Toyota Congressional Hearing

[SummoneR]

Originally Posted by kevin2323

that's why they discontinued the fj cruiser..........lol jk

LOL Yeah.

Last I heard it is an unconfirmed rumor. But the reason for that is that it is a gas hog, especially when you lift them, believe me I know HAA My 426hp Camaro gets almost twice the MPG. HA HAA

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

Does no one here see the conflict of interests?

The US government owns (not just owns... but has a major stake in) GM & Chrysler, the competition of Toyota... yet they are having US congressional hearings (taxpayers expense) over this.

And in my lifetime I've seen recall after recall of every make and model (yes, some due to deaths)... why now is this the biggest deal on the planet? Who does it benefit the most?

How about we stop wasting taxpayers money for congressional hearings on baseball, football, and car recalls. (Have they set the date for the hearing on Tiger Woods?) If it wasn't so sad I'd be laughing right now.

If people want athletes that Juice... that's what they get, if they don't... then that's what they get. If people want a car that has had a recall... it's their prerogative. What happened to my USA?

If it was being done to benefit GM and Chrysler, why are Ford and Honda looking to be the big gainers out of it? Shouldn't such a conspiracy be constructed so that the only result is that you win? Seems sorta basic to me. If the goal were to give sales to GM and Chrysler, I would pass trade laws to cut off the supply of imported vehicles leaving a vacuum in the market for domestics to fill. Then I would seek to destroy Ford's reputation. This would open up millions of sales to GM and Chrysler, and only GM and Chrysler.

And what about the fact that Toyota has covered up this problem (and others), lied about its causes, and blamed its customers, and blamed its suppliers? What about the fact that Toyota has had more unintended acceleration incidents than everyone else combined? Couldn't that be enough cause for the government to take interest? Wasn't it a conflict of interest for congressmen who had 'transplants' in their state to hammer the domestics in late 2008?

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

Does no one here see the conflict of interests?

The US government owns (not just owns... but has a major stake in) GM & Chrysler, the competition of Toyota... yet they are having US congressional hearings (taxpayers expense) over this.

And in my lifetime I've seen recall after recall of every make and model (yes, some due to deaths)... why now is this the biggest deal on the planet? Who does it benefit the most?

How about we stop wasting taxpayers money for congressional hearings on baseball, football, and car recalls. (Have they set the date for the hearing on Tiger Woods?) If it wasn't so sad I'd be laughing right now.

If people want athletes that Juice... that's what they get, if they don't... then that's what they get. If people want a car that has had a recall... it's their prerogative. What happened to my USA?

Probably because toyota knowingly withheld information regarding the safety issues in their cars which led to the deaths of American citizens...

[dannkimmel]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

Does no one here see the conflict of interests?

The US government owns (not just owns... but has a major stake in) GM & Chrysler, the competition of Toyota... yet they are having US congressional hearings (taxpayers expense) over this.

And in my lifetime I've seen recall after recall of every make and model (yes, some due to deaths)... why now is this the biggest deal on the planet? Who does it benefit the most?

How about we stop wasting taxpayers money for congressional hearings on baseball, football, and car recalls. (Have they set the date for the hearing on Tiger Woods?) If it wasn't so sad I'd be laughing right now.

If people want athletes that Juice... that's what they get, if they don't... then that's what they get. If people want a car that has had a recall... it's their prerogative. What happened to my USA?

only problem with this idea is that the feds are just as much at fault as toyota!!!!!
they didnt do there jobs and may have been involved with some back door dealing.
sorry that toyota is in trouble but they ARE.they fu*&ed up
every one does you me them every one now its time to man up and admittit and pay the price.
gm has been at the mercy of the us goverment for longer than there has been a toyota!!!!
even after they produced the weapons and air planes and tanks that helped win ww2.
so no there not gonna get a break from some of us/usa.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by dannkimmel

i like the victory red...but i like the rjt.also but money is a concern id rather have the boston acu.up grade than the rjt.
ive wanted to own this car since 1967...when my dad brought home a 67 ss 350.maroon it was soo cool...
got involved with trucks and bikes so this will be my first nice car all the rest have been winter beaters and family cars.
im really excited about this for myself as well as for gm and our countrywe need manufacturing in this country.
gm is spending 500 mill near here in buffalo.tonawanda engine plant.....lets get the glory back i think many americans will give gm and ford a chance if they build what the people want...
sorry im off subject....

Go with Victory Red, I'd say then. It's plenty striking, and Orange is an extra-cost option as well.

And +1 on the engine plant. I was so happy when I heard that!

Originally Posted by Russo

thats a deceptive award.... it's like saying the cake tastes good because it looks good.... so, before the chrome trim wears off, power steering leaks out, and exhaust falls off, the car was great! please...

True...and not really. It's a measure of low-mileage quality. It's the period of time when impressions of the vehicle are made...if that impression is a good one, than most problems (all vehicles will have them) will be forgiven because the owner really likes the car. It is NOT a measure of overall quality and cost-of-ownership, etc -- and rightly so, because vehicle condition after 5 years is more a factor of owner neglect (or TLC) than a manufacturer's design.

