2001 Toyota Tacoma Dlx Extended Cab Pickup 2-door 2.7l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Toyota to pay $11 million after trial for fatal Camry crash

Years after Toyota's unintended acceleration fiasco, the company is still making headlines for cars with sticky gas pedals. A federal jury in Minnesota decided yesterday that Toyota should pay $11 million for its role in the crash of a 1996 Camry that resulted in three deaths and sent a man to jail. A stuck pedal caused the Camry of Koua Fong Lee to accelerate uncontrollably and impact an Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, killing its driver and his nine-year-old son, and paralyzing a six-year-old girl, who later died of her injuries. Two other passengers in the Olds were seriously injured. Lee spent nearly three years in prison on a charge of vehicular homicide, until the unintended acceleration recall erupted. He filed a motion for a new trial and won, and then joined the suit against Toyota filed by the victims and their families of the 2006 crash that left him imprisoned. The jury found Toyota 60 percent responsible for the accident, with the remaining 40 percent of blame going to Lee. Toyota has denied that the 1996 Camry, which wasn't included in the company's sweeping accelerator pedal recalls, was at fault. Toyota released a statement saying the company respects the jury's decision but believes the evidence clearly showed the vehicle wasn't the accident's cause. The company said it will study the record and consider its legal options. Under Minnesota law, the way the jury allocated fault means Toyota is responsible for paying all damages, minus 40 percent of the amount awarded to Lee, said Lee's attorney, Bob Hilliard. That brings Toyota's total liability to $10.94 million. Lee will receive $750,000 of that total. During the trial, Hilliard, told jurors there was a defect in the car's design. He said the Camry's auto-drive assembly could stick, and when tapped or pushed while stuck, it could stick again at a higher speed. He also accused Toyota of never conducting reliability tests on nylon resin pulleys that could be damaged under heat and cause the throttle to stick. "This is what makes the car go. This is what turns it into a torpedo, a missile, a deadly weapon," Hilliard said during his closing argument. Toyota said there was no defect in the design of the 1996 Camry. The company's attorney, David Graves, suggested that Lee was an inexperienced driver and mistook the gas pedal for the brake. Toyota also noted that Lee's car was never subject to the recalls of later-model Toyotas.

Audi, Toyota land on MIT's list of 50 Most Disruptive Companies

MIT Technology Review, a magazine all about innovation, has announced its list of the 50 most disruptive companies in 2013, and both Audi and Toyota made the cut. While the term "most disruptive" may carry a negative connotation in most uses (especially in the classroom), the acknowledgement in this case is an accolade, signifying that the company is at the forefront of its industry. In a nutshell, a disruptive company is a business whose innovations force other businesses to alter their strategic direction.
Audi made the list for "pushing autonomous cars closer to fruition with a laser-scanning road detector that fits in a vehicle's front grille," and Toyota for "expanding its dominance of the hybrid-car market with its new plug-in version of the Prius." Click on the image above to be taken to the original graphic at MIT Technology Review, where clickable colored squares reveal information about each of the 50 winners, compiled from a variety of industries.

What would you drive in 1985?

Bereft of live baseball games to watch, I've turned to the good ship YouTube to watch classic games. While watching the 1985 American League Championship Series last night, several of the broadcast's commercials made its way into the original VHS recording, including those for cars. "Only 8.8% financing on a 1985 Ford Tempo!" What a deal! That got me thinking: what would I drive in 1985?  It sure wouldn't be a Tempo. Or an IROC-Z, for that matter, despite what my Photoshopped 1980s self would indicate in the picture above. I posed this question to my fellow Autobloggists. Only one could actually drive back then, I was only 2 and a few editors weren't even close to being born. Here are our choices, which were simply made with the edict of "Come on, man, be realistic."  West Coast Editor James Riswick: OK, I started this, I'll go first. I like coupes today, so I'm pretty sure I'd drive one back then. I definitely don't see myself driving some badge-engineered GM thing from 1985, and although a Honda Prelude has a certain appeal, I must admit that something European would likely be in order. A BMW maybe? No, I'm too much a contrarian for that. The answer is therefore a 1985 Saab 900 Turbo 3-Door, which is not only a coupe but a hatchback, too. If I could scrounge up enough Reagan-era bucks for the ultra-cool SPG model, that would be rad. The 900 Turbo pictured, which was for auction on Bring a Trailer a few years ago, came with plum-colored Bokhara Red, and you're damn sure I would've had me one of those. Nevermind 1985, I'd probably drive this thing today.   Associate Editor Byron Hurd: I'm going to go with the 1985.5 Ford Mustang SVO, AKA the turbocharged Fox Body that everybody remembers but nobody drives. The mid-year update to the SVO bumped the power up from 175 ponies (yeah, yeah) to 205, making it almost as powerful (on paper, anyway) as the V8-powered GT models offered in the same time frame. I chose this particular car because it's a bit of a time capsule and, simultaneously, a reminder that all things are cyclical. Here we are, 35 years later, and 2.3-liter turbocharged Mustangs are a thing again. Who would have guessed?