustness of the electronics against single point electrical interference failures. “The system proved to have multiple redundancies and showed no vulnerabilities to electrical signal activities. Magnetic fields were introduced in proximity to the throttle body and accelerator pedal potentiometers and did result in an increase in engine revolutions per minute (RPM) of up to approximately 1,000 RPM, similar to a cold-idle engine RPM level.”

The VTRC also sent surveys to 1986 registered owners of a 2007 Lexus ES-350 requesting information regarding episodes of unintended acceleration. Of the 600 people that responded, 59 stated that they experienced unintended acceleration and 35 complained of pedal interference with the Lexus rubber all-weather floor mats.

June 25

In response to the Sienna investigation (PE08025) of regarding 2004 Siennas., Toyota reported complaints about SUA in Siennas take two forms: allegations of excessive engine speed and or power output without the driver pressing on the accelerator pedal or the engine speed and or power output failing to decrease (subside) when the accelerator pedal was no longer being depressed by the driver. Toyota also says that it sees no evidence of a defect and explains how the trim could catch the accelerator and the design changes it made to the trim panel to correct this.

August 8

NHTSA upgrades its investigation of 2004 Sienna SUA to a mid-level Engineering Analysis (EA08014).

August 27

NHTSA closes investigation its investigation into Tacomas (DP08001) and denies Kronholm petition. The agency concludes that they are unable to find one possible explanation and have been unable to determine a cause for SUA complaints in Tacomas.

The agency notes: “For those vehicles where the throttle control system did not perform as the owner believes it should have, the information suggesting a possible defect related to motor vehicle safety is quite limited. Additional investigation is unlikely to result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists or a NHTSA order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect as requested by the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA’s limited resources to best accomplish the agency’s safety mission, the petition is denied.”

October 15

Toyota presentation to NHTSA on SUA and trim interference in 2004 Siennas. Toyota demonstrated how an unrestrained early design level trim panel interacts with the accelerator after pedal depression. Toyota also advised that they were conducting a field survey to examine panel retention and that preliminarily one vehicle had been identified with a concern.

2009

January 26

NHTSA closes its investigation into 2004 Sienna SUA after Toyota agrees to recall vehicles built between January 10, 2003 and June 11, 2003, when the original design floor carpet cover was used in production.

Toyota issues Recall 09V-023 for 26,501 2004 Siennas. Toyota does not concede that this is a defect, but calls the actions a “safety improvement campaign” that is not being conducted under the Safety Act. Toyota’s recall instructs dealers to replace the original floor carpet cover with the newer design floor carpet (and retention clip) at no charge to the owner. The repair will reduce the potential for trim panel interference with the accelerator pedal travel should the retaining clips become missing because of improper service or other reasons.

March 19

Jeffrey Pepski of Plymouth Minnesota files a defect petition requesting NHTSA to re-open the SUA investigation into Lexus vehicles requesting “an additional investigation into the unwanted and unintended acceleration of model year [MY] 2007 Lexus ES350 as the initial investigation (PE7-016) was too narrow in scope and did not adequately address all complaints made to the NHTSA with respect to vehicle speed control concerns.” Additionally the petitioner requested an “investigation of MY 2002-2003 Lexus ES300 for those ‘longer duration incidents involving uncontrollable acceleration where brake pedal application allegedly had no effect’ that were determined not to be within the scope of Investigation PE04-021.

May 14

Toyota files a direct response to Pepski’s petition in DP09001. Toyota dismisses all of the issues Pepski raises in his petition and says there is no basis for an investigation. Toyota claims that when Lexus inspected Pepski’s vehicle, it found that the floor mat was unsecured and blamed the event on that

August 28

Fatal Saylor crash in Santee, CA involving a 2009 Lexus. ES350.

September 29

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Toyota issues consumer alerts urging owners of a wide range of Toyota and Lexus models to take out any removable driver’s floor mat and NOT replace it with any other floor mat. Toyota says that an examination of recent events prompted the alert. The affected models are:

* 2007 – 2010 Camry
* 2005 – 2010 Avalon
* 2004 – 2009 Prius
* 2005 – 2010 Tacoma
* 2007 – 2010 Tundra
* 2007 – 2010 ES350
* 2006 – 2010 IS250 and IS350

October 5

Toyota initiates Recall 09V-388 to address potential accelerator pedal entrapment by floor mats in approximately 3.8 million vehicles.

October 28

NHTSA closes Defect Petition 09001. The Office of Defects Analysis concludes 78 percent of the complaints involved incidents of floor mat interference, including all of the crashes and injuries:

“Therefore, ODI’s analysis found that the only defect trend related to vehicle speed control in the subject vehicles involved the potential for accelerator pedals to become trapped near the floor by out-of-position or inappropriate floor mat installations.”

November 3

Toyota issues a statement characterizing the closing of Defect Petition 09-001 as proof “that no defect exists in vehicles in which the driver’s floor mat is compatible with the vehicle and properly secured.”

