Kia_racer wrote: Don't they still teach people to turn into a slide in drivers ed? I know they did when I took it.
No. Now they teach you that if the car slides, the car did something wrong and you should sue Toyota. Because nothing you could ever do should EVER make a car slide.
They did when I took it and I'm only 21 so it wasn't long ago.
93celicaGT2 wrote: if the car slides, the car did something wrong and you should sue Toyota. Because nothing you could ever do should EVER make a car slide.
Pretty much. I think I'll sue Toyota the next time I stuff one of my cars into a snowbank. Who cares that it'll likely be a Pontiac.
Somehow it's still Toyota's fault.
MrJoshua wrote: In reply to carzan: I think in the understeering scenario you would be trying for flip the vehicle in a mostly end over end or cartwheeling fashion, during oversteer the vehicle would be more sideways and the force would be pushing it towards a barrel roll. A barrel roll should be waaaay easier to achieve. Whether over or understeer is safer, I am still not convinced that the truck is the tail happy vehicle they proclaim it to be. I am a bit surprised if Toyota's stability control allows the engine to see throttle during a slide on that particular vehicle. It is possible they intentionally entered a corner too quickly, manipulated the vehicle into a slide, and just slid to a stop with no throttle or brakes. I didn't see brake lights so maybe the stability control system doesn't mess with anything unless you are on the gas or brakes?
I wasn't thinking end-over-end. When the vehicle starts to oversteer, the radius the vehicle is following is getting larger while the road radius is either staying the same or getting smaller. The vehicle wouldn't be hitting the curb straight on. It would still be somewhat parallel to the curb with the front wheels now turned to near lock trying to compensate for the understeer. The front wheels would impact the curb and possibly even knuckle under upsetting the balance of the vehicle. This would be a barrel-roll scenario, not an end-over-end.
Interestingly, when the CR report on the 1995 Isuzu Trooper came out rating it "Not Acceptable", I had recently purchased one. Mine was identical to the one on the cover of the magazine for that issue right down to the color and wheels. Isuzu sent me a video tape shortly after that showed steering wheel angles based on the angle of the wheels in the turns etc. as viewed on videos of the tests by CR. According to them (Isuzu), the steering inputs were vastly different on the other vehicles tested as though they (CR) were purposely and unjustly attempting to single out the Trooper as unsafe. I seem to recall them duplicating the same steering inputs that the Trooper was subjected to on the other vehicles and having them behave similarly in their own tests.
I also seem to recall Isuzu suing and winning the case even though there was no monetary compensation.
keethrax wrote:93celicaGT2 wrote: if the car slides, the car did something wrong and you should sue Toyota. Because nothing you could ever do should EVER make a car slide.Pretty much. I think I'll sue Toyota the next time I stuff one of my cars into a snowbank. Who cares that it'll likely be a Pontiac. Somehow it's still Toyota's fault.
The Vibe is really a Toyota. Therefor, Pontiac = Toyota. Same thing.
Kia_racer wrote: Don't they still teach people to turn into a slide in drivers ed? I know they did when I took it.
I took exactly one day of driving school and then asked for all my money back and quit the course.
The Young Drivers instructor started witth he following tidbits of infomation:
"We don't call them accidents because that implies something happened that was uncontrollable, we call them collisions" There is an uncontrollable factor, it's called "the other driver" you idiot.
"When you come to an empty intersction, stop six car lengths back and pull up as traffic comes up behind you" Ok, fist, the light will never change. Second, you can't see what's coming if you do this.
I had been driving for a long time before I turned 16 and my parents thought driving school would be a good idea. I got home and mentioned the wealth of knowledge I was receiving and we decided that I had leaned more autocrossing and driving on logging roads than driver's ed would teach.
I learned to get sideways long before I could parallel park :)
Shawn
Everyone is avoiding the elephant in the room with the GX 460, and that is, does this mean we'll see a "drifter tax" on these SUV's in the used market?
Pat wrote: Somehow, Toyota still has this reputation of being the be all and end all of quality. Despite everything that has come out recently, Toyota's E36 M3 still doesn't stink to most of the blind, brainwashed buying public. I don't get it.
