Home » Toyota Ordered To Make ‘Drastic Reforms’ After Getting Busted Yet Again

Toyota Ordered To Make ‘Drastic Reforms’ After Getting Busted Yet Again

Tmd Daihatsu Ts2
ADVERTISEMENT

Toyota is experiencing a ‘Groundhog Day’-type year, but instead of getting to learn French and make out with Andie MacDowell they’re constantly getting in trouble for certification and testing “irregularities” the company keeps insisting were already fixed. It’s bad and it’s only getting worse.

While Toyota struggles with regulatory issues, Chinese automaker BYD seems like it’s in increasingly strong shape. The company announced that it’s going to make a deal with Uber to get a bunch of affordable BYDs in the hands of drivers. That’s mostly for Latin America and Europe, but BYD is also exploring whether or not it can find a more welcoming market in Canada than it expects to find in the United States.

Vidframe Min Top
Vidframe Min Bottom

And speaking of faltering companies, Stellantis is offering buyouts to a bunch of white-collar workers while also suing one of its dealers. What a way to run a business!

WTF Toyota?

Akio Toyoda Honored 600x391
Photo: Toyota

It’s a global car market and what’s a big deal in Asia isn’t always a big deal here in the United States. I mention this because back in December I wrote a piece about how Toyota subsidiary Daihatsu got busted for faking a bunch of tests.

There was a lot of internal debate over whether or not it was actually a big deal or if anyone would ever care. I argued that the faking of tests is always a big deal and that it seemed like a symptom of a greater issue, with likely more issues to come.

ADVERTISEMENT

As I wrote at the time:

This story is a Taco Bell Crunchwrap Supreme of Ignominy, where the flour tortilla is negligence, the seasoned beef is corporate pressure, the ripe tomatoes are faked safety test results, the crunchy outer shell is the shaken trust of consumers, and the warm nacho cheese sauce is the creeping understanding that this has likely been going on for more than a decade.

At first, it was just the “Daihatsu Charade” as this was limited mostly to the wholly Toyota-owned brand. Then it quickly came out that Toyota had been trying to fast-track certification, safety testing, and emissions testing through various means and had to stop selling a bunch of vehicles. Most of this didn’t impact North America, though some vehicles were sold in Europe.

It seems like every few weeks more comes out and Toyota has said it’s essentially going to slow itself down to correct these measures. In spite of the company’s huge profitability and otherwise successful run, activist investors tried to remove former CEO Akio Toyoda from the company’s board of directors. That didn’t work, but Toyota recently had to admit that if the momentum keeps up he won’t be able to keep his board seat next year.

Toyota, for its part, recently said it thoroughly investigated all the vehicles it certified over the last decade or so and all outstanding issues were addressed.

Except… they weren’t! Oh no. The Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), which oversees these things, said it found seven more cases of vehicles that had either flawed or purposefully manipulated data.

ADVERTISEMENT

From Nikkei:

The transport ministry said six of the seven additional Toyota models with irregularities were also certified in other countries, and it has alerted overseas authorities about the issues.

Four of the additional models – the Noah, Voxy, Harrier, and Lexus LM – are still in production by Toyota while three are no longer manufactured.

Not great, Bob!

Toyota isn’t the only Japanese company to get busted doing this, and car companies around the world have been in trouble for testing manipulation before (Dieselgate, Kia/Hyundai emissions, et cetera). Consumers only have time to remember one company scandal at a time so Volkswagen will forever be the Dieselgate-associated company, just as it seems Toyota is going to be the Daihatsu Charade company.

How bad is it? I’m going to quote from Toyota’s own press release where it again has to fess up to more screwups. The MLIT has been on-site at various Toyota factories, and those investigations have led regulators to urge Toyota to “make drastic reforms to ensure appropriate certification operations.”

Toyota goes on:

ADVERTISEMENT

Through a series of suggestions and internal investigations, we believe that these incidents were caused by both on-site and management factors.

  1. On-site factors
    – Unclear internal operational rules for preparing documents required – for certification application
    – Insufficient clarification and management of resources required for the certification process
    – Insufficient awareness of the importance of certification work
  2. Managerial factors-Lack of understanding and involvement of management/executives in the overall certification process

This feels a little like a dodge. Toyota has intimated in the past that pressure from the top to produce more vehicles encouraged employees to, for instance, only test doors on one side of a car and copy the results to the other doors.

