Just a reminder the tsb for brake booster and actuato

If you're having this much trouble connecting the difference between falsifying a trouble code to fake an issue and helping people with the issue to the difference between fraud and not-fraud, I'm probably without words that would be any help anyway.

Not news to anybody that it takes all kinds to make a world.

 

This might be a good opportunity to invite a lawyer to lunch and check whether they agree with what you think fraud means.

We sometimes use 'flaw' and 'defect' in funny ways around here.

Some years ago, there were threads about unintended acceleration. There were people suggesting there was nothing to it but floor mats, and I was reminding people that the Barr Group had obtained access to the source code and had identified actual flaws. So much for the idea that I'm always defending Toyota, or something.

At the same time, I doubt that you would have any answer if you were put on the spot to identify and explain any "flaw" or "defect" you keep harping on here. Your getting the voltage business backwards in the IPM example wasn't a good sign.

Not everything that has a finite lifespan is for that reason "flawed" or "defective". There are people who stick their necks out and design things, things that have to meet new operating requirements and have never existed before, and build them. There are also people who sit back and munch on Doritos or whatever, and point at the things and call them defective because they "only" go a dozen years in heat cold and salt spray and halfway to the dang moon before they wear out.

So sure, if you're saying "defect" or "flaw" in the sense that you can point to it on the technical drawings and explain how you figured out what was done wrong, great! Please share. That's a valuable addition to what we know. Otherwise, may the Doritos always be crunchy.