The woes of unintended acceleration: Can Toyota stop it in time?

I had mixed feelings as I followed the international coverage of Toyota’s massive recall of several of its models, mostly those sold in the North American market.

Watching the dramatic and oftentimes tearful testimonies of the Toyota owners, I couldn’t help recalling (pardon the pun) the sorry and sordid spectacle that befell Audi in its own unintended acceleration problems for which its models were blamed back in the mid-80s.

For those who are unaware of or have forgotten what finally transpired with that pathetic episode in motoring history, it turned out that 60 Minutes, the consumer-oriented CBS show that first broke the story, deliberately tampered with an Audi they took a video of, rigging the car so that it will continue to run even if the driver took his foot off the accelerator.

After intensive investigation, the US’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ruled that it was driver error that caused the cars to seem to hurtle forward on their own. Simply put, the drivers stepped on the gas when they intended to step on the brake. All cases filed against Audi were subsequently dropped. (A rival to 60 Minutes, Dateline NBC, would be found guilty of similar tactics years later regarding fuel tank integrity on General Motors pickup trucks.)

So much for media objectivity. In fact that’s news sensationalism at its sickening worst. It took Audi 15 years to recover from plummeted sales. And now it’s Toyota’s turn. Of course I’m not saying that Toyota’s recall problem is a result of driver error. The company, in fact, has admitted to it and is neck deep in recalling 8.5 million of its models.

And America being the land of liability laws, legions of lawyers are pouncing on one of the world’s most admired and respected companies faster than you can say “class action suit”.

Of course, Toyota is not alone in the history of massive recalls as quality becomes increasingly beyond the control of any industry that is outsourcing more and more parts to third-party suppliers. The irony here is that the part in question is not even made by Toyota, but by a third-party supplier.

The world’s leading automaker has issued the recall due to sticking accelerator pedals and poorly fitting floor mats that cause the accelerator pedal to stick open. The recall involves eight models, including the Prius, Camry and Corolla.

The auto giant has been expanding sales of new cars rapidly since 2003, mainly by slashing costs through the use of common parts in its line-up of models – a now-common industry practice. In 2008, it over took General Motors to become the world’s leading car company after the American car industry was hit by the global financial crisis.

In fact, despite the much publicized recall, the Toyota Prius still topped Japan’s domestic best-seller list in February, with 27,000 of the compact hybrid cars rolling off showroom floors – making it the best-selling car in Japan for the tenth month in a row.

That Toyota, Japan’s leading company and the pride of the Japanese, should end up being the whipping boy for US economic ills and grilled by US lawmakers over the recalls has shocked business leaders in Japan. This is because Toyota not only is Japan’s top company in terms of sales, but it is also regarded as a leader in product quality.

It is all too easy to join in the hype and hysteria over Toyota’s safety recalls. But hype and hysteria tend to blur the line separating fact from fiction.

Until the recent recall, Toyota had been a pretty solid brand as far as quality was concerned. The brand name has been virtually synonymous with quality and reliability.

In annual surveys conducted by JD Power, a leading industry quality research company, Toyota and sister brand Lexus have been ranked first more times than any other brand.

“Toyota is a brand built on quality,” said JD Power’s Singapore managing director Gerrit Kuyntjes, adding that it is this trait that has given Toyota “global dominance”.

“Growth comes with challenges,” Kuyntjes noted, admitting that Toyota’s phenomenal growth could have made quality control harder. But he is confident Toyota will rise and shine again.

“We believe Toyota has the strength and resources to overcome this,” he said, referring to the company’s recent recalls. “In the long term, we don’t believe it is something it can’t get out of.”

Long-time automotive analyst Graeme Maxton concurred, “I don’t think this will be a major issue. It is big and it is a surprise and it will be costly. But it won’t damage Toyota too much. They have such a lot of goodwill. But they better not let it happen again. That would be much more serious.”

Indeed, other big manufacturers have rebounded from product defects – even some very embarrassing ones.

Soon after it launched its TT sports car in 1999, Audi initiated a recall to improve its high-speed stability. That followed a couple of fatal crashes in Germany.

And at the debut of its A-Class in 1997, Mercedes-Benz lost face when the “baby Benz” flipped over in one car magazine’s handling test. The German luxury car company finally fixed the flaw by fitting the car with an electronic stability device.

Commenting on the scale of the bad publicity then, a senior Daimler executive said, “I think it’s precisely because we’re Mercedes-Benz that the news is so big.”

Would the accelerator-related recalls be as sensational if they were initiated by a firm less successful than Toyota?

It turns out that complaints related to “sudden unintended acceleration” – a possible outcome of the accelerator faults – are not new.