Is that, too, not a managerial factor? The tests that were faked include a load-shifting prevention test in the 2017 RAV4 that involved “using loading blocks that differ from the regulations, and seat locking mechanism parts that differ from those used in mass production.” Does that include the U.S. spec RAV4? It’s not clear, though given vehicle testing differences and dissimilar testing regimes I’m guessing probably not.

I’ve reached out to Toyota to find out for sure.

BYD + Uber Makes A Lot Of Sense

Byd Uber 1

Do you hear that? Is that… the changing of the guard?

ADVERTISEMENT

I visited a BYD stand at the Goodwood Festival last month and I was floored by the number of people who were interested in the Chinese automaker. While BYD might be locked out of the United States for a while, the same isn’t true in England and, even with tariffs, Europe is also a potentially ripe market for the company. And Latin America? The transition to Chinese cars has already begun in earnest.

To that end, BYD has made a deal with Uber to provide cheap ride-share vehicles to drivers.

From the press release:

BYD, the world’s leading manufacturer of new energy vehicles and power batteries, today announced a multi-year strategic partnership with Uber, designed to bring 100,000 new BYD electric vehicles onto the Uber platform across key global markets. Beginning first in Europe and Latin America, the partnership is expected to offer drivers access to best-in-class pricing and financing for BYD vehicles on the Uber platform and will expand to include markets across the Middle East, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Both companies are EV leaders in their respective categories: Uber has the most widely available on-demand EV network in the world, and BYD is a global leader in EV production. By working together, the companies aim to bring down the total cost of EV ownership for Uber drivers, accelerating the uptake of EVs on the Uber platform globally, and introducing millions of riders to greener rides.

Ubers are a great way to start for BYD to get people used to being in its vehicles. Hell, when I was in London earlier this year I saw a BYD parked on the street and went to get photos before my daughter pointed out to me that there was an Uber driving sleeping in the front seat.

The company is also building a plant in Hungary, which would help it avoid tariffs outright once it’s up and running.

ADVERTISEMENT

How About, BYD + Canada?

Byd Seal Goodwood 1

BYD isn’t targeting the United States market, it says, which makes sense given President Biden’s 100% tariff on Chinese EVs. Canada might add some tariffs, though it’s unclear if it’ll be something more in line with the U.S. or the lighter EU tariffs.

Still, that hasn’t stopped BYD from at least exploring the idea of going to Canada, according to documents found by Reuters:

While the document did not specify a timeline of BYD’s plans, it did discuss the potential application of tariffs on EVs, along with the Shenzhen-based company’s plans to begin selling passenger EVs in Canada.

That’s about all we know right now.

Stellantis Is Offering Buyouts To White-Collar Workers, But I’m Guessing Not Lawyers

Carlos Tavares Snl
Screencap: SNL

Gonna be a one-two punch of a story on Stellantis this morning as there’s a lot of news. Right off the bat, the Detroit Free Press has the news that a meh earnings report is resulting in the company trying to cut more costs via voluntary buyouts:

ADVERTISEMENT

The automaker, which owns the Jeep, Ram, Chrysler, Dodge and Fiat brands, told workers in an email Tuesday about its plans, suggesting the possibility of cuts if it doesn’t get sufficient takers but without specifying its headcount reduction goal. The company has previously announced that it has more than 11,000 U.S. non-bargaining unit employees.

“We wanted to give you some advance notice so you can thoughtfully consider whether this opportunity might be of interest to you. As always, we would prefer to meet our strategic headcount objectives through natural attrition and voluntary programs. Transparently, it is important to note that subsequent involuntary actions may be necessary if we do not meet our objectives through voluntary means,” according to the email, obtained by the Free Press and attributed to Tobin Williams, senior vice president of human resources and transformation for Stellantis North America.

It’s not clear at this time who was included, but let’s assume it’s not anyone in legal as the legal team as CEO Carlos Tavares, pictured above, needs all the lawyers he can get. In addition to suing a bunch of its suppliers, Stellantis is now suing one of its dealers.

This report comes from Automotive News, and it’s super weird. Randy Marion Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep-Ram in Wilkesboro, North Carolina is terminating its sales and service agreement with Stellantis and is therefore asking that Stellantis buy back $180 million worth of unsold vehicles.

Buying vehicles back from terminated dealers is fairly normal practice, though this usually doesn’t involve this many fleet vehicles. Specifically, Marion reportedly has 3,841 fleet units. That’s a lot.

