TrueDelta

Recently, whenever Toyota has a quality issue Automotive News likes to suggest that this might severely damage their reputation.

The latest case: Toyota is recalling 3.6 million cars because the floormats might slide forward and snag the accelerator. Cases of “unintended acceleration” have caused some accidents and even a few deaths, so they can be very serious.

If the recall fixes the problem, it won’t have a lingering impact. If it doesn’t…ask Audi.

At any rate, this is a safety problem, not a quality problem. Toyota’s quality reputation won’t be significantly harmed by stories in the press all by themselves. Instead, reputations for reliability (or lack thereof) begin with the experiences of people and their close friends and family. As long as many car owners aren’t having bad experiences with Toyota’s cars, their reputation for building reliable cars is safe.

It would help if Toyota went out of its way to take care of those people who do have problems with its cars. Unfortunately, what I’m hearing from Toyota owners suggests that their customer care is, if anything, worse than average.

On a positive note, Toyota has announced that it will soon offer extended warranties up to eight years or 125,000 miles, whichever comes first. Manufacturers’ extended warranties usually go up to 7/100. A willingness to go up to 8/125 with an extended warranty suggests that the cars are now being engineered to go this long without a major problem. Only Honda, which offers an 8/120 extended warranty, offers a warranty nearly this long.

Toyota’s move is consistent with car buyers’ expectations. Another thing I’ve learned from talking with hundreds of car owners: people increasingly expect a car to last at least 120,000 miles without major problems. Getting to 100,000 is no longer sufficient.

I drove 700 miles yesterday, and for the most part the trip was uneventful. But while driving around DC it became painfully obvious that most drivers in that part of the country (and probably most other parts as well) either don’t know or don’t care how to properly use the highways.

I’m speaking specifically about the common practice of sliding over into the left lane, and staying there, no matter what. Driving 700 miles, I wanted to get to my destination more quickly than most people apparently wanted to get to theirs. So I was doing a steady seven or so MPH over the limit. Nothing crazy, but enough to take an hour off my travel time.

Meanwhile, many of the people in the far left lane were going about the speed limit or a couple MPH to either side of it. As was the car to their right. And the car to the right of that car. Often all the way across four or more lanes. But sometimes with the far right lane empty. This behavior of picking a lane and sticking with it is actually recommended as a fuel-saving tip here.

Sorry, but this practice make no sense from any standpoint. I found myself using the far right lane to pass much more often than the far left lane. And this isn’t safe, because eventually there is someone in that far right lane using it as intended, to move slower than most other traffic. It also isn’t efficient, because rather than being able to maintain a constant speed I had to get on the brakes quite often, then get on the gas, then back on the brakes.

Why are people using the far left lane this way? Do they not know it’s supposed to be left unoccupied unless you need it to pass? Do they simply not want to have to change lanes to go around slower traffic, and thus put themselves where they won’t have to change lanes, no matter what it forces other drivers like myself to do? Do they feel that they’re traveling the perfect speed? Years ago in a performance at Carnegie Hall, George Carlin noted that, when you’re on the freeway, anyone who’s going slower than you are is an a-hole, and anyone going faster is an idiot. Or maybe they just want the feeling of having their own lane, as if Uncle Sam created an entire lane of highway, stretching miles and miles, just for them.

The in and outs of personal psychology aside, driving is most safe and efficient when everyone uses the rightmost lane they can at any given time. When I drive, no matter what speed I’m traveling, I drive in the far right lane whenever I can. I don’t feel I’m less of a person while doing so. If someone wants to pass me to the left, that’s fine with me. It’s not my job to slow them down for their own or anyone else’s good. Excessive speed wouldn’t even be so dangerous if everyone used the roads properly, as I understand they tend to be in Europe.

I haven’t been to Europe. But I have been to western Canada. There, the highways are often two-lanes, with side paved shoulders. Whenever I came up behind a slower vehicle, the driver would courteously pull onto the shoulder to permit me to pass. Something isn’t right when it’s safer and more efficient to drive on a two-lane-plus-shoulders rural highway than on an eight-lane divided superhighway.

