Last November, NHTSA opened an investigation into the 2006 Toyota
Corolla and Matrix with the 1ZZ-FE engine after receiving 26
complaints alleging engine stall. Some of the stalls took place on
highways or intersections — a situation that could pose a safety
hazard. NHTSA has since received another 30 complaints on the issue
From The Detroit News:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20100317/AUTO01/3170441/1148/auto0…
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:40:42 -0700, john wrote:
> Last November, NHTSA opened an investigation into the 2006 Toyota Corolla
> and Matrix with the 1ZZ-FE engine after receiving 26 complaints alleging
> engine stall. Some of the stalls took place on highways or intersections
> — a situation that could pose a safety hazard. NHTSA has since received
> another 30 complaints on the issue
> From The Detroit News:
> http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20100317/AUTO01/3170441/1148/auto0...
WOW! FIFTY-SIX STALLING COMPLAINTS!!!
Consdiering Toyota sold 387,388 Corollas that year, that’s REALLY
something to worry about!!!!
Thanks for keeping us abreast of the latest blunders from Toyota, pinhead.
"john" <johngd…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1c9d19d-1041-4d0c-b4ba-2b14ecf9df83@z18g2000prh.googlegroups.com…
> Last November, NHTSA opened an investigation into the 2006 Toyota
> Corolla and Matrix with the 1ZZ-FE engine after receiving 26
> complaints alleging engine stall. Some of the stalls took place on
> highways or intersections — a situation that could pose a safety
> hazard. NHTSA has since received another 30 complaints on the issue
Only 26? So is NHTSA invstigating any trivial complaint against
Toyota? Has NHTSA gone from ignoring the significant to minutely
examining the insignificant?
Compared to UA complinats, or braking issues, 26 alledged cases of
stalling is a non-issue. I’ll bet more people stall Corollas becasue
they ran out of gas than becasue of this problem.
Here is what the NHTSA investigation summary says:
NHTSA Action Number : PE09054 NHTSA Recall Campaign Number : N/A
Make / Models : Model/Build Years:
TOYOTA / COROLLA 2006
TOYOTA / COROLLA MATRIX 2006
Manufacturer : TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
Component :
ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING
Date Investigation Opened : November 30, 2009
Date Investigation Closed : Open
Summary:
ODI HAS RECEIVED 26 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF
ENGINE STALL WHILE DRIVING DUE TO ECM FAILURE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2006
TOYOTA COROLLA AND MATRIX VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE 1ZZ-FE ENGINE.
THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGE STALLS OCCURRING RANDOMLY WHILE DRIVING,
INCLUDING SOME ON HIGHWAYS AND SOME IN INTERSECTIONS. MANY ALLEGE
DIFFICULTIES RESTARTING THE ENGINE OR PROBLEMS WITH RECURRING STALLS
FOLLOWING RESTART. ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2007, TOYOTA ISSUED TECHNICAL
SERVICE BULLETIN TC015-07, "HARSH SHIFT AND M.I.L. ‘ON’ DTC P2716,"
PROVIDING INSTRUCTIONS FOR DIAGNOSING AND REPAIRING COMPLAINTS OF
HARSH SHIFT WITH MALFUNCTION INDICATOR LAMP ILLUMINATION AND
DIAGNOSTIC TROUBLE CODE P2716 STORED. THE BULLETIN CALLS FOR
REPLACEMENT OF THE ECM WITH AN IMPROVED VERSION (PART NOS.
89661-02K11, 02K21, 02K31 & 02K41). TOYOTA’S BULLETIN IS CITED IN
SEVERAL REPORTS. SOME OWNERS ALSO ALLEGE THAT THEY HAD TO WAIT FOR A
REPLACEMENT ECM BECAUSE THE PART WAS ON NATIONAL BACKORDER. ODI HAS
RECEIVED 5 COMPLAINTS OF STALL WHILE DRIVING IN MY 2005 COROLLA AND
MATRIX VEHICLES AND 7 COMPLAINTS FOR THE MY 2007 VEHICLES. A
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN OPENED TO ASSESS THE FREQUENCY, SCOPE
AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.
