so toyoa didnt know

The TSB, issued on August 30, 2002, entitled "ECM Calibration Update: 1 MZ-FE Engine Surging" stated that "Some 2002 model year Camry vehicles equipped with the 1MZ-FE engine may exhibit a surging during light throttle input at speeds between 38-42 MPH with lock-up (l/U) 'ON.' The engine control module (ECM) calibration has been revised to correct this condition." The document is important as it is one of few -- if any -- official documents from Toyota where the company has acknowledged a known link between engine surging and vehicle electronics, something that has become the subject of much discussion over the last few months.

In fact, company officials publicly denied that their electronic systems were at fault for recent claims of unintended acceleration

"We have commissioned a comprehensive, independent evaluation of our electronic throttle control system by a world-class engineering and scientific consulting firm," Toyota's Yoshimi Inaba said to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on March 2, 2010. "In our own extensive testing, we have never found a defect that has caused unintended acceleration."

The link between the surging Toyotas and its electronic systems is unfounded, says Toyota. They maintain that the issues surrounding unintended acceleration are limited to issues with floor mats and sticky accelerator pedals which have a mechanical problem, not an electronic one

You really dont know shit, do you?

I'd have to know what "surge" means. It doesn't necessarily mean prolonged acceleration. I don't see that TSB necessarily as a smoking gun.

Nope, not a democrat. You still dont know shit.

We will know for sure after the both the SEC investigation as well as the New York State AG completes their Grand Jury investigation into what Toyota knew and when they knew it.

Good....it shouldnt have gone on this long anyway.

I'd like to see some raw data showing what consumer electronics gear was in the car and whether it was on or off.

No engineer welcome's an RFI or EMI investigation. These trials are expensive, lengthy and difficult to plan and execute. I do know though that my GSM cell phone causes intermittent RF interference in some Hotel speakerphones when I leave it on the nightstand. On the other hand, my wife's CDMA phone doesn't do that.

Remember back to the days when we went crazy getting the shielding issues solved in early Corvettes. IIRC, there was also a delay in introducing OnStar in the Corvette. Rumor had it that there were EMI issues that took some time to solve.

While the similarities between Japanese and U.S. cellphone standards outweigh the differences, one may well find that some of these electronic issues have been caused by a small population of U.S. cellphones, operating on just one or two frequencies.

-- pj

Mike Hunter wrote:

All of your examples of interference are with susceptibility to interference of radio signals onto radio signals. Hardwired electronics controls are way less sensitive to that type of disruption. The problems we're talking about are with hardwired (think: orders of magnitude more robust, high amplitude, low impedance) control signals. It would be one thing if the drive by wire controls were thru wireless communication, but I don't think that is the case.