But the post I was replying to was referencing problems in a new car...those are represented by the intial quality survey...which I cited.

In any event, GM's warranty claims are dropping like toyota's image. In 2007, I believe, claims were down 50% across the board, and just this past month, OnStar reported 99.7% functionality among Chevrolet powertrains linked to the system. They have really stepped up their game.

[5thGenOwner]

...

Originally Posted by DGthe3

If it was being done to benefit GM and Chrysler, why are Ford and Honda looking to be the big gainers out of it? Shouldn't such a conspiracy be constructed so that the only result is that you win? Seems sorta basic to me. If the goal were to give sales to GM and Chrysler, I would pass trade laws to cut off the supply of imported vehicles leaving a vacuum in the market for domestics to fill. Then I would seek to destroy Ford's reputation. This would open up millions of sales to GM and Chrysler, and only GM and Chrysler.

When opportunity knocks... knock the other guy down. I'm sure many a car company is going to benefit from Toyota's failure. But the ones who own GM and Chrysler are the ones holding congressional hearings. (admit it, you couldn't get away with this if your company was anything but a government... holding your competition accountable for their actions. That's the job of the consumers.)

And what about the fact that Toyota has covered up this problem (and others), lied about its causes, and blamed its customers, and blamed its suppliers? What about the fact that Toyota has had more unintended acceleration incidents than everyone else combined? Couldn't that be enough cause for the government to take interest? Wasn't it a conflict of interest for congressmen who had 'transplants' in their state to hammer the domestics in late 2008?

As if this is a first. I may have been born in the morning, but it wasn't yesterday morning.

Question, before this whole recall crap that hit this year... what was the overall opinion of Toyota in the world? (yeah, I believe it was highly respected as a quality auto maker. You've been listening to too many biased critics that are praying for Toyota to fail)

Originally Posted by dannkimmel

only problem with this idea is that the feds are just as much at fault as toyota!!

I believe you made my point... government intervention into a free market doesn't fix things. (It just funds special interests)

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

...

So....you think this is all staged?

I'm just trying to understand if I'm reading you right....

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

...

I just don't understand the logic of doing something that helps competitors more than it helps 'you'. Relatively few people will go "hmm, I was interested in a high quality car, and Toyota is no longer high quality. I think I'll buy a Dodge". Again, if the goal were to do something to help GM and Chrysler, they would go and do something to specifically help GM and Chrysler and hurt everyone else. Afterall, they seem to be smart enough to orchestrate this whole thing and fabricate quality and safety problems for the automaker with the best reputation, they should be smart enough to realize that it would be more beneficial to others than themselves.

This is the first time that I've heard of over 50% of one type of problem being attributed to a single automaker. Have others tried to avoid recalls? Yes. But Toyota has issued recalls for some of these same problems in other countries, but never issued one over here until just now. And they issued those recalls with far fewer incidents than whats been reported over here. How is that defensible? We're not talking about defective volume knobs here, its fundamental vehicle control. Steering, brakes, and acceleration. If there is ever a set of systems that needs to be fail-safe, its these.

Did they recall Tacomas for a frame that will rust out? Nope, they bought as many as possible back and crushed them.

[dannkimmel]

for 5thgenowner.
i guess your point is ... 1 toyotas are good .
2 its gm's fault.toyota has any problems.
3 the us goverment is out to destroy toytoy.
4 some one elese did somthing wrong before so
its ok for toytoy to coverup & lie.
5 people used to think toyota was good.
6 you wernt born yesterday
7 the goverment should stay out of the "free
market"
it all makes sense to me now.

however it appears to me that you like toyota and nothing is gonna change that.
not even the truth.you have that right you can like any thing you want.....like away.......BUT rember thousands and thousands of men and woman gave ther life so you can like what you want .
so for me i have to go with the home team even if there not perfect........no one is and now toyota has had there chance to show what they do when they make a mistake.....
this is a circular argument you may think what you want as i will....many people on this planet cant and so i say good day to you sir.

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

...

First, DGthe3, I just want to say that I am responding to your post only, because you have my absolute respect. I know we've butt'd heads before, but in the time I have spent on this board, I have seen how well you treat others, and even those with whom you disagree. I always try to live by golden rule... "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And I believe you do as well.




As to my response... I first ask do you see the "conflict of interest" (ethics)? I deal with legal ethics all the time, so maybe it sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

Anyway, conflict of interest or not... the hearings preceded. What came of it? I believe they made the President of the company almost cry. But I ask, would anything be different today if the hearings didn't take place?

(I wanna mention now... I'm not a Toyota-hugger or whatever the last guy said. I do not drive one, and the only one I ever did... well, I'm glad its gone. But Toyota didn't become a household name by always sucking.)

DG, I want to ask you... does this not benefit GM and Chrysler? Please don't respond with, "yes, but it also helps Honda, Ford, etc." Why? Because absolutely none of those companies can MAKE the president of Toyota come to one of their hearings... only the the owner of GM & Chrysler can do such a thing. That's conflict of interest, that's ethics violation! (I wish I could make my competitors come to one of my hearings everytime they did something wrong)

Finally... I get it, Toyota has made some bad decisions and obviously will 'pay the pipper'. I do hate that anyone, anywhere... dies because of someones careless mistake! Or worse, dies because someone knew about it and didn't fix it. That sucks royally... I got it!

