5 ms·

>Which of those principles did Toyota violate when they had an almost identical issue in 2009? None. https://www.motortrend.com/news/toyota-found-not-at-fault

>Which of those principles did Toyota violate when they had an almost identical issue in 2009? None. https://www.motortrend.com/news/toyota-found-not-at-fault-in-2009-unintended-acceleration-death-case-416113/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/toyota-found-not-at-fault-in... The conspiracy theorist in me says this came at a time when the US auto market wasn't great and it was amplified to get people to buy American cars.

canadianfella 3y ago
[dead]
ajross 3y ago
That was one case that didn't find evidence for fault. The ability to stick a Toyota accelerator with the floor mats due to design issues was very well documented, all over youtube, and the recall was very real. In fact the evidence looks just like this situation with the Cybertruck. So getting back to the confirmation of priors point: it's telling that you view one as a "conspiracy" and the other as The Truth.
- notaustinpowers 3y ago
  I may not be part of the collective here, but I find it within the realm of acceptable that a $30,000 car would have issues that should absolutely not be present on a $100,000 car. I don't see Porsche's, Hellcat's, and BMW's having issues with something that has been a resolved non-issue for decades at this point.
  - rascul 3y ago
    BMW has recently had a lot of issues over years with some PCV valve setups. Looks like they've recalled almost 1 million vehicles and have tried multiple times to address the issue. https://bimmers.com/blog/pcv-valve-heater-recall-explained/ https://bimmers.com/blog/pcv-valve-heater-recall-explained/ I don't know enough if that meets your requirement of "something that has been a resolved non-issue for decades at this point" but it's something that BMW has apparently been trying and failing to fix for awhile now.
    - notaustinpowers 3y ago
      A valve for emissions is a fuck up, but not kind of fuck that that's the poorly made fake metal accelerator covers in a $100,000+ car can fall off and unintentionally accelerate the vehicle (which can go 0-60 in 3.9s) to a top speed on 112MPH, that's also made out of stainless steel that will destroy anything it hits, including you. I have higher expectations for my poorly made death machines.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    I think there's a floor for what should be acceptable at any price point. Rapid and unintended acceleration is below said floor.
  - mort96 3y ago
    You're demonstrating the problem with speaking overly generally. I too "find it within the realm of acceptable that a $30,000 car would have issues that should absolutely not be present on a $100,000 car". If, say, a plastic piece on the dashboard tends to develop an unsightly crack over time, that's more ok for a $30k car than for a $100k car. But some design issues should be present on no car; not a $30k car, not a $100k car, not a $5k car. "The car sometimes accelerates on its own" is one of these.
    - notaustinpowers 3y ago
      You're absolutely right, it is unacceptable for any car to unintentionally accelerate. But one of these issues being "our cheap floor mats move" when compared to "our $100,000 truck's fake pedal covers are made so cheaply that they break" showcases this disparity a helluva lot more.
      - mort96 3y ago
        It's certainly more embarrassing for the $100k car than for the $30k car, but neither is "within the realm of acceptable".
        notaustinpowers 3y ago
        True, I misspoke regarding "within the realm of acceptable". That's on me
    - hermitdev 3y ago
      I have a hellcat redeye, approximately one of your $100k cars. I've thoroughly enjoyed the car in the nearly 2 years I've owned it. But, I'm barely over 6,000 miles, and I've killed 2 batteries and just had the starter replaced and a loose ground (fixed/replaced under warranty). The loose ground may not have been a factory defect: I had to have the wiring harness replaced after some rodents chewed through some of the wiring...
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
- wredue 3y ago
  You should look up more on this time. The floor mats were blamed, but in at least a couple of these cases, it was found that the occupant claimed to have hit the brakes, but actually hit the accelerator. There is also a staggering number of “two foot drivers” out there. Incidentally, my sunfire also had the issue of the pedal getting stuck on the floor mat, and more than once I had to press in the clutch cause the pedal got stuck. The focus on toyota those years always stood out as a hit job to me (and that was a time when I generally disliked Japanese cars cause I was young and impressionable).
  - ajross 3y ago
    Again, though, the evidence that you could get a Toyota accelerator to stick was clear and obvious and available via copious video on the internet. That part wasn't made up. You're saying that it may not have been the cause of an accident. Which may be true, but (1) isn't evidence that there wasn't a clear design flaw and (2) is also true of the Cybertruck, which hasn't had any reported mishaps at all. Yet to you the Toyota thing was a "hit job" where this isn't? It's 100% symmetric, so why the difference in interpretation? I mean, we know why. But "because Elon" makes for poor logic.
    - wredue 3y ago
      After watching the video, it looks like a very serious design or QC issue, for a company widely known for QC issues. The mats were a hit job because most of the cases were not actually the mats, and one company was getting a hard focus for this issue when it was prevalent in many different brands. The cybertruck is not a hit job because this is just another in the laughing stock line of quality control and design issues from a company known for it.

