[emersonbiggins]

Does ANY Geely model currently meet any of the USDOT standards for safety or emissions? If not, I wouldn't count on driving cheap Chinese cars in the US within the immediate future, if at all.

(That is, if we continue to have standards in the US... )

[Niagara]

USA Today blogs are suggesting the Obama Administration is attacking Toyota to boost the sales of GM/Chrysler.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/201002040039

Makes you wonder. Howcum all these recalls suddenly?

How many Camrys have actually crashed due to stuck gas-pedals? A dozen maybe, out of the millions produced?

I mean LEGITIMATE crashes, before the media circus. Let's not count the hundreds of "accidents" that are now going to happen to collect the insurance money.

[AgentR]

Well, if you own a company, and have the ability to beat up on its competition, fairly or not, why wouldn't you?

fwiw: My current vehicle is a Toyota, I've had it for nine years, and it runs perfectly.

[rangerone314]

I wonder how many SUVs have rolled over in comparison.

[kublikhan]

How many Camrys have actually crashed due to stuck gas-pedals? A dozen maybe, out of the millions produced?

I mean LEGITIMATE crashes, before the media circus. Let's not count the hundreds of "accidents" that are now going to happen to collect the insurance money.

In the 3 years from 1999-2001(pre-problem years), there was an average of 26 cases per year of "abrupt acceleration". In the 3 years from 2002-2004, there was an average of 132 cases per year of "abrupt acceleration", an increase of 400%. NHTSA deemed the causes as "driver error."

NHTSA data shows that there was an annual average of 26 abrupt acceleration reports in 1999-2001 Toyota Camry and Lexus ES models. This number increased by more than 400% to a total of 132 annually in 2002-2004 models, which were designed with new electronic throttles.[56] Toyota responded by stating,

Six times in the past six years NHTSA has undertaken an exhaustive review of allegations of unintended acceleration on Toyota and Lexus vehicles and six times the agency closed the investigation without finding any electronic engine control system malfunction to be the cause of unintended acceleration.[57]

In 2004, the NHTSA launched a probe of throttle control systems on around 1 million Lexus and Toyota sedans.[58] Upon that probe, Toyota urged the NHTSA to define the issues as quick bursts where the engine surged to "something less than a wide-open throttle." The company compared the complaints to previous sudden unintended acceleration cases the NHTSA deemed "driver error."[58] It also said the computer could not open the throttle without the accelerator pedal pressed, and, the brakes would be able to stop the car anyway.[58]

After several months of investigating, the NHTSA said it found no evidence of a defect and there was no data indicated any bad parts.[58] Christopher Santucci, an employee of Toyota's Washington, D.C. office and a NHTSA employee until he was hired by Toyota in 2003, testified that he was informed by the NHTSA in March 2004 about pending investigation over unintended acceleration complaints. According to Santucci in his deposition, his former NHTSA colleagues decided not to investigate some incidents involving acceleration lasting longer than 1 second. The decision to exclude certain incidents from the investigation apparently reduced the significance of the issue to the NHTSA at least on paper. [58][59][60] However, in 2005, 2006 and 2008, Toyota customers again asked the NHTSA to investigate uncontrolled acceleration from electronic throttle controls and power steering issues. Although there were hundreds of complaints, the NHTSA found no evidence of defects; and in every case, Toyota provided data it said showed no such evidence.

On November 2, 2009, the NHTSA denied a petition to reopen previously closed unintended investigations of Toyota vehicles, stating they were unlikely to reach any new conclusions. [61] In February 2010, however NHTSA was again looking into the electronic throttle control systems on Toyota vehicles.[62] In February 2010, State Farm insurance revealed that it had warned NHTSA in late 2007 on an increased trend of Toyota accidents related to the recalled models; other insurers stated however that they had not seen such a trend.

Car and Driver, Motor Trend, and Ward's Auto also compared the 2009-10 Toyota recalls to the Audi sudden acceleration cases of the 1980s, which led to a widely-noted media frenzy and hundreds of sudden unintended acceleration claims for Audi cars. In that case, a 1986 segment on CBS News' 60 Minutes accused the Audi 5000 sedan of unintended acceleration defects, which was followed by numerous reports of tragic accidents and media expert commentary. However, the NHTSA later determined all complaints to be due to driver error.

Toyota vehicle recalls

I wonder how many SUVs have rolled over in comparison.

According to the NHTSA, of 194 reported rollovers, 166 involved Ford Explorers and Ford Explorers accounted for 79 of the 88 rollover fatalities.

fordrollover

[Outcast_Searcher]

The thing that bugs me is I don't see the obvious stated in any of the mainstream media, at least from what I've read/seen on TV and in various publications:

For both the major Toyota (recall) problems (from what I can gather from what is reported - the hybrid brake problem and the "runaway" acceleration problem) -- an ALERT driver who just does what comes natural when detecting a concern like this that threatens an accident, and simply MASHES ON THE BRAKES will take care of most of the problem.

