What's that? Lexus? Really?

venomclan

And now forgotten due to this:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/13/news/companies/Ford_recall/index.htm

PhantomOG

venomclan wrote: »

And now forgotten due to this:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/13/news/companies/Ford_recall/index.htm

Now, that's FORD so it doesn't count :rolleyes:

Why do people get so wound up about this crap? Buy what you want, live and let live. No car company is perfect.

concealer404

Nope. Sorry. Nice try. It's Ford. Doesn't count!!!! I OBJECT!

WilliamM2

venomclan wrote: »

And now forgotten due to this:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/13/news/companies/Ford_recall/index.htm

That may sound like a huge recall at 4.5 million vehicles. But they are all 2003 models or older, so there are only 27 of those vehicles still on the road today.

everpress

WilliamM2 wrote: »

That may sound like a huge recall at 4.5 million vehicles. But they are all 2003 models or older, so there are only 27 of those vehicles still on the road today.

I saw an old escort on the side of the road today that wasn't there yesterday... 26 left.

concealer404

everpress wrote: »

I saw an old escort on the side of the road today that wasn't there yesterday... 26 left.

Hey now! I have a 93 Ford Escort, and it's a VERY solid car, and i love it.

Oh. Huh? What's that? <mumbles> yeah... it's a GT, yes, i'm aware that it's really a Mazda, shut up.</mumbles>

strider

If you let your floor mat kill you then you deserve to die.

John likes Ford, no secret there. He's also good at producing information to back up his beliefs.

I don't give a **** what he comes up with, I'd rather have a Toyota/Lexus then a Ford. Pretty sure his concern over what I think is comensurate with with my level of concern over his opinion. Life goes on.

concealer404

strider wrote: »

If you let your floor mat kill you then you deserve to die.

John likes Ford, no secret there. He's also good at producing information to back up his beliefs.

I don't give a **** what he comes up with, I'd rather have a Toyota/Lexus then a Ford. Pretty sure his concern over what I think is comensurate with with my level of concern over his opinion. Life goes on.

You just made my night.

+1!

tonyb

strider wrote: »

If you let your floor mat kill you then you deserve to die.

John likes Ford, no secret there. He's also good at producing information to back up his beliefs.

I don't give a **** what he comes up with, I'd rather have a Toyota/Lexus then a Ford. Pretty sure his concern over what I think is comensurate with with my level of concern over his opinion. Life goes on.

Good one...and so true.Stupid is as stupid does.

Jstas

Ah, I see, bash me because none of you punk asses can put together a solid argument? That's all you got? Good deal. BTW, the recall Ford issued was voluntary. NHTSA didn't say they had to recall the rest of the vehicles. The only vehicles the NHTSA said that had to be recalled were the ones using the same master cylinder that was linked to several fires. That was about 4.5 million vehicles back in 2005. Those have long since been fixed. This 16 million recall is recalling the vehicles that have a similar set up using a similar membrane film so that no other customers have a similar problem and Ford doesn't get any more bad press out of a 9 year old incident. Yeah, Ford is doing it to cover their butts but at least they aren't being sued by any former company lawyers for concealing and withholding documentation in product liability lawsuits like fatal rollovers.

A former company lawyer for Toyota Motor Corp., Dimitrios Biller, who managed the company’s document discovery program, sued the company in July, claiming that while he worked there, Toyota frequently withheld relevant documents in product-liability suits filed against it. According to the lawyer, US Toyota units destroyed engineering and testing evidence that would have impacted over 300 suits over SUV rollover accidents.

http://cherryhill.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/toyota-sued-for-concealing-incriminating-evidence-in-product-liability-suits.aspx?googleid=270372


Yeah, THAT'S a company I want to do business with! :rolleyes:

Keep it up, children. I mean I know everybody's a tough guy on the Internet but you douchnozzles take it to a whole new level. But at least you mental midgets entertain me.

everpress

Jstas wrote: »

Ah, I see, bash me because none of you punk asses can put together a solid argument? That's all you got? Good deal. BTW, the recall Ford issued was voluntary.

