PDA

View Full Version : C&D wants to print my letter about 02 fuel cutoff!


kabal57
05-17-2002, 04:49 PM
Hi guys, I just recieved an email today from Steve Spence, managing editor of C&D. I originally sent a rambling email complaining about the 02 fuel cutoff and how toyota was basically lying to them by calling it a "glitch". <br>
Steve emailed me today asking that I clarify the email and that he would like to print it. He also says that he has called Toyota trying to get some kind of response from them on the issue :)
<br>
Maybe this will help us out guys! To any of you 02 fuel cutoff victims, it wouldnt hurt to email C&D again.
editors@caranddriver.com <br>
Here is my original email and the response it got, and my new email is at the very bottom. Any ideas/suggestions would be great :) <br>

Hi, Just dropping a email about your recent article featuring the celica gts. I noticed in the article that the writer was told by toyota that there was a "glitch" in the ecu that caused the rev limiter to kick in at 7500..

Well, as the owner of a 2002 gts, I can tell you it is NOT a glitch. All 2002 celica gts's have rev limiters that vary from 7600 to 7800 depending on the gear you are in. I am a member of Newcelica.org (great celica website, you should check it out if you have time ) and this is very disturbing to us owners of 02 gts celicas. Toyota has basically sold you guys a load of crap. Think about it, they say your limiter of 7500 was a "glitch". A glitch over what?? The normal 7600 it should cut off at? Well they screwed you out of a whole 100 rpm's. All of us 2002 owners feel like we got cheated by toyota since all the 01's and 00's have 8200 limiters.

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not writing this letter to complain to you about my car, but rather to ask if you can get some sort of official response from toyota about this situation. We 02 owners think that having some help from a nationally published performance mag such as your own could only help us put some pressure on toyota. (plus since you guys are a big mag, I'm sure it would be much easier to get some sort of response from toyota, rather than the average joe) I'm sure you'll prob get alot of emails over the next few days from fellow nc.org members, We all really love our cars but are really disturbed by this situation. Plz take into consideration our request. We could really use your help.
Thank you for your time
Sam

p.s. here is a link to the thread that got this started.. in case youd like to see it :)

http://www.newcelica.org/
well its a link to the site, just look for letter writing campaign.
thanks again.
<br> <b> This is the response I got: </b>

Dear Sam
I would like to address your e-mail about the Celica GT-S, but there's
some confusion here.
The Toyota press kit lists "the redline" of the 2002 Celica GT-S model
as 7800 rpm.
Pat Bedard wrote (after noting the car's 7800 redline) about "a killjoy
rev limiter that came on duty a few hundred revs too early," suggesting maybe
7600 or 7500.
But you, an owner of this car, refer to "the normal 7600 it should cut
off at." That means you think the redline/rev-limiter is 7600, while Toyota
says it's 7800? What does the dash gauge indicate (our test car is long
gone). And you say Toyota has screwed its owners "out of a whole 100 rpms,"
but sounds to me like it should be more like 300 rpm, right, as the
rev-limiter should not cut in until the 7800 rpm redline is hit, right?
If you can clear this up, I'll print the letter. I've already called
Toyota for a official reaction, but I'm not getting the difference between
what you say is a 7600 cut off point and Toyota's claim of a 7800 redline.
Also, please give me your name and the town and state in which you
live.

steve spence, managing editor, car and driver <br>
<b> and here is my new re-written email back to steve: </b> <br>
Dear Steve Spence,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my email regarding the fuel cutoff for the celica gts. I am sorry my original letter was not as clear as I would have liked it to be, It was kinda late at night when I wrote it :)
I have re-written it for you, hopefully doing a much better job explaining my point of view on the issue regarding the fuel cutoff/redline. Feel free to edit it as you see fit, I and many other celica owners just would like to see if a magazine with clout like yours can get some kind of response or anything out of toyota regarding this issue, as it is a really important thing to us (celica owners) and we are getting stonewalled by Toyota. Thanks again for your interest in my email
on behalf of myself and many other 02 Celica GT-S owners.
Sam Martinez




Dear Car & Driver,

I am the proud owner of a 2002 Celica GT-S, but have a problem with a misleading statement by Toyota regarding your recent article on the Celica. I would like to see if you could get some kind of response from Toyota on why they changed the fuel cut off for the 2002 Celica GT-S, but yet made no mention of it to anyone, and call this new cutoff a "glitch". It is well known in the Celica community that the 2000 and early 2001 model Celica GT-S had a fuel cutoff that did not kick in untill 8200-8300 rpm's. The late 2001 and all 2002 models have a 7800 rpm redline, and the fuel cutoff / rev limiter kicks in anywhere from 7600 to 7800 rpms. This has been confirmed many times by numerous owners of 2002 GT-S Celicas over at newcelica.org.

