From: john on
"Five months before the new 2002 Lexus ES hit showroom floors, the
company's U.S. engineers sent a test report to Toyota City in Japan:
The luxury sedan shifted gears so roughly that it was "not acceptable
for production."

Days later, another Japanese executive sent an e-mail to top managers
saying that despite misgivings among U.S. officials, the 2002 Lexus
was "marginally acceptable for production." The new ES went on sale
across the nation on Oct. 1, 2001.

In an interview with company lawyers in November 2005, two Toyota
engineers indicated that "the performance characteristics of the
vehicles are NOT related to the software, but to hardware issues,"
according to an e-mail sent by Biller.

But company officials ruled out solving the problem "due to the
complications as well as costs associated with a change from three to
four engine mounts," according to a memo written by Toyota's outside
counsel regarding the same meeting.

The redesigned 2007 ES, released less than a year later, had four
engine mounts."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lexus-20100523,0,3565181.story
From: Mike Hunter on
That is nothing new for Toyota. Toyota has historically tried to limit
complaints to the NHTSA by correcting known problems on vehicles brought to
one of our 15 dealerships for service. When the customer picked up their
vehicle after and oil change an item list was a "Technical Service Update
was completed on you vehicle at no charge."


"john" <johngdole(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:56e2c5d1-58ee-46c8-ae31-31db2e059389(a)a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> "Five months before the new 2002 Lexus ES hit showroom floors, the
> company's U.S. engineers sent a test report to Toyota City in Japan:
> The luxury sedan shifted gears so roughly that it was "not acceptable
> for production."
>
> Days later, another Japanese executive sent an e-mail to top managers
> saying that despite misgivings among U.S. officials, the 2002 Lexus
> was "marginally acceptable for production." The new ES went on sale
> across the nation on Oct. 1, 2001.
>
> In an interview with company lawyers in November 2005, two Toyota
> engineers indicated that "the performance characteristics of the
> vehicles are NOT related to the software, but to hardware issues,"
> according to an e-mail sent by Biller.
>
> But company officials ruled out solving the problem "due to the
> complications as well as costs associated with a change from three to
> four engine mounts," according to a memo written by Toyota's outside
> counsel regarding the same meeting.
>
> The redesigned 2007 ES, released less than a year later, had four
> engine mounts."
>
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lexus-20100523,0,3565181.story


From: C. E. White on

"dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
news:3sudnUsw7LhUUGTWnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> That is nothing new for Toyota. Toyota has historically tried to
>> limit complaints to the NHTSA by correcting known problems on
>> vehicles brought to one of our 15 dealerships for service. When
>> the customer picked up their vehicle after and oil change an item
>> list was a "Technical Service Update was completed on you vehicle
>> at no charge."
>
> Doing work that the costumer didn't authorize. I don't think that's
> legal.

Are you sure. I've had but Ford and GM products that were "updated"
without my prior consent when I took them in for service. By updated,
I mean they reflashed the PCM based on some SSM or TSB.

Interestingly, my SO refuses to take her Toyota RAV4 back to the
dealer becasue she is worried they will do exactly that (reflash the
PCM). The RAV4 has always had a concern with the cruise control
operation (it goes bererk under some very specific conditions). It
bugs the heck out of me. Toyota issued a TSB to fix this a couple of
years back. However, the wacko crusie control doesn't bother my SO and
she is scared that Toyota will screw something else up if they fix
the cruise control. It is her car, so I have no actual say in the
matter. I just have to be sure to avoid the specific conditions that
the cruise can't handle when I drive the car (60 mph, A/C on, any
change in grade). BTW, by SO is responsible for testing electronic
hardware/software, so maybe she is right to keep the car away from
Toyota. Persoanlly, I'd let them reflash the PCM.

Ed


From: Mike Hunter on
How do you come to the conclusion that trying to hide a known product
liability defect from the customer, was helping the customer?


"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop(a)nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-0B65EA.19082223052010(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <Pa2dnZQ4prUCGGTWnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d(a)ptd.net>,
> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote:
>
>> Toyota has historically tried to limit
>> complaints to the NHTSA by correcting known problems on vehicles brought
>> to
>> one of our 15 dealerships for service. When the customer picked up
>> their
>> vehicle after and oil change an item list was a "Technical Service Update
>> was completed on you vehicle at no charge."
>
> wow, a company who takes care of their customers.
>
> No wonder GM management and GM salespeople scoff at the concept.


From: Mike Hunter on
I don't know about illegal, but Toyotas efforts to deceive a customer in
that way is certainly unethical at best.

"dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
news:3sudnUsw7LhUUGTWnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> That is nothing new for Toyota. Toyota has historically tried to limit
>> complaints to the NHTSA by correcting known problems on vehicles brought
>> to one of our 15 dealerships for service. When the customer picked up
>> their vehicle after and oil change an item list was a "Technical Service
>> Update was completed on you vehicle at no charge."
>
> Doing work that the costumer didn't authorize. I don't think that's legal.
>
> Jeff