NHTSA Finally Acknowledges Finding No Fault With Toyota Throttles

0 Flares 0 Flares ×

After nearly a month of denials and anonymous statements, a NHTSA official reported to congress yesterday. From Automotive News (subscription required):

Brakes weren’t applied by drivers of Toyota vehicles in at least 35 of 58 crashes blamed on unintended acceleration, U.S. auto-safety regulators said after studying data recorders.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also saw no evidence of electronics-related causes for the accidents in reviewing the vehicle recorders, known as black boxes, the agency said today in a report to lawmakers.

…“At this early point in its investigation, NHTSA officials have drawn no conclusions about additional causes of unintended acceleration in Toyotas beyond the two defects already known — pedal entrapment and sticking gas pedals,”

Finally, the truth comes out, and we know who was lying about this data three weeks ago, and we know that Toyota’s throttles – as we have said all along – are just fine. Driver error is to blame.

What’s Next For Toyota

While this report is great news, sadly, it’s not seen as “proof” in the eyes of many so-called safety advocates. Rather than accept the facts:

  • Toyota has never found a flaw in their system despite multiple internal studies. Toyota’s latest study analyzed the data recorders of more than 4,000 vehicles that supposedly ran away. In all 4,000 cases, the driver had their foot on the wrong pedal.
  • NHTSA has studied Toyota’s electronic throttle systems on at least three separate occasions, and never found a flaw.
  • Toyota suppliers have studied the electronics many times – no flaws found.
  • MIT
  • Exponent
  • NASA
  • The National Academy of Sciences

…all of them couldn’t find a problem with Toyota’s electronics. While Toyota DID have a problem with sticking pedals and floor mat entrapment, there has never been a documented incident of a Toyota with an electronic throttle problem.

Not one.

Of course, the LA Times reporters who “broke” this “story” about runaway Toyotas and alleged electronics problems (see “Data Points to Toyota’s Throttles, Not Floormats“) are no where to be found right now. When a reporter gets something so incredibly WRONG that they cause a national panic, destroy billions of dollars in stock value, and subject a company and it’s employees to ridicule, the least they could do is acknowledge some fault.

Instead, these two “gentleman” won an award. Shameful.

Filed Under: Auto News


RSSComments (44)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Brian J says:

    Now the big question: will Toyota get their $16 million back from Uncle Sam? I doubt it.

  2. Jason says:

    Brian – I think that NHTSA hammered that fine because Toyota didn’t report their floor mat and sticking pedal data soon enough. I’m sure that fine will stand, and they may end up having to pay another.

  3. Deznutjob says:

    I feel bad for those who went through all that hassle of having their peddles swapped, especially the ones that had their Toyota all weather floor mats removed and destroyed without consent.

    I’ve heard nothing but complaints about the replaced gas peddle from at least 7 out of 10 Tundra owners having this done.

    Finally my procrastination has paid off!

  4. Deznutjob says:

    …oh and where do you keep the links to your site affiliates Jason? 🙂

  5. Jason says:

    Dez – Interesting – hadn’t heard much from people about the pedals.

    I moved all the links to one place – http://www.tundraheadquarters......-links.php. Let me know if I need to re-do anything, if you want different anchor text, etc., and I’m happy to fix.

  6. Justin says:

    Okay, so they haven’t found a problem so far. Can’t say they will or won’t find anything. But according to the article, they are still in the early stages of the investigation. Means they still have plenty of other research to conduct. Plus it’s a little hard to get data from the black box if it only records data when and airbag deploys. So for all those vehicles that didn’t have their airbag deploy, what data does the NHTSA have to go off of?

  7. Jason says:

    Justin – This is a classic example of a witch hunt. Your points are all 100% correct, but where does it end? NHTSA has proven that none of the vehicles they tested had a problem. Toyota has tested 4,000 vehicles – with documentation provided to NHTSA – and found no problems. NHTSA has tested the throttles multiple times. Toyota. MIT. NASA. etc., etc., etc.