What’s going on here? Stellantis is alleging that there were shenanigans involved with the ordering of the vehicles:

It said the store’s inventory list includes 1,508 fleet vehicles purchased using the dealership’s own fleet account number to keep them in stock “for resale to a customer. This violated Stellantis’s fleet rules that clearly state an entity ordering fleet units pursuant to a [fleet account number] are agreeing not to purchase the unit primarily for purposes of resale.”

It said another 2,273 vehicles were ordered using customer-specific fleet account numbers, and it identified two large corporate customers that had been “unaware that Marion used their [fleet account number] to order fleet vehicles, and retained them rather than delivering them to the customers.”

In addition, the suit alleges Marion is wrongfully demanding Stellantis repurchase hundreds of vehicles it bought from other dealerships rather than directly from the automaker.

Stellantis may be in the right here and, if what the company alleges is true, it might be able to get a North Carolina judge to let the company skate on repurchasing these vehicles.

ADVERTISEMENT

What I’m Listening To This Morning

In honor of the Olympics, let’s throwback to Belle & Sebastian’s “Stars of Track and Field.” You are all beautiful people! I’m not sure about the terry underwear part, though, as I think most athletes have switched to something that wicks sweat a bit better.

The Big Question

A scale of 1-10 how much do you care about this Toyota scandal?

Top photo: Toyota, Rocky III

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Subscribe
Notify of
69 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron888
Ron888
4 months ago

Toyota scandal? Not a huge deal TBH,though i do think it interesting from a sociological(correct word?) angle.
After three decades of a deflating economy i’m surprised things arent much worse.

Freelivin2713
Freelivin2713
4 months ago

What a Charade…ha ha
1- I hardly care about it since they should fix it just like they are replacing all those engines on recall. I don’t buy Toyotas but like a few of the classic ones

OttosPhotos
OttosPhotos
4 months ago

Toyota: the Boeing of the automotive world.

Kody Dagley
Kody Dagley
4 months ago
Reply to  OttosPhotos

Except unlike modern Boeing, Toyotas still actually, you know…don’t fall apart and actually work 😛

Mike Harrell
Mike Harrell
4 months ago

One advantage to sticking with British Leyland for so many of my vehicles is that it’s unlikely a new manufacturing scandal will come to light at this late date. Another advantage is that if somehow this occurs anyway, I’ll be delighted.

RataTejas
RataTejas
4 months ago

Last thing Toyota wants is the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation and Tourism to add Cars specifically to their purview.

Once added, the Ministry of Cars, Land, Infrastructure, Transportation and Tourism will become increasingly hard to find, sensitive, and an overall frustration for some as they struggle to satisfy their needs.

Toyota needs to step up and focus, lest they become lost like a little man in a boat.

Box Rocket
Box Rocket
4 months ago
Reply to  RataTejas

Yes, but one can dream of being the Commander of the Ministry of Cars, Land, and Tourism. I hear that position is very popular with the ladies.

RataTejas
RataTejas
4 months ago
Reply to  Box Rocket

I believe that position is held by a person named Jay, currently residing in New Jersey.

Box Rocket
Box Rocket
4 months ago
Reply to  RataTejas

Indeed. Maybe one can challenge him to a rap and-or dance-off for the position. I understand he’s frequently seen in the vicinity of the local Mooby’s and Quick Stop.

Hopefully without having to do the full “Goodbye Horses” routine.

Mechjaz
Mechjaz
4 months ago
Reply to  RataTejas

Absolutely brilliant. Were it only that I had more than one upvote to give.

Schrödinger's Catbox
Schrödinger's Catbox
4 months ago

Randy Marion owns two rather large Chrysler/Jeep/Ram/Dodge dealerships and several other marques. They move a LOT of vehicles.

It comes as no surprise that there’s fleet sales shenanigans afoot though. Not specifically at Randy Marion am I pointing, but it would not be surprising if Stellantis tolerates this behavior until things go sour in the relationship, because it means Stellantis can report more sales or vehicles moved.

SkierX
SkierX
4 months ago

This has happened before, back in the days of the dreaded stair step program. I worked for a very small full line Chrysler dealer that had 20 new vehicles on the lot total. We sold 5 or 6 new a month. We would occasionally run up against very large dealers who would bludgeon us with the stair step. One of those dealers got caught doing something similar to take advantage of the per vehicle back end money from volume sales. In the end they were forced by Chrysler to sell their dealership. They also swore they would end the stair step program. I don’t know if they did as I left the world of car sales shortly after.