1). In the case of the braking problem, braking hard will engage the mechanical brakes, which IGNORE all the computer generated instructions of regenerative braking, and the car will stop.

2). For the acceleration problem, if the driver is in a crowded area and has little time to react, it could cause a minor accident, but the idea of the car just "running away" with a driver braking hard is just ridiculous. (After a couple of seconds seeing that the problem isn't abating, then of course shifting into neutral and turning off the engine would be advisable).

So, for the relative handful of real incidents, simple common sense NATURAL reaction of the driver to the problem would greatly mitigate the issue. Of course, telling it like it is wouldn't be piling on a great company (which is such fun sport) and would likely be politically incorrect, as incompetence in all forms in our society now is fodder to use competent people's money to "help" such people.

This in contrast to cars catching on fire various ways, transmissions coming out of gear and cars rolling away, cars rolling over, engines blowing up with fairly low mileage, etc. etc. etc. as have been relatively common with big 3 cars for the last few decades.

I blame this on incompetent and biased media - not a conspiracy by GM.


edit -- fixed a couple of typos

[Mesuge]

Anybody noticed Toyota's massive ad counter campaign recently?
Suddenly, Toyota advertisement went all over major TV channels, was it only here in the Euroland or global? Hah the company must be bleeding right now at monstrous rate, I don't wish them anything bad though, they were always among my preffered bunch of car companies..

Conspiracy, I don't know (thanks for the NHTSA data, quite revealing), shall we say backslash - perhaps a factor of their ultra hyped marketing of previous decades, people in the media just love to kick into their former icons.. Well, that's one of the necessary qualifications working in the media/PR to be a petty sick psycho deep down inside..

However, I'd not discount deeper undercurrents, not long ago, the Fiat head honcho said something to the effect, the number of cars manufactured globally peaked, and that it will get lonely on the top of the global auto market for some of the weaker competitors. So, perhaps there is a flatout war before another round of global mega-mergers..

[emersonbiggins]

From the "some people never learn" file: (emphasis mine)

GM Arlington workers toil overtime to maintain SUV supplies

10:59 AM CDT on Sunday, March 21, 2010

By TERRY BOX / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

ARLINGTON – Big, growling transporter trucks regularly whip into the east entrance of the General Motors Assembly Plant, arriving for another load of SUVs fresh off the line.

After being idle for weeks last year, the plant is working more overtime now than anyone can recall – with most of the factory's 2,400 workers putting in 60 hours some weeks as Arlington labors to maintain an adequate supply of sport utility vehicles for dealers nationwide.

"When I look at where we were a year ago, this is a much better situation," said Paul Graham, 47, the plant's new manager. "Demand is there, and we need to meet it."

Arlington's burden – which can earn senior workers nearly $800 in overtime pay in a week– exemplifies GM's new approach to building cars and trucks.

Before its bankruptcy, GM often scheduled heavy production at plants to help spread its high "legacy" costs – mainly health care expenses for retired autoworkers – among more vehicles.

That approach helped dilute the legacy costs per vehicle, but the company was often forced to then put high, profit-sapping incentives on its overproduction to sell the vehicles, said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.

After going through bankruptcy and shedding much of its legacy costs and debt – as well as closing factories and laying off thousands of workers – GM now strives to build only as many vehicles as its dealers need, avoiding incentives as much as possible.
...
(more at dallasnews.com)

BTW, this is THE plant that builds Suburbans, Yukons, Escalades and Tahoes.

[mos6507]

Shock to trance.

I suspect part of this also has to do with climategate. Now even fewer people care about tailpipe emissions.

[emersonbiggins]

I suspect that you're right, mos. I would imagine that the psychological effect of gas over $3/gal coming this summer will have not lost all his blunt effect on the American public, and that we'll once again see GM's current market move in dire straits, but who knows?

[Plantagenet]

GM would also be trying to make a go of selling Hummers again, if it hadn't already shut down the factory.

[mos6507]

Hummer has been kind of the sacrificial lamb in the court of cognitive dissonant public opinion. Hummers are considered public enemy #1 but people don't seem to mind buying Yukons with 15MPG. It's kind of like changing your brand of cigarettes and thinking you won't get lung cancer.

[copious.abundance]

Told ya so!

[copious.abundance]

BTW, this is a significant reason why this particular plant is so busy:

Before the bankruptcy and restructuring in August, three GM plants assembled full-size SUVs. Now Arlington is the only plant that makes Chevrolet Tahoes and Suburbans, GMC Yukons and Yukon XLs, and Cadillac Escalades.

What used to be done in 3 plants is now being crammed into one.

