Glacier Frost Mica!! Premium Leather!! Push Button Start W/ Fastkey!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Toyota settles first wrongful death suit related to unintended acceleration

Toyota's sales seem to have rebounded from the unintended acceleration issues from 2009 and 2010, but the automaker is far from done dealing with this situation. Following a settlement worth up to $1.4 billion for economic loss to affected vehicle owners, Toyota has settled rather than going to trial in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from an accident in Utah in 2010 that left two passengers dead. This isn't the first case in which Toyota has settled, but it was the first among a consolidated group of cases being held in Santa Ana, CA.
According to The Detroit News, this case was scheduled to take place next month, and it was for a November 2010 incident in which Paul Van Alfen and Charlene James Lloyd were killed in a Camry when, based on findings by the Utah Highway Patrol, the accelerator got stuck causing the car to speed out of control and hit a wall; the terms of the settlement were not announced.
The article says that while Toyota will settle on some cases, it doesn't plan on settling on all of them as it still wants to be able to "defend [its] product at trial." This will probably be the case in suits claiming that software for the drive-by-wire accelerator was the cause of an accident in a Toyota or Lexus vehicle. The question of whether or not the electronic accelerator played any role in this problem has been a hot-button topic since the beginning. Toyota has issued recalls in the past to attempt to prevent unintended acceleration caused by trapped floor mats and faulty accelerator pedals, but it also says driver error was to blame in some instances.

Anti-EV, pro-hybrid ad from Lexus gets a whole lot wrong

Tell us if you're surprised that Toyota (through its Lexus brand) is putting out some questionable information about electric vehicles. While it's one thing for company executives to be anti-EV, it's quite another to put out obviously false information when you speak ill of plug-in vehicles, especially when you also sell them. The automaker offers the RAV4 EV and Prius Plug-In, albeit in limited numbers, First, let's look at what Lexus is saying. On the company's consumer site, in the hybrid section, there are a number of slick videos. In one ("Hybrid Overview"), Lexus makes it look like charging an EV takes four hours. That may be true in some situations, but the video shows an anonymous driver plugging a Nissan Leaf into something that looks like a AeroVironment DC fast charger, which takes around a half hour to charge. Granted, the site has a disclaimer that says, the "charge time represents the average time to charge from empty to full using typically available 240V commercial charging stations," but in everyday use, that's not something EV drivers often do. Charged EVs mentions two previous studies that show how most EV charging is done at home. Lexus knows all this, of course, but doesn't mention it. Lexus says that there are 20 states with an "established infrastructure" for hydrogen. Another video on the site, one that talks about future alternative powertrain technologies, says that there are 20 states with an "established infrastructure" for hydrogen and 37 with the same for electric vehicles. It also blatantly says that we need to consider all of the emissions from the fossil fuels used to make electricity (carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, etc.) but does not say anything about the fossil fuel emissions used to make hydrogen. You can see some screen grabs in the gallery or watch the video yourself. It's all blatantly one-sided, especially since the official numbers from the Department Of Energy say that there are Level 2 public EV chargers in literally every state except Alaska and only 11 public hydrogen stations in the US. Ten of them are in California, the other is in South Carolina. A Lexus spokesman told AutoblogGreen it will ask TeamOne, its ad agency, and the Lexus marketing department for clarification on where the data in the videos comes from. We will update this post when we hear back.

2015 Lexus RC F Review

Every year, thousands of people buy two-door coupes that bear the badges of BMW M, Mercedes-AMG, Audi RS, and Cadillac V. These cars are powerful, fast, agile, and - if you believe the marketing - are made to kick ass on the track. But, and this is just my theory, only about 0.2 percent of these owners actually drive their cars the way the companies intended. Most buyers, I think, want the image put forth by an M4 or C63 AMG more than any dynamic abilities. These people just want to give the impression that they're out tearing up the local road course, and a $70,000 sports coupe and a pair of Pilotis are just the ticket. Which is not to say they don't use the performance of these cars, just not the full track-day capabilities. If this describes you, I recommend checking out the new Lexus RC F. This coupe is powered by a 5.0-liter V8, complete with 467 horsepower and 389 pound-feet of torque. These figures, while impressive in a vacuum, are troubling when viewed alongside the competition. The Mercedes-AMG C63 tops 500 in horsepower and torque in S guise, while the six-pot Cadillac ATS-V is nearly equal on power but offers almost 60 more pound-feet of torque. And while the BMW M4 cedes more than 40 horsepower to the Lexus, the RC F doesn't feel as potent from the driver's seat. The RC F doesn't even feel as potent as less-powerful competition. This numerical deficit translates to the stopwatch, where the RC F lags behind the force-induced competition. The C63 and ATS-V both hit 60 in 3.9 seconds, while the BMW takes 4.1 seconds (these are all manufacturer estimates, by the way). The RC F needs 4.4 seconds to hit 60 miles per hour. The only vehicle in this segment that's slower is the Audi RS 5, and that's been on sale longer than all its current competitors combined. And the Audi's charms (oh, that glorious engine note) help you overlook its lack of pace. The RC F doesn't have the aging Audi's charisma, making its lack of both perceived and actual pace more glaring. I'm placing blame on this car's overbearing induction sound. It was a neat trick on the original IS F – this car's predecessor – but over the years it's just become kind of played out. At the least the noise is real, piped into the cabin via a resonator, but it sounds too artificial. And the point at which it kicks in is entirely predictable. Neither of these traits contribute to an involving driving experience.