Unfortunately, there is even worse on this planet... that many, many more are dying from... much, much worse! (I know, I know... we'll have hearings!!!)

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

First, DGthe3, I just want to say that I am responding to your post only, because you have my absolute respect. I know we've butt'd heads before, but in the time I have spent on this board, I have seen how well you treat others, and even those with whom you disagree. I always try to live by golden rule... "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And I believe you do as well.

thank you

As to my response... I first ask do you see the "conflict of interest" (ethics)? I deal with legal ethics all the time, so maybe it sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

Anyway, conflict of interest or not... the hearings preceded. What came of it? I believe they made the President of the company almost cry. But I ask, would anything be different today if the hearings didn't take place?

(I wanna mention now... I'm not a Toyota-hugger or whatever the last guy said. I do not drive one, and the only one I ever did... well, I'm glad its gone. But Toyota didn't become a household name by always sucking.)

DG, I want to ask you... does this not benefit GM and Chrysler? Please don't respond with, "yes, but it also helps Honda, Ford, etc." Why? Because absolutely none of those companies can MAKE the president of Toyota come to one of their hearings... only the the owner of GM & Chrysler can do such a thing. That's conflict of interest, that's ethics violation! (I wish I could make my competitors come to one of my hearings everytime they did something wrong)

I see how it can be perceived to be the result of a conflict of interest. But if its the right thing to do, does it matter if there is a conflict or not? I personally expect the same thing whether there was government ownership or not. There is no way to test this of course, and nothing can really be said to change anyones mind. It comes down to this: is it believable that the government would demand answers for neglecting to fix a design flaw which is known to be causing deaths? I say yes. For these hearings to be the result of a conflict of interest, the answer would have to be no, wouldn't it?

On to your other comments. As to benefiting GM and Chrysler, I can't deny that they will gain some sales. But these will be low. This is due to the (former) perception of Toyota and the current perception of those two. To the buyer who was previously convinced that Toyota=quality+safety, GM's styling and 'by the numbers' superiority aren't going to be big factors. And neither will Chrysler Corp's large RWD cars. Disuaded buyers will largely seek other brands who are now perceived to be safe and of high quality. Currently, people don't think of GM and Chrysler that way. Whether the should or not is a different argument all together.

I'll use an analogy from my own personal experience. My brother refereed some of my soccer games when I was a kid. When he called a hand ball against the other team, was it because of a conflict of interest? Or is it because a rule violation occurred? After all, the call did help my team. I faced similar situations with my cousins daughter when I was a bit older. In one instance, she had a hand ball. She looked at me in disbelief when I blew my whistle. The point with these stories is that officials should be trusted to do the right thing, regardless of who it benefits. And while I question the integrity of some politicians, I choose to believe that enough have a reasonable amount, most of the rest just go with the flow, and the remainder simply oppose everything.

[a_Username]

DG, just saying, why are you going into engineering? You should be a lawyer.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

DG, just saying, why are you going into engineering? You should be a lawyer.

I have a conscience

[Hopper]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I see how it can be perceived to be the result of a conflict of interest. But if its the right thing to do, does it matter if there is a conflict or not? I personally expect the same thing whether there was government ownership or not. There is no way to test this of course, and nothing can really be said to change anyones mind. It comes down to this: is it believable that the government would demand answers for neglecting to fix a design flaw which is known to be causing deaths? I say yes. For these hearings to be the result of a conflict of interest, the answer would have to be no, wouldn't it?

I agree with DGthe3 on this. What the other poster referred to is the potential for a conflict of interest. People sometimes remove themselves from debate to avoid this potential because it's not worth the hassle. Some others admit their position won't allow them to be truly objective on an issue and remove themselves. In any event, it isn't an actual conflict of interest until actions are taken and two parties with similiar situations are treated differently solely based upon a relationship of an unobjective third party. The government pulled GM and Chrysler in for hearings both before and AFTER they took ownership stakes. They've done the same with financial institutions. They did this to understand the truth and to give the those that needed it a public flogging. If you don't think these hearings negatively impacted the value of the government's stake in these companies, you're kidding yourself. If congress was just out to protect their financial interests in these companies, they wouldn't have hearings and would have went silent after they put the money in.

Bottom line...they're doing the same thing to Toyota as they previously did to GM, Chrysler and the financial institutions and they are doing it consistently. Giving them the public flogging they deserve. Yes, political grandstanding is involved and that goes with the territory. If somebody can prove GM acted slowly and inappropriately in the past with regard to product recalls and it cost lives, I would expect GM to be taken to the carpet in the same fashion, regardless of the government's ownership stake. If that happens and the government takes no action, then you can talk all you want about conflicts of interest and I will support you. Right now, all I see is a government acting properly on behalf of it's citizens, despite accusations to the contrary.