Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / July 2009
Prius headlamp troubles could dim Toyota brand's reputation
|
|
Thread rating:  |
C. E. White - 30 Jun 2009 22:14 GMT Prius headlamp troubles could dim Toyota brand's reputation
Lawsuit, online complaints come as automaker launches new model
Jean Halliday Advertising Age June 30, 2009 - 1:57 pm ET
DETROIT -- Amid the launch of the third-generation Prius hybrid, Toyota Motor Corp. is taking a beating online and in court by owners who charge that some older models of the popular car have faulty headlights that can cost more than $1,000 to replace.
Owners have complained to federal safety officials and in online chats that Prius' upgraded optional lights, known as high-intensity discharge headlamps, have a tendency to fail. U.S. federal safety officials started looking into the matter in late April, and a lawsuit was filed last month against Toyota on behalf of Prius owners. The suit called the situation "a dangerous but undisclosed safety defect."
The complaints began online as early as August 2006, according to a scan of chat rooms and owner forums by Advertising Age, an affiliate of Automotive News. Owners are upset that their warranties don't cover the HID bulbs, which can cost between $300 and $1,800 -- with labor -- to replace all or part of the light system.
Feds query carmaker
An arm of the U.S. Transportation Department opened a "preliminary evaluation" into the matter in late April after getting 338 complaints and took the next step by asking Toyota about the matter in a letter dated May 13, a spokesman for the carmaker said. Toyota is complying with the request, he said.
Owners on the online forums encouraged other Prius owners experiencing the headlamp problem to report it to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which did not return calls by deadline. If NHTSA finds that the headlamps pose a safety threat, it can order Toyota to recall them and replace them at no cost to Prius owners.
Toyota is cooperating with NHTSA and is required to provide the information at the end of the month, the spokesman said.
He said Toyota is also looking into its other models equipped with upper-end HID lights and referred owners to the customer-service line at 800-331-4331. He added that some of the owners' complaints have come after their warranty expired, which makes them responsible for repairs.
A second Toyota spokesman said, "We have seen the complaints and are looking into it."
Consumer lawsuit
Meanwhile, Toyota will need to respond soon to a lawsuit filed last month by Girard Gibbs in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on behalf of a Putnam County, N.Y., Prius owner that seeks class-action status. According to the complaint, "Toyota is concealing the problems from owners" even though the automaker has "long been aware of Prius' HID headlight problem," which the suit calls a "dangerous but undisclosed safety defect."
Partner Eric Gibbs said his San Francisco firm has been contacted by hundreds of people experiencing faulty HID headlights on the Prius. He said the defect seems most prevalent in 2006 and 2007 models, although the firm is also looking at 2008 and 2005 models.
Bryan Rupp, owner of a 2006-model Prius, wrote on an owner forum that his dealer quoted him a price of $1,726 to replace both HID headlights and two related computers.
"I talked to Toyota customer relations (800-331-4331) today and they offered to pay for the parts, about $1,350, and asked me to pay the labor cost of $400," he wrote. He complained that the company wanted him to pay for it up front and reimburse him after four to six weeks. He wrote: "I do not think I should pay a dime. This sounds like it should be a recall."
In an interview, Rupp said he ultimately was reimbursed for the parts portion of the repair but is still out about $450, the cost of labor that Toyota would not cover.
The timing couldn't be worse for the car that has built Toyota's image as the nation's most eco-friendly carmaker.
Toyota now is launching its third-generation Prius, a 2010 model, with a glitzy, integrated ad campaign that includes a heavy national TV rotation. Two launch TV spots from Publicis Groupe's Saatchi & Saatchi Los Angeles, in Torrance, Calif., are running. They ranked first and third in the top 10 most-liked and most-recalled new TV commercials in May, according to Nielsen IAG Research.
Experts said the situation doesn't have the makings of a crisis for Toyota, but indicated it could pose a problem because Prius is the one model in Toyota's lineup apt to be sold to "sensitive people with a clear sense of right and wrong and their obligation to society," said Andy Fletcher, CEO of marketing communications firm Fletcher-Martin, Atlanta. "This is the wrong group to mess with, particularly now."
