New Toyota Recall

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Scdevon


This is due to the Walmart mentality of American consumers. A 2010 Toyota Tundra built to 1980's Toyota quality standards would cost at least $60k.

Thats true. At least for the V6 it seems the 3.4L is the last well built engine Toyota made.
 
Originally Posted By: crinkles
18.gif



yep, that sums this whole thread up.
 
Originally Posted By: ShiningArcanine
As a consequence, they learned how not to do things through the experience of being the first ones there (as far as mass production cars are concerned).


The Europeans were doing drive-by-wire
(on mass production cars) long before Toyota ever did.
 
On DBW, our 2007 Mustang V6 has it, and we havn't had any difficulties with it in the slightest. That's not to say I'm a huge fan of it, but it seems to do its job. I'm actualy a little more concerned about new cars having electric power steering, where the steering wheel is simply a Rheostat with no physical connection to the wheels whatsoever.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

If the OS kernel on the ECM crashes, I think we have bigger issues
wink.gif



Does the ECM even have a kernel? It's an ECM, an embedded system, not a general-purpose PC. It doesn't need hardware abstraction; the code that is loaded onto it is written to work on exactly one kind of hardware and do very defined functions.
 
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
On DBW, our 2007 Mustang V6 has it, and we havn't had any difficulties with it in the slightest.


My 2006 Saab 93 has DBW and the only issues I've had with it are that it took me a while to learn to get it going from a dead stop without stalling (it's a stickshift). 90% of the time, no problem, but 10% of the time I'd manage to stall it. I'm not so sure that's DBW as it is me being used to larger engines.

The other thing I noticed is that, in other cars, if you sense that the engine is about to stall, quickly pushing in the clutch pedal stops it from happening. In the Saab 93, once it's decided it's going to stall, pushing in the clutch pedal doesn't save it most of the time; it's going to stall.
 
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
On DBW, our 2007 Mustang V6 has it, and we havn't had any difficulties with it in the slightest. That's not to say I'm a huge fan of it, but it seems to do its job. I'm actualy a little more concerned about new cars having electric power steering, where the steering wheel is simply a Rheostat with no physical connection to the wheels whatsoever.


Not sure they will ever get away with that. As it seems that the brakes and the steering wheel have to work under any kind of electrical failure.
 
Its probably best to just ignore him. We don't want this thread to turn into another like the one where he rear-ended a lady and he just couldn't grasp the concept of driving too fast for conditions. It was everyone's fault but his!


I was wondering if this was the same know it all kid who like many others of immature years, can't take responsibility for their own actions.
 
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
I'm actualy a little more concerned about new cars having electric power steering, where the steering wheel is simply a Rheostat with no physical connection to the wheels whatsoever.


Don't know about other manufacturers electric power steering systems, but my Lexus has electric power steering (so assume Toyota's are the same design) and there is a physical connections to the wheels. There is a 'steering gear unit' (comparable and looking very much like a tradtional rack), and it's connected to the steering wheel with a shaft etc.

The electric part refers to how the rack is powered. There is no hydraulic pump and fluid. Instead the rack is powered by an electric motor that powers the assorted bits and pieces in the rack.

So, even if the electric power fails, the steering wheel is still mechanically connected to the rack, so you can still steer the vehicle (without assist, same as in a hydraulic system if the engine is not running).

Here's a little blurb about the electric power steering in the Prius..

http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/Hybrid17.pdf

and the NSX, which I think was one of the first vehicles to have EPS. You can clearly see that there is still a rack and as steering shaft.

http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Technical/eps.htm

My guess would be that most other manufacturers have a similar system. I just can't see not having a physical connection to the steering, in case the electronics should fail.

Not trying to start a war here, rudolphna, just pointing out that you might want to do a little research before worrying about new technology.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rcy
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
I'm actualy a little more concerned about new cars having electric power steering, where the steering wheel is simply a Rheostat with no physical connection to the wheels whatsoever.


Don't know about other manufacturers electric power steering systems, but my Lexus has electric power steering (so assume Toyota's are the same design) and there is a physical connections to the wheels. There is a 'steering gear unit' (comparable and looking very much like a tradtional rack), and it's connected to the steering wheel with a shaft etc.