Toyota is clearly aware of this problem and has actually
released a fix. A letter with Toyota’s response is at
http://nhthqnwws111.odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/docservlet/Artemis/Public/...
Here are few key elements fromt he Toyota response:
There were 1,186,448 vehicle targted in the NHTSA request for
information. 26 vehicle in 1,186,448 is 0.0022%.
The ECM that is alleged to be the casue of the stalling is
covered by a 96 months or 80,000 mile warranty.
There was a history of no-start (and stalling) related to these
engines. Toyota issued several TSBs related to this problem. The
current TSB that relates to the problem is TC015-07.
….Toyota has identified two potential issues with the Engine
ECU that could relate to the alleged defect:
A-I: Crack in Solder
A-2: Short in Varistor
The response includes a long description of the potential
problems. Toyota projected a 10 year cumulative failure rate of less
than 1% for these two problems (and a significant number of these
would occur while the vehicle was still under warranty).
The following statement is from the response letter:
"Toyota has been investigating this issue and is now considering
how to address our customer concerns. Based upon its analysis, Toyota
does not believe that the alleged defect creates an unreasonable risk
to motor vehicle safety. We understand that some customers have been
inconvenienced by engine ECU failure, and some have reported engine
staJling. It is our philosophy that when certain types of Engine ECU
failures occur, engine stall or shutdown is preferable as opposed to
allowing the engine to become damaged or dangerous (i.e. catastrophic
failure, fire, etc.)."
This seem like an insignificant problem to me. I can’t see how a
recall would be justifiable unless the failure rate turns out to be a
lot greater. At least so far this is a drop in the bucket. The only
similar "stalling" problem I can recall was the Ford TFI Module
failure problem (modules would sometimes fail if over heated). I think
the failure rate for those was over 10% (hundreds/thousands of times
greater than this). As far i can remember, NHTSA never forced Ford to
recall the cars to replace the TFI, but Ford did extend the warranty
to 100,000 miles. Since the Toyota warranty on the ECM is already
80,000 miles, probably the only outcome of the investigation would be
an extension of the warranty. I know this has been the result of
several other "performance related" investigations.
I think people have forgotten how really good cars are now. Back
in the good old days, stalling of cars was not uncommon. Heck, the
Cressida we owned would go belly up every August. I could count on the
ex calling me and telling me the car had died and all the dash lights
were on at least once each August as long as we owned the car.
Ed
begin 666 spacer.gif
M1TE&.#EA`0`!`)$!`/___P“`/___P“`"’Y! $“`$`+ ““`!“$“`("
$3 $`.P“
`
end
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:58:42 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
> There were 1,186,448 vehicle targted in the NHTSA request for
> information. 26 vehicle in 1,186,448 is 0.0022%.
But that’s enough for someone like ‘john’ to start ringing the alarm.
I think he’s a Class Action lawyer trying to drum up business.
Notice how he hits and runs?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:52:34 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:39:07 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:58:42 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>>> There were 1,186,448 vehicle targted in the NHTSA request for
>>> information. 26 vehicle in 1,186,448 is 0.0022%.
>>But that’s enough for someone like ‘john’ to start ringing the alarm.
>>I think he’s a Class Action lawyer trying to drum up business.
>>Notice how he hits and runs?
> Remember ‘sludge’ caused by drivers not changing their oil?????
It did have something to do with narrower than usual oil passages, but if
you kept up regular oil changes with quality oil you probably wouldn’t see
it.
BTW, I saw a mint condition ’91 or ’92 Corolla wagon the other day,
unusual for this area. Usually they’re starting to rust by now. This one
was perfect.
"Scott in Florida" <Mov…@Outa.here> wrote in message
news:ohm4q51sddte5si7rv68uvh4biimt3n7ch@4ax.com…
> Remember ‘sludge’ caused by drivers not changing their oil?????
Not that again. Claiming it was the Customers fault drives me crazy.
Toyota was at fault in that case. Trying to shift blame to Customers
by saying if only they had changed the oil more often there would not
have been a problem is classic Toyota misdirection. You know, "it is
not our cars, it is the idiots who buy them" defense.