Attracting potential buyers
Americans are evaluating all their brand choices during this recession and are more apt to change brands, especially automobiles, given the woes of General Motors and Chrysler Group LLC.
"The danger to Toyota is the effect on Prius owners and non-Toyota owners, many of whom are starting to evaluate why they weren't a Toyota owner before," Fletcher said.
Toyota has somewhat of a track record for dragging its heels on similar issues, such as the engine sludge problem in the Camry earlier this decade, said Peter DeLorenzo, founder of blog Autoextremist.com and a former auto creative at several ad agencies.
"If Toyota moves quickly, the whole thing will blow over," he said. But if not, there will be "ill will" among owners because "word-of-mouth is still the most powerful form of advertising," he said.
Todd Turner, president of consultant CarConcepts, recommended Toyota issue a so-called technical service bulletin on the car's HID headlamps and extend the car's warranty. That bulletin to owners would instruct them to bring their cars into dealers so Toyota could replace the parts and study them for a suspected problem.
"That's a smart way to turn it around" and keep owners happy, he said. Otherwise, he said, Toyota could lose these owners forever.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 01 Jul 2009 00:22 GMT > Prius headlamp troubles could dim Toyota brand's reputation > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > was filed last month against Toyota on behalf of Prius owners. The > suit called the situation "a dangerous but undisclosed safety defect." WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'?
HOLY CRAP!!!! I'M RICH!!!! I'll sue for all the headlights I've ever had to replace!
bucky3 - 01 Jul 2009 10:45 GMT > WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'? > > HOLY CRAP!!!! I'M RICH!!!! I'll sue for all the headlights I've ever had > to replace! Well, if it costs $400 to replace a bulb, I'd sue too.
Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 11:59 GMT >On Jun 30, 4:22 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: >> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Well, if it costs $400 to replace a bulb, I'd sue too. Anybody that buys those over bright bulbs deserves to pay millions to replace them. Maybe the rest of us can see now....
 Signature Scott in Florida
Ed White - 01 Jul 2009 14:40 GMT > >On Jun 30, 4:22 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: > >> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Scott in Florida I think it is a lot more complicated than someone buying overbright bulbs. As I read the article some Prius' come from Toyota with HID Headlights (which I hate). Apparenty the headlights are failing unually often and unusally soon. When the owners go to have the "bulbs" replaced they find out that not only do the "bulbs" cost hundreds of dollars, but that in some cases Toyota dealers are trying to replace the entire headight system for thousands of dollars. I am sure that most of these owners didn't care that the car had HID headlights and were shocked when an option they cared little about suddenly generated repair charges in the hundreds or thousands of dollars. I was under the impression that HID headlights were supposed to be a liftetime sort of thing (i.e., the "bulbs" are supposed to last 2000 to 3000 hours which should be about the life of the car in most cases). Apparently this is just another case of Toyota screwing the pooch and, as usual, trying to sweep their error under the rug. I continued to be amazed that some Toyota fanatics defend Toyota when they pull crap like this. It seems to me that in the last ten years Toyota has led the industry in screw-up, yet most people have the impression that they are ultra reliable. I suppose eventually enough peole will get screwed by Toyota that their reputation will suffer. Toyota is living on social inertia right now, but eventually pedaling mediocre, problem riddled cars and trucks will catch up with them. Fortunately the three RAV4s in my family are all still perfect.... (crossing fingers).
On the otherhand, the whole concept of lawyers turning this into a class action lawsuit rubs me the wrong way. If the lawyers win, they'll get millions, and Prius owners will probably get a certificate for a free oil change that can be redeemed when they pay for their new headlights.
Ed
Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 15:16 GMT >> >On Jun 30, 4:22 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: >> >> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'? [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >Ed I don't disagree with most of what you said, but.....
It has been my experience that Toyota makes damned good stuff.
Problems? Sure, but FAR fewer than I ever had with Ford, Crapsler or Government Motors.
 Signature Scott in Florida
matrixxx09 - 01 Jul 2009 14:51 GMT > >On Jun 30, 4:22 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: > >> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Scott in Florida Agreed- assuming they bought them on purpose.
