Jump to content

I really don't get this Toyota problem Update - HE FAKED IT


Recommended Posts

His scanner/data logger is plugged into the computer, his probes are probing the wires to read the circuitry. How would one go about doing it more properly?

Problem is he shorts it outside the normal circuitry. He was not simply probing the wires. It is simple to reproduce on almost any production car out there. You can fool the computer to not read codes very easily if you know what you are doing. This is how he did it improperly, he very specifically went outside of the actual car's system. The right way would have been to use the actual system and not bypass anything, he should have faulted the accelerator and not anything else. I could do the same to your Mustang or tell you how, and you would see that it wont shoot a code, but if you do it right, it will. Im not saying that the toyota will send a code, as for this I still havent seen it done properly to know. But I really would like to know if it will, however a joke of a test doesnt prove a thing in my book.

The problem with his test is simply that you have to physically alter the circuits to do recreate it, and this is no longer a toyota off the line, but a modified toyota that is not found anywhere on the planet. Someone would physically have to cut and splice wires. If you are testing something, test that something the way it is, dont change it.

And one of the other videos I posted shows an ABC news producer duplicating the fact that his brake override does not work when both the throttle and brake pedals are pushed at the same time on his post-recall Toyota, even though Toyota says they specifically modified his car so that they would.

I didnt manage to see the video because the link is broken, but the reporter from ABC is the biggest fraud of them all. He is always up to some stupid stunt and not long after people pick his story apart. Just look him up on the net, everytime people question him he just digs a bigger hole. He's one of those ratings junkies who will stage a horse giving birth to a parrot if he thinks just one person out there will believe it.

Agreed. 100%.

I'll buy the first round. Cheers. :cheers:

Cool, I'll bring the rounds after that. Hope your ready for some real beer from up north, none of that bud or coors stuff. I like my beer with alcohol. lol. Wayne, your invited too if ya wants. You can bring the chips and a lighter to start up a nice camp fire. Now we just need someone to bring a guitar, girls, etc..... No wives, they will just tell us we are not "safe" and ruin the whole event.

85.gif101.gif89.gif

Edited by pbishop
Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt manage to see the video because the link is broken, but the reporter from ABC is the biggest fraud of them all. He is always up to some stupid stunt and not long after people pick his story apart. Just look him up on the net, everytime people question him he just digs a bigger hole. He's one of those ratings junkies who will stage a horse giving birth to a parrot if he thinks just one person out there will believe it.

Here's the video of that one.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/toyota-fixed-10014229

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not on those trucks.

On those model years, the saddle tanks were in the body of the truck bed outside of the frame rails. Basically mounted inside the fender of the bed between the wheel and the cab. When you got T-boned or sideswiped, they'd rupture and spill gas all over everywhere.

One of the news organizations did an expose on it after a lot of people burned, but they blew it because their testers couldn't get the gas to burn without using a model rocket motor mounted on the frame rail and set to ignite right before impact. HUGE scandal that one was. I think there was even a lawsuit over it.

But that didn't change the fact that mounting the fuel tanks in the fenders of the bed was monumentally stupid and burned a lot of people.

After thinking about it, your right the tanks are outside the frame rails. Partially under the cab and bed. Lets make it clear here tho, The tanks are not in the side of the bed. They are tucked under it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem is he shorts it outside the normal circuitry. He was not simply probing the wires.
The throttle has, two sensors, now if these two sensors are in the same box in the pedal I do not know. What he said/showed is that Toyota's two sensors are Linear, "If" I am correct; You can connect those two wires together, the reading will stay the same, there will be no code. His probes should be reading to see if the signal is the same signal the computer wants to see.

--------------------------

I do not exactly know if I would call that a short, unless using it in layman terms so people can understand it.

This would be another Layman terms example for the Scientific thought in your other post. If I was to test a circuit breaker in a house by using a wire to connect the power and negative poles together on your wall outlet and the circuit breaker failed. Would you say it was a scientific test of said circuit breaker, testing if one put a nail or screw in the wall piercing those same wires?

It is simple to reproduce on almost any production car out there. You can fool the computer to not read codes very easily if you know what you are doing. This is how he did it improperly, he very specifically went outside of the actual car's system. The right way would have been to use the actual system and not bypass anything, he should have faulted the accelerator and not anything else. I could do the same to your Mustang or tell you how, and you would see that it wont shoot a code, but if you do it right, it will. Im not saying that the toyota will send a code, as for this I still havent seen it done properly to know. But I really would like to know if it will, however a joke of a test doesnt prove a thing in my book.

