http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lexus-20100523,0,3565181.story
Toyota took cost-cutting approach on lurching Lexu
- Thread starter tenderloin
- Start date
- Status
TL, c'mon, I really have to question the motive in posting this thread in the first place. One, ALL car companies are responsible to their share-holders for maximizing their profits (within the bounds of reason...). Doesn't matter where they come from, they all do this.
More fundamentally, however, you've fished up a story about a problem from more than eight years ago. What relevance does this have now, today. Other than, perhaps, to try to throw rhetorical gasoline on the quickly-fading embers of the overinflated UA stories that all the Chicken Littles were panicking over a few months ago.
So why NOW, nearly a decade after the fact, do you toss this "issue" out there????
More fundamentally, however, you've fished up a story about a problem from more than eight years ago. What relevance does this have now, today. Other than, perhaps, to try to throw rhetorical gasoline on the quickly-fading embers of the overinflated UA stories that all the Chicken Littles were panicking over a few months ago.
So why NOW, nearly a decade after the fact, do you toss this "issue" out there????
By using the word "lurching" they are tying this into stuck WFO cars. Sheesh. LA Times when full left awhile ago. Yeah I know, lurch into a tree.
Quote:
Five months before the new 2002 Lexus ES hit showroom floors, the company's U.S. engineers sent a test report to Toyota City in Japan: The luxury sedan shifted gears so roughly that it was "not acceptable for production."
Nattoshima: Americans are complaining again.
Furoshaga: Ah, tell them we will build another factory and help their employment and revenue issues.
Nattoshima: That'll work.
Quote:
Five months before the new 2002 Lexus ES hit showroom floors, the company's U.S. engineers sent a test report to Toyota City in Japan: The luxury sedan shifted gears so roughly that it was "not acceptable for production."
Nattoshima: Americans are complaining again.
Furoshaga: Ah, tell them we will build another factory and help their employment and revenue issues.
Nattoshima: That'll work.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
...a story about a problem from more than eight years ago. What relevance does this have now, today...
The lawyers are on a feeding frenzy, digging up any and all possible evidence, past and present. This is why old issues involving Toyota are resurfacing.
Another article from latimes.com:
Judge Selects Lawyers In Toyota Litigation
Quote:
.S. District Judge James Selna made the ruling as part of the process in managing the massive litigation involving lawsuits filed across the country and consolidated in a single proceeding under him.
...a story about a problem from more than eight years ago. What relevance does this have now, today...
The lawyers are on a feeding frenzy, digging up any and all possible evidence, past and present. This is why old issues involving Toyota are resurfacing.
Another article from latimes.com:
Judge Selects Lawyers In Toyota Litigation
Quote:
.S. District Judge James Selna made the ruling as part of the process in managing the massive litigation involving lawsuits filed across the country and consolidated in a single proceeding under him.
ekpolk- this was a timely article in the LA times published today. As for how it is relevant to Toyota's problems with the US gov't:
"A House committee has subpoenaed thousands of internal documents from Toyota, including nearly 250 dealing explicitly with that generation of the ES, which were collected or produced by the automaker to defend itself against a 2005 lawsuit."
Toyota is under investigation to see if there is a pattern of behavior regarding the safety of their vehicles and this car is apparently part of that investigation since its transmission problem can apparently cause it to "surge unexpectedly". Also, technically this is a problem from as recently as five years ago, not eight, since it persisted in the 2005 ES models.
As a former Toyota and now Lexus owner, I found it to be an interesting read, just as I find many other articles posted in this section interesting. I am perplexed by your angry response and questioning of the OP for posting this story. It seems perfectly relevant not only in this section, but also directly relevant to the investigation of Toyota, and also directly relevant to Toyota CEO's recent statement that the quality decline of their vehicles began around 2003.
I see you own several Toyota vehicles. I wonder if you would have posted a similar response had someone posted a similar article about Nissan or Chrysler. Whether you intended it or not, your response looks like you took something personally when someone merely posted a recent article of potential interest to many readers in this section. It worries me to see this in a moderator. I hope you will reconsider your kneejerk response.
