This could have a MAJOR impact…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100127/ap_on_bi_ge/toyota_recall
In time, Toyota will fix these models and they will be once again available to the public. I have it on good authority that a descendant of Orson Wells is in charge of this recall–“We will sell no car before its time”. Like fine wine, there is a proper time not to sell a car.
“Every time I get on an Airbus aircraft, I get that same feeling…At least they have two back-up systems standing by…I guess the newer Boeing stuff is fly-by wire too.”
Except for the anemometer. Airbus planes (all?) were grounded because of a problem with their pitot tube anemometer. It believe it’s fixed now.
If CR is not clairvoyant and I agree that they are not, then they can’t predict reliability and should not publish such garbage in their magazine. Guessing reliabilty might be a better word. Predicting future reliability based on history is like saying that the next space shuttle will blow up because the last one did.
I don’t think you understand how forecasting works. Your analogy is way off.
CR fully discloses how they predict reliability, and they admit that sometimes their predictions aren’t accurate.
…they can’t predict reliability and should not publish such garbage in their magazine. Guessing reliabilty might be a better word.
You could say the same thing about financial and economic forecasting, and you would be equally wrong. There is value in forecasting even when the forecasts prove to be inaccurate.
Guessing and forecasting aren’t the same thing. Predicting reliability is more like saying that out of 1,000 shuttle launches, you should expect one or two catastrophic failures. If the shuttle had a catastrophic failure rate of 1 in 500 two decades ago, and a catastrophic failure rate of 1 in 500 one decade ago, it is pretty safe to forecast a catastrophic failure rate of 1 in 500 in the next decade. Yes, there might be 0 catastrophic failures in the next decade. We could also have 5 catastrophic failures in the next three years. None of that is a reason not to forecast. The value of forecasting lies in understanding how forecasting works, and not putting too much weight on the forecasts.
Forecasting also relies on having a decent sample size. If your sample size is one (like in your example), the forecasts would be extremely inaccurate. However, if your sample size includes the last 1,000 shuttle missions, your forecasts will be a lot more accurate.
Forecasting is a valuable resource for so many industries that it would be downright stupid to completely abandon it.
Redesigning and tooling up and manufacturing hundreds of thousands of these components is going to take TIME…Ford & GM are licking their chops…The whole Fly-by-wire concept will be called into question…Was this system used to achieve “Super-Low Emissions”?? If so, was it worth it??
…and Ford just announced that they made money last year. Ford seems well poised to take advantage of something like this.
As to your question about emissions, I don’t see how a “fly by wire” system would have any thing to do with emissions. However, it sure does seem like you have an axe to grind.
Agree; Consumer Reports follows proper statistical procedures. They predict the reliability of a car based on what it was up till then (same basic model), if the model is new they make no such prediction.
They learned the hard way in 1986 when they said that the new Ford Taurus was the “best US car they ever tested”. Maybe so, but the quality and reliability were less that stellar.
Even when a new model comes out from a good manufacturer, they do not make a prediction.
In their surveys corrections made under warranty at no cost to the owner (as well as accident repairs)are not reported as problems. I used to participate in these surveys, and remember how to answer the questions.
If the car is deemed to be unsafe, either through design (Misubishi Samurai rollovers) or protection (many Hyundais) CR does not recommend it.
Agree, Who Wha, nobody is clairvoyant. CR tracks reliability of models in production, and predicts that, “all other thigns being equal”, that model will stay reliable until the model changes, then it’s all bets off, and they say “new model” (NO PREDICTION). That’s sound statistical practice. A good reason not to buy a car when that model is completely new. Exceptions are the 1955 Chevy, and many Toyota models in the last 15 years or so.
With respect to the space shuttle, the whole space program, which has been quite successful, is based on statistical quality control and statistical prediction. Every astronaut knows that such a trip is full of potential danger, even without O rings from Morton Thiokol. Although the O rings were bad design, other shuttle accidents were somewhat unpredictable, but space employees know the risks.
I perform risk anlysis for clients and we divide the risks into controllable and uncontrollable risks. If the uncontrollable risks are too large, like drilling for oil in a very unstable country, the decison is normally made to abort. We can ususally manage the controllable risks and reduce them to an acceptable level.