    When you come right down to it, there will ALWAYS be a shred of doubt. At what point do we all sit back and say enough is enough?

    Incidentally, Audi-VW had a higher rate of runaway accelerator claims than Toyota in 2008, 2006, and 2004, and other automakers (Suzuki, BMW, Land Rover, Jag) had high incident rates too at certain points in the last decade. If this is *really* about safety, why aren’t those vehicles being tested by NHTSA?

    And what about the above-average number of F150 runaway acceleration claims that Consumer Reports found? Shouldn’t NHTSA look at those as well?

    Don’t get me wrong – I see what you’re saying and I don’t for one second believe that NHTSA should look at VW, the F150, etc. My point is this:

    The investigations continue, yet they find nothing…we should accept that answer at some point.

  8. Justin says:

    Jason: Oh I hear you on the possible witch hunt aspect. But I think that the NHTSA should investigate any/all above average claims of SUA, no matter make/model. I don’t want to be driving my F150 if it’s gonna turn into Christine. Anything that could compromise the consumers safety should be of high priority. And whether the NHTSA is doing this to save face or to be thorough in their research, I kind of applaud them. I’d rather they go through and test every possible scenerio with a fine tooth come, than to simply test a vehicle or two and call it a day.

    If the NHTSA comes back and finds no other faults than the peddle and floor mat, I’ll eat crow and admit I was wrong, as well as having a slightly biased opinion. Also hope if they do find a more exstensive problem, that those here who denied anything worse was wrong, would be willing to act in the same fashion. But as of today, looks like I’ll be having crow for supper sometime soon!

  9. Jason says:

    Justin – LOL! If more people were like you, the world would be a better place. To your credit, there are a lot of smart people who got caught up in believing that some mythical electronic ghost was causing problems. I think it’s human nature to dismiss the most obvious answer (driver error), and I’m guilty of it myself more times than I care to admit.

    In other words, I won’t be asking you to eat crow. Thanks for commenting, as always. 🙂

  10. Deznutjob says:

    Honest, even tempered, biased, tenacious, level headed.

    I just looked up all these words and phrases and it said, “see Justin” next to all of them!

    You’re a good man Justin and I always enjoy reading your commentary! 🙂

  11. Justin says:

    Jason: Thanks! We all get swayed one way or another, but as long as we come to grips with whether we were right/wrong, and admit our faults, it’s all good. And I’ve gotten egg on my face before, this wouldn’t be the first time. So I have no problem giving into the likes of Mickey and others who told me it was blasphomy that I believe there was more to the SUA problem.

    Deznutjob: Wow, think that is the first time I’ve been told that on this site (being an F150 owner – damn just admitted what others think is a fault), but many thanks! I try to be as objective and unbiased as possible, but I have my bad days like most everyone. Just have to learn from my mistakes and move on.

  12. Deznutjob says:

    Oops, did I say biased? I meant unbiased.

  13. Justin says:

    Knew what you meant, but thanks for clarifying.

  14. Mickey says:

    Dez I had both the shim done which made a funny feeling pedal and then replaced the pedal. The pedal feels the same as the original pedal. Doesn’t have that spongy feeling. I have no issues with the pedal.
    Jason 35 0f 58 crashes. Any info on the 23 crashes that showed more than the accelerator pedal being pushed down? I do beleive what is getting mixed into this SUA is that there is an issue with the truck when you come to a sudden stop and about a second later you get a jump from the engine trying to take off. That I think is getting mixed with runaway vehicles. I’ve read this on other forums when some have come to complete stop then they take the foot of the brake and then the truck jumps forward and they hit what ever is in front of them. That is the issue.

  15. Joe says:

    My dealer has honored my request to leave my original floor mats in place and my original pedal assy is still in tact. Don’t know who had their floor mats removed and destroyed without their consent. And they darn sure were not going after my pedal with an exacto knife.

