Is there a conspiracy between Toyota & the US Government?

[TerryBPP]

What are the chances that after Obama took control of Chevy he put plans in the works to kill Toyota (and now Honda) to boost $?

Hmmmmmm

[flatbutt]

do you think he screwed up the throttle design?

[Jim Richards]

The super secret plan is to reintroduce horse and buggy transportation. All cars must die. All cars must die. All cars must...

[fingpilot]

It all depends on what the mainstream media say.

After all, they are all telling the unbiased truth.

[McLovin]

One thing for sure, normally there would be a conflict of interest in this situation.

For example, a judge in a large "make or break" case against a company just happens to be the largest shareholder of that company's competitor. He'd be disqualified.

Or legislators who own the majority of a major corporation creating laws against their competitors.

In this case, we have the main competitor of Toyota (Toyota and GM are the 2 biggest sellers in the US) being in a position to regulate/punish/whatever Toyota. The Govt owns GM, is the largest shareholder. So it is an unusual situation for the auto industry.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

The super secret plan is to reintroduce horse and buggy transportation. All cars must die. All cars must die. All cars must...

You are referring to the "Cap & Tax" plans?

[Jim Richards]

Are those the names you gave your horses? Strange. What ever happened to Beauty or Lightning or Trigger?

[Gogar]

GW Bush hates sticky throttle pots.

[Jim Richards]

But he likes horses. He is a coboy, right?

[GH85Carrera]

I am surprised Obama has not blamed Bush for Toyota's problems.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Are those the names you gave your horses? ...

Horses? -Nnnnoooo thanks.

So, for your purple buggy, what ya going to do for snowtires?

[Jim Richards]

I got some studded wagon wheels, the brand is Rota Fox, I reckon.

[island911]

SO you finally caught a break...

.good for you.

[Jim Richards]

Thanks. Why don't you help me celebrate my break with a nice tall glass of prune juice.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by TerryBPP

What are the chances that after Obama took control of Chevy he put plans in the works to kill Toyota (and now Honda) to boost $?

Hmmmmmm

NTSB has covered up for Toyota since 2003.

[AFD660]

They are going after Toyota, Honda, and Nissan now because they are NON-UNION car manufactuers. Obama had the support of Unions and now either they are going to go Union or go through hell and a bad publicity.

A friend of mine has his Chevy Equinox die on him while on the merging lane to get onto the interstate. He started it up again, drove for about 10 minutes and it cut out on him again. Started it up drove to the dealership told the guy what happend and the technician said "yeah its been happening to quite a few Equinox's, so we're just telling owners when they come in instead of mailing out letters and phone calls."

I'd rather have it be known I need to bring my truck to be fixed than for the manf. to just tell people when they bring it in. Just me though..

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by AFD660

They are going after Toyota, Honda, and Nissan now because they are NON-UNION car manufactuers.

Did "they" tell you this?

[TerryBPP]

Originally Posted by McLovin

One thing for sure, normally there would be a conflict of interest in this situation.

For example, a judge in a large "make or break" case against a company just happens to be the largest shareholder of that company's competitor. He'd be disqualified.

Or legislators who own the majority of a major corporation creating laws against their competitors.

In this case, we have the main competitor of Toyota (Toyota and GM are the 2 biggest sellers in the US) being in a position to regulate/punish/whatever Toyota. The Govt owns GM, is the largest shareholder. So it is an unusual situation for the auto industry.

We are on the same page. Feels like major conflict of interest.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The government didn't create Toyota's faulty design. However I believe they absolutely are taking full advantage of it - blowing it out of proportion and possibly even "tweaking" NHSTA reports to pound Toyota into the ground in order to boost domestic vehicle sales as much as possible. The Obama administration is under tremendous pressure to show ANYTHING positive related to the GM/Chrysler bailouts and if they think they can do it by hammering Toyota (and Honda) - even by unethical means - I suspect they will embrace the chances. And they are doing exactly that.

Maybe I'm a member of the "tin foil hat society" for seeing a conspiracy theory in this, but honestly it's not that far fetched and it makes perfect sense in the context of modern-day sleazy politics and panicked government desperate to hold the economy together with whatever duct tape, chewing gum and baling wire they can find lying around.

I have not and will not forgive GM for the sins of the 1970s and 1980s. Ditto Chrysler, who was/is even more offensive for having been bailed out once before (by Carter). I would never buy from a domestic in any case simply because I refuse to allow one red cent of mine to support the UAW. I took my wife's Toyota for a drive yesterday and the only "sticking throttle" was due to my foot being in it. It's still a fine (albeit not terribly fun) car to drive. The American stuff has gotten a lot better but there's still an awful lot of crap too - way too many ding dongs and unnecessary/complicated/overdesigned garbage. And the performance isn't all that great either - much like Toyota or Honda. And like I said, the U.S. automakers' ties to the UAW make them a completely non-option for me - even for something like a 'vette, which is a cool car. I just won't allow myself to consider it for the above reasons. Sorry guys - you had your chance(s) and you blew it.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

I have not and will not forgive GM for the sins of the 1970s and 1980s.

lol, even GM couldn't forgive themselves.

2003 ad, admitting that their cars in the 70s and 80s sucked, but promising to do better:

“Thirty years ago, GM quality was the best in the world,” the print ad starts. “Twenty years ago, it wasn’t.”

“The hard part [was] breaking out of our own bureaucratic gridlock,” the ad copy continues, and “learning some humbling lessons from our competitors.” After a “painful” decade of effort, they’re now back up to snuff, putting out great cars, etc., etc. The ad cites positive consumer-satisfaction research and recent automotive awards, presumably the hook for the campaign. “The road to redemption has no finish line,” the copy concludes. “But it does have a corner. And it’s fair to say we’ve turned it.”



Ok, nice, screwed up making crap cars for a few decade, but by 2003, everything was great, right?

Ooop, ad from 5 years later (Dec. 2008, as they were groveling for taxpayer money)

We deeply appreciate the Congress considering General Motors’ request to borrow up to $18 billion from the United States. We want to be sure the American people know why we need it, what we’ll do with it and how it will make GM viable for the long term.

For a century, we have been serving your personal mobility needs, providing American jobs and serving local communities. We have been the U.S. sales leader for 76 consecutive years. Of the 250 million cars and trucks on U.S. roads today, more than 66 million are GM brands – nearly 44 million more than Toyota brands. Our goal is to continue to fulfill your aspirations and exceed your expectations.

While we’re still the U.S. sales leader, we acknowledge we have disappointed you. At times we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry standards and our designs become lackluster. We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where we lost adequate focus on our core U.S. market. We also biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs. And, we made commitments to compensation plans that have proven to be unsustainable in today’s globally competitive industry. We have paid dearly for these decisions, learned from them and are working hard to correct them by restructuring our U.S. business to be viable for the long term.

Today, we have substantially overcome our quality gap; blah blah blah

lol.

so, in early 2000 they admitted they sucked in the 70s and 80s, but promised it was better, then in late 2000 they admit they sucked all along. Nice.