Argentine Utop
Argentine Utop
4 months ago

Message to Mr. Akio Toyoda: Michael Scott is NOT the role model you must follow.

Username Loading...
Username Loading...
4 months ago

I had the thought the other day that Opel and Vauxhall were sold to PSA because GM didn’t understand the European market. They seemed to do ok with PSA who did understand the European market. PSA merged with FCA to become Stellantis and now it seems that Dodge and Chrysler, Ram and Jeep as well but to a lesser extent are doing more poorly because Stellantis doesn’t understand the US market.

Arch Duke Maxyenko
Arch Duke Maxyenko
4 months ago

Well considering that they never made more than the one Daihatsu De Tomaso Charade 926R, I don’t think I can ever forgive Daihatsu/Toyota.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
4 months ago

I was forced to google this vehicle. thats….. pretty awesome.

Clueless_jalop
Clueless_jalop
4 months ago

“We have a Renault 5 Turbo at home”

Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar
4 months ago

Seems like Toyota is getting busted through audits of their paperwork, rather than stories of airbags not deploying because the test was done incorrectly.

The Grand Highlander I want to buy is currently “stop sale” because Toyota is fixing some aspect of it. I guess that is better than continuing to pump out cars that you need to recall someday. They certainly could sell every one of them if they kept shipping cars to dealers. I’m sure the dealers hate it.

Every automaker has a black mark at this point. Honda isn’t the company they were in the 90’s either. I guess I still believe Toyota is going to be a better ownership experience despite this. Plus where else am I getting a large SUV that delivers 35 mpg?

Box Rocket
Box Rocket
4 months ago
Reply to  Vic Vinegar

Can’t speak to the MPG thing, but if I were spending my own money for a new car right now that I had to keep for 5+ years, my first and possibly only choice would be Mazda.

Toyota has lost its appeal with their styling, fail-prone and dated infotainment systems, and Insufferable-smug and implacable dealerships.

Honda hasn’t been appealing since before our current PotUS was the VPotuS.

Volvo is very very tempting, but the local dealers around here have lost some of their best advisors, and I really want to get in a RWD-based AWD vehicle if I can without going full EV yet.

Lincoln is also very tempting, and if I keep it that long I wouldn’t care about depreciation so much. But I’d have to find the exact right spec and be able to haggle price down. I find haggling generally distasteful.

Space
Space
4 months ago
Reply to  Box Rocket

Wow I forgot Lincoln even existed, I haven’t heard of a single recall or anything about them.
I’ll have to try to remember.

Who Knows
Who Knows
4 months ago

I’m going to laugh if in the 2030s BYD has passed up Toyota in global sales, and owns Jeep

Stryker_T
Stryker_T
4 months ago

for Toyota, honestly, it depends if any of these issues impact any of their US vehicles, but none of them so far are related to anything I am interested in or recently what I’d been looking at for either family or myself. so right now the problem is like a 2 for me.

I’m interested because I generally like what the brand offers, but it doesn’t seem to actually effect what I would ever interact with.

Last edited 4 months ago by Stryker_T
Taargus Taargus
Taargus Taargus
4 months ago

While I don’t love the lying, I don’t know, at this point trust between manufacturers of practically everything, and everyday consumers, has been so damaged that I sort of just shrug. Does anyone here believe any company isn’t rife with cheating on everything that they can get away with? Does anyone really trust any private business to do the right thing anymore? Hasn’t everyone experienced the cost-cutting management style that is “we remain committed to building excellent products, but have cut staff 50% and expect the get the same results”?

So I guess I’m at a 1 on concern, but only because I’m pretty numb to the idea of corporations dodging all regulation and pumping out dogshit.

Who Knows
Who Knows
4 months ago

I don’t believe anything I hear from any corporation in general, unless it is backed up with data, preferably from a 3rd party. The stuff I hear at “technical” conferences that just comes across as marketing is a bunch of constant head scratchers, whether Toyota effectively claiming that they can build 100 hybrids or 1 EV, or GM claiming that purchasers of a Hummer EV are zero impact because it doesn’t have a tailpipe.

Der Foo
Der Foo
4 months ago

Since I’ll be in the market for another Toyota later this year or in the Spring….

“9” If the tests are related to safety or potentially expensive (for me) repairs.
“4” If the test are related to some emissions or for vehicles not sold in the US.