I was driving towork yesterday when I heard about this on NPR. Ford, through all the **** that has happened to our economy over the past few years, has been one of the companies that has surprised me the most. From trying thier hardest to not engage in government help, to taking as many factory workers back from layoffs as possible (and at a loss), to help build newer, better designed vehicles, to this voluntary recall... I know that it's smoke and mirrors. I know they are trying to appeal to a sense of family and patriotism to make a buck and save their butts.
But I have to say, they have shown as much resolve and honesty as a heartless, coorporate machine can, and they've got me when I can afford to purchase a new vehicle.

...By vehicle, I mean 'truck' 'cause their cars still blow donkey c*cks...



































j/k

concealer404

Whether or not it was voluntary, the point still remains that the problem existed in the first place, just like the problem with Lexus.

Don't try to twist this back to make it look like Ford is perfect, moron.

But seriously... floormats? You have to be really damn special to have a floormat do what was outlined in this issue.

sucks2beme

Sigh. SUV rollovers? Why do all those soccer moms buy those huge
SUVs that they can't park or drive. And then they can't figure out
they aren't a sports car. Higher center of gravity=easier to tip over.
They have gone after Jeep and the ever popular Explorer over this too.
I remember seeing a tv news special where they are running a Jeep
around the cones at high speed. Look! the Jeep's wheeels are lifting off
the ground. No kidding. Please tell me we aren't really that stupid.

everpress

Any business worth having is one that tries to cut as much of it's costs to make as much profit as possible while retaining future exchanges of money for goods or services.
Most of these large corporate machines tend to hire **** that cut corners in areas of design that make it to production and end up ruining/taking peoples lives if the mistakes and over sights come to full fruition.
It sucks, and the unscrupulous practice of trading a buck for an injury or a life is completely wrong. It's also, unfortunately, irreversible. The companies that find themselves in this situation must deal with the consequences of poor descision making and own up to their mistakes.
While the fact of the matter may be that the problems exist, it speaks volumes on how a company handles the existing problems. In the cases here, the Toyota Corp. put more effort in hiding and denying existence of a problem than they did in fixing it. A majority of their effort could be considered immoral for that. Ford, for whatever reason they choose, has opened the door to a decade worth of vehicles (yes, all 26 of them still on the road) to come in for a fix. I have a feeling that it will not be as cheap a fix (or as ugly) as a zip-tie.

None of these companies are saints. Everything reflects as investment in the bottom dollar. But you have to admit, one of these companies at least appears to look a little more caring than the other. And that is a well played match in marketing.

concealer404

My point is simply that it's a problem caused by a lack of common sense.

Floormats bunch up. It's a fact of life. I'd be interested to see a study of how many incidents were caused by bunched floormats of other automakers, and even including the aftermarket crap that you can get at AutoCrap or Napa or such.

Why only one company should be investigated is beyond me.

PhantomOG

here's some interesting reading, I find it slightly more interesting than FLOOR MATS, but hey, I don't have a dog in this fight, never owned a Ford or a Toyota. Please refute and continue bickering

Ford Motor Company approved the design of the Firestone P235/75R15 ATX tire on June 11, 1987 (4). It was specifically designed for use on the Ford Explorer and was used as original equipment when the vehicle was introduced in 1990.

Bridgestone/Firestone began mass-producing the 15-inch ATX tire in 1990. The tire was redesigned in 1995 and 1996 when it was renamed the ATX II and the Wilderness AT (5).

The Ford Explorer was first introduced in March of 1990 as the successor of the Bronco II. The Bronco II was known as being prone to rollover collisions; however Ford Motor Company designed the Explorer with the same frame and similar wheelbase-to-height ratio as the Bronco II.

Ford knew that the Explorer would continue the same rollover problems of the Bronco II; however it was much more cost effective to continue the production of the Explorer with the same rollover prone frame and body style than to make any changes.

The stability problems of the Ford Explorer were known early and were well documented. Ford's own engineers recommended changes to the Explorer's design numerous times to counteract the vehicles propensity to rollover. The most important recommendations included: changes to the Explorer's suspension, increasing its tract width, lowering its center of gravity and using smaller tires. The face of their own engineers, Ford did not make changes the design of the Explorer. Instead, Ford management decided to remove air from the tires, lowering the recommended pounds per square inch (psi) to 26. Firestone recommended a tire pressure of 30 psi, with a maximum 35 psi.