The electric part refers to how the rack is powered. There is no hydraulic pump and fluid. Instead the rack is powered by an electric motor that powers the assorted bits and pieces in the rack.

So, even if the electric power fails, the steering wheel is still mechanically connected to the rack, so you can still steer the vehicle (without assist, same as in a hydraulic system if the engine is not running).

Here's a little blurb about the electric power steering in the NSX (one of the first vehicle, I believe, to have EPS). You can see that there is still a shaft from the steering wheel to the rack.

http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Technical/eps.htm

My guess would be that most other manufacturers have a similar system. I just can't see not having a physical connection to the steering, in case the electronics should fail.

Not trying to start a war here, rudolphna, just pointing out that you might want to do a little research before worrying about new technology.

My Equinox is very similar. It has an electric assisted "rack" so to speak, just like the old power steering except the medium of moment is electrical and not hydraulic.
 
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: rcy
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
I'm actualy a little more concerned about new cars having electric power steering, where the steering wheel is simply a Rheostat with no physical connection to the wheels whatsoever.


Don't know about other manufacturers electric power steering systems, but my Lexus has electric power steering (so assume Toyota's are the same design) and there is a physical connections to the wheels. There is a 'steering gear unit' (comparable and looking very much like a tradtional rack), and it's connected to the steering wheel with a shaft etc.

The electric part refers to how the rack is powered. There is no hydraulic pump and fluid. Instead the rack is powered by an electric motor that powers the assorted bits and pieces in the rack.

So, even if the electric power fails, the steering wheel is still mechanically connected to the rack, so you can still steer the vehicle (without assist, same as in a hydraulic system if the engine is not running).

Here's a little blurb about the electric power steering in the NSX (one of the first vehicle, I believe, to have EPS). You can see that there is still a shaft from the steering wheel to the rack.

http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Technical/eps.htm

My guess would be that most other manufacturers have a similar system. I just can't see not having a physical connection to the steering, in case the electronics should fail.

Not trying to start a war here, rudolphna, just pointing out that you might want to do a little research before worrying about new technology.

My Equinox is very similar. It has an electric assisted "rack" so to speak, just like the old power steering except the medium of moment is electrical and not hydraulic.


Yep that is my understanding of the system also.
 
Originally Posted By: ShiningArcanine
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


I see that. LOL.

We use redundant systems all the time in the IT industry, as I would assume, given your position, you would be familiar with.

When it comes to safety; and most of the time it is in regards to the safety of data, there is no such thing as overkill.

Redundant routers, redundant hard drives, servers, all with fall overs and fail safes. Think of something as simple as flood protection on a LAN, or the ability for a router to poison routes when another router goes out of control/into a loop.

We deal with redundancy and "what if scenarios" all the time. I would expect that every possible scenario due to component failure would be explored by the engineers working on this system. And if this is an OVERSIGHT by those engineers, then simply shame on them for not looking to see if there was something they missed that their competitors didn't.


I think given our backgrounds, we see eye to eye on these sorts of design considerations quite a bit.

Anyway, I read an article a while back about how Toyota was trying to cut costs by integrating all of the on-board computer systems in their cars into a single system. I wonder if these issues could be the result of that. Perhaps the engineers did not use a realtime operating system kernel needed in such applications. Maybe they have some sort of race condition in their code that occurred as a programmer's mistake when the systems were being integrated. Come to think of it, the issue could be as simple as not having used ECC memory. The transmission issues from 3 years ago satisfactorily demonstrated to me that Toyota's computer expertise is a weakness of theirs, so it would not surprise me if it got out that they did not use ECC memory in their cars.


Oh, the painful memory. When my employer failed to use mirrored ECC memory in the the E-cache memory in the UltraSPARC II processor. Chased that problem for quite a while before they finally moved to mirrored E$ memory.

I know it sounded like an excuse, but we really did have memory in processors that we thought was being impacted by cosmic radiation, flipping a bit cached in the processor.

Mirrored E$ with ECC addressed that as the memory that didn't pass ECC was rejected and the copy that passed was accepted.

I could see in cars where the processors are likely much less expensive that such precautions would not be taken.
 
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

If the OS kernel on the ECM crashes, I think we have bigger issues
wink.gif



Does the ECM even have a kernel? It's an ECM, an embedded system, not a general-purpose PC. It doesn't need hardware abstraction; the code that is loaded onto it is written to work on exactly one kind of hardware and do very defined functions.


