Toyota: 4runner Limited on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Toyota Expands Airbag Recall To 2.2 Million Vehicles Worldwide

Was your Toyota inspected under the company's recall campaign for faulty airbag inflators last year? You might have another trip ahead to have it repaired again. The automotive giant says that it found "the involved serial numbers provided by the supplier were incomplete, and did not include all of the potentially involved inflators," according to its official announcement. That means more replacements are needed. Toyota's April 2013 inflator recall covered the Corolla, Matrix and Tundra from the 2003 and 2004 model years, the Sequoia from 2002 to 2004 and the Lexus SC 430 from 2002 to 2004. At the time, the company said it would need to inspect about 510,000 vehicles in the US but only expected to replace around 170,000 inflators. However, the latest announcement increases that figure to about 766,300 vehicles in the US. Toyota spokesperson Cindy Knight told Autoblog that the new amount is the combination of owners who need to have their vehicle looked at again and those who didn't come in for the initial recall. The company learned about the problem when Takata, the supplier, provided it with an improved list of the faulty part's serial numbers. According to The Detroit Free Press, the latest recall affects about 2.27 million vehicles from them worldwide. Knight said owners would receive notification of the problem around the end of the month but repairs would come in phases because the automaker doesn't have all of the necessary parts at the moment. The original problem occurred because the front passenger airbag inflator from Takata could have an improper propellant that could cause it to burst in an accident and not allow the airbag to deploy properly. Toyota inspected all the vehicles listed but only changed the inflators with specific serial numbers. Now, it's replacing them all. This wasn't just a problem for Toyota, though. Honda, Nissan and Mazda also used the faulty inflators and issued recalls at the same time. Autoblog has contacted the other Japanese automakers about whether similar campaigns are necessary for them. We will update this story, if we hear back from them. Scroll down to read Toyota's announcement. UPDATE: Honda spokesperson Jessica Howell sent along the following statement: Honda is aware that Toyota recently announced a recall of front passenger's airbag inflators. Honda is not aware of any incidents in our vehicles related to Toyota's action. We are currently investigating the potential implications to Honda vehicles.

Toyota wants improved crash scores with midcycle facelifts

The performances of some Toyotas in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's (IIHS) regimen of crash tests leave something to be desired. Consider the small overlap frontal crash test: only six Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles have undergone the new test, yet all but one of them received a poor rating. Osama Nagata, CEO of Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc., says midcycle vehicle updates are in the works to address the safety issues brought to light by the IIHS test, Automotive News reports. He confirmed that the RAV4 is getting safety updates following its crash test performance last month, but he didn't name any other models.
All three Toyotas that were tested - 2013 RAV4, 2012-2013 Prius V, 2012-2013 Camry - received poor ratings. The 2007-2012 Lexus ES 350 and 2006-2013 IS 250/350 also received poor ratings. The only other Toyota Motor Corp. vehicle to score better than poor is the 2014 Scion TC. It received an acceptable rating in the small overlap frontal crash test and is the only recent vehicle in Toyota's line-up to get the IIHS Top Safety Pick+ rating.
The small overlap front crash test measures the safety of a car when its front left corner is strikes an object during an accident, bypassing traditional crumple zones, which deform in a way to protect passengers. In 2009, automakers were alerted to the forthcoming addition of the test, which was first implemented last year, IIHS spokesman Russ Rader says. They responded with differing intensity, he says, pointing out that Subaru and Honda started incorporating design changes early on so their cars would perform well in the tests.

Ford fights back against patent trolls

Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.