Either way, it tarnishes my perceptions of Toyota integrity.

NC Miata NA
NC Miata NA
4 months ago

On the bright side, Toyota’s strategy of lying is going at least as well as their hydrogen strategy.

Fugatti
Fugatti
4 months ago
Reply to  NC Miata NA

Hasn’t blown up on them…yet?

Rad Barchetta
Rad Barchetta
4 months ago
Reply to  Fugatti

Both are full of hot air.

Ottomottopean
Ottomottopean
4 months ago

I’m starting to read, “pictured above,” as part of Tavares’ job title now.

Canopysaurus
Canopysaurus
4 months ago

Is Stellantis still a viable conglomerate or are we watching a slow motion train wreck?

Since “0” is not on the 1-10 scale, I’ll say my level of Toyota concern is a “1.”

Huja Shaw
Huja Shaw
4 months ago
Reply to  Canopysaurus

Probably the reason the Crown Signma U.S. release has been pushed back.

Chronometric
Chronometric
4 months ago
Reply to  Canopysaurus

Well for years Chrysler and Fiat have both been viable conglomerates, and slow motion train wrecks.

SkierX
SkierX
4 months ago
Reply to  Chronometric

I always wonder what would have happened if they never merged with Mercedes and Lee Iacoca would have ran them through the early 2000’s.

Ranwhenparked
Ranwhenparked
4 months ago
Reply to  Canopysaurus

On Stellantis, no, I dont think they’ve ever really been viable. It was at least one merger too many that created them. Too many overlapping/duplicate brands, not enough resources or commitment to properly support all of them, too much centralized management for such a diverse and widely distributed company (which is only going to get worse, with layoffs and buyouts of regional management)

In Europe, they’ve got DS, Maserati, and Alfa Romeo all kind of stepping on each other’s toes, along with Peugeot, Citroen, Opel/Vauxhall, and Fiat all overlapping, and then there’s Lancia, selling one model in one country.

In North America, they’ve starved the operation of product. Discontinuing models well before any replacements are ready, or simply replacing them with nothing at all, and letting products stay around long beyond when they should have been updated.

RAM has 3 models, the pickup line (which dates to 2019), the 1500 Classic (which is wrapping up its final model year, and dates to 2009), and the ProMaster (which goes all the way back to 2006). RAM has a much fuller product range in Latin America, with a couple smaller pickups and vans, but, frankly, Fiat was already very strong there and I don’t really see what was gained by shifting light trucks to the RAM nameplate in South and Central America.

At Jeep, the Compass is in its 8th model year, the Renegade was dropped last year without a replacement, and the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer were poorly conceived flops right out of the gate. The Grand Chrokee and Wrangler seem to be holding their own, and its likely the Gladiator was never intended to sell in huge numbers from the start (and it has succeeded at that), but, still, for such a valuable brand to be basically relying on 2 models to hold it up doesn’t speak well of management. But, moving forward, maintaining the Jeep brand’s special mystique in a world where every single brand is moving to entirely SUV/CUV lineups is going to be tough. Keeping Jeep special when everybody else has made themselves just like Jeep is a new problem

Dodge is down to only two models, the Durango (which has been around since Obama’s first term) and the Hornet (which is an overpriced, unreliable, cynical rebadge in what should be the hottest market segment), and Chrysler just has one aging minivan that’s also overdue for replacement.

Yeah, there’s new models on the horizon – some new electrified RAMs, the new Charger, maybe/maybe not/maybe/maybe not an electric Chrysler crossover, but none of them seem like the sort of high volume, mainstream, bread and butter models that will really turn around the company’s performance on this continent. The previous LX cars had remained stubbornly high sellers as they aged, but the new Charger is supposed to have a minimum of a $10,000 price increase over 2023, accompanied with mandatory AWD and forced induction, which is going to handicap it’s volumes at least somewhat

Dodge and Chrysler need more competitively priced, boring, yet competent, ICE and hybrid crossover vehicles in more size segments and they needed them yesterday.

Canopysaurus
Canopysaurus
4 months ago
Reply to  Ranwhenparked

Here, here!

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
4 months ago
Reply to  Ranwhenparked

Thats a well thought out set of arguments. Do you see any easy outs for the company? Is the small truck they make nearly US viable, something they could make here to avoid the chicken tax with only “minor” changes? Are there other vehicles inside Stellantis worth trying as rebadges? A Dodge version of the compass? etc.

or do you think they are looking down the barrel of starting from scratch across the board?