You’ll find entire sites dedicated to this driving philosophy here and here. The latter site, whose mission is to get slow drivers out of the left lane so that faster “left lane drivers” can use it, even sells a copyrighted ”Move Over =>” sticker for the top of your car’s windshield. Effective, or so obnoxious that people who might otherwise have moved over won’t? A single quick flash of your high beams generally suffices, or at least should generally suffice, anyway. More worrisome, even the name of leftlanedrivers.org wrongly suggests that if you’re a fast driver, you have the right to permanently occupy the left lane. Sorry, but if the right lane is clear, you should be in it no matter how fast you’re traveling. There should be no “left lane drivers.” Everyone should be a right lane driver. So my personal position is much closer to that of the former site, driveleftpassright.com.

Clearly I’m far from the first person to recommend “drive right, pass left.” But if my experience yesterday is any indication, the word hasn’t gotten out nearly as well as it needs to. So here’s another shot at it.

An increasing amount of attention is being focused on whiplash protection, and as a result manufacturers have been designing headrests that offer better protection when the car is rear-ended. This is a good thing, right? Well, not entirely. In some cases a safer headrest can be very uncomfortable.

To make the headrest safer, the manufacturer positions it further forward, sometimes so far forward that those with relatively vertical necks (like mine) find that they cannot hold their head where they normally would. Instead, their head is pressed forward.

I first encountered this issue when test driving the 2004 Chevrolet Malibu. I ended up removing the headrest and re-inserting it backwards. While this made sitting in the car far more bearable, no doubt safety was compromised. Since then I’ve read of similar problems with other cars.

To avoid buying a car you cannot then stand to drive, pay attention to the location of the headrest during the test drive. You might also want to try to passenger seat in a reclined position, if it is likely to be used this way on long trips.

How can this problem be avoided without compromising safety? Through “active headrests” that move forward automatically when the car is rear-ended. These work by connecting the headrest to a plate inside the seatback, with a pivot point on the rod that connects them. When a rear-end collision forces the driver’s body into the seatback, the pressure on the plate transfers through the lever to press the headrest forward. TrueDelta tracks this feature. So if you compare two cars and one has this feature while the other does not, you’ll find it in the results.

Manufacturers often only offer leather in a model with a bunch of other features, such as a sunroof. Or vehicles with leather are in short supply. Or leather simply isn’t offered in a model. The usual solution: aftermarket leather.

But Automotive News reports today that GM has had to buy back 800 cars because they were re-sold with aftermarket leather. The problem: their passenger seat weight sensors, which turn the passenger side airbag on and off, were engineered only for the original cloth. These sensors were not functioning properly with the aftermarket leather.

Most new vehicles now have such sensors. In these vehicles, I would avoid aftermarket leather unless the installer can guarantee that the operation of the passenger side airbag will not be affected. Installers will likely be unwilling to make such a guarantee, as the potential liability is enormous.

So enormous, in fact, that GM decided that it made more sense to buy back the affected vehicles and salvage them for parts.

I got to Chicago in time for the welcoming event hosted by Bridgestone. Which was better than many people could say, as the weather was preventing many planes from landing. I’m smart enough to know that flying into Chicago in the winter doesn’t make sense if you live less than 300 miles away.

As it was, the roads were awful, since it was snowing off and on and the temperature was too low for salt to melt it. I’ve never been happier to have proper winter tires on my car. In most cases, the ice was of the sort that cannot be seen, only felt. I gave my brakes a brief stab every minute or so or when the type of pavement changed, to test for traction. If the ABS clicked in, it was time to slow down, sometimes way down. My speed varied from 25 to 75.

Worst of all was a stretch just west of Kalamazoo. I sat for ten minutes because a tractor trailer had spun but, unlike at least half a dozen others along that stretch, had not managed to spin completely off the road.

(more…)

I’ve received emails asking which all-wheel-drive vehicle to get, as the current car has trouble on snow and ice. On many forums, you’ll find similar questions. Well, the solution to dicey snow and ice driving isn’t usually a new car. Just new tires.

(more…)