The NHTSA has recorded about 24,000 such complaints involving almost every major manufacturer in the past 10 years. In that period, the agency has ordered more than 30 recalls for defects ranging from faulty throttle cables to cruise controls.

On this count, Toyota is certainly not alone in the history of massive recalls. According to the NHTSA and Reuters, the other Big Three players have had some nasty recalls as well, including:

• 2009: Ford sent a series of recalls going back 10 years and affecting 14 million vehicles to fix a faulty cruise control deactivation switch;

• 2004: GM recalled nearly four million pick-up trucks because of corroding tailgate cables;

• 2001: Bridgestone Firestone recalled 6.5 million tyres as part of an investigation into rollovers of Ford Explorer sports-utility vehicles; and

• 1996: Ford recalled more than eight million vehicles to replace defective ignition switches that could lead to short circuits and fires.

Despite these problems, the two American firms have survived – and are now very much in growth and recovery mode.

Recalls can weaken a car company considerably. In Toyota’s case, the two recalls are expected to cost $2 billion. Its share price is also taking a beating. Which is why manufacturers sometimes resist them.

In 2000, Mitsubishi Motors admitted it had been concealing a long list of complaints since 1977.

In 1993, GM successfully resisted a recall of nine million pick-up trucks to fix fuel tanks that could explode in crashes. Instead, it chose to settle suits arising from deaths and injuries caused by tank fires. By 2000, it had settled close to $500 million worth of such suits.

This is not an attempt to trivialize Toyota’s safety slip-up. Any defect that can cause injury and death – no matter how unlikely – must be viewed with utmost seriousness. It is simply a reminder that defects do happen. The two recalls were not Toyota’s first, and they are unlikely to be the last.

Clearly, Toyota must find a way to re-embrace kaizen (continuous improvement) if it is to establish itself once again as a bastion of quality. Needless to say, the company – as well as every other carmaker – will find it an uphill drive to ensure high standards in today’s cutthroat environment.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. He have some of the most insightful readers out there. One thing, though… Don’t lose hope, guys. We lose our optimism and our idealism, we lose everything, Keep the faith, no matter how rough and tough it is. That being said, here are some of your Backseat Driver comments from last week’s “Once again, once more” by yours truly…

Ang problema ay ang volume ng sasakyan, kahit ano pa ang gawing eksperemento ie. color coding, u-turn slots, yellow lane, etc ay makakatulong pero hindi pa din sapat. My suggestions…

1 Alisin ang mga provincial bus terminals sa loob ng Maynila. Kung papuntang Norte, ang mga terminal ay gawin sa Monumento, para konting biyahe ay nasa NLEX na. Gayundin sa South, gawin sa Alabang. Nang sa gayun ay di na sila ookupa ng malaking espasyo sa loob ng Kamaynilaan lalo na sa EDSA.

2. May programa ba ang Gobyerno sa phase out? Wala yata? Kung ang mga pampublikong sasakyan ay 20-years-old above, dapat lang na wag ng bigyan ng prangkisa at wag nang ibyahe sa Kamaynilaan. Taon taon ay may naglalabasang mga bagong modelo, pero ang mga luma ay di pinapahinga. Lalo na ang mga jeepney. Basta umaandar ay sige lang. Hay nakupo Pilipinas!!! – foxxy1

There is no hope on the traffic problems of the city unless they add more roads and minimize vehicles. It’s time to minimize (buses and taxis) and eliminate (jeepneys, tricycles, sidecars and those damn horsedrawn carriages) public transport and let the people walk. It’s so disheartening how lazy the Filipinos are, taking public transport even if their destination is just a few miles away. Everything is such a problem in this country and these so called leaders always resort to temporary solutions, having no balls for drastic changes being afraid of what the repercussion is to their political careers. There is no hope for this country unless a non-Filipino will take the lead. – Pipit

All previous comments here make sense and I agree with them. Pipit says add more roads and minimize vehicles. I hope when they add more roads it would be a better design unlike what we mostly have now which looks like a catsup bottle shape when viewed from the top. But discipline among motorists should be the key, more roads does not mean any improvement in traffic flow if most of our drivers drive like hell, just like mainland China drivers. Minimizing the volume of vehicles will also help improve traffic flow after adding more roads, otherwise we would be ending up like the roads in Beijing and Shanghai that looks like a giant parking lot specially during the rush hours.

Foxxy 1 cites a good suggestion but can’t we do it like having a better mass transport system like the MRT’s? It’s faster and more efficient. Eradication of 20-year-old vehicles will raise a howl from the poor owners of these vehicles (as well as the human rights group kuno) but with an efficient mass transport system, soon these owners will realize that it’s better to get rid of those karag-karags. – TomGuNa