Ranwhenparked
Ranwhenparked
4 months ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

I think the fundamental structure of the company needs to be rethought, which could include splitting it up with some parts of the business spun off to Stellantis shareholders as new, independent companies, similar to what was already done with both Fiat Industrial and Ferrari

Clueless_jalop
Clueless_jalop
4 months ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

Personally I’d love to see Stellantis bring in some compacts (probably from Opel, but plenty of options), since that’s a market a lot of companies have gotten out of, leaving fewer and fewer choices for consumers. However, getting them certified for sale in the US will be a pain, and while they may attract some diehard small(er) car fans, the reality is that’s a small crowd in this day and age (hence all the companies pulling the plug).

Similar deal with the Fiat/Ram compact utes, they are made primarily for the Latin American market, which has much different requirements (or lack thereof) than the US. Emissions should be fine, since they use corporate engines that are already sold here, but crash worthiness and general consumer appeal will be uphill battles. Domestic production/assembly could be relatively easy though, thanks to the Jeep Cherokee, which is front wheel drive.

But the hard reality is that the Chrysler group has a very fragile lineup right now, filled mostly with models that are either showing their age, or have yet to enter full production. The only vehicles that I’d say are truly compelling are the Ram 1500 (which is already five years old now, and still hasn’t completely taken over Ram’s truck line), the Jeep Grand Cherokee (which is an excellent car in nearly every respect), and the Chrysler Pacifica (which is an excellent minivan, but the minivan market isn’t doing much better than the small car market). I’ll give an honorable mention to the Wrangler, since it’s an icon, but the Bronco kinda kicked it in the teeth.

Long and short of it is, either Stellantis has four aces up their sleeves, or some big changes are going to have to happen.

Last edited 4 months ago by Clueless_jalop
Fix It Again Tony
Fix It Again Tony
4 months ago

Four of the additional models – the Noah, Voxy, Harrier, and Lexus LM – are still in production by Toyota while three are no longer manufactured.

I never heard of these models. IDGAF.

Madewithgenuineparts
Madewithgenuineparts
4 months ago

The Harrier is our Venza.

V10omous
V10omous
4 months ago

I’m not a big government guy by any means, but the fact that we seemingly allow manufacturers to (sometimes?) self-certify that they meet standards seems very odd to me.

Possibly I’m misunderstanding what actually goes on with some of this testing.

SaabaruDude
SaabaruDude
4 months ago
Reply to  V10omous

self-certification didn’t work out with Boeing either, for similar reasons. Peer certification isn’t really an option, because IP and trade secrets. Government certification seems like the answer until you realize “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” can’t actually be said with a straight face. Choose your preferred failure method, I guess?

Ben
Ben
4 months ago
Reply to  SaabaruDude

The party that coined the phrase has worked diligently for decades to ensure it’s true in their home country, but government does plenty of good things for its citizens too. Regulation of industry is one of them. In fact, I’m struggling to come up with an example where deregulation resulted in an improved product or service. It’s almost always the opposite.

I’m sure there’s a tipping point where more regulation would be bad, but we’re far, far away from it today.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
4 months ago
Reply to  V10omous

I think it works exactly how you are thinking it works. I work in an unrelated industry, but the contracts my company produces have to meet a bunch of requirements that differ by state. Some states actually review the documents before certifying them for use. But many just require us to sign a “yes this meets your states requirements” document before we are allowed to use those contracts.

I realize that is very different, but all I’m getting at is I have seen self certification with govt entities in action. I’m proud my company doesn’t try to pull anything and sneak things through, but having been involved in those self certifications, I’ve seen just how easy it would be to fake them.

Michael Beranek
Michael Beranek
4 months ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

Maybe having 50 different sets of laws in the same country isn’t such a good idea.

Wuffles Cookie
Wuffles Cookie
4 months ago

Why not? California and Nebraska are very different places, with very different people, economies, social and political issues, etc. As the saying goes “all politics is local”, it makes more sense to resolve issues with finer-grained fidelity than try to find national laws that work for everyone.

