Toyota Motor Corp.’s campaign to get customers to remove or replace floor mats, which the Japanese automaker is blaming for unintended acceleration cases, isn’t convincing to some of its drivers, such as Grover and Barbara Walton.
More than 300 complaints have been filed with federal regulators about the problem, including at least six involving fatalities, and Toyota says the floor mats are to blame.
But that’s not what the Waltons believe. The couple from Boiling Springs, N.C., were driving to Murrells Inlet, S.C., Oct. 9 when their 2008 Toyota Prius surged on a marshy four-lane highway.
It all started when, after slowing down through a small coastal town, Walton said he hit the resume-acceleration button on his cruise control.
He said he hit the brakes, which slowed the car. But when Walton released the brake pedal, he said his Prius surged again.
“Before my husband could safely get the car off the road, he had ridden the brakes so hard to avoid an accident that flames were coming from behind both front wheels where the brakes had caught fire,” Barbara Walton said.
After exiting the car, Grover scooped up several hands full of sand and threw it on the brake pads until the flames went out. They called a Toyota dealership in Myrtle Beach to tow it. The Waltons picked up their car three days later and drove home
Toyota executive Bob Carter said Monday that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had closed six investigations into complaints of Toyota or Lexus vehicles that accelerated faster than the driver intended. All six cases, he said, concluded with NHTSA finding no defect other than an unsecured or incompatible floor mat.
One of those complaints was filed by Jeffrey Pepski of Plymouth, Minn., who last April reported unintended acceleration in his 2007 Lexus ES350. NHTSA has received 64 similar complaints for 2007 Lexus models.
On Oct. 29, NHTSA concluded 50 of those incidents, including all 15 cases in which someone was injured, were caused by floor mat interference. It denied Pepski’s request for further investigation, but said that its decision does not constitute a finding … that a safety-related defect does not exist.”