The facts are clear. For a number of years Toyota built engines that
were far more likely to be damaged by sludge than engines from most
other manufacturers or even from Toyota engines from other periods. It
is impossible to say that this was always the fault of the Customers
unless you think for those particular year the Customers who bought
the sludge prone Toyota engines were some how different from average
automobile Customers, or even Toyota Customers from other years.
Yes, if the unfortunate Customers with sludge damaged engines had
changed their oil more often than required by the Toyota maintenance
schedule, or if they had made sure they used better quality oil,
or….yada, yada, yada, they probably would not have experienced the
sludge problem. However, people who treated their Toyota just like
they treated other cars, even other Toyotas, experienced sludge
problems. Either the engineers at Toyota were clueless about their
Customer base or they were too arrogant to care. Either way for
several years Toyota sold engines that were not suitable for a large
number of Toyota Customers. Trying to shift the blame to Customers
might make save some face at Toyota Inc., but it sucks if you were one
of the victims of the bad design. And it is clear that it was a bad
design since the sludge problems completely disappeared after the
engine design was changed. Given all the claims of super Toyota
quality and super Toyota Customer Service, etc., it is just plain
hypocrisy to say it is the Customers fault for not changing the oil
often enough. I suppose Toyota should have sent at a label. It could
have said – "yes we know your owners manual say you can go 75000 mile
between oil changes, but it really should say you can only go 3000
miles between oil changes – we lied about that other number."
Ed
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:59:45 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:54:52 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:52:34 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:39:07 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Tru…@e86.GTS>
>>> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:58:42 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>>>>> There were 1,186,448 vehicle targted in the NHTSA request for
>>>>> information. 26 vehicle in 1,186,448 is 0.0022%.
>>>>But that’s enough for someone like ‘john’ to start ringing the alarm.
>>>>I think he’s a Class Action lawyer trying to drum up business.
>>>>Notice how he hits and runs?
>>> Remember ‘sludge’ caused by drivers not changing their oil?????
>>It did have something to do with narrower than usual oil passages, but if
>>you kept up regular oil changes with quality oil you probably wouldn’t
>>see it.
>>BTW, I saw a mint condition ’91 or ’92 Corolla wagon the other day,
>>unusual for this area. Usually they’re starting to rust by now. This one
>>was perfect.
> I marvel at how well the car (’92 Corolla Wagon) is made.
> It has an actual plywood door over the spare. On that door are a number
> of attachments that were hand installed. I know you can’t do that now
> because of cost, but it sure is nice to own one.
Same thing on the Supra.
Now, if I could only remember what the hell I did with the jack handle…
"john" <johngd…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1c9d19d-1041-4d0c-b4ba-2b14ecf9df83@z18g2000prh.googlegroups.com…
> Last November, NHTSA opened an investigation into the 2006 Toyota
> Corolla and Matrix with the 1ZZ-FE engine after receiving 26
> complaints alleging engine stall. Some of the stalls took place on
> highways or intersections — a situation that could pose a safety
> hazard. NHTSA has since received another 30 complaints on the issue
> From The Detroit News:
> http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20100317/AUTO01/3170441/1148/auto0...
-
BFD. I used to drive a Ford. Stalling was a way of life, particularly in
the winter. There were 26 complaints? Hell, my Ford would stall 26 times in
a week.
On Mar 17, 10:40 pm, john <johngd…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Last November, NHTSA opened an investigation into the 2006 Toyota
> Corolla and Matrix with the 1ZZ-FE engine after receiving 26
> complaints alleging engine stall. Some of the stalls took place on
> highways or intersections — a situation that could pose a safety
> hazard. NHTSA has since received another 30 complaints on the issue
> From The Detroit News:http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20100317/AUTO01/3170441/1148/auto0...
26 that could have been low on gas
"ransley" <Mark_Rans…@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:94f64ccb-faae-4f30-a5b8-b5a3e83e17b4@d37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com…
On Mar 17, 10:40 pm, john <johngd…@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Last November, NHTSA opened an investigation into the 2006 Toyota
> > Corolla and Matrix with the 1ZZ-FE engine after receiving 26
> > complaints alleging engine stall. Some of the stalls took place on
> > highways or intersections — a situation that could pose a safety
> > hazard. NHTSA has since received another 30 complaints on the
> > issue
> > From The Detroit
> > News:http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20100317/AUTO01/3170441/1148/auto0...