"A House committee has subpoenaed thousands of internal documents from Toyota, including nearly 250 dealing explicitly with that generation of the ES, which were collected or produced by the automaker to defend itself against a 2005 lawsuit."
Toyota is under investigation to see if there is a pattern of behavior regarding the safety of their vehicles and this car is apparently part of that investigation since its transmission problem can apparently cause it to "surge unexpectedly". Also, technically this is a problem from as recently as five years ago, not eight, since it persisted in the 2005 ES models.
As a former Toyota and now Lexus owner, I found it to be an interesting read, just as I find many other articles posted in this section interesting. I am perplexed by your angry response and questioning of the OP for posting this story. It seems perfectly relevant not only in this section, but also directly relevant to the investigation of Toyota, and also directly relevant to Toyota CEO's recent statement that the quality decline of their vehicles began around 2003.
I see you own several Toyota vehicles. I wonder if you would have posted a similar response had someone posted a similar article about Nissan or Chrysler. Whether you intended it or not, your response looks like you took something personally when someone merely posted a recent article of potential interest to many readers in this section. It worries me to see this in a moderator. I hope you will reconsider your kneejerk response.
Good god why don't we discuss Pinto gas tanks and Vega engine issues.Digging up long dead corpses for nothing more than sensationalism is just irrelevant rubbish IMO.
Originally Posted By: moving2
...I am perplexed by your angry response and questioning of the OP for posting this story. It seems perfectly relevant not only in this section, but also directly relevant to the investigation of Toyota, and also directly relevant to Toyota CEO's recent statement that the quality decline of their vehicles began around 2003.
I see you own several Toyota vehicles. I wonder if you would have posted a similar response had someone posted a similar article about Nissan or Chrysler. Whether you intended it or not, your response looks like you took something personally when someone merely posted a recent article of potential interest to many readers in this section. It worries me to see this in a moderator. I hope you will reconsider your kneejerk response.
My response is not an "angry" one, though I do tire of threads in which some piece of "information" or a link are tossed out there, no question asked, no comment made, especially when the information is this stale. Just because the LA Times published a story today does not freshen the info.
I would and I have posted similar comments in defense of virtually all other car makers. BTW, I have owned cars made by GM, Ford, Chrysler, VW, and Nissan too. Just because of the make up of my current fleet, I am not disqualified from throwing the flag when I see it needs to be thrown.
If you like, just ignore my previous post. Let's approach it this way, "OP, what is your question or comment?"
...I am perplexed by your angry response and questioning of the OP for posting this story. It seems perfectly relevant not only in this section, but also directly relevant to the investigation of Toyota, and also directly relevant to Toyota CEO's recent statement that the quality decline of their vehicles began around 2003.
I see you own several Toyota vehicles. I wonder if you would have posted a similar response had someone posted a similar article about Nissan or Chrysler. Whether you intended it or not, your response looks like you took something personally when someone merely posted a recent article of potential interest to many readers in this section. It worries me to see this in a moderator. I hope you will reconsider your kneejerk response.
My response is not an "angry" one, though I do tire of threads in which some piece of "information" or a link are tossed out there, no question asked, no comment made, especially when the information is this stale. Just because the LA Times published a story today does not freshen the info.
I would and I have posted similar comments in defense of virtually all other car makers. BTW, I have owned cars made by GM, Ford, Chrysler, VW, and Nissan too. Just because of the make up of my current fleet, I am not disqualified from throwing the flag when I see it needs to be thrown.
If you like, just ignore my previous post. Let's approach it this way, "OP, what is your question or comment?"
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
...a story about a problem from more than eight years ago. What relevance does this have now, today...
The lawyers are on a feeding frenzy, digging up any and all possible evidence, past and present. This is why old issues involving Toyota are resurfacing.
. . .