Same goes for people with bulbs that are high up.
Half the time one of these a.sholes is behind me I have to move my side mirror to point down, then readjust when they're no longer behind me. (and put my rear view in night mode, of course).
Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 15:18 GMT >> >On Jun 30, 4:22 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: >> >> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >side mirror to point down, then readjust when they're no longer behind >me. (and put my rear view in night mode, of course). Well....my '92 Corolla Wagon has MANUAL outside rear view mirrors. A gigantic pain in the arse to 'dim'. I should not have to.
Maybe if we made HID lights 'targets', the problem would solve itself.
 Signature Scott in Florida
matrixxx09 - 01 Jul 2009 15:22 GMT > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:51:37 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09 > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Maybe if we made HID lights 'targets', the problem would solve itself. I'd like to do the same with "high" lights, but we live in a civilized society.
Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 17:40 GMT >> <matrixx...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 1, 6:59 am, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >I'd like to do the same with "high" lights, but we live in a civilized >society. In Florida, if you feel threatened, you can fire....
That is civilized.....
 Signature Scott in Florida
matrixxx09 - 01 Jul 2009 17:46 GMT > In Florida, if you feel threatened, you can fire.... > > That is civilized..... haha. Yeah, can you imagine?
We could all shoot each other whenever we got angry (or just got bored), and all we'd have to tell the cops is "Hey, I felt threatened" and be good to go.
What a world THAT would be!
Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 17:52 GMT >> In Florida, if you feel threatened, you can fire.... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >What a world THAT would be! A hell of a lot better than now......
Just like the small town my sister lived in. EVERYONE was REQUIRED to own a firearm.
No crime.
Nada.....
 Signature Scott in Florida
matrixxx09 - 01 Jul 2009 18:04 GMT > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:46:24 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09 > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > A hell of a lot better than now...... It would be better if someone could walk up to you and shoot you in the head with no consequences?
Do you have a death wish or something?
> Just like the small town my sister lived in. EVERYONE was REQUIRED to > own a firearm. There's no crime in my town either, and we have no such law. (I don't lock my house or cars, and even went away for a week and left only a screen door closed (unlocked)--- although that was an accident).
Anyway if you apply the same (silly) logic to both situations you're left with:
1- If everyone owns a firearm there will be no crime. 2- If everyone doesn't own a firearm there will be no crime.
And on a different note:
What town requires you to have a firearm? And what was the penalty if you didn't? And how was it enforced? Inspections? Did you have to have ammo too? If so did it have to be in the gun? If it didn't, how close by did it have to be?
Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 18:13 GMT >> A hell of a lot better than now...... > >It would be better if someone could walk up to you and shoot you in >the head with no consequences? That is the law in Florida.....
It works well.....
 Signature Scott in Florida
matrixxx09 - 01 Jul 2009 18:35 GMT > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09 > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Scott in Florida Wait, doesn't Florida rank like the fifth highest in violent crime?
Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 18:51 GMT >> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09 >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Wait, doesn't Florida rank like the fifth highest in violent crime? Not at my house......
 Signature Scott in Florida
matrixxx09 - 01 Jul 2009 18:58 GMT > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:35:36 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09 > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Not at my house...... Florida doesn't rank fifth (actually, third) highest in violent crime at your house?
That doesn't make any sense.
Again, you're bending over backwards to keep a tight grip on an incorrect statement you made when you should really just stand up and say you were wrong.
You said that the law in Florida works well. I pointed out that Florida has a very high rate of violent crime, and now you're talking about your house.
Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 19:32 GMT >Florida doesn't rank fifth (actually, third) highest in violent crime >at your house? > >That doesn't make any sense. No you don't make any sense...
On that we agree.....
 Signature Scott in Florida
Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 18:13 GMT >Anyway if you apply the same (silly) logic to both situations you're >left with: > >1- If everyone owns a firearm there will be no crime. There will be a HELL of a lot less.....