Michael Beranek
Michael Beranek
4 months ago
Reply to  Wuffles Cookie

So we have a race to the bottom, where states compete to have the most lax laws to appeal to a particular industry. Then, everyone in the country has to abide by that state’s laws, because the “entity” is officially incorporated there.
This is how we got lousy credit card banking laws- we all have to follow South Dakota’s, which are incredibly biased toward the banks, because that’s how the banks want it.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
4 months ago

I’m very pro state/federal distinctions. I love that fact that I can alter the government under which I choose to live by relocating, while still enjoying all the basic rights, lifestyles, etc of the country I love. the US is a diverse country of attitudes, needs, desires. I support our system as it allows those differences to be enhanced where they matter the most to the local population.

While my experience was with the 50 states, Toyota wouldn’t have been lying to the state governments. It would be the federal government they lied to. So removing state governments in no way resolves the actual issue that raised this discussion.

Last edited 4 months ago by Lockleaf
Michael Beranek
Michael Beranek
4 months ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

You made the point “bunch of requirements that differ by state”. My point is that there is no good reason for this- why should your company have to deal with 50 different sets of laws to do business in just one country?
I’m okay with having different laws for issues that don’t cross the state borders. But when one state gets to regulate the entire country, by virtue of having the most industry-friendly laws, the effect travels into every other state. And that’s wrong.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
4 months ago

I cannot conceive of a legal or regulatory issue that can’t be very reasonably argued to cross state borders. I disagree with the basic premise you base your arguments on. So in this instance, I think we shall have to agree to disagree on the value of the statehood system.

Michael Beranek
Michael Beranek
4 months ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

There are plenty of laws that don’t cross borders. A state law prohibiting abortion, for example, has no effect on people living 1 mile away in another state. A state law requiring a vehicle inspection for all vehicles registered in the state also does not apply to someone who lives a mile away in another state- they can drive their uninspected vehicle in the state that requires inspections for vehicles registered in that state.
But the credit card one is the worst. All of us live under South Dakota’s credit card laws because they won the race to the bottom. There are also a lot of Delaware laws we have to live with because so many corporations are incorporated there. Again, they won the race to the bottom.

Michael Beranek
Michael Beranek
4 months ago
Reply to  V10omous

What goes on is that people fall for the whole “less government” BS and vote for politicians who reduce government oversight of corporations and polluters while increasing government oversight of regular Americans.

Taargus Taargus
Taargus Taargus
4 months ago
Reply to  V10omous

My personal experience points to whenever there is a lack of outside inspection, corners get cut. But then when government inspection and auditing comes to town, it brings with it morons that fail you for their own insane interpretation of how to fill out useless paperwork. Sooooo, it’s a pick your poison I suppose.

Who Knows
Who Knows
4 months ago
Reply to  V10omous

A lot of certification testing, if not the majority takes place by manufacturers, since the government really doesn’t have the resources to do the testing themselves. EPA does have some limited testing capability, but nothing compared to the automakers. It really does make sense to use the capabilities of the big companies to do the testing, instead of the government paying to build out test facilities, but only if the companies actually follow the procedures and do so honestly.

It would be interesting if there was an alternate parallel universe where the govt did all of the testing, to see if there were just as many mistakes and anomalies with the government testing as the manufacturer testing, just due to human error.

Wuffles Cookie
Wuffles Cookie
4 months ago
Reply to  V10omous

The government is not even close to big enough to certify all of these activities. They outscope the broadest possible reach of the relevant certifying authority by a factor of at least 10x, and in terms of resources at least 100x. People are bringing up Boeing and it’s failures, as an example, but are totally unaware that Boeing (and Airbus) employ more than 1000 DERs (senior engineers who can find compliance on behalf of the regulatory agency) and there are thousands more independent DERs, all of whom are paid integer multiples of the equivalent GS pay scale, and have companies that can throw hundreds of millions of dollars at certification activities. The FAA has maybe a hundred (maybe) engineers of equivalent experience and authority, and they have to cover the entire aerospace industry in the US on a limited budget (EASA seems to have a few more, maybe 200, but also a larger scope of national activities/regulations). The same is true for the DOT and it’s certification engineers- if you want companies to build new designs that are safer and more efficient, you have to let them do self-certification, otherwise progress will slow to a crawl and you’ll end up putting a lot of people out of work.

JunkerDave
JunkerDave
4 months ago
Reply to  Wuffles Cookie

There’s truth in that. But it only works well if the penalties for cheating are draconian. Forget fines, make it 30 days in jail for the company and its C-suite. Freeze their bank accounts, padlock their premises for those 30 days. The first S&P 500 company that gets bit, shareholders will sit up and start paying attention, not just playing with monopoly money. And the C-suite will pay attention when it’s their own personal butt on the line. There’s an argument that this will hurt many innocent people, but criminals usually do.