If you frame it in those terms, that is at least more sensible. My objection is to just blindly tossing out a link to a now elderly issue with the cars. In reality, then, this is a business and legal practice issue, and it ought to be clearly set out as such.
Incidentally, (and put the yellow flag up in advance), I have a friend who is on the legal staff of a major car maker. I will say no more that might ID him for obvious reasons. I will say it's NOT Toyota or any of its associated entities. I've heard some details from him that cement for me the conclusion that NONE of the major car makers are our friends. They do what's best for them, no more, no less. And NONE of them, Toyota included, wherever they plant their HQ flag would want us getting into their files. Since for other obvious reasons I have not fully "sourced" this comment, y'all are free to take it with as much salt as you like. But would anyone really doubt this concept?
My real problem with a thread like this is that experience teaches that it will go nowhere good. The OP lobs out a grenade, with no question or comment to guide discussion. Moreover, it's about an issue that itself is long gone, and what's left of it is just a fight between lawyers. And this thread, unguided as it is, is 90+ percent certain to devolve into little more than another domestic vs import bashfest. We can, and we WILL do better.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
...a story about a problem from more than eight years ago. What relevance does this have now, today...
The lawyers are on a feeding frenzy, digging up any and all possible evidence, past and present. This is why old issues involving Toyota are resurfacing.
. . .
If you frame it in those terms, that is at least more sensible. My objection is to just blindly tossing out a link to a now elderly issue with the cars. In reality, then, this is a business and legal practice issue, and it ought to be clearly set out as such.
Incidentally, (and put the yellow flag up in advance), I have a friend who is on the legal staff of a major car maker. I will say no more that might ID him for obvious reasons. I will say it's NOT Toyota or any of its associated entities. I've heard some details from him that cement for me the conclusion that NONE of the major car makers are our friends. They do what's best for them, no more, no less. And NONE of them, Toyota included, wherever they plant their HQ flag would want us getting into their files. Since for other obvious reasons I have not fully "sourced" this comment, y'all are free to take it with as much salt as you like. But would anyone really doubt this concept?
My real problem with a thread like this is that experience teaches that it will go nowhere good. The OP lobs out a grenade, with no question or comment to guide discussion. Moreover, it's about an issue that itself is long gone, and what's left of it is just a fight between lawyers. And this thread, unguided as it is, is 90+ percent certain to devolve into little more than another domestic vs import bashfest. We can, and we WILL do better.
ekpolk.
Man you climb on your high horse today? First off I do not have to justify a post to you. Who the H do you think you are? Don't like it, don't read it or have it removed. I could care. IMO your rants about this are more a waste of time, but you can do what you want. Next, the article was a main story in today's LA Times business section...or what that is worth..is up to you. The article is part of people investigating Toyotas past, looking for patterns. Whether you or anyone sees one is up to the individual person, as well of what that means.
I did not post my opinion..so what? That makes the article any less or more of value? Part of the legs in this story is because OF Toyotas reputation for quality and cuatomer service.
I have posted several articles of late and Bill changed them to links..so I just did it that way to save him trouble...shoot me.
Man you climb on your high horse today? First off I do not have to justify a post to you. Who the H do you think you are? Don't like it, don't read it or have it removed. I could care. IMO your rants about this are more a waste of time, but you can do what you want. Next, the article was a main story in today's LA Times business section...or what that is worth..is up to you. The article is part of people investigating Toyotas past, looking for patterns. Whether you or anyone sees one is up to the individual person, as well of what that means.
I did not post my opinion..so what? That makes the article any less or more of value? Part of the legs in this story is because OF Toyotas reputation for quality and cuatomer service.
I have posted several articles of late and Bill changed them to links..so I just did it that way to save him trouble...shoot me.
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
ekpolk.
Man you climb on your high horse today? First off I do not have to justify a post to you. Who the H do you think you are? Don't like it, don't read it or have it removed. I could care. IMO your rants about this are more a waste of time, but you can do what you want. . . .