GM is also doing this with an SUV plant in Kansas City (makes crossovers I think).

[Keith_McClary]

I suspect that you're right, mos. I would imagine that the psychological effect of gas over $3/gal coming this summer will have not lost all his blunt effect on the American public, and that we'll once again see GM's current market move in dire straits, but who knows?

They'll probably offer $1 gas for life or somesuch gimmick. They're Gubmint Motors, after all.

[Blacksmith]

[They're Gubmint Motors, after all.

I may be wrong, but as I understand it the UAW hold a majority of the restructured company.

[pablonite]

BTW, this is THE plant that builds Suburbans, Yukons, Escalades and Tahoes.

Sure, and they will mostly be painted black and be outfitted with all the modern high tech police state tools. From the "some people never learn" department for sure!

[emersonbiggins]

BTW, this is a significant reason why this particular plant is so busy:

Before the bankruptcy and restructuring in August, three GM plants assembled full-size SUVs. Now Arlington is the only plant that makes Chevrolet Tahoes and Suburbans, GMC Yukons and Yukon XLs, and Cadillac Escalades.

What used to be done in 3 plants is now being crammed into one.

GM is also doing this with an SUV plant in Kansas City (makes crossovers I think).

Missed that part. Well, that does explain the overtime. I always thought that the Arlington plant was the exclusive manufacturer of the large SUVs - seems I was wrong.

[Tanada]

This thread has been quiet for a while but hey, when GM makes news, they make news. GM lawyers are arguing today in front of a judge that you do not have the right to modify, repair or alter your car/truck or any of its systems because they sell you a vehicle, they sell you the right to operate a vehicle.

Car owners and independent mechanics will soon learn more on whether copyright laws could hinder their ability to repair and modify vehicles.

The US Copyright Office will hear arguments today in Los Angeles on whether it should grant exemptions in copyright law that would preserve the legal rights of citizens to tinker with their cars. Representatives of both automakers, who oppose the exemptions, and gearheads are scheduled to testify during the hearings.

Hearings are scheduled to begin at 12 p.m. ET/9 a.m. PT. We'll be there covering the proceedings, so check back here for updates throughout the day.

Every three years, the Copyright Office holds these hearings to determine whether exemptions should be granted for certain activities covered in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This is the sixth time the hearings have been held since the law's passage in 1998, but the first time the activities of mechanics and hobbyists have fallen under scrutiny.

Few would have imagined that cars could be impacted by the DMCA at the time it became law, but vehicles have since become little more than rolling computers that are controlled largely by software.

Automakers are arguing that tinkering with this software infringes upon their right to protect proprietary intellectual property, and believe the law prohibits outsiders from accessing this software without authorization. General Motors and John Deere have gone as far as arguing that customers don't actually buy their cars, they merely buy a license to use vehicles for the duration of their lifetimes.

Hundreds of organizations and citizens have written to the Copyright Office to support exemptions that would allow for their continued rights to repair, diagnose and conduct research on vehicles.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/19/gear ... nversation

[Subjectivist]

This thread has been quiet for a while but hey, when GM makes news, they make news. GM lawyers are arguing today in front of a judge that you do not have the right to modify, repair or alter your car/truck or any of its systems because they sell you a vehicle, they sell you the right to operate a vehicle.

Car owners and independent mechanics will soon learn more on whether copyright laws could hinder their ability to repair and modify vehicles.

The US Copyright Office will hear arguments today in Los Angeles on whether it should grant exemptions in copyright law that would preserve the legal rights of citizens to tinker with their cars. Representatives of both automakers, who oppose the exemptions, and gearheads are scheduled to testify during the hearings.

Hearings are scheduled to begin at 12 p.m. ET/9 a.m. PT. We'll be there covering the proceedings, so check back here for updates throughout the day.

Every three years, the Copyright Office holds these hearings to determine whether exemptions should be granted for certain activities covered in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This is the sixth time the hearings have been held since the law's passage in 1998, but the first time the activities of mechanics and hobbyists have fallen under scrutiny.

Few would have imagined that cars could be impacted by the DMCA at the time it became law, but vehicles have since become little more than rolling computers that are controlled largely by software.

Automakers are arguing that tinkering with this software infringes upon their right to protect proprietary intellectual property, and believe the law prohibits outsiders from accessing this software without authorization. General Motors and John Deere have gone as far as arguing that customers don't actually buy their cars, they merely buy a license to use vehicles for the duration of their lifetimes.

Hundreds of organizations and citizens have written to the Copyright Office to support exemptions that would allow for their continued rights to repair, diagnose and conduct research on vehicles.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/19/gear ... nversation

Well if I don't own my car, just the right to use it the manufacturer should pay for the plates, insurance and maintainence? I will buy the fuel, I do that when I borrow a truck or car from a friend, or rent one as far as that goes.