Wuffles Cookie
Wuffles Cookie
4 months ago
Reply to  JunkerDave

Unfortunately, as satisfying as throwing the C-suite in jail would be, the whole idea would be counterproductive. Most safety reports in the transportation world come as a result of voluntary disclosures, even when it’s the “cheating on certification tests” variety. If you threaten to jail people for that, you’re going to get nothing but coverups and force the regulatory agencies to have to play detective even more than they already do, which they do not have anything close to the resources for.

If you want to force change, you need to do what is sort of happening to Toyota here and start a board revolt. Shareholders are way too cowardly these days, if a company you own shares in is doing sketchy shit, talk to a lawyer and start launching lawsuits. That’s how you hit them in the pocketbook.

Chronometric
Chronometric
4 months ago
Reply to  V10omous

That is also the procedure for medical device and drug manufacturers. The FDA reviews their data initially but does not do any independent verification. After initial acceptance it is up to the company to keep records of complaints, reported adverse outcomes, manufacturing and design changes, and shipment lots. There are occasional site inspections and paperwork audits.

Username Loading...
Username Loading...
4 months ago
Reply to  V10omous

I’m a bit familiar with some how some FMVSS stuff gets tested/submitted. Basically the company has to perform the testing. They have to document the methodology of the testing and the vehicle/system that was tested. This all has to align with what the guidelines were for the standard. This along with the results of the testing are submitted. They can push back asking for more information about the test methods or really any part of it, but I’m not sure how frequently that happens. There have been clear guidlines/precedent for what they will/won’t accept. The government does not do the testing nor do they want to. They do want evidence that it was conducted.

Jesus Helicoptering Christ
Jesus Helicoptering Christ
4 months ago

On a scale of 1-10 I would probably say 3.

However, I feel like I should actually care a lot more.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
4 months ago

Between the engine recall and the various testing issues, its really starting to seem that Toyota just isn’t what she used to be, at least in terms of worlds best reliability. I’m not sure who tops it now, but the last few years really feel like Toyota has fallen from that reputation they built through the 90’s and 00’s.

Der Foo
Der Foo
4 months ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

Toyota isn’t alone. Honda and Nissan. Having owned and used Hondas for the past 20+ years, there are aspects of their later vehicles that don’t make me want to buy another. Nissan didn’t have as far to fall.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
4 months ago
Reply to  Der Foo

I’m a huge Nissan guy. Until about 1995. After that, I sort of lost interest. Honda I haven’t noticed as much change.

Anoos
Anoos
4 months ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

They haven’t made anything interesting with an OBDII port.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
4 months ago
Reply to  Anoos

That basically sums it up :D. I have an S13, a few 720 trucks, a 510 wagon, and a Roadster. Datsun was some good stuff.

Anoos
Anoos
4 months ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

I had 3 S12s and an S13. They were a blast – cheap and rewarding to modify.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
4 months ago
Reply to  Anoos

At one time, I had serious plans to own an S110, S12, and S13, all hatchbacks. Maybe one day I’ll come back around to that, but the older S chassis got bumped down my list.

Anoos
Anoos
4 months ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

Yeah, the GR86 bumped the S13 chassis way down my list. So much stiffer than an S13 and also stuck with a boring engine.

Also, time and weather haven’t been kind to Datsuns. I am on the east coast and I could count the number of 510’s I’ve seen on one hand. I don’t think I’ve seen an S12 in 15 years, nevermind anything older. I’d need to hope for a survivor somewhere in the desert, but I bet most have been long melted down by now.

2 of my S12’s and the S13 were hatchbacks. I actually fit a Christmas tree inside the hatch with a 4-point roll bar and a passenger. Much more useful than one would think.

Last edited 4 months ago by Anoos
Cerberus
Cerberus
4 months ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

It’s the whole industry. Used to be that you knew which few engines or transmissions from which manufacturers were the ones to avoid, but now there are few that can be trusted. There are too few/small safety margins left as emissions, mileage, and power demands cut them back to the bone on top of downsizing the engines and upsizing the cars and reduced R&D for ICE. Even worse, is that the problems are often inherent, requiring entire replacement and labor costs for doing so have gone way up both in charge per labor hour and in hours required to complete the job.

69
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x