Is Prius included in the Toyota unintentional accelertion settlement??

Many people would argue that the prius is lacking intentional acceleration, let alone the unintentional kind. (Albeit, it's faster than the '07 Subaru outback it replaced in my garage.)

The only incidents of "unintended acceleration" I recall here are when folks have complained about the interruped braking in bumpy / slippery stops when the regenerative brakes kick off and the hyraulic brakes kick in.

 

There wasn't really a problem with any of the Toyotas. NASA and the NHTSA both agreed on that. The Prius was the only model with "black boxes", and those only record when an airbag deploys. In every case where an airbag had deployed and the black boxes captured the data, NASA found that the driver was applying 100% throttle and 0% brake.
Another big problem was that people were stacking the all weather mats on top of the carpeted floor mats, despite the fact that the AWM clearly had instructions to the contrary molded right into them. This practice effectively raised the floor to the point where the bottom of the accelerator pedal could become entrapped by the all weather mats, particularly if the mat had slid forward, due to the retention hooks being unable to secure two floor mats stacked on top of each other. Toyota's solution was to recall the nice, thick all weather mats, redesign them to be much thinner, and remove a bunch of insulation from beneath the carpeting, and shorten the accelerator pedal. Basically, they were trying to make the cars "idiot proof". The problem with that is that as soon as you make something idiot-proof, they build a better idiot.

 

nice turn of phrase.

 

Yes, the Prius already has brake over ride system. Floor the gas pedal then step on the brake. Not too hard or you'll be eating steering wheel. LOL

 

As I posted in another thread, the PDF at Toyota Economic Loss Settlement Website mentions 2001 to 2010 Prius. I haven't looked at the very long document in detail, yet.

 

Ours do. I don't think the older models do.

 

Well, even if mine does qualify, I couldn't feel good about taking any money from them.

Droid RAZR HD MAXX

 

2004 to 2009 did, I am not sure about 2001 to 2003.

 

It's a total scam, if you ask me. Toyota did nothing wrong and a bunch of lawyers pocket millions of dollars.

 

They should add this to the owners manual.

That was paraphrasing my Air Force TI who was know to say,

 

I'm in the same boat too. I haven't read the terms of the settlement and what consumers might receive as I don't care that much.

I don't feel my car has diminished in value or that I'm really owed anything but at the same time, if I decline, that means forfeiting "free money" and potentially leaving more to other claimants (some of which who may have no such reservations/qualms about taking it) or possibly the excess going to charity or something.

 

It seems that a large part of the settlement is due to Toyota lying and withholding information from NHTSA and vehicle owners, not once, but at least 4 times.

[sarcasm]We should just look the other way when Toyota does this because they really are honest at heart.[/sarcasm]

 

You are entitled to your opinion, and in entitled to mine. There's no proof that any defects existed in the vehicles, and the government investigators agreed.

 

NHTSA seeks maximum fine against Toyota - Apr. 5, 2010

 

My understanding is that the government and toyota never concluded that unintended acceleration existed in those cars. An I wrong?

 

$1.4B ?

 

So, if I bought mine in 2010, I need to pay more now?

 

Your car doesn't qualify for diminished value because you still own it. The car had to be sold, totalled, or the lease terminated within the specified time period to qualify for diminished value. Your car may qualify for an extended warranty or warranty repair.

 

It says that you need to have sold the vehicle between September 1, 2009 and December 32, 2010 to be eligible.