canadianfella 3y ago

[dead]

ajross 3y ago

That was one case that didn't find evidence for fault. The ability to stick a Toyota accelerator with the floor mats due to design issues was very well documented, all over youtube, and the recall was very real. In fact the evidence looks just like this situation with the Cybertruck. So getting back to the confirmation of priors point: it's telling that you view one as a "conspiracy" and the other as The Truth.

notaustinpowers 3y ago
I may not be part of the collective here, but I find it within the realm of acceptable that a $30,000 car would have issues that should absolutely not be present on a $100,000 car. I don't see Porsche's, Hellcat's, and BMW's having issues with something that has been a resolved non-issue for decades at this point.
- rascul 3y ago
  BMW has recently had a lot of issues over years with some PCV valve setups. Looks like they've recalled almost 1 million vehicles and have tried multiple times to address the issue. https://bimmers.com/blog/pcv-valve-heater-recall-explained/ https://bimmers.com/blog/pcv-valve-heater-recall-explained/ I don't know enough if that meets your requirement of "something that has been a resolved non-issue for decades at this point" but it's something that BMW has apparently been trying and failing to fix for awhile now.
  - notaustinpowers 3y ago
    A valve for emissions is a fuck up, but not kind of fuck that that's the poorly made fake metal accelerator covers in a $100,000+ car can fall off and unintentionally accelerate the vehicle (which can go 0-60 in 3.9s) to a top speed on 112MPH, that's also made out of stainless steel that will destroy anything it hits, including you. I have higher expectations for my poorly made death machines.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  I think there's a floor for what should be acceptable at any price point. Rapid and unintended acceleration is below said floor.
- mort96 3y ago
  You're demonstrating the problem with speaking overly generally. I too "find it within the realm of acceptable that a $30,000 car would have issues that should absolutely not be present on a $100,000 car". If, say, a plastic piece on the dashboard tends to develop an unsightly crack over time, that's more ok for a $30k car than for a $100k car. But some design issues should be present on no car; not a $30k car, not a $100k car, not a $5k car. "The car sometimes accelerates on its own" is one of these.
  - notaustinpowers 3y ago
    You're absolutely right, it is unacceptable for any car to unintentionally accelerate. But one of these issues being "our cheap floor mats move" when compared to "our $100,000 truck's fake pedal covers are made so cheaply that they break" showcases this disparity a helluva lot more.
    - mort96 3y ago
      It's certainly more embarrassing for the $100k car than for the $30k car, but neither is "within the realm of acceptable".
      - notaustinpowers 3y ago
        True, I misspoke regarding "within the realm of acceptable". That's on me
  - hermitdev 3y ago
    I have a hellcat redeye, approximately one of your $100k cars. I've thoroughly enjoyed the car in the nearly 2 years I've owned it. But, I'm barely over 6,000 miles, and I've killed 2 batteries and just had the starter replaced and a loose ground (fixed/replaced under warranty). The loose ground may not have been a factory defect: I had to have the wiring harness replaced after some rodents chewed through some of the wiring...
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
wredue 3y ago
You should look up more on this time. The floor mats were blamed, but in at least a couple of these cases, it was found that the occupant claimed to have hit the brakes, but actually hit the accelerator. There is also a staggering number of “two foot drivers” out there. Incidentally, my sunfire also had the issue of the pedal getting stuck on the floor mat, and more than once I had to press in the clutch cause the pedal got stuck. The focus on toyota those years always stood out as a hit job to me (and that was a time when I generally disliked Japanese cars cause I was young and impressionable).
- ajross 3y ago
  Again, though, the evidence that you could get a Toyota accelerator to stick was clear and obvious and available via copious video on the internet. That part wasn't made up. You're saying that it may not have been the cause of an accident. Which may be true, but (1) isn't evidence that there wasn't a clear design flaw and (2) is also true of the Cybertruck, which hasn't had any reported mishaps at all. Yet to you the Toyota thing was a "hit job" where this isn't? It's 100% symmetric, so why the difference in interpretation? I mean, we know why. But "because Elon" makes for poor logic.
  - wredue 3y ago
    After watching the video, it looks like a very serious design or QC issue, for a company widely known for QC issues. The mats were a hit job because most of the cases were not actually the mats, and one company was getting a hard focus for this issue when it was prevalent in many different brands. The cybertruck is not a hit job because this is just another in the laughing stock line of quality control and design issues from a company known for it.