There needs to be some sort of kernel, especially if it's doing many things at once, responding to the hardware that is attached.

If the car is using CAN or some other sort of network, I'd expect you have some sort of kernel that gives time to processing network traffic, while still allowing the processor to process the real-time aspects of the engine, driver inputs, etc.

As more is integrated into a single control module, the more need there is for a kernel to manage the resources of that module.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: ShiningArcanine


I think given our backgrounds, we see eye to eye on these sorts of design considerations quite a bit.

Anyway, I read an article a while back about how Toyota was trying to cut costs by integrating all of the on-board computer systems in their cars into a single system. I wonder if these issues could be the result of that. Perhaps the engineers did not use a realtime operating system kernel needed in such applications. Maybe they have some sort of race condition in their code that occurred as a programmer's mistake when the systems were being integrated. Come to think of it, the issue could be as simple as not having used ECC memory. The transmission issues from 3 years ago satisfactorily demonstrated to me that Toyota's computer expertise is a weakness of theirs, so it would not surprise me if it got out that they did not use ECC memory in their cars.


And it very well could be something that simple!! Something so basic, yet with such dire consequences.


From the recall description that states that the pedals become mechanically stuck, I doubt it is that, but if the description is inaccuracte, it would not surprise me if it was.
 
Originally Posted By: Scdevon
The company that calls itself Toyota now bears no resemblance to the company that built my '89 Corolla with Japanese workers on a Japanese assembly line using (almost) 100% Japanese parts.


Or the company who built my 94 in California with American workers.

Even for it being a Corolla, the materials and workmanship are of better quality then a late model 2.4L Camry I recently rode in.
 
Originally Posted By: css9450
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
No offense dude, but at times you appear to either be reading comprehension deprived or a total Toy fanboy. I mean which is it? Either it's like your first post and "this is laughable that some think Toy has DROPPED to other man levels"....or is it, "Toyota is NOT ahead of other manufacturers".....LOL....From one post to the next you counter your own argument.


Its probably best to just ignore him. We don't want this thread to turn into another like the one where he rear-ended a lady and he just couldn't grasp the concept of driving too fast for conditions. It was everyone's fault but his!


I remember that one!
lol.gif


Look up his battery purchasing thread...
33.gif


I'm sorry, but given Toyota's decline, with them having practically more recalls then any other OEM, and a problem that is killing people, if you don't think that equates to a lessening of quality, then you have your head somewhere stinky.

Pretty much anyone who's been a loyal Toyota owner who's had them from decades ago, will tell you that what they sell these days is no where near the quality of what they had in the early to mid 90s.
 
Originally Posted By: ShiningArcanine

I doubt GM was willing to have their engineers that implemented drive by wire show Toyota's engineers the ropes when they did it.



Obviously, as GM has had DBW for over 13 years now and GM vehicles aren't shooting off the road at 100 mph killing their occupants.

Perhaps GM should show Toyota how to make DBW safe.

Honestly, if someone like my mom, who is 68 years old and who's driving skill and coordination is declining, owned a Toyota affected by the DBW runaway problem, I'd have sold the car last year.

My mom's friend who has an Avalon has stated her car has had some issues where the engine will just start racing for no reason, most times after she starts it. The car has once started racing on the highway but it happened when she gave it some gas and it was like the throttle slowly returned to normal. She's scared to drive her car now! I showed her exactly what to do - put it in neutral, and we practiced it several times so she became proficient at it.

That isn't good! And to deny it as a statistical anomaly is silly (and potentially deadly for Toyota and it's customers).

Trying to sweep things like this under the bed is exactly what got GM, Ford (remember the fires!), and Chrysler in trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
Toyota Stops Sales?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
11K
mikered30
T
  • Locked
Massive recall of Toyota vehicles is expanded
2
Replies
23
Views
12K
robbobster
T
  • Locked
Toyota recalls 2.1 million more vehicles
2 3
Replies
40
Views
11K
hr1940
mrsilv04
  • Locked
Here's a new one, Toyota recalls 55,000 floor mats
Replies
18
Views
7K
bdcardinal
T
  • Locked
New details in crash that prompted Toyota recall
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
42K
javacontour
Back
Top Bottom