Inertia, the same reason GM's having trouble shedding their image of crap car builder. Also while anyone who's seen their newer cars can tell that they're not quite as good as the old ones (a recent Camry model had a soft oil line running outside the engine that would pop loose!), most of Toyota's vehicles are still pretty decent.
You know what's funny, that SUV seems to handle pretty well from the test vid they keep showing on the news. The problem with this SUV is that if you try your damndest to make it slide, it slides. Ooh soo scary!
MrJoshua wrote: I guess the logic is that if you understeer you will just drive straight off the road over the curb instead of clipping it with your rear wheel and rolling. I kept going back to the first view of the vehicle sliding and they conveniently left out the second or two before the slide. Hiding a Scandinavian flick maybe?
That is the only way I have been able (once) to get our 08 4Runner sideways, and it was on a damp road with the T/C manually disabled via underhood connector disconnected 
. And the GX460 is just a taller 4Runner.
Of course, the fix for all this for Lexus is just put wheels on it with 10mm lower negative offset, then call it "wide trac" and proclaim the so-called "problem" solved....
There is plenty of room on these things to bump the wheels out 10 or 20mm....
on a side note, our 4Runner with the XREAS (Sport Edition) suspension is far and away the best-handling and best-cornering body-on-frame SUV I've ever driven. I actually enjoy twisty roads with it, even when towing my little utility trailer, lol.
Far superior to other SUV's I've owned/driven - to include Jeep Cherokee and Grand Cherokee, Explorer, Trailblazer, XTerra, and Pathfinder.
My 99 Disco II does surprisingly well with 285/45/19 tires on it. I'm going to 275/55/19 soon to get a little more sidewall, curious to see the effects.
I love the part where the guy says "I am not engineer." You don't say you freakin idiot. CR is a bunch of Bob Costass.
Pat wrote: Somehow, Toyota still has this reputation of being the be all and end all of quality. Despite everything that has come out recently, Toyota's E36 M3 still doesn't stink to most of the blind, brainwashed buying public. I don't get it.
Sorry that it sucks that people buy what works. I've bought Ford, GM, and Toyota - Toyota was best. If you want me to buy GM, are you willing to pay for the repairs? I didn't think so. Telling others they're blind and brainwashed and basically stupid is mighty convenient when it's not your money. Are you an investment banker or a GM line-worker?
And about how the SUV "might" roll if it hits a curb, WTF, how can any electronics prevent a vehicle from rolling if it hits a curb. More gas? More brake? Steering? I don't think so. I like(d) CR, but this is a bit over the top.
carzan wrote:MrJoshua wrote: In reply to carzan: I think in the understeering scenario you would be trying for flip the vehicle in a mostly end over end or cartwheeling fashion, during oversteer the vehicle would be more sideways and the force would be pushing it towards a barrel roll. A barrel roll should be waaaay easier to achieve. Whether over or understeer is safer, I am still not convinced that the truck is the tail happy vehicle they proclaim it to be. I am a bit surprised if Toyota's stability control allows the engine to see throttle during a slide on that particular vehicle. It is possible they intentionally entered a corner too quickly, manipulated the vehicle into a slide, and just slid to a stop with no throttle or brakes. I didn't see brake lights so maybe the stability control system doesn't mess with anything unless you are on the gas or brakes?I wasn't thinking end-over-end. When the vehicle starts to oversteer, the radius the vehicle is following is getting larger while the road radius is either staying the same or getting smaller. The vehicle wouldn't be hitting the curb straight on. It would still be somewhat parallel to the curb with the front wheels now turned to near lock trying to compensate for the understeer. The front wheels would impact the curb and possibly even knuckle under upsetting the balance of the vehicle. This would be a barrel-roll scenario, not an end-over-end. Interestingly, when the CR report on the 1995 Isuzu Trooper came out rating it "Not Acceptable", I had recently purchased one. Mine was identical to the one on the cover of the magazine for that issue right down to the color and wheels. Isuzu sent me a video tape shortly after that showed steering wheel angles based on the angle of the wheels in the turns etc. as viewed on videos of the tests by CR. According to them (Isuzu), the steering inputs were vastly different on the other vehicles tested as though they (CR) were purposely and unjustly attempting to single out the Trooper as unsafe. I seem to recall them duplicating the same steering inputs that the Trooper was subjected to on the other vehicles and having them behave similarly in their own tests. I also seem to recall Isuzu suing and winning the case even though there was no monetary compensation.
