Toyota to recall 50,000 2003 Sequoia SUVs

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28 Apr 2010, 09:56 pm   #1 (permalink)
john
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Toyota to recall 50,000 2003 Sequoia SUVs

Not another recall! Toyota is becoming like the Old Detroit. No wonder
their cars are running out of control.

"Toyota will recall some 50,000 Sequoia sport-utility vehicles from
the 2003 model year to fix traction controls that unexpectedly switch
on – the automaker’s eighth recall in the United States this year.

The problem is not linked to any reports of injuries or crashes. It
does involve flaws in the sensors used by the vehicles’ electronic
controls, a key point of contention in the debate over thousands of
sudden acceleration cases. And as recently as February, Toyota was
telling federal regulators the problem was not a safety defect.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been probing
the problem since 2008, and said last year it had received 68
complaints from Sequoia owners of their cars slowing down
unexpectedly, sometimes in traffic. "

Full article:
http://www.freep.com/article/2010042...3-Sequoia-SUVs
  Reply With Quote
Old 29 Apr 2010, 07:26 am   #2 (permalink)
hls
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: Toyota to recall 50,000 2003 Sequoia SUVs


"john" <johngdole@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:58372afc-80b5-48a8-
The problem is not linked to any reports of injuries or crashes.

*********The excerpt above is one large way that this recall is different
from Detroit.. Toyota recalled our car to replace an oil line that
"might"
be prone to fail.

That is far different from the way GM handled the "born to fail" plenum
issue.

  Reply With Quote
Old 29 Apr 2010, 02:10 pm   #3 (permalink)
Ad absurdum per aspera
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: Toyota to recall 50,000 2003 Sequoia SUVs


> That is far different from the way GM handled the "born to fail" plenum
> issue.


I wonder, also, how Toyota is really doing statistically. A lot of
attention is focused upon them at this time. But... are they really
issuing more recalls as a percentage of the cars sold, averaged over
some nontrivial time period, at high levels of importance, than other
makers of today's insanely complex and highly electronic cars?

--Joe
  Reply With Quote
Old 30 Apr 2010, 07:02 am   #4 (permalink)
C. E. White
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: Toyota to recall 50,000 2003 Sequoia SUVs


"hls" <hls@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:AYydnRP7qNqS5kTWnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "john" <johngdole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:58372afc-80b5-48a8-
> The problem is not linked to any reports of injuries or crashes.
>
> *********The excerpt above is one large way that this recall is
> different
> from Detroit.. Toyota recalled our car to replace an oil line
> that "might"
> be prone to fail.
>
> That is far different from the way GM handled the "born to fail"
> plenum
> issue.


Safety issue vs Customer Satisfaction issue.

Seems to me Toyota screwed many Customers over the engine sludge
problems. I think that would be more accurate comparison to the GM
problem with intake manifolds (BTW, a freind of mine has two older
Buicks and has never had an intake manifold problem, so it wasn't a
100% failure rate).

The GM response to the uproar over intake manifold problems was almost
identical to the Toyota response to sludge problems - i.e., It is your
fault. If you took really really really good car of your car, you
wouldn't have a problem.

Ed


  Reply With Quote
Old 30 Apr 2010, 08:02 am   #5 (permalink)
hls
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: Toyota to recall 50,000 2003 Sequoia SUVs


"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> The GM response to the uproar over intake manifold problems was almost
> identical to the Toyota response to sludge problems - i.e., It is your
> fault. If you took really really really good car of your car, you
> wouldn't have a problem.
>
> Ed


They couldnt even say that about the plenum issue. And the plenum issue
wasnt a safety issue....or was it?

Apparently the Sequoia issue isnt a safety issue either, as there have been
no problems because of it...or have there been?
  Reply With Quote
Old 30 Apr 2010, 09:00 am   #6 (permalink)
C. E. White
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: Toyota to recall 50,000 2003 Sequoia SUVs


"hls" <hls@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:toSdnSBE6IhwSUfWnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> The GM response to the uproar over intake manifold problems was
>> almost identical to the Toyota response to sludge problems - i.e.,
>> It is your fault. If you took really really really good car of your
>> car, you wouldn't have a problem.
>>
>> Ed

>
> They couldnt even say that about the plenum issue. And the plenum
> issue
> wasnt a safety issue....or was it?


