Toyota keeping the lid on more issues?
12-28-09, 08:18 AM
#32
Lexus Fanatic
Things that are "issues" are not always totally the manufacturer's fault, either. The Ford Explorer tire failure/rollover problem, for example, involved 4 significant factors.....questionable steering/suspension design on Ford's part, Firestone's failure to design in an adequate overload-safety margin in the Wilderness tires, failure of Both Ford and Firestone to agree on what was a proper range of tire pressures on that particular tire (Ford wanted lower PSIs due to customer complaints of a too-firm ride), and the tendency of Explorer owners to neglect checking their tires, drive on hot roads too fast with heavy, overloaded vehicles (most of the tire failures took place on baking-hot desert roads) and to use simple common sense.
The press, of course, did a number on the failures of both Ford and Firestone, but, convienently, failed to adequately report the public's part.
.
The press, of course, did a number on the failures of both Ford and Firestone, but, convienently, failed to adequately report the public's part.
.
Last edited by IS-SV; 12-28-09 at 08:30 AM.
12-28-09, 08:26 AM
#33
Lexus Fanatic
Things that are "issues" are not always totally the manufacturer's fault, either. I'm not necessarily going to say that Toyota is blameless about coming clean, but one has to look at it in terms of reality.....or, to quote a term you often use.........."factual". and not blame things on the company that is not necessarily its fault.
And as you pointed out this can lead to a more balanced approach to dealing with automotive issues that the press often reports in a more one-sided way.
12-28-09, 08:33 AM
#34
I agree. For sure, I do like to hear "factual" info here from actual experienced owners and mechanics rather than the usual internet hearsey and stories about the good ole days. And as you pointed out this can lead to a more balanced approach to dealing with automotive issues that the press often reports in a more one-sided way.
And as you pointed out this can lead to a more balanced approach to dealing with automotive issues that the press often reports in a more one-sided way.
12-28-09, 08:38 AM
#35
Lexus Fanatic
12-28-09, 08:42 AM
#36
Lexus Fanatic
Since we are continuing to drift off topic, now with Firestone/Explorer fiasco we should also mentioned that Ford tasked Firestone to come up with a tire that would improve the gas mileage of the Explorer (because the Ford engineers were not able to do it) and the Explorer ended up with underspec'ed and dangerous tires. Then Ford quietly set the load capacty at an impractical and unreleastic low number (considering it was a 5 passenger family SUV), so of course the average family drove these vehicles in "overloaded" state on family vacations, etc. So the failures of the public were not exclusively negligence on the public's part, the unrealistic and unusually low (and often unknown to the public) capacity of the vehicle contributed to the outcome. So in summary, Ford ended up paying the highest amount of the guilty parties, no surprise.
Ford lowered the tire PSIs, BTW, as a result of customer complaints about a truck-like Explorer ride. It was quicker, easier, and cheaper, of course, to do it that way rather then redesign the suspension. It was, IMO, a foolish thing to do. Ford should have simply responded with a statement that, in most cases, one cannot expect truck-based SUVs to ride like luxury sedans.
01-28-10, 03:23 PM
#39
Lexus Fanatic
I'm not sure money was the issue, although some newer Toyota products do show signs of cost-cutting. Still, we're talking about what is arguably the world's richest auto manufacturer.....if any corporation in the buisness has the money for a large recall, it's Toyota. It was probably more of an image factor...........they didn't want to admit they screwed up, although they did come to a settlement, in public, on the 3.0L V6 oil-sludge issue.
01-28-10, 03:45 PM
#40
Interior cost-cutting issues aside, I'd like to add some updates to the article posted in the OP:
That this lawsuit was dropped because it lacked merit was certainly not highlighted with the same vociferousness by the LA Times or other media outlets, some of which still parrot the Biller/Tracy coverup allegations as if they are still being made. This central point in such articles apparently does not hold water.
That does not mean that Toyota should be let off the hook here, but if the lawyer making accusations drops them because he himself finds a lack of evidence, that should be noted.
Moreover, regarding the coverup article, Toyota also responded (link), and posted its entire Q&A with the Times online; Autoblog described some questions as "Have you stopped killing puppies, and if so, why?" and "a tad disingenuous", but also noted that Toyota's response that "it's up to a jury" was "odd".
Lawyer Withdraws Cases Against Toyota
By CHRISTOPHER JENSEN
December 28, 2009, 12:19 pm
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...gainst-toyota/
In September, Todd Tracy, a Dallas lawyer with a history of suing Toyota, filed a lawsuit asking a United States District Court judge to reopen 17 of Mr. Tracy’s cases against the automaker. The suit came on the heels of another lawsuit, one filed by Dimitrios Biller, a former Toyota lawyer who accused the automaker of engaging in a conspiracy to obstruct justice by not turning over incriminating documents in hundreds of product-liability suits brought against it nationwide.