Yes, they did. It came down to: the jury decided that CR was wrong in their 'unsafe at any speed' findings (it was called false statements) but it was not done maliciously (insert eye roll here). Isuzu's sales had rebounded by the time the trial started so they were awarded a symbolic dollar.
Suzuki had the same thing said of its Samurai and pursued the thing till around 2004. It was finally dismissed.
CU can suck balls. They will never have my trust.
Hey GRM-Tell Toyota if they rent you sport utes from every other manufacturer you will videotape them drifting around corners to see if they roll. I personally think Toyota's next commercial should be the "Bad-Boy" Lexus ute on a drift circuit drifting around other Utes as they roll over.
Whether it be justified or not, it's about time Toyota got its fair share of bad publicity. They aren't getting any worse treatment than any of the other auto-makers have had to deal with.
BTW, for those that are going to jump up and defend their adopted Asian golden child...
Toyota gas pedal related deaths now = 34. Ford Pinto explosion of doom deaths = 27.
Better hunker down Toyota, it took Ford almost a decade to shake that publicity.
Jensenman wrote: ...but it was not done maliciously (insert eye roll here).
LOL I had forgotten about that detail. But wait, I don't want to accuse them of being malicious, when it could be simple incompetence...you know, like when they failed a number of infant car seats and then had to retract:
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which performed its own tests after seeing the report and brought the error to the magazine’s attention, said the crash tests were conducted under conditions that would represent being struck at more than 70 mph — about twice as fast as the magazine contended." 
MrJoshua wrote: I personally think Toyota's next commercial should be the "Bad-Boy" Lexus ute on a drift circuit drifting around other Utes as they roll over.
This is awesome.
93celicaGT2 wrote:MrJoshua wrote: I personally think Toyota's next commercial should be the "Bad-Boy" Lexus ute on a drift circuit drifting around other Utes as they roll over.This is awesome.
It would be even better if they enter one of these in to formula d and name it the "CR Special"
What's ironic is the commercial that Toyota had for the Sienna that showcased the rear end of the vehicle breaking loose in an effort to get more people excited to buy the vehicle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zprbbo5eWCc
Mark
blaze86vic wrote: Toyota gas pedal related deaths now = 34. Ford Pinto explosion of doom deaths = 27.
Toyotas sold: 11ty billion Ford Pintos sold: 27
inconvenient problem-to-unit percentage tells the real story.
irish44j wrote:blaze86vic wrote: Toyota gas pedal related deaths now = 34. Ford Pinto explosion of doom deaths = 27.Toyotas sold: 11ty billion Ford Pintos sold: 27 inconvenient problem-to-unit percentage tells the real story.
Also inconvenient: Has the problem been found yet? Has anyone proven that a problem exists?
irish44j wrote:blaze86vic wrote: Toyota gas pedal related deaths now = 34. Ford Pinto explosion of doom deaths = 27.Toyotas sold: 11ty billion Ford Pintos sold: 27 inconvenient problem-to-unit percentage tells the real story.
So it's ok to label one entire company for one minor product, but it's not ok to label another company for multiple product lines?
Total Ford Sales are WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY more than Toyota. Toyota only has outsold Ford for the past 6 or 7 years. Actually, I would poder a guess that there were more Pintos sold than Toyotas for that calendar year (without even looking).
(remember Ford sold over 100M cars before Toyota was even a company, so take those percentages to the bank)
I'm sorry that Toyota may be getting a little heavy handed treatment, but it's also about time they got fair treatment as Ford and GM have with the US media. They've been getting a free pass based only on preception for about a decade now.
E
another one..... curious to see the outcome of the investigation.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/27/report-nhtsa-investigating-nh-toyota-highlander-crash-that-kill/
I was a CR subscriber for years. I finally got fed up with their crap.
You'll need to log in to post.