Despite the change in tire pressure, the Ford Explorer continued to be much more prone to rollovers than other vehicles on the road. Leon Robertson, a retired Yale University epidemiologist, conducted a study on vehicle occupant deaths in tire-related accidents using federal data from 1990 to 1997.

According to this study, 91 percent of the Ford Explorer occupants that died in tire-related accidents involved rollovers. However, only 28 percent of tire-related deaths in cars involved rollovers (6).

Ford's decision to deflate the tires increased the Explorers rolling resistance (a positive consequence), however it also produced a lower fuel economy (a negative consequence). In order to improve the Explorer's fuel economy without decreasing its rolling resistance, Ford ordered Firestone to decrease the weight of the tires. In 1994, the tires' weight was reduced by about 10 percent.

According to Public Citizen, the weight decrease was achieved by reducing the gauge of various internal components, modifying the sub tread compound, using a lightweight belt package, and making specific modifications to the sidewall of the tire (7). The newly designed tire was lighter and subsequently less durable, therefore making it more susceptible to tread separations.

Tire-tread separations resulting in rollover collisions proved to be a problem almost immediately after the Ford Explorer was introduced in 1990. According to Public Citizen, at least 5 lawsuits concerning the SUV/tire combination were filed before 1993, and at least 15 lawsuits were filed by the end of 1996.

Consumers and dealers from the United States and foreign countries filed thousands of complaints. By September 19, 2000, there were 2,200 complaints involving 103 deaths and more than 400 injuries.

everpress

concealer404 wrote: »

My point is simply that it's a problem caused by a lack of common sense.

Floormats bunch up. It's a fact of life. I'd be interested to see a study of how many incidents were caused by bunched floormats of other automakers, and even including the aftermarket crap that you can get at AutoCrap or Napa or such.

Why only one company should be investigated is beyond me.

No, I agree. I'm approaching from a marketing standpoint, purely at this point.
Lexus is supposed to be luxury defined. All luxury companies want that title, and I'm not giving props to one over the other. I'm just saying that that is what thy are supposed to be. A zip-tie is probably the worst fix the company can do. It could cost them a sale or two down the road from anyone later on the fence between a BMW and a Lexus... "Remember when they did that recall honey? That family was killed and they did that recall? Remember the zip-tie fix? And then you went out and bought new mats?"
Just sayin' with people's attention span the way it is, while there are many, many brand-loyalist (look at us Polk heads- my **** went out and bought a full line of Polks because of the quality and community), there are less and less loyal to a brand that thy feel has taken their money and given them... zip-tie fixes.
And with the parent company's name on it, Toyota is a direct competitor with Ford. With a trivial matter of bunched up floor mats killing people, Ford takes a more expensive and potentially more serious problem and brings it to the fore-front. Sure, people aren't over the flipping SUV's and blownout tires from a decade ago. It was sh!tty and sh!ttily dealt with. But that was a different economy with different people in different positions. Now, that doesn't make Ford any better. You can look at stats of reliability and complaints. Some will be skewed, many not, and most point to Toyota being a superior brand on paper.
But comparing this latest round of recalls and the behavior between the two, Ford is looking really good to people that want to be proud of an American company.

And for the record, I drive a '96 Acura Integra and my wife drives a '03 Suzuki Aerio SX (AWD wagon). My first car was a Ford Aspire. It aspired to be a car instead of a piece of ****. I've only ever owned imports after that.

ohskigod

I currently have a Ford Mustang and the Wifey drives a Ford Fusion, I love BOTH cars....alot!

I previously owned a Toyota Corolla (made an appearance at the 05 polkfest) and a Matrix. Liked them too (the Matrix ergonomics and braking didnt thrill me though)

drive what ya like, thats about it folks.

seriously though, twist ties.......for the loss. John has a point in his original post. I hope to god thats not accurate.

sucks2beme

Once again, high center of gravity =easy to roll. I don't care how
much you study it. The only two ways to fix it are lower the height
or widen the wheelbase. Wider=heavier, more expensive. And many people buy them BECAUSE they want to ride up high. That applies to all
vehicles. You don't have to have a bunch of guys in labcoats to
figure it out. And the laws of physics don't change for different
car makers. The Explorer was the big target because it was for many
years was the big selling SUV.