    I must just be a “wild and crazy guy”.

  16. Justin says:

    Mickey: This is what I saw in yesterdays paper.

    • In 35 of the 58 cases reviewed, the black boxes showed no brakes were applied.

    • In about half of those 35 cases, the accelerator pedal was depressed right before the crash, suggesting drivers of the speeding cars were stepping on the accelerator rather than hitting the brakes.

    • Fourteen showed partial braking.

    • One showed pedal entrapment.

    • Another showed that both the brake and the pedal were depressed.

    My questions are:

    1) From my understanding, the black box only keeps date just prior and after the airbags deployed. So of the 58 cars tested, what type of scenerio has the owner played out, versus what the data shows? Was it a momentary thing that the car surged and rear ended the car in front, leaving practically no time to react? Or was it a runaway car that was speeding down the highway causing an accident?

    3) In the 2nd bullet, again what were the owner scenerios versus saying these were “speeding” cars? Many reported cases were of the driver rear ending a car at a light from a stop.

    2) In the 2nd bullet again, where is the sensor located that determines the accelerator was depressed? Or does the vehicle sense the throttle is being engaged? How did they determine the pedal was actually pressed, versus some other item within the system failed?

    3) In the 3rd bullet, how does the system recognize partial to full braking? And if the pedal is potentially faulting, couldn’t the brake sensor also potentially fault due to the same cause?

    4) In the 4th bullet, how did they determine it was pedal entrapment? What constitutes pedal entrapment?

    5) In the 5th bullet, couldn’t this have been pedal entrapment as well, being both the gas/brake were being depressed?

    Personally, I want to know how these procedures were conducted and how they determined the outcome of these verdicts. Now I’m not saying they are wrong, just have some concerns. I know a lot of different companies and agencies have been brought in, but based on prior experience, you really can’t FULLY trust the NHTSA reports themselves.

    Oh well, guess the saga continues for now.

  17. Deznutjob says:

    Steve Martin!! 🙂

    Well you seem to know that the dealers are in fact using exacto’s to cut up the floor mats and indeed this is happening. I recently sold a member of my forum my original unused set of Toyota All Weather mats. I made up an invoice and he took it to his dealer and shoved it in their face for a full refund. He said the dealer was instructed to remove and destroy all suspect mats from affected vehicles as they come in for service.

    Other members are now removing their mats before dealer service.

  18. Jason says:

    Justin – All good questions, but I think the big picture is more applicable. If NHTSA looked at 35 cars where crashes occurred and found that the brakes weren’t touched on all 35, the odds that all 35 of those cars had faulty sensors and/or readings are extremely low.

    Therefore, there’s really no need to concern ourselves with the accuracy of the pedal sensors. It’s possible that one or two of the cars *might* have been reading the pedal position incorrectly, but it’s impossible that all 35 were (not to mention the 4,000 cars Toyota tested).

    As to the type of crashes, NHTSA says that 96% of all unintended acceleration (UA) claims involved speeds at less than 15 mph. People rear-ending cars at stoplights, just as you say:


    If you read that TTAC article, you’ll see that NHTSA’s data also shows most UA incidents can also be traced to either young drivers or older ones.

    You’ll also see that Volvo has a high incidence of UA as well.

    I think that it’s good to question NHTSA and the specifics of their methods, how the computers work, etc., but let’s not lose the forest for the trees. The jury is in – UA complaints are almost always driver error.

  19. johnny says:

    wow, you people can’t read.

    “NHTSA officials have drawn no conclusions about additional causes of unintended acceleration in Toyotas beyond the two defects already known — pedal entrapment and sticking gas pedals,”

    from your article

    “beyond the two defects already known” DEFECTS
    pedal entrapment and sticking gas pedal.

    so NHTSA has concluded with the available data is that Toyota has defects with pedal getting stuck and toyota having an issue with sticking gas pedals.

    NHSTA also says, they don’t see any other issues besides those two with the information they have currently.