Every gadget you own in your house was made with statistical quality control, if it’s any good! People who design warranty programs do a close financial analysis how much the program might cost based on predicted failures within the warranty period.
You need to buy a primer on statistics to understand how they are used. We have a favorite Vietnamese restaurant and on New Year’s Eve it was the scene of a gangland slaying with 3 dead. It has not deterred us or the owners from carrying on as usual. There could be a shootout next at your favorite Macdonalds.
Precise throttle control has EVERYTHING to do with emissions…Have you driven a new stick-shift car? The computer holds the throttle open while you change gears, unnerving at first…
I know precise throttle control can improve emissions. Where I disagree is that I think you can have precise throttle control without making the system “fly by wire.” There are other ways to achieve precise throttle control.
You asked whether or not the system was used to achieve lower emissions. I don’t know if that was the reason for the design or not. Do you know? I thought you were asking, but you seem to be answering your own question.
Perhaps the “fly by wire” system was programmed to lower emissions, and if that programming was the cause of these faults, I will happily admit it wasn’t worth it.
If you know one way or the other, I wish you would say so, and cite your source.
What I have heard and read is that it [Electronic Throttle Control] is mainly to improve gas mileage another percent or two. It also makes it easier to have smooth shifts in automatics. We [who have no real control over what is used] can debate it back and forth, but it looks like ETC is here to stay and will be on all cars. Both of my cars (an 04 and an 06) have it, and I have had zero problems with it.
Your view of CR may be slightly different than mine. My view developed over probably 50 years is CR has probably already assigned a group to follow the Toyota problem. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion.
That is, they are not going to wait until their annual survey comes in. And, they will give this type of problem very strong negative ratings.
irlandes; I ageree that CR will tell its readers to HOLD OFF buying the Toyotas in question until the problem is cleared up. That is a common precaution for a Consumer Magazine, and avoids lawsuits, which are an American trade mark.
Years ago they did rollover tests with the Suzuki Samurai, and found it “unstable” in emergency highway lane changhes. They disqualified the car, as they did early Subarus (safety concerns). There were many happy Samurai owners who drove carefully and never had rollover problem!
Nevertheless, Suzuki sued CR for defaming the car.
All this is very healthy. The Ford Explorer I rented a few years back had a thick book with it (same size as the owner’s manual) on HOW TO DRIVE AN SUV, outlining it was top heavy and could not be driven like a normal car. Pure CYA, of course, but SUV drivers have along history of doing stupid things.
I don’t agree that past performance is always indicative of future performance for the simple reason that space shuttle and car design people are making constant efforts to improve their product.
Consumer Reports is clumsily responding to current Toyota troubles by taking vehicles off of their recommended list in response to the news and will restore the vehicles when the current troubles are alleviated. According to what people here are posting, restoring to recommended status is the wrong thing to do if basing future performance on past performance is correct.
The whole Fly-by-wire concept will be called into question…
I have not read every article on this but to my understanding the issue is not fly by wire (if it were would it not go automatically go to limp mode). I understood the problem to be a bushing that binds, therefore the throttle sticks.
For whatever reason, Toyota has not detailed the exact nature of the problem, mechanical or electronic, but apparently they have a solution. That’s great, but the damage has been done…
Their stint of being No. 1 car maker did not last long. Good for you GM.
Toyota needs to accept full ownership of this recall on their gas pedal issue!!! I seen earlier that they mentioned CTS as the supplier. As a Teir 3 supplier myself, I follow the engineering specs that a company wants when I develop a part. If anyone is familar with the automotive industry, we all know that this is a Toyota enigneering and design issue. There are so many quality procedures in place, that it is virtually not possible for the manufacturer of the part to deviate from the specifications of the design.PPAP stage was accepted by toyota, meaning that the part meets all Toyota’s standards. Toyota should never be mentioning CTs as the supplier. This is not CTS’s problem.The Quality department would have caught a a deviation from spec.Even if they never Toyota would caught it on their end, BEFORE PRODUCTION. CTS’s reputation is probably hurt, however, as mentioned before this is TOYOTA’s issue, not CTS’s