PhantomOG

I agree about the SUV>rollover comment. My intention for the quote was more focused on the fact that Ford had a very direct hand in Firestone's designs and actions. Ford passing the buck on to Firestone for the whole debacle is laughable at best.

My whole point is that NO company gives a DAMN about your safety more than is required BY LAW and will do everything in their power to maximize their profits, reduce liability, and cover up bad press. Toyota, Ford, Hyundai, GM... all of them. They are in business to make money, period.

Jstas

That covers pre 1994 Explorers. The Ford vs. Firestone lawsuits were over the redesigned Explorer in 96 which was not based on the twin-I-beam suspension but rather had control arms up front.

The I-Beams were what gave the Explorer and BroncoII high ride heights because they interfered with a front drive axle in a 4x4 set up. It was the biggest reason Ford redesigned the Explorer. In 95 it got longer, wider and heavier and thereby negated the use of the "Explorer specific" tire. Firestone did "testing" on the standard issue Wilderness AT tire for the new Explorer and said it met the standards that Ford's engineers called for. Ford also produced copious amounts of data from Explorers equipped with Goodyear and General tires with similar specifications to the Firestone tires showing no problems with tread separation which is what was originally said to be the culprit of the blowouts preceding rollovers. However, the NHTSA, after reviewing the data concluded that poor driver response to a blowout is what caused many of the rollovers and that the Explorer was no more prone to rollovers than any other SUV at the time. Ford then sued Firestone over the causes of the blowouts (tread separation).. It was found in the lawsuit that Firestone did not do ample testing and their test results did not contain enough data or test runs to adequately verify the performance of the tire as per industry testing standards. I do not know what the settlement was but Ford severed it's 100 year old business contract with Firestone over the issue.

The 91-94 Explorers were a redesign of the BroncoII to meet the success for the Chevy S-10 Blazer and it's overseas competition in the Nissan Pathfinder and Toyota 4Runner. The '95 Explorer was in the design works as early as 1990 but back then it still took 3-5 years to get a new platform designed, built tested and to market. The original Explorer was built on a Ford Ranger chassis just like the Bronco II. It was a station wagon on a truck chassis. The original rollover cases were not nearly as numerous as the ones that occurred after the redesign and attributed to the Firestone tires.

The article states that 91 percent of Ford Explorer occupants that died in tire related accident involved rollovers. What the article DOESN'T say is how many accidents there actually were. If there were 20 rollover accident and 19 of them people died in well, guess what? It's an SUV, they rollover, they ALL do. If there were 2000 Explorer accidents involving rollovers but only 20 of them started with a blown tire and 91% of that 20 were fatal, how many of the 2000 accidents were actually fatal? even if it was 20 in total, that's still only 1% of the total accidents that were fatal. Paints a different picture.



I'm not hell bent on defending Ford. I'm digusted with people on the Internet who regurgitate a single article or snippet, pass it off as irrefutable fact and then base an entire argument on it. The article services one view point and is completely ineffective at producing an entire picture. Yet the douchenozzles in this thread that think I'm a moron will not exhibit any kind of critical thinking and sit behind their computer screens like a pack of myna birds squawking away and harping on incomplete information and poorly researched facts. When it gets pointed out how inaccurate they are, it turns in to essentially "Yeah? Well....Jstas...you're....you're...just a big doo doo head!"

Bottom line, I'll research anything you want to bring up about any car company. I don't subscribe to the popular belief that the Japanese companies can do no wrong. I've seen too much to the contrary to accept that. I get ticked off about stuff like this because those same myna birds deliberately take personal shots at me with the Ford references in an effort to prove me wrong about something.

What I want to know is, if you morons are so desperate to get one up on me, why do you constantly go after subject matter that I know the most about? Doesn't make sense to me.

So keep squawking little myna birds. Keep parroting each other and smiling moroningly at how special you feel for trying to cut me down. It's sad, really. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than try to torment me on the Internet? 'Cause honestly, there's GOT to be something you fools are better at than this.

Danny Tse

I'm really in trouble now....I just purchased new Firestone tires for my Toyota Highlander SUV with factory floor mats.

Not kidding.

ttomp

Jstas wrote: »

1.) **** you.

2.) The mat, coming from the "engineering gods" at Toyota shouldn't be an issue to begin with.