Mr. Tracy argued that his clients’ cases should be reopened because the awards or settlements might have been different had the documents cited by Mr. Biller been available. Mr. Tracy also issued a news release asking for a Congressional investigation and urging American consumers and the legal profession to “rise up to get Toyota to tell the truth about its hidden crash safety data.”
Well, on second thought …
Mr. Tracy now says he has examined four boxes of documents that Mr. Biller says were improperly withheld — and he has changed his mind. Last week, he notified the court of his wish to withdraw the suit.
“I did not see any type of concealment, destruction or pattern of discovery abuse that affected my cases that I had sought to reopen,” Mr. Tracy said in a statement dated Thursday. “Lawyers have a legal and professional responsibility to pursue cases that are meritorious. The documents I reviewed did not provide evidence sufficient to me to continue prosecuting these cases at this time.”
Neither Mr. Biller nor Mr. Tracy responded to e-mail messages seeking comment.
John Hanson, a Toyota spokesman, said the automaker was pleased with Mr. Tracy’s decision.
The automaker had previously denied Mr. Biller’s assertions, saying it took its legal responsibilities seriously. Toyota added that Mr. Biller, who had once been a Toyota lawyer, was a disgruntled former employee with a vendetta against the company.
In his suit, Mr. Biller has acknowledged that his conflict with the automaker about turning over documents resulted in psychiatric problems, including depression, and led to his departure from the company.
Other court records show that in 2008, Mr. Biller worked for several months for the Los Angeles district attorney’s office. In May 2009, he filed a suit against that office claiming he had been wrongfully discharged, had been slandered and had been the victim of unfair business practices. In its filings, the district attorney’s office denied Mr. Biller’s assertions, but acknowledged he was dismissed and given a negative job evaluation.
By CHRISTOPHER JENSEN
December 28, 2009, 12:19 pm
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...gainst-toyota/
In September, Todd Tracy, a Dallas lawyer with a history of suing Toyota, filed a lawsuit asking a United States District Court judge to reopen 17 of Mr. Tracy’s cases against the automaker. The suit came on the heels of another lawsuit, one filed by Dimitrios Biller, a former Toyota lawyer who accused the automaker of engaging in a conspiracy to obstruct justice by not turning over incriminating documents in hundreds of product-liability suits brought against it nationwide.
Mr. Tracy argued that his clients’ cases should be reopened because the awards or settlements might have been different had the documents cited by Mr. Biller been available. Mr. Tracy also issued a news release asking for a Congressional investigation and urging American consumers and the legal profession to “rise up to get Toyota to tell the truth about its hidden crash safety data.”
Well, on second thought …
Mr. Tracy now says he has examined four boxes of documents that Mr. Biller says were improperly withheld — and he has changed his mind. Last week, he notified the court of his wish to withdraw the suit.
“I did not see any type of concealment, destruction or pattern of discovery abuse that affected my cases that I had sought to reopen,” Mr. Tracy said in a statement dated Thursday. “Lawyers have a legal and professional responsibility to pursue cases that are meritorious. The documents I reviewed did not provide evidence sufficient to me to continue prosecuting these cases at this time.”
Neither Mr. Biller nor Mr. Tracy responded to e-mail messages seeking comment.
John Hanson, a Toyota spokesman, said the automaker was pleased with Mr. Tracy’s decision.
The automaker had previously denied Mr. Biller’s assertions, saying it took its legal responsibilities seriously. Toyota added that Mr. Biller, who had once been a Toyota lawyer, was a disgruntled former employee with a vendetta against the company.
In his suit, Mr. Biller has acknowledged that his conflict with the automaker about turning over documents resulted in psychiatric problems, including depression, and led to his departure from the company.
Other court records show that in 2008, Mr. Biller worked for several months for the Los Angeles district attorney’s office. In May 2009, he filed a suit against that office claiming he had been wrongfully discharged, had been slandered and had been the victim of unfair business practices. In its filings, the district attorney’s office denied Mr. Biller’s assertions, but acknowledged he was dismissed and given a negative job evaluation.
That does not mean that Toyota should be let off the hook here, but if the lawyer making accusations drops them because he himself finds a lack of evidence, that should be noted.
Moreover, regarding the coverup article, Toyota also responded (link), and posted its entire Q&A with the Times online; Autoblog described some questions as "Have you stopped killing puppies, and if so, why?" and "a tad disingenuous", but also noted that Toyota's response that "it's up to a jury" was "odd".
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