The problem with his test is simply that you have to physically alter the circuits to do recreate it, and this is no longer a toyota off the line, but a modified toyota that is not found anywhere on the planet. Someone would physically have to cut and splice wires. If you are testing something, test that something the way it is, dont change it.

You are correct you can do the same to allot of systems. I have not checked; some cars one can possibly reroute wires around their smog sensors by tying them together which will not throw a code.

Saying that, I believe that in a fail-safe system. The way Toyota has their fail-safe, Is not safe at all. Those two sensors should be sending back readings that cannot be matched by one or the other or for that matter anything along the way to the computer.

Edited by Wayne S
Link to post
Share on other sites
If I was to test a circuit breaker in a house by using a wire to connect the power and negative poles together on your wall outlet and the circuit breaker failed. Would you say it was a scientific test of said circuit breaker, testing if one put a nail or screw in the wall piercing those same wires?

That is a perfectly conducted test. But what he did is like driving a nail through a wire in the telephone pole to see if that circuit breaker will pop. You see what I am trying to say is that if you go outside of the system you are testing, you are not conducting a real test. That guy did not simply do what you think he did. But if he did setup like you think he did, then we would have a valid test and I would be happy with it.

I know Toyota is in the wrong here, and that the results are probably right, however we know this from other tests done at MIT and places that actually care if their name will be tainted or not. They are looking to prove or disprove using all the right methods and tests to confirm this. Not going outside of the car and doing something completely illogical to try and fool everyone. You cant prove why a lawnmower doesnt start by cutting the pull cord.

There is a problem when the university says that it did not prove anything. The University that pays him.

I found a link, not the best source but they were the only one that has the best pictures. The explination coresponds to what everyone else is saying except the last two paragraphs which are the editors comments.

Test Link

Google the review of that clip. You will find that the video has been edited and reposted more times than it has been viewed. There were some very questionable parts that they edited out.

Edited by pbishop
Link to post
Share on other sites
After thinking about it, your right the tanks are outside the frame rails. Partially under the cab and bed. Lets make it clear here tho, The tanks are not in the side of the bed. They are tucked under it.

The ones I remember removing for a guy were in the bed fender between the wheels and cab, though thinking back on it, I'm not sure that was GM or some other make, if another make had those tanks...

Anyway, the results were the same.

GM apparently knew for 15 years that they were a hazard, but management didn't care because they could use the extra range as a selling point.

At the heart of GM's resistance to improving the safety of its fuel systems

was a cost benefit analysis done by Edward Ivey which concluded that it

was not cost effective for GM to spend more than $2.20 per vehicle to

prevent a fire death. (Attachment N.) When deposed

about his cost benefit analysis, Mr. Ivey was asked whether he could identify

a more hazardous location for the fuel tank on a GM pickup than outside

the frame. Mr. Ivey responded, "Well yes...You could put in on the front

bumper." (Video: "Ed Ivey Deposition," Attachment O

is a copy of this portion of the deposition.) GM was able to hide all

this evidence and much more from the public until the early 1990's when

leaks in GM's secrecy dam started and the Center for Auto Safety began

to focus in on the defect.

http://www.autosafety.org/history-gm-side-...gas-tank-defect

Which is the same thing Ford did with the Pinto.

Read more at:

http://wadsworth.com/philosophy_d/template...ases/case49.htm

And:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/18/us/g-m-t...ml?pagewanted=1

And:

http://www.peteroneil.net/536.html

So whoever said that the US auto manufacturers deal with recalls and safety issues quickly is dead wrong.

Unfortunately, redesigning a computer system is far more expensive than uninstalling bad gas tanks, and with the way they're acting, I'm starting to wonder if Toyota has done the same financial analysis that GM & Ford did showing that killing people was cheaper than fixing defects.

I hope not.

Being "Americanized" isn't a good thing. The main sales point for Toyota was that people thought they weren't, and that's why they need to handle this differently than they have been.

Give us an option to the garbage we've had to deal with and we'll flock to it.

Toyota Passes General Motors As World's Largest Carmaker - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9012101216.html

They handle this like the American auto industry, and they're going to get treated like the American auto industry by the American consumer.

Humbled GM files for bankruptcy protection - U.S.-led restructuring largest industrial bankruptcy in U.S. history - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31030038/

Link to post
Share on other sites

For you two, here is a scan (sorry for the bad image - really hard to scan the book) of a service manual for K series trucks 67-79 2wd, 4wd. You can see the tank placement in the frame and in the bed.

Image5.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished watching A thing Toyota and Exponent put together.

So people can take from the video what they will, "Make their own judgment".

-------------------------------------

Ok my time to ramble here :crying2:

These are my own words here/ thoughts on the video.