  20. Jason says:

    johnny – Great work, detective. You just proved that NHTSA hasn’t found anything aside from the defects that Toyota already issued recalls for.

    Talk about stating the obvious. Where do you get off being so smug?

  21. Mickey says:

    Dez I go get all maintenance done at the dealers. I have the Tundra weather mat above my carpet mat. I have yet to sign anything but my service adviser knows I stated stright up do not remove anything but what you are instructed to. Meaning just changed the oil and lube the truck period. They also know not to rotate my tires. I do that myself. No impacts here.
    Johhny Lol…….
    Justin copy and again thanks for the info…….
    Jason just what you stated 96% of Unintended acceleration was under 15mph. The thing Jason I can replicate that UA. I can almost do it in my sleep and it happens every time. When I go to do my oil change within two weeks I will take my service adviser for a ride and see what he thinks of it. It even happen once with my wife in the truck. She asked what the hell I was doing. I told her you just witness the so-called UA. Any hard braking will bring this on. If you’re not on the brakes hard after you stop the truck will lurch forward, even spin the tire. You will move a good 20 feet or more. If you’re on the brake the truck will act like you’re trying to power brake the truck to spin the tires. I thought this was what they were getting at with SUA. Not a runaway truck. Will keep you informed on what happens.

  22. Danny says:

    my old gmc z-71 would do that too. Also, if you would come to a quick full stop and then shift into park, like pulling quickly into a parking spot, my Z would lurch forward. Mind you, it’s in park. Also, the rear brakes would chirp.

  23. johnny says:

    “Dez I go get all maintenance done at the dealers. I have the Tundra weather mat above my carpet mat. I have yet to sign anything but my service adviser knows I stated stright up do not remove anything but what you are instructed to. Meaning just changed the oil and lube the truck period. They also know not to rotate my tires. I do that myself. No impacts here.”

    so Toyota mechanics suck? they use impact guns?

    btw, wanna comment on how can NHTSA determine anything when Toyota’s event recorder doesn’t record any acceleration incidents?

  24. Mickey says:

    Johnny What part of what I wrote states Toyo techs suck? Impact guns for the wheel locks bright one! Even tire shops I visit do the same. I like using my 4way. Also impacts cut into the locks which will make them rust at the cuts. As far as the EDR why don’t you read the other arctiles on this website before you comment.

  25. Jason says:

    Mickey – That’s wacky – I’m curious to know what causes your truck to take off after a hard stop…please keep us posted.

    Johnny – I’m glad to entertain your arguments on the finer points, but I’m not going to rehash questions that I consider to be obvious in this post. Email me if you want me to discuss your deleted comments – admin@tundraheadquarters.com

  26. mk says:

    Brian J’s original 1st post about toyota getting their 16 million back from uncle sam. Of course not, they gave it to GM and chrysler.

  27. Deznutjob says:

    Where’s Mickey?? Here you go my long lost Tundra Brother!


  28. Jason says:

    mk – LOL

  29. Mickey says:

    DEZ copy but I keep trying both ways through your website or by your link there and I keep getting an error and a report to Microsoft for Internet Explorer and it kicks me out and off the internet. So I can’t get past the Black Widow DC cab pic. BTW that pic is awesome.

  30. Mickey says:

    Dez I’m on another computer and I got through with no issues. I guess I have to call out a geekazoid to configure my new hard drive. To answer yo about that issue I do have that every morning till it warms up. But that’s the only time. Thoe other times aren’t what was written here.

  31. Justin says:

    Well, looks like the investigation may have just gotten a little more interesting. Sounds like the Toyota EDR’s in question have a history of inaccurately recording data. Toyota has even claimed this in a lawsuit against them. So now which is it, are they reliable and usable evidence, or are they unreliable and not worthy of being evidence?



  32. Jason says:

    Justin – Toyota has long held that these aren’t 100% accurate, but I don’t think it’s a big deal. Anyone who has worked with testing equipment knows that sometimes you get wonky readings.

