Another Toyota Recall

[ANTAUS]

LINK-Detroit News

[igor]

I was just about to post that ....

 

 

Way to go Toyota,.. keep going, and FoMoCo's future will be greener...

 

igor

[bec5150]

Did you read the details on this recall? It's going to end up making the truck more dangerous than it is right now. The "Clifnotes" version is this...

 

My Ranger is legal, having BOTH the LATCH for a child safety seat in the front AND the airbag disable switch. The Tundra was made with the Airbag disable switch but no LATCH. In order to comply with the Govt. requirement, you have to have BOTH or NONE. So rather that Toyota installing LATCH, Toyota is going to disable the switch.

 

Now this is in compliance with the NONE part of the regulation. It sure looks good on paper, but now it will be impossible for your kid to ride in front of a Tundra without risking getting their head sent through the back window and into the bed by an airbag.

 

Seems to me that there should have been some common sense here....here's my answer.

 

First, FINE Toyota for not compliing with the reg. Second, have the RECALL be the placement of a placard over the Airbag or on the sunvisor that says "This vehicle is not equipped with the LATCH child restraint. If you wish for this vehicle have this, please take it to your nearest Toyota dealer for a free install.

 

This keeps little children from being hurt by making the fix an easy and quick one for that very small percentage of folks that put a child safety seat in a standard cab pickup.

[630land]

I do know that if this was Ford, they would be called again, "Evil" and "Child Murderers" by the left wing.

 

Also, shows that Japan Inc. is NOT going to 'steal the Last Bastion from Detroit' as predicted.

[RichardJensen]

First, FINE Toyota for not compliing with the reg. Second, have the RECALL be the placement of a placard over the Airbag or on the sunvisor that says "This vehicle is not equipped with the LATCH child restraint. If you wish for this vehicle have this, please take it to your nearest Toyota dealer for a free install.

So, you're basically saying: Fine Toyota for not complying with the reg, and then allow them to continue not complying with the reg. Sounds great to me.

 

Point is, Toyota did not comply with the reg, and then spent a year arguing that the reg didn't apply to them. Why? Because they're Toyota?

 

As far as danger to children goes, there is nothing on any passenger car to keep idiot parents from putting kids in the front seat, except a warning tag that will be on the Tundra as well. Moron parents would never turn off the airbag anyway (it's deactivated by a keyed switch on the dash, not a pressure plate in the seat), thus continuing to expose their kids to the same danger they were exposed to anyway.

 

Conscientious parents will now have to figure out how to get their kids fastened in the back seat of the truck (and since the total number of recalled trucks is less than the total number sold, I'm guessing that the recalled trucks are only those with extended cabs--standard cabs, IIRC, MUST have a cutoff, regardless of whether a LATCH system is installed.

[ebritt]

Toyota has some huge balls trying to get a safety reg waived.....

[bec5150]

So, you're basically saying: Fine Toyota for not complying with the reg, and then allow them to continue not complying with the reg. Sounds great to me.

 

Point is, Toyota did not comply with the reg, and then spent a year arguing that the reg didn't apply to them. Why? Because they're Toyota?

 

As far as danger to children goes, there is nothing on any passenger car to keep idiot parents from putting kids in the front seat, except a warning tag that will be on the Tundra as well. Moron parents would never turn off the airbag anyway (it's deactivated by a keyed switch on the dash, not a pressure plate in the seat), thus continuing to expose their kids to the same danger they were exposed to anyway.

 

Conscientious parents will now have to figure out how to get their kids fastened in the back seat of the truck (and since the total number of recalled trucks is less than the total number sold, I'm guessing that the recalled trucks are only those with extended cabs--standard cabs, IIRC, MUST have a cutoff, regardless of whether a LATCH system is installed.

Actually, if they are going to do something to all vehicles, it should be installing LATCH and not cutting the switch. What I was saying is that not many folks put their child safety seats in the front seat.

 

There was a few years ago that some company (I don't remember which) had a recall on a rusted suspension part of some sort, but the recall only went into effect in the Northern states as the Southern states don't suffer from the corosion that we have up north. That's all I was saying is make them put LATCH in the vehcles that need it, much like the suspension recall being performed onlyl on the cars that would be exposed to corosive conditions.

 

What I DON'T agree with is the ellimination of the switch even if it is "legal."