They are more or less going over the part about him creating sudden unintended acceleration. More or less not questioning the sensors ability to still send the same signal if crossed. The cars they used are showing one could manipulate anything, to accomplish what they set out to do. "Not to prove that the other cars work the same as Toyota's method." For instance I believe the Ford needed a board (car the lady tested). So technically you cannot just cross wires on that car. I am guessing since the signals would change between the two sensors. Cannot tell what was used on one of the others, seems like some kind of small box, so no clue if there is a chip in there.

Also one guy talks about water/moister. One of the Toyota guys a few weeks ago talked about moister being a problem for sticky throttle. I can see that being a moister problem low in the car; Wet rugs, feet and heat etc.

He also talks about the wires being encapsulated. To my knowledge thinking about it; The contacts inside the pedal can only be encapsulated in dielectric grease.

If the resistor is the same used, then that resistor has a value of 210-190 Ohms.

Again tho, I do not think his test was to find or create sudden unintended acceleration. It was to see if the Signal being sent would change between the two sensors to find if the fail-safe system could be compromised. The fact that the power wire, sends power through the system is somewhat silly anyway. That is just powering the system, like hitting a light switch.

Now what I would of liked to see for craps and giggles is, if the others cars would throw a code without instantaneous power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For you two, here is a scan (sorry for the bad image - really hard to scan the book) of a service manual for K series trucks 67-79 2wd, 4wd. You can see the tank placement in the frame and in the bed.

Do not think that picture is the bed, I believe that is the older cab tank, behind the seat?

The Saddle tank replaced that tank I believe Fig 3.12, to get it out of the occupants compartment.

Edited by Wayne S
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, the results were the same.

GM apparently knew for 15 years that they were a hazard, but management didn't care because they could use the extra range as a selling point.

At the heart of GM's resistance to improving the safety of its fuel systems

was a cost benefit analysis done by Edward Ivey which concluded that it

was not cost effective for GM to spend more than $2.20 per vehicle to

prevent a fire death. (Attachment N.) When deposed

about his cost benefit analysis, Mr. Ivey was asked whether he could identify

a more hazardous location for the fuel tank on a GM pickup than outside

the frame. Mr. Ivey responded, "Well yes...You could put in on the front

bumper." (Video: "Ed Ivey Deposition," Attachment O

is a copy of this portion of the deposition.) GM was able to hide all

this evidence and much more from the public until the early 1990's when

leaks in GM's secrecy dam started and the Center for Auto Safety began

to focus in on the defect.

To a degree I do not believe the trucks were any unsafer where the tank was. If it was, instead of showing statistics in the ways shown. Show proof that the vehicles cost a ton more to insure and why they cost more to insure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Google the review of that clip. You will find that the video has been edited and reposted more times than it has been viewed. There were some very questionable parts that they edited out.

I don't find anything about that clip whatsoever.

The other clip, about the sudden acceleration tests by that professor however, has been edited to reinsert the actual video of the tach racing while in motion, where the original version showed it racing while standing still.

ABC News Acknowledges Mistake In Toyota Report - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/a...n_n_494831.html

Which still doesn't change the fact that it is possible to have a WOT, where the brake override doesn't work, and still not get a computer fault code in a Toyota, in spite of everything Toyota has been saying.

Questioning the video editing doesn't change that basic fact and Toyota has not addressed it with anything more than trivial attacks. They're attacking the presentation of the information, not the information itself.

You see that?

They don't like camera angles and video shots, but they're not disputing the fact that you can have a WOT (wide open throttle - aka: stuck throttle), have the brakes pressed to the floor without the brake override working, and STILL not get an error code in the computer.

Their best argument so far is "Well, these other cars fail the same way!", which STILL isn't a denial that a problem exists with their system.

The fact that other women might stay with an abusive husband that's also beating their children doesn't change the fact of the problem one woman has with staying with an abusive husband that's also beating her children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do not think that picture is the bed, I believe that is the older cab tank, behind the seat?

The Saddle tank replaced that tank I believe Fig 3.12, to get it out of the occupants compartment.

It is behind the seat, meant to write cab but wrote bed, lol. Guess thats what happens when you just get out of bed.

PS.

Was never questioning the editing, was questioning the source. The news is the worst place in the world to get any type of unbiased information. Testing is done by professionals and not by some reporter who thinks he is proving something. Anyways, if I want my toaster to light up a code in my truck everytime I slap some bread in there, I will go to ABC and our great professor for advice. There or wikipedia another one that makes it to the top of the list for unreliable information.