In a letter to its customers, Toyota referred to NHTSA’s “extensive technical review of the issue, including interviews with consumers who had complained of unwanted acceleration, NHTSA concluded that …the only defect trend related to vehicle speed control in the subject vehicles involved the potential for accelerator pedals to become trapped near the floor by out-of-position or inappropriate floor mat installations.”

November 4

NHTSA swiftly issues a statement to correct Toyota’s statement that the investigation is over:

“Toyota has announced a safety recall involving 3.8 million vehicles in which the accelerator pedal may become stuck at high vehicle speeds due to interference by the driver’s side floor mat, which is obviously a very dangerous situation. Toyota has written to vehicle owners stating that it has decided that a safety defect exists in their vehicles and asking owners to remove all floor mats while the company is developing a remedy. We believe consumers should follow Toyota’s recommendation to address the most immediate safety risk. However, removal of the mats is simply an interim measure, not a remedy of the underlying defect in the vehicles. NHTSA is discussing with Toyota what the appropriate vehicle remedy or remedies will be. This matter is not closed until Toyota has effectively addressed the vehicle defect by providing a suitable remedy.”

November 25

Toyota announces plans to reconfigure the accelerator pedal on 3.8 million vehicles going back to the 2004 model year. Other fixes include modifying the floor area around the pedal and in some models, installing a brake-to-idle override that allows the driver to quickly stop a vehicle in an unintended acceleration incident and newly-designed replacement driver- and front-passenger side all-weather mats.

The recalled vehicles include:

* 2007-2010 Camry
* 2005 -2010 Avalon
* 2004 -2009 Prius
* 2005-2010 Tacoma
* 2007-2010 Tundra
* 2007-2010 Lexus ES 350
* 2006-2010 Lexus IS 250
* 2006 – 2010 Lexus IS 350.

November 27

NHTSA receives anonymous tip from a Kentucky city that just happens to be the home of a Toyota-owned supplier of throttle bodies to check out the probability that cracked throttle body shafts are causing SUA. “Concerned Citizen” says Toyota management knows about the problem, but has remained silent.

2010

January 4

NHTSA posts anonymous complaint to public file.

January 22

Toyota announces a new recall for sticky accelerator pedals, separate and apart from the floor mat recall. Toyota 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. In addition, some of the affected vehicles’ pedals were manufactured with friction levers made of a different material (PA46), which may be susceptible to humidity when parked for a long period in hot temperatures. In this condition, the friction when the accelerator pedal is operated may increase, which may result in the accelerator pedal movement becoming rough or slow to return.” The affected vehicles are:

* 2009-2010 RAV4,
* 2009-2010 Corolla,
* 2009-2010 Matrix,
* 2005-2010 Avalon,
* 2007-2010 Camry,
* 2010 Highlander,
* 2007-2010 Tundra,
* 2008-2010 Sequoia

[billvon 2,477]

>That doesn't automatically discount that the original problem was real however.

Right - and I am sure that there are some failures that led to unintended acceleration.

>The whole reason I posted this was that Toyota was so adamant that
>the acceleration had nothing to do with electronics.

I didn't see them make that claim. Do you have a link?

>And yet, the service bulletin clearly states that there was an
>acceleration problem linked to electronics.

Right, and there was probably more than one such bulletin. Any dealership deals with thousands of such bulletins.

> And that flatly contradicts Toyota's claim that electronics was not a causal factor.

Again, where did you see that claim?

[likearock 1]

Quote

>The whole reason I posted this was that Toyota was so adamant that
>the acceleration had nothing to do with electronics.

I didn't see them make that claim. Do you have a link?

Besides the fact that none of the recalls involved any modifications to the ECM:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35776697/ns/business-autos/page/2/

Quote

The vast majority of lawsuits claiming economic loss stem from the accelerator problems, and many contend the company's effort to fix floor mats or accelerator pedals are insufficient. Dozens of lawsuits claim Toyota has ignored problems with its electronic throttle system.

Separately, NHTSA is looking into claims from more than 60 Toyota owners that their vehicles continue to surge forward unexpectedly despite having their vehicles repaired.

Toyota has denied that its electronic throttle is to blame and has been focused on dealing with the recalls — a strategy that could affect the outcome of the lawsuits.

"Toyota's strategy (should be) to fix them, fix them immediately and at no cost, and do it as quickly and effectively as you can so after the dust settles, your car's value won't have depreciated much," said Edward C. Martin, a law professor at Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama.

[Icon134 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bill, I know you're an owner yourself. Doesn't it bother you how, even at this late stage, Toyota still refuses to give a full account of what exactly is causing these issues?

Other then the media saying that Toyota hasn't given a "full account of what exactly is causing these issues" who is saying that Toyota isn't giving a full account (to the best of their knowledge...)?

I don't need the media to tell me that something doesn't exist. If it exists, this full accounting as you say, then show it (post a link or doc).

I didn't say Toyota was providing a full account of what is causing the SUA... just that one can't prove that Toyota isn't providing a full account of the problem.... just as someone can't prove that Toyota is hiding something...

one can link article after article and it still proves neither arguement conclusively...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...