No sir, no high horse involved. I have a job to do here, and I intend to do it. A large part of that responsibility is to keep this forum from turning into just another brass knuckles virtual brawling site. You've been here longer than I have. Have you, in your eight years here, failed to notice where threads like this typically go? I specifically DID NOT lock it (and it's still not locked) because it has a chance, but as you can tell, I'm not hopeful.
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
I did not post my opinion..so what?
The "so what" would be that this is a common symptom of what is often nothing but an attempt to incite a riot. I'm not saying that's what you were intending, but there are many out there who will respond that way. I've seen this just waaaay too many times.
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
That makes the article any less or more of value? Part of the legs in this story is because OF Toyotas reputation for quality and cuatomer service.
Well, maybe if you had included some commentary to explain why you feel it is discussion-worthy, that would have made clear why you see the value.
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
I have posted several articles of late and Bill changed them to links..so I just did it that way to save him trouble...shoot me.
I'll get off my "high horse" if you get back on your meds. Really, it's a discussion site -- take it easy!
ekpolk.
Man you climb on your high horse today? First off I do not have to justify a post to you. Who the H do you think you are? Don't like it, don't read it or have it removed. I could care. IMO your rants about this are more a waste of time, but you can do what you want. . . .
No sir, no high horse involved. I have a job to do here, and I intend to do it. A large part of that responsibility is to keep this forum from turning into just another brass knuckles virtual brawling site. You've been here longer than I have. Have you, in your eight years here, failed to notice where threads like this typically go? I specifically DID NOT lock it (and it's still not locked) because it has a chance, but as you can tell, I'm not hopeful.
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
I did not post my opinion..so what?
The "so what" would be that this is a common symptom of what is often nothing but an attempt to incite a riot. I'm not saying that's what you were intending, but there are many out there who will respond that way. I've seen this just waaaay too many times.
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
That makes the article any less or more of value? Part of the legs in this story is because OF Toyotas reputation for quality and cuatomer service.
Well, maybe if you had included some commentary to explain why you feel it is discussion-worthy, that would have made clear why you see the value.
Originally Posted By: tenderloin
I have posted several articles of late and Bill changed them to links..so I just did it that way to save him trouble...shoot me.
I'll get off my "high horse" if you get back on your meds. Really, it's a discussion site -- take it easy!
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
So why NOW, nearly a decade after the fact, do you toss this "issue" out there????
Ask the LA Times, the date on the story is May 23, 2010. It's not as if he found an 8-year-old story on the LA times website, which is what you're making it sound like.
Quote:
What relevance does this have now, today.
I'm not sure that taking the position of "it's history, who cares about it" ever served anyone who wanted to better understand the world they live in.
So why NOW, nearly a decade after the fact, do you toss this "issue" out there????
Ask the LA Times, the date on the story is May 23, 2010. It's not as if he found an 8-year-old story on the LA times website, which is what you're making it sound like.
Quote:
What relevance does this have now, today.
I'm not sure that taking the position of "it's history, who cares about it" ever served anyone who wanted to better understand the world they live in.
No, go to the link and look at what's there. Yes, it's a contemporary story, but it's about a very old issue, at least as to the cars involved. That should be apparent to anyone who takes the time to actually look at the story.
Why exactly is it a problem that it's an old issue being reported today? Is it your position that the age of the information diminishes it's value to the point that it is no longer news-worthy?
So everyone saying "Well, it's an old issue don't worry about it", why not say the same thing (or if you are one of these people, you are hipocrites) about GM, Ford, chrysler cars of years and years past (ex Pinto, Explorer tires, etc..) At least this is a headline story.
ekpolk
If you choose not to connect the dots that some are attempting to connect with how Toyota has behaved, that is up to you. However in my opinion just because you choose not to put value in what some are trying to do, does not make it so.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt these past few days. After reading your responses to washing an engine I can see it was just not this post that got you cranked up.
