From: C. E. White on 23 Feb 2010 11:17
"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message
> Look up Ford Automatic Transmission Recall. 14M vehicles. Ford
> printed 14M
> stickers for the dash that said "This vehicle may go from Park to
> at any time without warning."
> My roomate stuck his to our refrigerator.
A few facts might be in order here:
You are wrong about what the label said. What was said was:
IMPORTANT SAFETY PRECAUTION
Before leaving the driver's seat, you should always :
1) make sure the gear selector lever is engaged in Park
2) set the parking brake fully
3) shut off the ignition.
Unexpected and possibly sudden vehicle movement may occur if these
precautions are not taken.
Refer to your owners manual. for other important safety information.
You might want to consider what Ford actually claimed and quit
depending on trail lawyers for your misinformation. See:
My parents and I owned Fords of that vintage (1970-1980). I never had
any problem with a Ford automatic jumping out of park. It also seems
unlikely that every Ford, no matter which automatic transmission
installed could have exactly the same problem. Ford sent the stickers
to everyone who owned a Ford with an automatic from that era (more
like 21M than 14M). Ford sold vehicles with at least 5 different types
of Automatics during the period (FMX - supplied by Borg-Warner, C-3
from Ford of Europe, C-4 and C-6 manufacturerd by Ford in the US, and
Jatco - sourced from JATCO in Japan). Some had column shifts, some had
floor shifts. They were installed in multiple models with completely
different shift linkages. The claim that all these automatics, which
were internally quite different, installed in different vehicles, with
multiple different shift linkages, all potentially had the same defect
is beyond ridiculous. Ford was sure there was not a problem. NHTSA was
being run by Claybrook disciples (the Nader shark lawyer team so to
speak) at that time. Back then NHTSA was out for automaker blood. The
1980 NHTSA wasn't the sort of "let it slide" organization that allowed
Toyota get away with blaming the problems on bad drivers and the
internet we have today. The sticker recall was actually a tacit
admission by NHTSA that there wasn't a significant problem. Having
Ford send out stickers allowed the NHTSA exces to claim they had won a
victory, when in fact, they had only managed to waste a lot of the
Government's and Ford's time and money. It was a sham recall for a
sham problem so as to cover the asses of a bunch of NHTSA execs who
tried to trump up a non-problem and justify their existence.
Maybe the Toyota UA problems will turn out to be the same. Maybe not.
I still say, if NHTSA had been vigilent in 2007, there would not be a
fire storm over Toyota UA problems now.
From: C. E. White on 23 Feb 2010 11:19
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:56:00 -0500, Hachiroku ?$B%O%A%m%/
> <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
>>On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:26:54 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>>And if none of the things I've said above happen, I'm going to
>>>>back on them just the same as I have GM.
>>> Latest news is the Toyota Memo where they all pat themselves on
>>> the back
>>> for talking their way out of a recall (which has now backfired)
>>> and saving
>>> $100 million in the process. When Ford allegedly did that with
>>> the Pinto
>>> you Toyota fan boys were all over Ford for it, where's your
>>> for Toyota?
>>Look up Ford Automatic Transmission Recall. 14M vehicles. Ford
>>stickers for the dash that said "This vehicle may go from Park to
>>at any time without warning."
>>My roomate stuck his to our refrigerator.
> Reminds me of the VW solution to cars that burned oil: a "check
> sticker around the fuel filler.
Ford did that too...at least for some 4 cylinder vehicles
We also got a sticker warning us not to use certain types of oil in my
Dad's 1978 Ford Courier (as I recall we weren't supposed to use any
oil that claimed "CC" compliance)..
From: C. E. White on 23 Feb 2010 11:28
"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
> It's an opinion piece without a shred of evidence for it's
> allegations. A typical right wing hit piece aimed at undermining
> Obama Administration. The WSJ has no credibility anymore.
While it is an opinion piece, I think it offers an opinion to
consider. The column never addresses the truth or untruth of the
allegations about Toyota engine speed control problems. It merely
highlights how poorly the whole situation has been handled. I can
agree with that. It has turned into a witch hunt. If NHTSA had
responded properly to the large number of complaints in 2007 and to
the warnings from State Farm, it is likely there would not be the
massive over reaction we are seeing today. Both Toyota and NHTSA are
to blame for the frenzy. Unfortunately for Toyota, they are likely to
suffer more than NHTSA. Congress may chide NHTSA for mishandling the
complaints, but in the end, government bureaucracies rarely suffer for
long. Probably NHTSA will be hyper-sensitive to complaints for a few
years. I'd hate to be the next company that gets a lot of
From: C. E. White on 23 Feb 2010 11:43
"Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message
> As the AP article clearly states--numerous times--these are ALLEGED
> to have
> involved mechanical malfunction.
> Since 2000, not ONE of those 34 deaths has been PROVEN by the NHTSA
> to have
> been the result of ANY kind of mechanical malfunction.
> People die in road accidents in the US approximately 40,000 times
> per year,
> the vast bulk of those being caused by simple human error. Those 34
> are unlikely to be any different from the other 40,000.
The flaw in your argument is obvious. How do we know that any accident
is related to a mechanical failure? We only know because 1) of an
accident investigation that finds a cause, or 2) because someone in
the car survived and told us what happened.
Consider the claims against Toyota - the vehicle speed control
problems are alleged to be related to several different factors -
pedal entrapment (admitted by Toyota), sticky pedals (admitted by
Toyota), and mysterious malfunctions of the electronics (denied by
Toyota). If everyone in an accident dies, how would you be able to
tell if one or more of these alleged problems was involved?
In the now infamous California accident we had both a cell phone call
and a floor mat melted to the pedal that strongly suggested pedal
entrapment as the cause (along with driver panic). But how about for
hundreds of other accidents involving Toyotas? If the people in the
Toyota died, how do you know a problem with vehicle speed control
wasn't the cause?
Saying things like "not ONE of those 34 deaths has been PROVEN by the
NHTSA to have been the result of ANY kind of mechanical malfunction"
is not meaningful (and not true, since I think even you have to agree
that the CA incident involved pedal entrapment). Dead people can't
tell what happened, and none of the alleged vehicle speed control
problem can easily be consistently diagnosed after the crash. The only
thing we can go on is the information provided by people that survived
Toyota crashes. Many of those incidents are alleged to have been
caused by vehicle speed control problems. This clearly implies that
some percentage of the fatal crashes also involved vehicle speed
From: C. E. White on 23 Feb 2010 12:29
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:44:31 -0500, C. E. White
> <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote:
>>You seem to dismiss any and all complaints about Toyota
>>sudden/unintended acceleration as driver error, while at the same
>>you seem to claim that all similar complaints against Fords are
>>completely factual. How do you see that as reasonable?
> There isn't nor has there every been a toyota with an engine
> as strong as the brakes. If you stomp on the correct pedal and the
> brakes have been maintained, the car will stop.
So isn't the same true for Fords?
I don't think the problem is that the brakes can't stop the car. I
think the problem is that a sudden change in engine speed at an
unexpected moment can lead to an accident. Sort of like a barking dog
who startles someone who then slips and falls off a roof. The dog bark
didn't push the guy off the roof, but it did set off a chain of events
that led to an accident.