3.) No, you're right, Toyota is not a company of band-aid fixes, it's a company of cover-ups.

Stop crying like a little baby and trying to start an argument. Toyota screwed up, bad, over a FLOORMAT and people DIED. Over a FLOORMAT. The only reason they haven't covered it up like the rusting frames, faulty airbag systems, sludging engines to destruction and so on is because NHTSA mandated an investigation.

And since you are a moron, the OFFICIAL fix for the cruise control from Ford was to replace the module with a redesigned module. The disablement was temporary because they could not produce enough modules fast enough to cover everyone. Once a module came in to cover your recall, Ford replaced it, free of charge. I know this first hand because I was affected by the recall.

Also, the tire thing? Yeah, Ford was found to not be at fault by the U.S. courts. It was the Japanese company, Firestone (parent company is Bridgestone), that was blamed and had to pay settlement to Ford. Ford, in an effort to make things right, issued a recall on ALL Firestone tires, not just the ones on Explorers, covered the costs of damages and told Firestone to pound sand. You will not see Firestone tires on ANY new Ford vehicle because of all of that.

You're a moron because I've posted that before, with proof. You obviously chose to ignore it and now, in your fanboy diatribe here you have done nothing but get your facts completely wrong and do nothing more than attack me personally.

Me, I find humor in this because of people scream brand allegiance at me, kinda like you, and then when Toyota **** up and kills people we should "give them a free pass". That's a gross oversight IMO and smacks of blind brand allegiance. I don't claim any car manufacturer is perfect but I certainly don't go around making excuses and having pie-eyed visions of what I think a car manufacturer should be.

By the way, your rationalization for Toyota's free pass? Yeah, their manufacturing process has killed people, literally, from over-working. Beyond that, they may have revolutionized it but, so did Ford. They didn't invent manufacturing, they revolutionized how it was done. They've also made great cars for decades, long before Toyoda was ever an itch in his daddy's crotch. For that, we should give them a "free pass". :rolleyes:

It was a stupid post over floormats and the humor behind the situation and the fact that it's a Lexus with floormats ziptied to the chair rail. A Lexus. It's redneck engineering at it's best. But, you had to turn it into something personal. ****.

First of all, the floor mat wasn't even the factory mat, it was an exacto mat wich is the plastic one they put on top of the regular mat , but they are saying that maybe the bottong one moved, which I doubt since they have a hook attached to the carpet, that if you install properly won't move,> and the zip tie is just until they replace the floormats on the cars that have been affected.

Jstas

ttomp wrote: »

First of all, the floor mat wasn't even the factory mat, it was an exacto mat wich is the plastic one they put on top of the regular mat , but they are saying that maybe the bottong one moved, which I doubt since they have a hook attached to the carpet, that if you install properly won't move,> and the zip tie is just until they replace the floormats on the cars that have been affected.

That's not what is in every news story about it or the NHTSA report on the subject.

AsSiMiLaTeD

John,

You are CLEARLY Pro-Ford and anti-Tyoota, and I'm CLEARLY the opposite, and that's okay. However, there is a key difference between us:

The way that you over-react and lose your cool makes it kinda hard to even have a civil conversation with you. As mentioned before, I could have been a little more 'sensitive' with my first point, but your reaction was WAY overkill and uncalled for, and it's not the first time it's happened with me.

Overall, I'm not attacking YOU, I'm attacking your point of view - there's a BIG difference. You go directly from there straight to name-calling and cursing me and it greatly diminishes the possibility of civil conversation.

As for the automaker debate that is really at the heart of the matter here, it's obvious you know cars and probably have some inside knowledge due to your relationship with vehicles. All I can say is that my experience, the experience of everyone I know, and every study I've seen indicates that Toyota makes a better (as measured by reliability or dependability) vehicle than alot of automakers out there, including Ford, GM, and Chrysler.

As for evidence and research to back that up, as i recall you don't like Consumer Reports or Edmonds so much, what about JD Powers?