If you ask the lawyers at the Center for Auto Safety it was a safety
issue. But then they think everything is a safety issue becasue that
makes it easier to win liability cases. I think GM claimed that if you
properly serviced your vehicle you would avoid the major damaged that
is attributed to intake manifold related failures (mostly coolant in
the oil, followed by total engine failure) - in other words - you
might have had to pay for a gasket / manifold replacmenet, but you
would not have ruined the engine if you had the thing properly
serviced. I know there is a lot of internet griping about certain GM
intake manifolds, but I don't persoanlly know anyone who suffered from
the problem (but then I only know a few people with GM products - I
know a lot more people who own Toyotas, so I tend to hear a lot more
about Toyota problems, than GM problems).

> Apparently the Sequoia issue isnt a safety issue either, as there
> have been
> no problems because of it...or have there been?


I am sure it depends on who you ask. From what I have read some people
(maybe prompted by lawyters?) say it is a safety issue becasue the
vehicles don't acclerate as expected in some emergency situations, but
no one claims the concern has lead to an accident. My personal opinion
is that it is a Customer Satisfaction issue. However NHTSA did open an
investigation and given the current climate, I think Toyota decided to
avoid any hint of their past habits and recalled the vehicles to
update the software to eliminate the concern. I think the major gripe
of owners that experienced the problem was how they were treated by
Toyota. You know, the usual Toyota policy - the vehicle is perfect,
any problems are the Customer's fault. From what I have read some
Customers were charged big bucks to have the software updated.

Ed


  Reply With Quote
Old 01 May 2010, 03:31 pm   #7 (permalink)
hls
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: Toyota to recall 50,000 2003 Sequoia SUVs


"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:hrenpm$ior$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "hls" <hls@nospam.nix> wrote in message
> news:toSdnSBE6IhwSUfWnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> The GM response to the uproar over intake manifold problems was almost
>>> identical to the Toyota response to sludge problems - i.e., It is your
>>> fault. If you took really really really good car of your car, you
>>> wouldn't have a problem.
>>>
>>> Ed

>>
>> They couldnt even say that about the plenum issue. And the plenum issue
>> wasnt a safety issue....or was it?

>
> If you ask the lawyers at the Center for Auto Safety it was a safety
> issue. But then they think everything is a safety issue becasue that makes
> it easier to win liability cases. I think GM claimed that if you properly
> serviced your vehicle you would avoid the major damaged that is attributed
> to intake manifold related failures (mostly coolant in the oil, followed
> by total engine failure) - in other words - you might have had to pay for
> a gasket / manifold replacmenet, but you would not have ruined the engine
> if you had the thing properly serviced. I know there is a lot of internet
> griping about certain GM intake manifolds, but I don't persoanlly know
> anyone who suffered from the problem (but then I only know a few people
> with GM products - I know a lot more people who own Toyotas, so I tend to
> hear a lot more about Toyota problems, than GM problems).
>
>> Apparently the Sequoia issue isnt a safety issue either, as there have
>> been
>> no problems because of it...or have there been?

>
> I am sure it depends on who you ask. From what I have read some people
> (maybe prompted by lawyters?) say it is a safety issue becasue the
> vehicles don't acclerate as expected in some emergency situations, but no
> one claims the concern has lead to an accident. My personal opinion is
> that it is a Customer Satisfaction issue. However NHTSA did open an
> investigation and given the current climate, I think Toyota decided to
> avoid any hint of their past habits and recalled the vehicles to update
> the software to eliminate the concern. I think the major gripe of owners
> that experienced the problem was how they were treated by Toyota. You
> know, the usual Toyota policy - the vehicle is perfect, any problems are
> the Customer's fault. From what I have read some Customers were charged
> big bucks to have the software updated.
>
> Ed


I think we agree rather closely on this one.

  Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 am.

Attribution:
Autoblog
Powered by Yahoo Answers



ToyotaLexusForum.com is an unofficial community for car enthusiasts. ToyotaLexusForum.com is not affiliated with Toyota Motor Corporation in any way.
Toyota Motor Corporation does not sponsor, support, or endorse ToyotaLexusForum.com in any way.
Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.