    Besides, NHTSA and other investigators wouldn’t bother to look at the recorders in the first place if they didn’t have some accident reconstruction value.

    Finally, there’s physical evidence and personal accounts as well that support findings. This is why NHTSA has said that they have not been able to find any evidence of an electronic throttle problem – the data recorders are just a very obvious form of proof.

    When you look closely at the source who’s claiming that Toyota’s EDR data is worthless, you’ll find Sean Kane (the man who admitted working for trial attorneys currently suing Toyota). I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in anything that guy says.

  33. Justin says:

    Jason: Regarding your last statement on the EDR data being worthless. Don’t try to discount this as simply a Sean Kane point of view.

    If we want to really look at who’s claiming this data is worthless, Sean Kane is simply following up with what Toyota has already admitted. But it seems like some think if Sean Kane says they are unreliable, it’s all hogwash. But if Toyota says it’s unreliable, it’s all okay and there is nothing to worry about. Kind of like, who cares if it’s there for a purpose and whether it works right or not.

    And testing equipment getting wonky readings, that’s not good no matter what feature you’re speaking of. EDR’s should not be testing equipment, but an actual feature of the vehicle, just like airbags or ABS or any other items in the vehicle. If the airbags don’t work properly, or the ABS doesn’t work properly, then that is a problem. So if the EDR’s aren’t working or recording properly, then that in itself is also a problem. What would be the sole purpose of having EDR’s in vehicles if they didn’t work or their data was unreliable? What if the EDR’s were reading no brake was applied when there was? It stated seat belts were on when they weren’t. It stated a speed of over 100mph’s higher than the vehicle was going.

    So with the past history of these EDR’s, just exactly what are we to make of the data? Are we supposed to throw out all results. Or only use the results that make Toyota look good. Or are we to take these results with a grain of salt and use other items than solely looking at the EDR for all evidence?

  34. Jason says:

    Justin – I’m not throwing out the prospect that some EDR data could be false or inaccurate, but I don’t think some wonky readings are grounds for concern.

    First, this IS testing equipment. There is no federal standard for this equipment (currently), and no manufacturer has to verify that their EDR system works 100% correctly 100% of the time. In fact, this was long Toyota’s justification for their practice of ignoring EDR data and not provider readers to NHTSA, police, etc.

    They have long held that the readings aren’t necessarily accurate.

    Yet, when Toyota wasn’t willing to give EDR readers to NHTSA, people like Sean Kane were screaming about a conspiracy. Today, we have the readers, but the data can be inaccurate…and now Sean Kane wants to throw all of the data out. Which is it – conspiracy, or inaccurate data?

    I agree that we can’t ignore this info, but if we assume that all the investigators are smart, rational people, I’m fairly confident they’re able to tell the difference between suspicious data and plausible data. It’s hard to believe that NHTSA, MIT, NASA, the National Institute of Science, and Toyota (and the people they’ve hired) would all be duped by bad data alone, especially with all the physical evidence.

    For example: One of the people who went before congress and claimed to have a runaway Toyota said that she was pressing the brakes for miles…yet there were no flat spots on any tires and the brakes didn’t exhibit any signs of wear. She sold her Lexus, and the current owner (who has put thousands of miles on the car) has never had one problem.

    I don’t care what *her* data recorder says one way or another about this particular incident because I know she’s mistaken. If she was really using the brakes, the pads would be gone, the tires would be damaged, etc. Not to mention that the vehicle has never had another problem.

    When investigators use all the evidence at their disposal – physical, electronic, and personal accounts – they have *NEVER* found *ONE* instance of a throttle problem in the years that this problem has been alleged.

    Not. One. Incident. Ever.

    This EDR data business is interesting, but doesn’t change the big picture.

  35. Justin says:

    Jason: I totally understand your points, and many carry a lot of validity. But Toyota needs to decide one way or the other if it wants to rely on the data from the EDR, or if it is unreliable – because as far as the law and the public is concerned, you can’t have it both ways.