 

Oh, and one more thing...I don't buy the idea of cutting the switch because LATCH is too expensive to install. hell, Ford just riveted it to my front seat. It sure can't cost that damn much. You would think the safety of Toyota's customers would be worth a few LATCH connectors on a seat, eh?

Edited July 11, 2006 by bec5150

[RichardJensen]

Actually, if they are going to do something to all vehicles, it should be installing LATCH and not cutting the switch. What I was saying is that not many folks put their child safety seats in the front seat.

 

There was a few years ago that some company (I don't remember which) had a recall on a rusted suspension part of some sort, but the recall only went into effect in the Northern states as the Southern states don't suffer from the corosion that we have up north. That's all I was saying is make them put LATCH in the vehcles that need it, much like the suspension recall being performed onlyl on the cars that would be exposed to corosive conditions.

 

What I DON'T agree with is the ellimination of the switch even if it is "legal."

 

Oh, and one more thing...I don't buy the idea of cutting the switch because LATCH is too expensive to install. hell, Ford just riveted it to my front seat. It sure can't cost that damn much. You would think the safety of Toyota's customers would be worth a few LATCH connectors on a seat, eh?

My guess is that Toyota's position vis a vis the NHTSA was "We don't want to provide a LATCH system, but we want to include an airbag shut-off as a convenience", and that's why they figured the reg didn't apply to them. As though they could coast through in some middle ground.

 

Anyway, seeing that Toyota was in the middle they had the option of either adding equipment to meet the regs, or remove equipment to meet regs. I don't think the NHTSA could 'force' them to go one way or the other. Since they had a choice in '02, they had a choice today. Their commitment to a halfway solution does not deny them the ability to strip what functionality they do have, and default to the minimum requirement.

 

However, 156,000 Toyota owners are going to get letters saying that Toyota is REMOVING a part of their truck that they may or may not have found useful. This will come shortly before Toyota launches the all-new Tundra.

 

Now, feature stripping on the eve of a new product launch, especially when some of these owners are probably looking at trading up, is STUPID. Those owners that have been nurturing some sense of superiority (despite numerous issues with the Tundra) are going to get one more dent in their perception of Toyota quality with this 'voluntary' stripping of the Airbag shutoff function.

 

In the past I've talked about Toyota's newly discovered arrogance, and this is just more proof of it. I doubt very much that this tack would've been taken by Toyota a decade ago.

[kenp77]

My guess is that Toyota's position vis a vis the NHTSA was "We don't want to provide a LATCH system, but we want to include an airbag shut-off as a convenience", and that's why they figured the reg didn't apply to them. As though they could coast through in some middle ground.

 

Anyway, seeing that Toyota was in the middle they had the option of either adding equipment to meet the regs, or remove equipment to meet regs. I don't think the NHTSA could 'force' them to go one way or the other. Since they had a choice in '02, they had a choice today. Their commitment to a halfway solution does not deny them the ability to strip what functionality they do have, and default to the minimum requirement.

 

However, 156,000 Toyota owners are going to get letters saying that Toyota is REMOVING a part of their truck that they may or may not have found useful. This will come shortly before Toyota launches the all-new Tundra.

 

Now, feature stripping on the eve of a new product launch, especially when some of these owners are probably looking at trading up, is STUPID. Those owners that have been nurturing some sense of superiority (despite numerous issues with the Tundra) are going to get one more dent in their perception of Toyota quality with this 'voluntary' stripping of the Airbag shutoff function.

 

In the past I've talked about Toyota's newly discovered arrogance, and this is just more proof of it. I doubt very much that this tack would've been taken by Toyota a decade ago.

Rich: They do that because they are the richest automaker on the planet and gaining market share everyday and IMO the only thing that will slow down the new tundra will be these high gas prices as I don't see a 5.7L engine doing any better than my 5.4 which is pretty spendy to put down the road now :shrug:

[range]

I wonder if Toyota is going to have the arrogance to call this a Special Customer Service campaign instead of a recall?

 

Any speaking of Tundra recalls, whatever happened to the recall for the non-recalled Tundras that were still losing their front ends? Is Toyota petitioning NHTSA that they are exempt from a safety standard due to some loop hole?

[bec5150]

That would be Ford. They had a problem with the coil springs on the Focus and the Taurus, I believe. My ex-wife's Focus had to have them replaced, and they extended the warranty on them to 100,000 miles.

I knew which company it was, I just didn't wanna be called a Ford basher yet again......