"No Safety Problem" -- Toyota accused of 'not being frank'

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:35:38 -0600, "hls" > wrote:

>
>I think that Toyota has, still, been more honest than GM in dealing with
>problems.

Agree. But it really has nothing to do with honesty per se.
More about good business practices.
Which is essence is "delivering the goods."
If you start there being honest doesn't cut far into the bottom line,
because the bottom line is healthy.
But I'm sounding a bit chicken/egg here.

--Vic

Vic Smith > wrote in
:


>
> We all know the other driver is incompetent.
> The State Trooper driving the Lexus may or may not qualify.
> I don't know why he didn't shift it to neutral.



He accidentally moved the lever over into the "Sport" gate, where all it
would do was toggle between up and down in Drive. In his panic he didn't
realize that and never thought to push the lever back into the regular
gate, where Neutral was available.



> But he didn't know how to shut it down.
> That 3 or 4 second shutdown button is pure bull****.


You can thank liability regulations for that.

The delay was originally a half-second, but people were inadvertently
shutting the engine down in traffic, leaving Toyota open to liability
claims if the stalled car was involved in a collision. The delay was
therefore increased to 3 seconds.



> The car was a loaner. Should everybody using a strange loaner or
> rental car be required to read the owner's manual before they can
> depart with the car?
> Remember before there was standardization of file and other common
> operations with computer apps? Buttons all over the place.
> Cars should have some standards.
> At least the loaners and rentals.
> You should be able to shut it down by turning the key.
> Or by hitting a big red emergency button.




The Start button might look really kewl, but personally I think it's a
dubious idea for automobiles used by the general public.

I'm thinking automakers should go back to keys again, even if the "key"
is just a straight shank with no teeth on it. /Everybody/ knows how to
turn a key.



> Or by instruction from the rental/loaner outfit if shutting the engine
> down is made all fancy dancy.
> If you drive a strange car from the rental agency, and hit a black
> downpour, can you find the wipers and lights?
> Something to think about.



It ought to be SOP for ANYBODY getting into ANY unfamiliar car to make
sure he knows how to operate it. That's what I do, anyway.




--
Tegger

Vic Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:44:05 -0600, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >It's pretty clear that in these cases the incompetent drivers are simply
> >going blank and not taking any action to correct / contain the problem.
> >(class C) Drivers are so clueless and poorly trained these days that
> >they barely have control of the vehicle under ideal conditions, one
> >single vehicle fault and they loose it entirely.
>
> We all know the other driver is incompetent.
> The State Trooper driving the Lexus may or may not qualify.
> I don't know why he didn't shift it to neutral.
> But he didn't know how to shut it down.

I for one don't presume that a state trooper is any more vehicle (or
firearm) competent than the average civilian. Certainly some are, but I
don't think it's a majority of them.

> That 3 or 4 second shutdown button is pure bull****.
> The car was a loaner. Should everybody using a strange loaner or
> rental car be required to read the owner's manual before they can
> depart with the car?

I don't know about requirements, but I never just jump in a rental or
loaner and take off, I spend the time to review where everything is,
adjust the seat and mirrors and generally acclimate.

> Remember before there was standardization of file and other common
> operations with computer apps? Buttons all over the place.
> Cars should have some standards. At least the loaners and rentals.
> You should be able to shut it down by turning the key.
> Or by hitting a big red emergency button.
> Or by instruction from the rental/loaner outfit if shutting the engine
> down is made all fancy dancy.

Most things on a car *are* pretty well standardized, only a few
variations in transmission controls such as the increasingly rare
manual, and the column or console automatics (or the super rare column
manual).

> If you drive a strange car from the rental agency, and hit a black
> downpour, can you find the wipers and lights?
> Something to think about.

I certainly can, since that it one of the things I review in an
unfamiliar vehicle before taking off. I think most people's reviews of
unfamiliar vehicles begins and ends with the radio controls.

> Aside from the shift to neutral issue, which I don't know about, this
> guy and his family got killed by Toyota.
> And it's going to cost Toyota big time.
> The plaintiff(s) will exclude you from the jury if it isn't settled
> out of court.

If I were in the jury pool, they would have a difficult time excluding
me from the jury. I have spent a *lot* of time with trial lawyers and am
pretty familiar with their games.