    Toyota is in the middle of another heated problem. If Toyota admits they are unreliable, then the EDR readings from these SUA events will not carry as much weight in the decision process on the problem. If Toyota comes out and says they are reliable, then they will be pressed on why there have been inaccuracies and why Toyota claimed they were unreliable. Catch 22 for Toyota.

    And now you bring up a point in your 2nd point. The EDR is not mandated, there is no federal standard for how these EDR’s are to work and how/what data it is to record. There’s no knowing the accuracies of this equipment. They could work 100% of the time, they could fail 100% of the time. So now the NHTSA should be in the situation of determining if the EDR data should be used during its investigation at all. If there are no regulations on how these work, and no assurances on the accuracy of this equipment, then they should be discarded. Heck, all the EDR’s from these SUA events could be reading inaccurately. And yes, all these engineers could be duped, as there may be no other physcial evidence that supports or contradicts the EDR’s readings one way or another.

  36. Jason says:

    Justin – I think you’re right that Toyota can’t play two sides of the fence on EDR accuracy, but I wonder if the Tundra reading 177 mph is the exception to the rule.

    I also think that readings can be interpreted even if they’re inaccurate, i.e., whether the EDR registered 5, 15, or 50 mph, it still registered brakes or no brakes. Combined with physical evidence, it should be easy to determine if the EDR data is leaning in the right direction or not.

    As far as tossing out all the EDR data, I’m in. Let’s ignore every piece of it. The physical evidence is enough. Many cars crashed with perfectly good brake systems that were fully functional and exhibited no signs of severe wear – this should be proof positive that the brakes weren’t applied.

    Unfortunately, that hasn’t been enough. Despite clear evidence in 99% of the cases reported, some people continue to blame some mysterious and undocumented throttle problem.

    For instance: A few months ago in Texas four people died in an Avalon that ran full speed into a lake. The driver of this car was an older man who was prone to having seizures, and a witness reported he couldn’t see a driver behind the wheel of this car just before it crashed. The police report also found no sign of brakes being used.

    Open and shut, right? No. The family is suing Toyota. While I understand the human need to blame others for this tragedy, let’s be realistic: the facts all point to driver error…and there are hundreds of cases just like this one that all have the same obvious explanation.

    Most of the time, EDR data simply isn’t needed. Link to the story above: http://www.star-telegram.com/2.....hlake.html

  37. Justin says:

    Jason: I can see the Tundra 177mph reading being the exception to the rule. But this makes me wonder, how many EDR’s have been read since Toyota implemented them? Of those EDR’s that have been read, what was the error or potential error rate, +/- a certain percentage to account for human error and anomalies? Without such data, it’s hard to determine whether or not this Tundra’s reading is an exception or not.

    Also agree that the EDR readings can’t be the end all be all for the investigation. Driver, physical vehicle evidence and environment must also be considered within the research completed.

    Regarding your comment on no brakes being applied on the majority of accidents. The EDR’s just might be correct. But this does not mean SUA didn’t occur. If I remember your comments earlier, might be from a different thread, but didn’t most these SUA accidents occur at 15 mph or less? Did the driver truly have time to react? Example: If at a stop light/sign and the car suddenly takes off into the intersection or into the car in front, did the driver have time and the right state of mind to hit the brakes? I can see where if they were on the interstate/highway running away, there should be enough time for the driver to drop it in neutral, hit the brake or turn off the vehicle. Then again that’s me, too many people today simply do not know how to react, even with all the publicity lately. Where a split second reaction with the accident occurring within a few seconds of the SUA event, leaves very little time for reaction, even with a professional driver. No one ever expects their car to suddenly surge without any driver input.

    And on your Texas story. You may just be right. The driver was older, had a seizure and blacked out, but who truly knows except the passengers in that car. We’ll have to wait for the investigation and autopsy to determine the vehicles and drivers condition at the point of or prior to the accident.