Here are the VDS studies for the last few years:
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2009043
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008115
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2007130
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2006133
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2005089

How about some looks at Initial Quality (which I don't personally place a much weight on)
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2009108
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008063
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2007088
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2006082
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2005069

There are obviously flaws with any such measurement system. The initial quality (where the non-premium domestics are much closer to Toyota and Honda) doesn't account for longevity in reliability, as it's measured 90 days after purchase. The vehicle dependability study does measure this (and you can see the gap is much wider), but measures it in a PPM type of format (actually problems per 100 cars sold, but could be transformed to a PPM measure) where all problems carry the same weight.

The fact is, the perfect test does not exist. So what we have to go on are the tests that DO exist, our own experience, and the experiences of those around us as observed through direct contact and things like media coverage.

sucks2beme

Damn Fords
(looking out window at two Fords in driveway):D

ddukesterman

yeah

Jstas

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

The way that you over-react and lose your cool makes it kinda hard to even have a civil conversation with you. As mentioned before, I could have been a little more 'sensitive' with my first point, but your reaction was WAY overkill and uncalled for, and it's not the first time it's happened with me.

'Cause it's not the first time you've run your mouth at me like that.

My original response still stands.










As far as your numbers, what's reported is what's spun to support a story. What's the sample size? How does it compare to the population? Is the sample size large enough to show something indicative of the population? Nobody ever seems to be able to answer those questions. What's worse is companies like JD Power and Consumer Reports won't release their collection methods, survey background or the actual results because it's "proprietary". Yeah, that tears down any credibility they might have built up and when I look at all of the survey companies "results", percentages are so close it's not even funny. They are close enough to fall within a margin of error in many cases. But then again, they don't tell you the margin of error so you don't even know if the survey results were valid. If less than 1 percentage point separates a large portion of your result categories but your margin of error is 5% then the difference falls well within your margin of error and there, technically and statistically, is no difference between the top 10 and your sample size was way too small.

But the reports list top to bottom in numerical order. The top five spots of the last JD Powers survey I saw were separated by less than 1.5 percentage points. The top 10 spots were within 6 percentage points. Even with a .5% margin of error on the survey results, that still puts the different brands pretty much neck and neck. That's for any brand, Buick, Lexus, Honda, BMW, you name it. What's worse is that they may survey say 100 cars from each company. That might be good for a small company like, say, Audi but what about a large company like Toyota? Say Audi makes 1000 cars a year? 100 owners surveyed is 10%, a pretty good chunk. But Toyota makes 10,000 cars a year. 100 owners surveyed is only 1% and now paints a completely different story. Statistically you are less likely to find the 5% of unhappy owners in 1% of the population than you are in 10% of the population. So yeah, every test is flawed but you can't formulate a valid conclusion if the reported results from the already flawed survey are incomplete. So no, I don't trust any survey put out there. I only throw the same surveys in people's faces because I find it fun to rebut someone's half-assed argument with their own "evidence".

But you harp on and on about the tests like they tell you something solid when in reality they are vague and manipulated to show a story that gets views. They get views by reinforcing the inaccurate assumptions the majority of the population makes. They cater to the sheeple who don't like to hear that what they "know" as truth is not really accurate. It gets them all upset and angry at the person or entity telling them different.

You want to argue your opinion but you use vague, unsubstantiated numbers to support your opinion. If I break down your numbers you get mad and tell me I'm "pro-Ford" and full of "blind brand allegiance". But if you're going to attack my stance with Ford as the example, it makes no sense for me to use GM, Chrysler or even Mercedes as a rebuttal.

You also drug the personal aspect in to it, yet again, and now your are incensed that I flipped out on you. You don't go poking a chained dog with a stick and expect it not to get mad. You can't antagonize and attack someone personally and not expect them to get mad either. I ripped on Toyota for a cheesy fix. I didn't say all Toyotas were crap because of it, I just laughed at the sheer absurdity of a Lexus with zip-tied floormats. You went and drug something completely off-base in to it. If Ford did something stupid like that, I would have pointed it out as well. But, since we have to drag your example up again, the master cylinder issue gets fixed with a fused connection which, given the electrical nature of the problem, is a sound engineering solution. What's to make fun of? That it's cheap? Eh, not really. Especially when the switch it is repairing costs $20.99. Is it dangerous? Actually, no, not at all. There are fused connections all over any vehicle with very similar purpose. The Toyota fix though? It's already been pointed out by several others that it might fix one safety issue but possibly introduces several others. A fix to remove liability shouldn't introduce new liabilities, that's just bad engineering. Even if it is temporary. Ford's temporary fix was to unplug the cruise control sensor. No power, no risk of fire, only drawback is the loss of the convenience of cruise control. Big whoop and no further liability unless the owner fails to follow-up on the recall. But if the owner is notified then Ford would have precedent for denying a liability claim. Ain't it neat how the legal system works? Maybe Toyota wouldn't be embroiled in one of the nastiest lawsuits I've ever seen if they had just followed Ford's lead, took the bad with the good and manned up instead of covering up. It's a PR disaster for Toyota.