"Vic Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:35:38 -0600, "hls" > wrote:
>
>>
>>I think that Toyota has, still, been more honest than GM in dealing with
>>problems.
>
> Agree. But it really has nothing to do with honesty per se.
> More about good business practices.
> Which is essence is "delivering the goods."
> If you start there being honest doesn't cut far into the bottom line,
> because the bottom line is healthy.
> But I'm sounding a bit chicken/egg here.
>
> --Vic

" Delivering the goods" is one part of honesty....a big part. And I agree
totally
that if you do your job honestly, deliver the goods, then you can avoid most
of this sort of problem.

Having a healthy bottom line should be simple...make a product that people
need, make it attractive in terms of design, utility, and durability, and
make it
with an eye to the economics of the market you are trying to sell to.

People WILL pay more if they perceive they are getting the best in class.

Perhaps, but more like those parts are made in Canada than the US and they
are built to Toyotas specs.

In addition most of the "assembled" parts use Japanese source materials and
un-assembled parts to earn a better looking "North American Parts" label.


"Hachiroku ????" > wrote in message
news
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:53:23 -0500, C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> "Hachiroku ????" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:05:53 -0800, john wrote:
>>>
>>>> WASHINGTON -- When owners of Lexus sedans began <SLAP!>
>>>
>>> Get the point yet, Troll?
>>>
>>> Toyota has had ONE recall, involving 2.3M vehicles.
>>
>> You are forgetting the recall for virtually every truck Toyta sold in the
>> US for around 5 years becasue of defective ball joints. Or recalls for
>> rusting frames. And recalls for numerous other defects. Toyota is hardly
>> the model of excellence you like to pretend they are.
>
> I only buy "J" VIN cars. All the examples you point to are "4" VIN
> vehicles with parts sourced to US suppliers.
>
>

What complaints of clients do you believe were not responded too strongly,
buy GM?



"hls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
>>
>> You are forgetting the recall for virtually every truck Toyta sold in the
>> US for around 5 years becasue of defective ball joints. Or recalls for
>> rusting frames. And recalls for numerous other defects. Toyota is hardly
>> the model of excellence you like to pretend they are.
>>
>> Trying to defend Toyota by saying they are no better than GM is a weak
>> defense.
>
> Toyota has been damaged by this, no doubt. I suspect that Toyota will
> take a hard look within its organization and try to straighten out the
> lack
> of managerial proactiveness that resulted in this loss of quality.
>
> They should do so, at least.
>
> Had GM listened to the complaints of clients and responded strongly,
> maybe it would not have had to seek protection of bankruptcy.
>
> I think that Toyota has, still, been more honest than GM in dealing with
> problems.

You hit the nail on the head. When I was in retail we always made a much
higher profit off of our Toyota buyers, than our domestic car buyers,
because they had the "perception" that they were getting the best in class.
We were even able to charge a higher shop rate as well because of that,
"perception."


"hls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Vic Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:35:38 -0600, "hls" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I think that Toyota has, still, been more honest than GM in dealing with
>>>problems.
>>
>> Agree. But it really has nothing to do with honesty per se.
>> More about good business practices.
>> Which is essence is "delivering the goods."
>> If you start there being honest doesn't cut far into the bottom line,
>> because the bottom line is healthy.
>> But I'm sounding a bit chicken/egg here.
>>
>> --Vic
>
> " Delivering the goods" is one part of honesty....a big part. And I agree
> totally
> that if you do your job honestly, deliver the goods, then you can avoid
> most
> of this sort of problem.
>
> Having a healthy bottom line should be simple...make a product that people
> need, make it attractive in terms of design, utility, and durability, and
> make it
> with an eye to the economics of the market you are trying to sell to.
>
> People WILL pay more if they perceive they are getting the best in class.

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:58:55 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:35:38 -0600, "hls" > wrote:
>
>
>>I think that Toyota has, still, been more honest than GM in dealing with
>>problems.
>
> Agree. But it really has nothing to do with honesty per se. More about
> good business practices.
> Which is essence is "delivering the goods." If you start there being
> honest doesn't cut far into the bottom line, because the bottom line is
> healthy.
> But I'm sounding a bit chicken/egg here.
>
> --Vic

With a Toyoda at the head of the company now, I don't think we'll be
seeing to many more 'issues' in future cars. Toyota is concerned with
three or four things: making a good car, not getting sued, 'saving face'
and being the world's car maker.

Too many more goofs like these and you can certainly kiss the last two
goodbye. And Toyota also likes to keep shareholders happy, and until
recently they have been doing this by keeping customers happy.

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:34:15 -0500, Mike Hunter wrote:

>
> Perhaps, but more like those parts are made in Canada than the US and they
> are built to Toyotas specs.

um, so are the Nippon Denso's used in the Japan built vehicles...