As far as med's...if your reaction to the past few threads is an indication of how you are doing these days...you had better give some a try...Something needs to be done.
End of it for me.
If you choose not to connect the dots that some are attempting to connect with how Toyota has behaved, that is up to you. However in my opinion just because you choose not to put value in what some are trying to do, does not make it so.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt these past few days. After reading your responses to washing an engine I can see it was just not this post that got you cranked up.
As far as med's...if your reaction to the past few threads is an indication of how you are doing these days...you had better give some a try...Something needs to be done.
End of it for me.
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Why exactly is it a problem that it's an old issue being reported today? Is it your position that the age of the information diminishes it's value to the point that it is no longer news-worthy?
Brian, of course, they're free to publish what they want to. On the other hand, this to me reeks of being just another meal in a heavily over-hyped feeding frenzy that peaked a few months ago with the UA thing. Newsworthy? I'll respect your opinion that it is (assuming that's your position). On the other hand, note how the article ends:
Originally Posted By: from the subject article
But Greenberg, an employment and personal injury lawyer, decided not to pursue the case.
"I felt like we had a good case. It was just a bit premature," said Greenberg, who still owns the same Lexus. "If I had the case today, I can tell you we wouldn't have given up so easily."
What I see is a story about a case that petered out four years ago, and was apparently unappetizing enough that the lawyer involved just let it go. I get that one can point to this and say, "see, a history of problems". I would also note that I owned the Toyota version of that car, a 2003.5 V-6 Camry. While I found the dbw occasionally too slow for my taste, I saw nothing of these other "problems" so that makes me even more skeptical.
But bottom line for me: why this story now -- the facts came to rest in 2006?
Why exactly is it a problem that it's an old issue being reported today? Is it your position that the age of the information diminishes it's value to the point that it is no longer news-worthy?
Brian, of course, they're free to publish what they want to. On the other hand, this to me reeks of being just another meal in a heavily over-hyped feeding frenzy that peaked a few months ago with the UA thing. Newsworthy? I'll respect your opinion that it is (assuming that's your position). On the other hand, note how the article ends:
Originally Posted By: from the subject article
But Greenberg, an employment and personal injury lawyer, decided not to pursue the case.
"I felt like we had a good case. It was just a bit premature," said Greenberg, who still owns the same Lexus. "If I had the case today, I can tell you we wouldn't have given up so easily."
What I see is a story about a case that petered out four years ago, and was apparently unappetizing enough that the lawyer involved just let it go. I get that one can point to this and say, "see, a history of problems". I would also note that I owned the Toyota version of that car, a 2003.5 V-6 Camry. While I found the dbw occasionally too slow for my taste, I saw nothing of these other "problems" so that makes me even more skeptical.
But bottom line for me: why this story now -- the facts came to rest in 2006?
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
So everyone saying "Well, it's an old issue don't worry about it", why not say the same thing (or if you are one of these people, you are hipocrites) about GM, Ford, chrysler cars of years and years past (ex Pinto, Explorer tires, etc..) At least this is a headline story.
I'm not saying, "it's an old story, don't worry about it." I'm saying, "it's an old story, so why is it surfacing now?" Might it have something to do with the furor over the UA thing fizzling too fast for the guys selling papers?
A headline story? There are no pertinent facts newer than 2006, four years ago. Should we expect to read all about Thursday's tragic Air India crash -- during the summer of 2014?
So everyone saying "Well, it's an old issue don't worry about it", why not say the same thing (or if you are one of these people, you are hipocrites) about GM, Ford, chrysler cars of years and years past (ex Pinto, Explorer tires, etc..) At least this is a headline story.
I'm not saying, "it's an old story, don't worry about it." I'm saying, "it's an old story, so why is it surfacing now?" Might it have something to do with the furor over the UA thing fizzling too fast for the guys selling papers?
A headline story? There are no pertinent facts newer than 2006, four years ago. Should we expect to read all about Thursday's tragic Air India crash -- during the summer of 2014?
- Status
Similar threads