But you don't see that train of thought. You have your typical and quite common knee-jerk reaction to discredit me by attacking my character rather than offering a logical counter-point to my statements. You attack the arguer instead of the argument and then you proceed to laugh at me and mock me for "over-reacting" to yet another one of your ignorance induced fits of narcissism. Whether you can or can't rebut my argument doesn't matter to me. But if you can't do anything more than essentially say "here goes Jstas on another one his things again" then just shut the hell up because it's not constructive at all.

SKsolutions

I have the vehicle and the mat in the article.
Unless you have thumbs and fingers on your feet instead of toes, and you drive standing up while wearing flip-flops, you aren't getting that floor-mat to move -even an inch- on purpose.
A Toyota/Lexus is like the Mac of the auto world. It's just supposed to work, and doesn't require much in the way of skillful operation. I think that many people may feel that they can feel free to be the complete and unaware idiot they've always aspired to be. Nothing is idiot proof, . . this thread is becoming a case in point.

Comparing an obvious "you have to be a moron" user-error-- to a failure of a component that sets the vehicle ablaze - often without a freaking key in it, is hardly postulating in good faith.

AsSiMiLaTeD

OK fine...I'm gonna break this up into 2 posts, one regarding the factual debate and one regarding the personal issues. Unfortunately this breaks up the continuity of the discussion a bit but I couldn't get it all in one post.

What's the sample size? How does it compare to the population? Is the sample size large enough to show something indicative of the population? Nobody ever seems to be able to answer those questions.

You didn't read the studies did you? The answer to your first question is right there in black in white on the study, "The 2009 Vehicle Dependability Study is based on responses from more than 46,000 original owners of 2006 model-year vehicles". Now let's do a little stats analysis:

The total population size is difficult to determine, but lets just say that there are 300 million people in America and every single one of them bought a new car in 2006 (that's the model year for which the 2009 VDS study was done). Now we know that's way too high, but the greater your total population is the greater sample size you need, so this is absolute worst case scenario. In order to achieve a confidence level of 99% with a confidence interval or precision of 1, with a population of 300 million, you need a sample size of 16,640.

We've got 46,000 on the VDS survey, so we're covered in terms of sample size, easily.

What's worse is companies like JD Power and Consumer Reports won't release their collection methods, survey background or the actual results because it's "proprietary".

They don't release the exact 202 problems that they're looking for, but they do talk about their methodology in conducting the survey. Another thing to consider is that, while no two companies have the exact same measurement and it's therefore difficult to conduct an overall MSA across the board, the fact that most of the various surveys out there tend to paint the same picture helps to validate those results.

Yeah, that tears down any credibility they might have built up and when I look at all of the survey companies "results", percentages are so close it's not even funny. They are close enough to fall within a margin of error in many cases. But then again, they don't tell you the margin of error so you don't even know if the survey results were valid. If less than 1 percentage point separates a large portion of your result categories but your margin of error is 5% then the difference falls well within your margin of error and there, technically and statistically, is no difference between the top 10 and your sample size was way too small.

The percentages at the top are very close, yes, but as you move down the list the gap becomes wider. Since we're already on this track, let's take Toyota and Ford (I'm looking at the latest VDS test by the way). Toyota has a defects rate of 129% (that's 129 problems for every 100 vehicles sold, we're talking about defects here, not defective units as that's more difficult to measure with cars because at what point is it tagged as defective as a whole vs just measuring customer problems). Ford has a rate of 159, so that's 30 more - I believe that comes out to roughly a 20% difference. That's certainly not an insignificant number.