 Signature Scott in Florida
matrixxx09 - 01 Jul 2009 18:25 GMT > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09 > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There will be a HELL of a lot less..... Hey, you forgot to apply your logic to MY example:
> >2- If everyone doesn't own a firearm there will be no crime. > > There will be a HELL of a lot less..... Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 18:21 GMT >What town requires you to have a firearm? And what was the penalty if >you didn't? And how was it enforced? Inspections? Did you have to >have ammo too? If so did it have to be in the gun? If it didn't, >how close by did it have to be? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA' Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents
Kennesaw, Ga., City Hall As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting as a victim, attacker or defender.
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available for the year 2005 show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17192576.htm
http://www.mindspring.com/~robertcjones/khs/kennesaw20th/kennesaw20th.htm#_Toc14 0051565
 Signature Scott in Florida
matrixxx09 - 01 Jul 2009 18:36 GMT > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT), matrixxx09 > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Scott in Florida That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. You can always find an example of where your idea 'works'.
In this case I could just say "Canada" in response.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 28 Jul 2009 22:02 GMT >> Just like the small town my sister lived in. EVERYONE was REQUIRED to >> own a firearm. > > There's no crime in my town either, and we have no such law. (I don't > lock my house or cars, and even went away for a week and left only a > screen door closed (unlocked)--- although that was an accident). Where do you live. I live in a small bucolic New England town filled with small New England people, and I left my Mazda unlocked and got up in the middle of the night to deliver newspapers and found my XM receiver stolen. A wekk later someone got into my Scion, but I had removed everything from the car.
I like Scott's idea better: BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM!!!!
Scott in Florida - 29 Jul 2009 05:25 GMT On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:02:00 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>> Just like the small town my sister lived in. EVERYONE was REQUIRED to >>> own a firearm. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I like Scott's idea better: BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM!!!! Why do I think the matrix man is lying thru his teeth?????
 Signature Scott in Florida
Hachiroku ハチロク - 01 Jul 2009 21:34 GMT >> >On Jun 30, 4:22 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: >> >> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > side mirror to point down, then readjust when they're no longer behind > me. (and put my rear view in night mode, of course). And...what if the car was designed that way?
Did you read my dissertation about my headlights? They are very bright. on Low beam. But I also have 65W high beams...and 110 more watts of driving lights. I get people who, instead of giving me a little flash, put their high beams on HIGH and leave them there. That's when I turn on the entire aircraft landing light system; low beams, high beams and drving lights. 310 watts of white light comin' at ya!
But most of the time I have sympathy for the idiots and just flash my highs once. They may never know what almost hit them...
And they are adjusted BELOW the state inspection line, all except the high beams.
matrixxx09 - 05 Jul 2009 13:43 GMT > >> >On Jun 30, 4:22 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: > >> >> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > And...what if the car was designed that way? I'm annoyed less by someone who bought a car not knowing that the headlights were extra bright than by someone who went out and bought brighter bulbs on purpose.
> Did you read my dissertation about my headlights? They are very bright. on > Low beam. But I also have 65W high beams...and 110 more watts of driving [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But most of the time I have sympathy for the idiots They're not idiots; they think your brights are on because your lights are so damn bright.
>and just flash my > highs once. They may never know what almost hit them... > > And they are adjusted BELOW the state inspection line, all except the high > beams. Hachiroku ハチロク - 05 Jul 2009 20:32 GMT >> And...what if the car was designed that way? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > They're not idiots; they think your brights are on because your lights > are so damn bright. Can't help it! That's the wat they are. Funny thing, I have never seen another tC at night, so i don't know how bright they are. I have an idea, of course, by being able to actually SEE the road!
I have even adjusted them downwards from factory to try to help...
>>and just flash my >> highs once. They may never know what almost hit them... >> >> And they are adjusted BELOW the state inspection line, all except the high >> beams. matrixxx09 - 06 Jul 2009 13:25 GMT > >> And...what if the car was designed that way? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Can't help it! That's the wat they are. Nevertheless, it's understandable for someone coming toward you at night to think your brights are on and respond by 'blinding' YOU.