> 26 that could have been low on gas
Toyota has identified an actual fault that could be causing the
stalling, so it is not quite a non-issue. Apaprently you are most
likely to have a problem if you have an automatic transmission. The
ECM has a potential flaw that could cause something less than 1% to
fail over a ten year period. Not a significant problem unless your
happens to have one that fails. Even then it would not be much of a
problem except the ECMs are damn expensive (>$500). 20 years ago this
sort of stalling would have been a non-event or at least a cheap one.
Now cars are so good, it does attract attention, and the fix is so
expensive, that it might upset some owners. I think the best solution
is for Toyota to extend the warranty on the ECM for 10 years and
unlimited mileage (it already has a 8 year / 80,000 mile warranty).
The additional cost to Toyota would be minimal since a large
percentage of the eventual failed ECMs probably would occur during the
original warranty period.
Ed
On 03/23/2010 06:18 AM, C. E. White wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "ransley"<Mark_Rans…@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:94f64ccb-faae-4f30-a5b8-b5a3e83e17b4@d37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 17, 10:40 pm, john<johngd…@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Last November, NHTSA opened an investigation into the 2006 Toyota
>>> Corolla and Matrix with the 1ZZ-FE engine after receiving 26
>>> complaints alleging engine stall. Some of the stalls took place on
>>> highways or intersections — a situation that could pose a safety
>>> hazard. NHTSA has since received another 30 complaints on the
>>> issue
>>> From The Detroit
>>> News:http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20100317/AUTO01/3170441/1148/auto0...
>> 26 that could have been low on gas
> Toyota has identified an actual fault that could be causing the
> stalling, so it is not quite a non-issue. Apaprently you are most
> likely to have a problem if you have an automatic transmission. The
> ECM has a potential flaw that could cause something less than 1% to
> fail over a ten year period. Not a significant problem unless your
> happens to have one that fails. Even then it would not be much of a
> problem except the ECMs are damn expensive (>$500). 20 years ago this
> sort of stalling would have been a non-event or at least a cheap one.
> Now cars are so good, it does attract attention, and the fix is so
> expensive, that it might upset some owners. I think the best solution
> is for Toyota to extend the warranty on the ECM for 10 years and
> unlimited mileage (it already has a 8 year / 80,000 mile warranty).
> The additional cost to Toyota would be minimal since a large
> percentage of the eventual failed ECMs probably would occur during the
> original warranty period.
> Ed
as opposed to domestic manufacturers who need litigation crammed up
their ass.
http://www.autosafety.org/ford-tfi-module-national-class-settlement
"Ford Motor Company has known about this problem since it began…"
"Ford withheld responsive information from NHTSA that it was obligated
to provide…"
"Rather than bearing the expense of moving the TFI module to a cooler
location away from the engine ‘a solution that Ford engineers
recommended to management for years’ Ford decided to employ a less
costly solution: to leave the module on the distributor, but make it
last long enough to function during the warranty period…"
"Despite an extraordinary number of complaints from consumers, Ford
managed to conceal the TFI problem from government regulators…"
"Ford continues to deny that TFI-related stalling causes a safety risk…"
and my favorite:
"Having concealed the true nature and scope of the TFI defect from
NHTSA, from EPA, and other regulatory agencies, Ford then used its
bargaining power to keep secret the information about the TFI defect in
the only other context in which the truth could air: private civil
litigation. Given the intermittent, phantom nature of the TFI problem,
few people ever discovered that TFI failure was the cause of their
injuries, and even fewer sued because of it. When personal-injury
plaintiffs did discover what Ford knew about the problem, Ford paid
millions of dollars in settlements requiring lawyers to return hot
documents, remain silent about what they learned from those documents,
and refrain from assisting others in similar litigation against Ford.
Just as in Firestone tires on Ford Explorers, the TFI product liability
cases against Ford involve tragic injuries. In Phan v Budget Rent a Car
& Ford Motor Co., there were two deaths, one quadriplegic and four other
injuries when a 1990 Mercury Sable stalled at highway speeds."
keep rooting for those hallowed job-exporting domestics ed – your
perspective is flawless. as usual!
–
nomina rutrum rutrum