But the reports list top to bottom in numerical order. The top five spots of the last JD Powers survey I saw were separated by less than 1.5 percentage points. The top 10 spots were within 6 percentage points. Even with a .5% margin of error on the survey results, that still puts the different brands pretty much neck and neck. That's for any brand, Buick, Lexus, Honda, BMW, you name it. What's worse is that they may survey say 100 cars from each company. That might be good for a small company like, say, Audi but what about a large company like Toyota? Say Audi makes 1000 cars a year? 100 owners surveyed is 10%, a pretty good chunk. But Toyota makes 10,000 cars a year. 100 owners surveyed is only 1% and now paints a completely different story. Statistically you are less likely to find the 5% of unhappy owners in 1% of the population than you are in 10% of the population. So yeah, every test is flawed but you can't formulate a valid conclusion if the reported results from the already flawed survey are incomplete. So no, I don't trust any survey put out there. I only throw the same surveys in people's faces because I find it fun to rebut someone's half-assed argument with their own "evidence".

I've already addressed this somewhat, but I'll expound a bit, specifically the part that I've bolded there. From a statistics perspective your statement is actually inaccurate. You really don't need a large portion of the population in order to get a valid sample. With smaller populations you do need a larger percentage of the population, but as the population size gets larger you need a less percentage (note I said percentage, not number) of the population to draw valid conclusions. Note the calculations I did above. Plop those numbers into any stats tool (QI Macros, Minitab, whatever) and you'll see what I mean, and those numbers were with a 99% confidence level with a precision of 1, industry standard for something like a survey is typically 95/5 at most, and often even less than that.

The point is, sample size is not an issue unless the sample is being biased.

But you harp on and on about the tests like they tell you something solid when in reality they are vague and manipulated to show a story that gets views. They get views by reinforcing the inaccurate assumptions the majority of the population makes. They cater to the sheeple who don't like to hear that what they "know" as truth is not really accurate. It gets them all upset and angry at the person or entity telling them different.

There's really nothing factual to dispute there, that's more your OPINION and no sense in really debating that.

You want to argue your opinion but you use vague, unsubstantiated numbers to support your opinion. If I break down your numbers you get mad and tell me I'm "pro-Ford" and full of "blind brand allegiance".

Again that's simply not true. I don't feel like there's anything specific in your comment here that hasn't already been addressed, but if I'm missing something let me know.

But if you're going to attack my stance with Ford as the example, it makes no sense for me to use GM, Chrysler or even Mercedes as a rebuttal.

I concur

But, since we have to drag your example up again, the master cylinder issue gets fixed with a fused connection which, given the electrical nature of the problem, is a sound engineering solution.

The fact that it existed in the first place was a bad engineering design. The fix I'm sure is great, but the problem to begin with as I understand it was the result of a bad design.

What's to make fun of? That it's cheap? Eh, not really. Especially when the switch it is repairing costs $20.99. Is it dangerous? Actually, no, not at all.

Are you asking if the problem is dangerous? I would classify a vehicle suddenly bursting into flames as dangerous. Again, I've seen this FIRST-HAND, and yeah the guy was a moron for not getting it fixed, but it was NOT pretty.

There are fused connections all over any vehicle with very similar purpose. The Toyota fix though? It's already been pointed out by several others that it might fix one safety issue but possibly introduces several others. A fix to remove liability shouldn't introduce new liabilities, that's just bad engineering. Even if it is temporary. Ford's temporary fix was to unplug the cruise control sensor. No power, no risk of fire, only drawback is the loss of the convenience of cruise control.

I will agree that theoretically this is true, but I think this is reaching. The chances of getting caught somehow in the zip tie are probably about as remote as the guy at Ford dropping a wrench when disabling the CCM and that getting stuck under your gas pedal.

I'm not sure if this is what you're saying, but if you truly believe that the floormat thing is even on the same level of severity as the cruise control module then I'm not going to be able to change your mind on that.

Big whoop and no further liability unless the owner fails to follow-up on the recall. But if the owner is notified then Ford would have precedent for denying a liability claim. Ain't it neat how the legal system works? Maybe Toyota wouldn't be embroiled in one of the nastiest lawsuits I've ever seen if they had just followed Ford's lead, took the bad with the good and manned up instead of covering up. It's a PR disaster for Toyota.

The effect this has on Toyota remains to be seen, so no point in arguing that with you.


continues...