> Funny thing, I have never seen another tC at night, so i don't know how > bright they are. I have an idea, of course, by being able to actually SEE [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >> And they are adjusted BELOW the state inspection line, all except the high > >> beams. Sharx35 - 06 Jul 2009 13:31 GMT >> >> And...what if the car was designed that way? >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> >> high >> >> beams. In other words, those high beams are illegal if they are not adjusted BELOW your state inspection line. Period.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 06 Jul 2009 19:24 GMT >>> >> And...what if the car was designed that way? >>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > In other words, those high beams are illegal if they are not adjusted BELOW > your state inspection line. Period. The line is for low beams only.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 06 Jul 2009 19:24 GMT >> >> But most of the time I have sympathy for the idiots >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nevertheless, it's understandable for someone coming toward you at > night to think your brights are on and respond by 'blinding' YOU. Very few just flash the lights. Most turn theirs on and leave them on. Sometimes I take pity...
Sometimes I *SHOW* them my lows were on, with all 355 watts...
matrixxxx09 - 06 Jul 2009 21:11 GMT > >> >> But most of the time I have sympathy for the idiots > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Sometimes I *SHOW* them my lows were on, with all 355 watts... Are there replacement bulbs you could buy that won't blind other drivers?
hachiroku - 07 Jul 2009 04:04 GMT >> >> >> But most of the time I have sympathy for the idiots >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Are there replacement bulbs you could buy that won't blind other > drivers? I think it's the reflector design.
matrixxxx09 - 07 Jul 2009 14:17 GMT > > Are there replacement bulbs you could buy that won't blind other > > drivers?
> I think it's the reflector design. Is it worth checking into, so you can avoid this potentially dangerous situation?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 01 Jul 2009 21:31 GMT >> WTF?!?! Peopl are going to sue because of a 'burned out lightbulb'? >> >> HOLY CRAP!!!! I'M RICH!!!! I'll sue for all the headlights I've ever had >> to replace! > > Well, if it costs $400 to replace a bulb, I'd sue too. Or buy a different car...
Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 01:19 GMT >Prius is the one >model in Toyota's lineup apt to be sold to "sensitive people with a >clear sense of right and wrong and their obligation to society," Can you say 'moonbats'????
 Signature Scott in Florida
Jeff Strickland - 01 Jul 2009 04:51 GMT >>Prius is the one >>model in Toyota's lineup apt to be sold to "sensitive people with a >>clear sense of right and wrong and their obligation to society," > > Can you say 'moonbats'???? What are the people with a sense of right and wrong going to do with the batteries? I tossed a AAA battery last week, and can't sleep now.
Scott in Florida - 01 Jul 2009 11:58 GMT >>>Prius is the one >>>model in Toyota's lineup apt to be sold to "sensitive people with a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What are the people with a sense of right and wrong going to do with the >batteries? I tossed a AAA battery last week, and can't sleep now. You naughty naughty boy.....
LOL
 Signature Scott in Florida
dbu' - 01 Jul 2009 15:15 GMT > >>Prius is the one > >>model in Toyota's lineup apt to be sold to "sensitive people with a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What are the people with a sense of right and wrong going to do with the > batteries? I tossed a AAA battery last week, and can't sleep now. This has been noted by the pelosi truth squad and you will be delt with soon.
 Signature
"Holy Cow!!"
Earl Gillespie
Daniel Who Wants to Know - 02 Jul 2009 05:18 GMT > What are the people with a sense of right and wrong going to do with the > batteries? I tossed a AAA battery last week, and can't sleep now. They will call the 800 number on the battery and get $200 from Toyota for it.
BTW the whole battery vs. cell thing really steams my clams.... technically a battery is a string of cells so a single AAA is a cell while 2 or more AAAs connected together are a battery.
Mike - 03 Jul 2009 01:30 GMT Don't even think about smashing one of those so called "Environmentally friendly light bulbs," or you will need to call the HazMet team LOL
>> What are the people with a sense of right and wrong going to do with the >> batteries? I tossed a AAA battery last week, and can't sleep now. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > technically a battery is a string of cells so a single AAA is a cell while > 2 or more AAAs connected together are a battery.
|
|
|