I am not defending toyota or their arguments. Just saying that those you are using here dont prove a thing. And this is why the real problems arent being adressed because the media is causing a frenzy with rediculous tests and idiotic claims. Someone has to find the problem, just dont think ABC is the place to start looking. Someone has to do the work on the actual car to find and fix the problem. Not prove the light doesnt come on by modifying the car or the car wont brake, this in no way shows what the problem is or why it occurs or even establishes an unbiased and realistic understanding as why the light doesnt come on or the computer has no readings. Let the real specialists do the leg work and publish their findings. Then lets watch toyota try and get out of it. Right now the real issues are not being addressed because of the media causing panic once again because of a rediculous reporter who doesnt have the best track record as telling the truth. And, as long as people support the media in all their statements, they may never find the real root of the problem because they are too busy dealing with their garbage and proving their tests are rediculous and irrelevant.

Edited by pbishop
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is behind the seat, meant to write cab but wrote bed, lol. Guess thats what happens when you just get out of bed.

Want to have some enjoyment? Everyone is a pro these days.

Check this guy out LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Was never questioning the editing, was questioning the source.

Toyota was attacking the editing only, not the substance.

The news is the worst place in the world to get any type of unbiased information.

I'd be careful about dismissing things out of hand. Blanket statements like that are extremely dangerous because they basically put blinders on you that could keep you from seeing information you need to know.

The nightly news is not the gospel, and most of it is biased, but in spite of that, it is still a good source of information if you do your research and practice critical thinking.

Testing is done by professionals and not by some reporter who thinks he is proving something.

The professionals hired by Toyota to do the testing they needed for their press events...

Was that unbiased? Or was it designed to get the results the client (Toyota) was paying for?

Anyways, if I want my toaster to light up a code in my truck everytime I slap some bread in there, I will go to ABC and our great professor for advice. There or wikipedia another one that makes it to the top of the list for unreliable information.

The beautiful thing about wikipedia is that they have to source their information or remove it. And they list those sources at the bottom of the page so you can read it for yourself.

Being on Wikipedia does not automatically make all information untrue or unreliable and anybody saying otherwise is dead wrong.

For example: If you're a Christian, and someone posts "Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins" on Wikipedia, does that automatically prove that he's not?

I am not defending toyota or their arguments. Just saying that those you are using here dont prove a thing.

It shows that the problem can exist as the people who drive Toyota say it does.

The drivers say that they've had a a WOT (stuck throttle), to have the brake override fail to kill the throttle, AND no error code in the computer.

Toyota's whole argument was that it is physically impossible for there to be all three of those things at the same time because their system is totally infallible. Well, those tests ABC news did show that Toyota is dead wrong.

You can't diagnose a problem if you deny it's possible for it to exist (like Toyota has been) because as long as you believe it can't exist, you won't ever allow yourself to see anything that might question that belief.

That's why Toyota has been on an on about the floor mats. They believe their computers are infallible and they keep telling everybody they believe that.

Well first off, no computer is ever infallible, and second, we know their computer isn't because the ABC video shows that it can fail when it doesn't get the sensor readings is expects to get.

Bad data in, bad data out. Everyone that's ever worked with computers knows that's a fact.

And this is why the real problems arent being adressed because the media is causing a frenzy with rediculous tests and idiotic claims. Someone has to find the problem, just dont think ABC is the place to start looking. Someone has to do the work on the actual car to find and fix the problem. Not prove the light doesnt come on by modifying the car or the car wont brake, this in no way shows what the problem is or why it occurs

Now that we know it is possible for the problem to exist, I agree with you, it's time to find out why it exists and how it's most likely occur in the real world.

Unfortunately, that's a lot of variables, most of which you're never going to know anything about from inspecting a vehicle that's sitting still in a Toyota dealership, and the people that should be testing this aren't (Toyota and NHTSA).

Someone needs to wire several of these runaway cars up the kazoo with sensors and cameras, and drive the living snot out of it. They need to measure every parameter of every switch, every circuit, every input and output of everything in that entire car while it is operating in real world conditions.

I don't give a rip who it is, whether Toyota, NHTSA, or ABC news. Doesn't matter who does the testing, as long as the testing gets done.

If no Toyota ever runs away again, fine. But 56 deaths, hundreds of accidents, and several thousand incidences are too freaking many.

  1. Toyota needs to stop denying the problem can exist.
  2. NHTSA needs to stop believing Toyota's denials, remembering that they work for the taxpayer, not Toyota.
  3. Someone needs to start doing some thorough testing these cars en masse.
  4. And someone needs to force Toyota to start handing over all the results of their internal tests and studies. Most of these car companies know about these faults before we do, and I want to know what Toyota knows.

We've pretty much beaten this to death and I'm here to build airplanes anyway, so I'm dropping out of this topic.

You all take it easy. Have fun. Glue/paint something plastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...