    I truly dislike the flip flopping on Toyota’s behalf over many issues recently. They need to take a stand one way or another and stick with it. The media may still be making more out of these events than there really is, but Toyota and what they have stated recently regarding many events just further leads to more scrutiny when certain aspects are contradictory. Or Toyota has taken one stance in the past and reverses course now to save face.

  38. Jason says:

    Justin – I’m not sure that Toyota has flip-flopped too much. For years, they didn’t offer EDR readers because they said the data wasn’t necessarily valuable. Recently, they changed their position a little bit, but I’ve read that the recorders are a lot better now than they were just a few years ago.

    Your point about the Texas Avalon crash that “who truly knows except the passengers” is 100% correct, but it’s this type of thinking that opens the door to wild theories and groundless accusations.

    No one *ever* knows what truly causes an accident, even when we have copious amounts of data. We don’t have to look any further than the space shuttle disasters to recognize that reconstructing an accident with 100% certainty is impossible.

    Having said that, we *can* get to 90%…95%…99%. And that, in most cases, is more than good enough. Is it possible that the Avalon crashed into the lake because it accelerated out of control? Sure. However, it’s far more likely that it didn’t happen.

    This is the problem in my eyes with this entire issue: Rather than using common sense, accepting the obvious explanation, and recognizing that there’s no such thing as 100% accuracy, people start to explore infinite possibilities that have very low probability. I think it’s human nature to focus on a one-in-a-million explanation while simultaneously glossing over the boring old obvious facts, but that doesn’t make it OK.

    We should investigate possibilities regardless of their probability, but we shouldn’t re-focus our efforts when the one-in-a-million long shot doesn’t pan out. Toyota’s throttles have been looked at long and hard, and no problems have been found. It’s time to re-focus our attention back to the obvious facts – driver error almost always causes unintended acceleration.

    As for the low-speed crashes, NHTSA used to automatically ignore these complaints when they came. Evidently, NHTSA investigators felt these problems were almost always driver error, so they never bothered to look at them too hard. THEN the Toyota media frenzy happened, and NHTSA was criticized for tossing out thousands of complaints without due diligence.

    Nothing like telling accident investigators with a lifetime of experience that they don’t know what they’re doing.

  39. Mickey says:

    Jason finally had time to stop by Advance auto and used their scanner to find what codes my truck is giving. P2714 was the code. Pressure Control Solenoid D is stuck off. So I will research the code and go from there.

  40. Jason says:

    Mickey – Shoot me an email when you find out what went wrong if you have time.

  41. Justin says:

    Update: Toyota admits black box bug can give false speed readings.

    So in other words: “Trust us. We sort of know what we’re doing. Maybe.”


  42. Jason says:

    Justin – Not seeing anything new there, are you?

  43. Anonymous says:

    Well, looks like there just might be a little cover-up going on with the SUA.

    – NASA identified numerous failures in Toyota electronics that could lead to unwanted acceleration.

    – The report was heavily influenced by Toyota and its experts, including Exponent.

    – The reports were narrowly construed examinations of limited vehicles and components.

    – Much of the reports remain shrouded in secrecy.

    After reading the documents attached below, it’s clear a thorough investigation by a 3rd party with no interest in the outcome was never completed. The only item that appears to be keeping SUA from happening today, is the new brake override software.





  44. Jason (Admin) says:

    Anon – You said “it’s clear a thorough investigation by a 3rd party with no interest in the outcome was never completed”.

    Really? Are you saying that Exponent, NHTSA, MIT, NASA, the National Institute of Science, etc. are all either a) incompetent/incapable of being thorough or b) biased? ALL of them came to the same conclusion.

    Tell me, were the moon landings faked as well? Is Elvis still alive? Did aliens land at Roswell?

    I think it’s pathetic that people refuse to believe an overwhelming pile of evidence.

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 Email -- 0 Flares ×