The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration continues to dog Toyota over a recall involving 157,000 Tundra Access Cab pickups sold between 2003 and 2005. The vehicles in question violate a 2002 NHTSA rule that requires vehicles with air bag shut off switches to have special latches in the front seats for child safety seats, which these trucks don't. Toyota asked for an exemption from the rule and was denied, at which point it decided to issue a recall to disable the air bag shut off switches and affix a new warning label that recommended parents place child safety seats in the back seat. Toyota went this way because engineering new child safety seat latches for the front passenger seat of the Tundra would be extremely expensive and difficult. The NHTSA decided that disabling the airbag shut off switch would confuse owners, so now Toyota is forced to start over. This time the automaker will be sending a letter to all affected Tundra owners that explains the problem and urges owners to put children in the back seat. The letter will also inform owners that if they want new child safety seat latches in the front seats, they can request them from Toyota, which will retrofit fit them as soon as it figures out how to.
[Source: The Detroit Free Press]
Related Posts:
Early Look: £1million Aston Martin One-77
Andrea Pininfarina killed in motorcycle accident
BMW owner tapes black car to white
Nissan confirms G37 Sedan, G37 Convertible and G37x Coupe
2009 Honda Ridgeline introduced early to internet
First Drive: HUMMER H3T
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy![In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG [w/VIDEO]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/08/amg-s63-1280-11_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG [w/VIDEO]
Project Track Slut Update: Prepping for the big 
Second Drive: Porsche Boxster RS60 Spyder
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Whydrive @ Oct 6th 2006 6:34PM
How dare the NHTSA question the wisdom of Toyota! GM must've paid someone at the NHTSA to issue this ridiculous request.
Ryan @ Oct 6th 2006 6:55PM
"GM must've paid someone at the NHTSA to issue this ridiculous request.
Posted at 6:31PM on Oct 6th 2006 by Whydrive 0 stars"
-Seriously, who the fuck wants a useless keyswitch on the dash board. That is plain rigging, oh so I'm taking my truck in to make my airbag cutoff switch useless. I alwyas thought this recall was horrible on toyota's part.
USAFMech @ Oct 6th 2006 7:09PM
" Toyota went this way because engineering new child safety seat latches for the front passenger seat of the Tundra would be extremely expensive and difficult."
I'm definately raising the B.S. flag. As a parent who uses the LATCH (Lower Anchor and Tethers for CHildren)system, it amounts to a small metal loop bolted to the seat frame. It's a $.20 part. Toyota is blowing much smoke.
RP @ Oct 6th 2006 7:30PM
In our cars, the LATCH loop is welded to the seat frame. It may be hard to weld the loop on with the seat fabric in place (burning, melting isuses). And to ensure that it withstands the force and loading requirements in a ~50G crash. (1000+ lbs force?)
That being said, I suspect it was Toyota's lawyers who came up with the original idea of disabling the switch -- to follow the letter of the law, not the intent.
barbara @ Oct 6th 2006 8:36PM
IS THE '06 SOLARA CONVERTIBLE A COLLECTORS ITEM OR AS YOU DISCIBE A LIMITED ADDITION?...THANKS, BARB
motorman @ Oct 6th 2006 9:41PM
how did kids survive all these years without this BS my new born son came home from the hostpital in the passengers seat of my new 1966 427 450 HP corvette
Barney @ Oct 7th 2006 12:09AM
It appears to be a hustle. Put in the switchs because you have airbags. Put in special latchs because you have the switchs. What's to be required after the latchs are installed, one may ask.
.T @ Oct 7th 2006 1:09AM
Poor Toyota can't afford to fix their fuck-ups with all the cash they rake in every quarter at the expense of the American car buyers.:(
automania @ Oct 7th 2006 6:23AM
It's not fair what they do.
http://www.auto-power-girl.com/
Richard Warren @ Oct 7th 2006 11:24AM
#6 Damn straight!!!!
Jim Baker @ Oct 7th 2006 6:56PM
The company that paints itself as green and safety conscious has no regard for your kids - instead of doing the right thing and installing the LATCH, they try and take the cheap way out!
And then people get on here and defend it! If it had been GM or Ford who did that, there'd be a flood of people on here stringing up the noose.
Unbelievable. Really.
Jim @ Oct 8th 2006 9:39AM
I hate Toyota, but #3 you are totally wrong. Having a latch system isn't just the little metal loop you see. The system requires that a huge portion of the interior be redesigned so that the forces from an accident can be taken by the seat. If the front seats weren't designed to use the latch system, then it may be extremely expensive to enable it.
Why does everyone assume that cars are really simple and that car companies must be stupid?
tony @ Oct 8th 2006 11:54AM
#11 you are so right man .. im sure if it was FORD or GM this people would be saying all kind of hate sh...t to them but now its TOYOTA's turn n they dont want it. And they call themselves American what a shame. Hey maybe they are the one's paid by TOYOTA to continue dogging FORD n GM n always defend TOYOTA. Damn even the writer of this blog uses the word "DOGGING" Toyota. I dont think thats appropriate. SAFETY IS SAFETY and NHSTA has its standards and every car manufacturer should follow NO EXCEPTIONS and NO GOING AROUND IT.
DM @ Oct 11th 2006 8:47AM
It is possible to retro fit latch anchors VW did this on the 1999 to 2002 Passat. This affected the two rear outboard seating positions. You could bring your Passat into a VW dealer and they would retro fit "both" outboard seating potions with LATCH free of charge. VW found a way to engineer it. Why can't Toyota do this for one seating position?
DM @ Oct 11th 2006 11:51AM
The issue is pointed at the 03 to 05 Tundra access cabs (extended cab). It’s likely the access cab in these models doesn’t have a large enough rear seating area to accommodate a rear facing child safety seat and or a infant carrier. Thus some child safety seats depending on size and orientation (rear or forward facing) may be forced to the front passenger seat. The law here in Texas is that your child must be one year and 20 lbs before they can be turned forward facing. Other scenario might be that with a forward facing child safety seat the leg room for the child or the front passenger may be tight or non-existent. Again depending on the safety seat size, some might be forced to use the front seat for securing their child. Doing so extra precautions need to be taken, thus the LATCH and the air bag disable switch the NHTSA mandated. The other manufacturers have complied, why not Toyota?
It was Toyota that profited 10 Billion last year while GM lost 10 Billion right?
davide @ Oct 11th 2006 3:38PM
The idea behind the recall is so that who ever buys the truck 2nd and 3rd times over has the right to expect that it will be as safe as it can be. No letter and no sticker should be allowed. You guys are right, if this had been FOMOCO or GM the class action law suits would have already been in the works. The rules were made in 2002 and everybody had to build to that rule. If Toyota has to replace 145,000 interiors then so be it. That might make them pay attention to the rule book in the future.
Anette @ Oct 24th 2006 11:09AM
But they're RELIABLE!!
How can you do this to them?