I, and many other 2002 Celica owners really take offense to the very misleading statement by Toyota that the 7500-7600 rpm fuel cutoff in your test car was "a glitch in the car's ecu". This makes it sound like the car was truly abnormal. Toyota has told at least 2 magazine publications this same story, (SCC got the same ecu excuse from Toyota in a recent article on the 2002 Celica GT-S also) and it gets printed and people believe that new Celicas will be quicker than your test car, but they really will not be. The fuel cutoff in your test car is almost exactly the same to what all of us 2002 owners have as a fuel cutoff now, ranging anywhere from 7600-7800 rpms, it varies slightly depending on the car. This is a loss of anywhere from 400 to 600 rpm's! This earlier fuel cutoff really hurts acceleration and 1/4 times, as it is now almost impossible to land on the big cam during the 1-2 shift. We (Celica owners) have emailed and called Toyota for an offical response on this issue many times, but have recieved no response. I, and many others would be most grateful for any help you could give us in getting a response from Toyota in this matter and hopefully, some kind of resolution. Thank you for your interest,
Sam Martinez

Keyshawn
05-17-2002, 04:58 PM
I got a response, too. Here's what Steve Spence sent me:


To run your e-mail as a letter in the magazine, we need your last name.

We got about 4 letters saying the redline (advertised on the '02 GT-S
model as 7800) did not live up to the claim.

I've got a call into Toyota, but I'm also told that the advertised
redline in many cars is not always applicable in all gears--like, in first
gear, the reality could be closer to 7500, then 7600 in second, and the true
redline number could be reached in third. Also, the gauges --literally the
instrument itself--is not always precisely accurate.

But, it looks like Toyota does have some credibility problems here,
and we'll check it out. By the way, when we road-tested the Matrix (in a
comparison test), we noted its redline was 8100. Dunno yet why it wouldn't be
the same as the GT-S.

Send me your last name.

steve spence, managing editor, car and driver

kabal57
05-17-2002, 05:08 PM
aww crap I forgot to mention the matrix cutoff. DOH!!
oh well, I guess it seems they figured that part out for themselves. Still cant figure out why a station wagon gets higher fuel cutoff then we do :(

BRAK
05-17-2002, 05:47 PM
PLEASE OH PLEASE GOD .. let this lead to toyota makeing a recall of ALL celicas in 02 to get a 8300..... or maybe if we b i t ch enough 8500:naughty: fuel cuttoff

Willis5050
05-17-2002, 06:12 PM
I just put a call into my Toyota customer rep as well, gonna light a fire under his ass since it looks like I will be stuck with a 2002 now as well. He has to return my call since I still owe him some bank documents.

We will beat this. Do you think it would be prudent of me to mention to him that these letters will be running in an upcomming issue of C&D?

oldster
05-17-2002, 06:22 PM
It looks to me like people are thinking of red line and cut off as the same parameter which they obviously are not. It is my understanding that the designated red line (tach) has not changed on any model year. It is the cutoff that has changed, not? That seems to be causing confusion when presenting the issue.

ZIGGY GTS
05-17-2002, 07:04 PM
Honestly, i like the effort that u put into that letter to C&D but to tell u the truth...face it..Nothing is going to come out of it..do u actually think toyota is going to do something about the redline when most of the general public doesnt give a crap? It sucks that u guys got short changed but it would be better to look at other things like puttin a 00 ecu in ur car or something like that. Toyota isnt going to budge...Good Luck!

Keyshawn
05-17-2002, 07:13 PM
You never know, ZIGGY. Stranger things have happened. It's a great sign that a major magazine like Car and Driver is interested in making this issue public. The thing that disappoints me is that C&D editor Steve Spence says that he received a grand total of FOUR letters about the issue. FOUR?! And two of those were from me, a 2000 GT-S owner. Ouch!:AF:

ZIGGY GTS
05-17-2002, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Keyshawn
You never know, ZIGGY. Stranger things have happened. It's a great sign that a major magazine like Car and Driver is interested in making this issue public. The thing that disappoints me is that C&D editor Steve Spence says that he received a grand total of FOUR letters about the issue. FOUR?! And two of those were from me, a 2000 GT-S owner. Ouch!:AF:

yeah, i guess it could happen but most likely not for a long time...But damn, 4 letters???? only 4 letters? yeah that looks really bad...=(

kabal57
05-17-2002, 07:53 PM
and another thing, the 00 ecu thing has been tried, it does not work. There have been several posts on it from people who have tried. If it was that easy I'm sure we'd all have done it by now.

spwolf
05-17-2002, 07:57 PM
send more... here is the thing.... Toyota lowered fuel cutoff, that lowerd Celica's performance... now, Celica can not perform the same level as 2001 car, so at very least Toyota should have made it clear to their customers that 2002 model is slower than 2001

ZIGGY GTS
05-17-2002, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by kabal57
and another thing, the 00 ecu thing has been tried, it does not work. There have been several posts on it from people who have tried. If it was that easy I'm sure we'd all have done it by now.

oh, i didnt know the ecu thing didnt work...ever since i got rid of my gt-s, i havent really been keeping up wit some things...anyways, good luck on ur quest for a higher redline...LOL =)

spwolf
05-17-2002, 07:59 PM
also, explain to them why do you think they lowered the fuel cutoff?! more info is better

ToyoGT
05-17-2002, 09:45 PM
man the very reason they did this was because too many people were blowing their engines and no matter what anyone says it's driver error. this is ridiculous. what do you think will come out of this? recall to adjust the redlines back to 8200rpms? please. seriously, we read about ford pulling stupid **** in their magazines and now it will be toyota's turn. if people would learn how to drive this kind of thing wouldn't happen. flame away....

migs
05-17-2002, 10:23 PM
If it is a glitch it should be covered by warranty...

spwolf
05-17-2002, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by ToyoGT
we read about ford pulling stupid **** in their magazines and now it will be toyota's turn

what are you reffering to when you say ford? SVT issue?

Patches
05-17-2002, 11:01 PM
No matter what, fuel cut off should not be 7500 or 7600 for this car. Minimum it should be is 7800 which is redline on our cars(while warmed up). The Matrix is strange, 8100 rpm cut off, but Toyota may think that most people won't hot rod that type of vehicle, so they gave it a little more umph.

kabal57
05-17-2002, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by ToyoGT
man the very reason they did this was because too many people were blowing their engines and no matter what anyone says it's driver error. this is ridiculous. what do you think will come out of this? recall to adjust the redlines back to 8200rpms? please. seriously, we read about ford pulling stupid **** in their magazines and now it will be toyota's turn. if people would learn how to drive this kind of thing wouldn't happen. flame away....

All of that is beside the point. The fact is they lowered the rev limiter. Period. If they did it intentionally, why not fess up to it? But no, instead of coming out and saying yes we did, Toyota is telling these performance mags that <b> "it is a glitch in the ecu" </b> , and implying that the rev limiter they had to test is not normal...Well I call :bs:
cause unless all the celicas are "glitched" someone aint telling the truth..
s

Deftech
05-17-2002, 11:24 PM
I am not sure if it is true or not, But isn't the only country with the new '02 lowered rev limiter the U.S. or is it also this way in Japan and the UK. If not it is a very valid point, probably moreso than the Matrix Argument, since it is technically the same year and model and build. Minor differences for emmisions and conversion from metric to (what to we call measures here????).

And as for your "new" email.

You may want to either eliminate mentioning SCC or spell it out. Readers may or may not know what you are talking about. Also you may want to add more detail into why the "Big Cam" is important and Why you need to stay in "Lift" when shifting from 1st to 2nd.

Best of luck and let us know when it is printed. Maybe we can send Toyotas PR department many emails Quoting C&D's response.

spwolf
05-17-2002, 11:45 PM
every1 in the us knows what SCC is - its a mag dude...

spwolf
05-17-2002, 11:46 PM
:)

BRAK
05-18-2002, 08:26 AM
OK i JUST wrote them in support of us! .... i heard your cry for help and i did, after all we need an answer and a solution!:applaud:


I a 2002 CELICA owner am writing this e-mail in support of the community of www.newcelica.org. I am also writing this for the reason that Toyota did nothing in mentioning that the fact is that the 2002 model is slower than the 2000 and 2001 (early in 2001), this was just wrong on Toyotas part, and took the adrenaline rushing 8300 fuel cuttoff and moved it to as early as 7500 rpm fuel cuttoff as felt in 1st gear.
The rest of the gears will cutoff directly at redline not letting you budge past it. This is a sports car!!! The more i think about this the more angry i get. Us at newcelica.org have even desperatly tried to ecu change the 2000 celica ecu , and swap it with the 2002 ecu, this has failed also causing the car not to funtion properly at all. It turns out that the ecu maping is differant. Toyota has responded to all the car test drives from the magazines , and said "its a glitch in the ECU" , so i say if its a glitch in the ECU THEN FIX IT!! Toyota is going to loose there support from the compact car / import scene, if they keep on being scared of releasing the true potential of this car! This ECU cuttoff also does not make sence as in the Matrix does have the 8300 fuel cuttoff , while we are still stuck with the 7800 cuttoff!
Please help the Celica community out!
thank you
Nick

Blue Bomber
05-18-2002, 09:06 AM
Why not make friends with someone who owns a 6-speed Matrix XRS and try swapping ECU's? If the real reason the '00 and '02 Celica's ECU's can't be swapped is because of a second knock sensor, shouldn't the Matrix have it since it came out after the '02 Celica?

cam_n_scott
05-18-2002, 09:24 AM
The rev limiter is advertised by toyota as being 7800

if their car was limited to 7600, either the gauges were off or it WAS a "glitch"

The matrix 8100 limiter is an interesting note, but I dont see how anything will come of it.

Keyshawn
05-18-2002, 10:13 AM
Like I said, stranger things have happened. Here's an example: One of the reasons why Subaru FINALLY decided to bring the WRX to America was that rallying and the WRX were becoming popular here in the States because of Playstation and XBox driving video games. Can you believe that? They were banking on many of those rally video game enthusiasts to buy their car, even when they knew some of those enthusiasts were not even old enough to buy a car.

It may not be 100% certain, it may not even be probable, but it's at least possible that Toyota may actually listen to what enthusiasts want. The fact that so many around here won't even TRY to change things by simply sending an email to companies about issues they are concerned about ( low rev-limit, lack of power mods, etc.) shows me that the Celica owner's reputation in the industry for apathy about this car may be deserved after all. I mean, it may not make any difference at all, but we're talking about simply sending a couple emails out. It ain't that hard.;)

Willis5050
05-18-2002, 10:40 AM
Remember the 99 (i think?) Cobra fiasco? The car didn't live up to performance claims so Ford took them back and reworked them. If it is as simple as swapping ECU's then it could well happen. Toyota has put a total of four different ECU's in my car, what's one more?

We are a young demographic for the most part, and my dealings with Toyota have showed me that they really care about customer loyalty. Like Keyshawn said, stranger things have happened.

ohwhatafeeling
05-18-2002, 02:01 PM
in the middle of the thread, did someone say 8500rpms?!?! ....thats what I've been tryin to get since I got the car! ....pleaseohpleaseohplease......as far as nobody thinking this can go along way, Willis5050 has an excellent point. Ford DID bring back all 99' Cobras because there was a dfference between stated horsepower and measured horsepower and they corrected the problem only after a well know mag. (I think C&D or R&T) jumped into the fray....I think this will be good for all you '02 owners.

BRAK
05-18-2002, 03:39 PM
People if you own a 2002 and you read this forum thread show your support and email the editor of car and driver!

spwolf
05-18-2002, 03:47 PM
maybe '01 & '00 owners of GT-S should also send them their own observed fuel cutoff rpm's? Maybe that might make C&D to make compare two cars head to head, which would be really interesting

Lomeinhu
05-18-2002, 04:02 PM
Gosh darn it! I normally don't really care, but Keyshawn's right, so even though I got a 2000 auto, I'm still gonna make sure all future GT-S owners get the car that they deserved. The letter I sent them is below:

Dear Car & Driver,

I am an owner of a 2000 Celica GT-S, and I would like to address the fuel cutoff problem noticed in the 2002 Celica GT-S that you reviewed recently. Toyota claimed that the premature rev limit at 7500-7600 rpm was a simple glitch. I disagree. First, rev limit and redline do not occur at the same engine rpm's, at least for the GT-S. I can testify along with many other owners that for 2000-early 2001 GT-S's, the redline is at 7800 rpm and the actual fuel cutoff is at 8200-8300 rpm. For late 2001-2002 models, the redline is still at 7800 rpm, but fuel-cutoff occurs at 7500-7600 rpm. Regardless of inaccuracies that may occur in the tachometer's redline, this is a difference of at least 8200 - 7600 = 600 rpms or at most 800 rpms. Obviously, this robs the GT-S of the very much needed second cam power after the 6000 rpm at which lift kicks in. The top of the line 2003 Matrix uses the GT-S's VVTL-i engine yet it retains the 8200-8300 rpm (another reason that the inaccurate redline issue can be disregarded--since the Matrix's limit matches that of the early GT-S's). The changes resulted up to 0.7 seconds lost in 0-60 mph as well as up to 0.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile. The chances are that Toyota wanted the Matrix to retain the high fuel cutoff since it's not likely that the owner will push the limit on the car. However, the fuel cutoff was set lower on the newer GT-S's to prevent their owners from possibly thrashing the car. The Celica was meant to be a much sportier car, yet it is much hindered by a change that Toyota claims is a glitch. If Car and Driver can reach Toyota and get an answer as to why all 2002 GT-S suffer the same glitch without any official remedies, both early and late model GT-S owners will appreciate it since none of us like to see such a great car's potential cut short.

Sincerely,

D.H.

kabal57
05-18-2002, 06:16 PM
great letter lomeinhu. We could use the support. I'd like to see what toyotas official response is about this mass production "glitch"

EzRidA
05-18-2002, 06:40 PM
I emailed them, but I never recieved a response in return.

larryd
05-18-2002, 08:03 PM
i hope it gets published for obvious reasons.. I dont think its fare that Toyota holds this car to perform a certain way and then blatantly changes something obvious to the owners and then lies to the media about it to make it look like their good guys.. if you need my help, you got my backing

BRAK
05-19-2002, 10:49 AM
good job guys:D :thumbup:

CelicaLicious
05-19-2002, 12:06 PM
i just shot over an email as well.. if i dont get a response in a week or so.. i'll shoot over another one!!

skamikaze
05-19-2002, 01:01 PM
so when is this all going to be published? i actually hope this doesnt end up in the letters to the editor section, and actually turns into an article in the magazine...it would be much more of an eye opener.

spwolf
05-19-2002, 01:39 PM
Sure they might say it doesnt matter, but stupid Tibourn is now faster... wonder how would that sit in an ad... ;-)

gts24
05-20-2002, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Keyshawn
You never know, ZIGGY. Stranger things have happened. It's a great sign that a major magazine like Car and Driver is interested in making this issue public. The thing that disappoints me is that C&D editor Steve Spence says that he received a grand total of FOUR letters about the issue. FOUR?! And two of those were from me, a 2000 GT-S owner. Ouch!:AF:


No ****, you lazy asses on here. It would take you 5 minutes to help solve your problem. I WROTE IN apparently I'm one of the 4, so where is everyone else.

I'm also an 00 owner. Good greif.

CelicaDetective
05-20-2002, 12:38 PM
I wrote in a long time ago to several magazines including Car and Driver and got no response.

It's as simple as this: Toyota makes the Celica GTS with the proper cutoff or a model that has better accleration times than the GTS, or I am going to give my hard earned money to someone other than Toyota, because their competitors cars perform better. Plain and simple.

Mike

gts24
05-20-2002, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by CelicaDetective
I wrote in a long time ago to several magazines including Car and Driver and got no response.

It's as simple as this: Toyota makes the Celica GTS with the proper cutoff or a model that has better accleration times than the GTS, or I am going to give my hard earned money to someone other than Toyota, because their competitors cars perform better. Plain and simple.

Mike

Exactly, they need to pull their head out in a big time way.

PorkchopSpecblue GT-S
05-20-2002, 12:47 PM
Isn't there anyway you can find the differences between 02 and a 01 celica model and remove and replace all parts to do a complete changeover. If its a knock sensor, take it out, if its the ecu replace it with a older one. In other words find out what the true differences are between a 02 and a 01 and make the 02 function like a 01 model.

The hardest part is finding out ALL the differences between the two. If you know that thenget to work.

EzRidA
05-20-2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by PorkchopSpecblue GT-S
Isn't there anyway you can find the differences between 02 and a 01 celica model and remove and replace all parts to do a complete changeover. If its a knock sensor, take it out, if its the ecu replace it with a older one. In other words find out what the true differences are between a 02 and a 01 and make the 02 function like a 01 model.

The hardest part is finding out ALL the differences between the two. If you know that thenget to work.

I'm working on it. Current theory is that the 02' doesn't work with the 00' and 01' ECU due to the difference in the knock sensor. Go to the technical discussion and you can read more about it in there. Once I get all the information I need compiled I will go ahead and try it.

spwolf
05-21-2002, 11:36 PM
let us know if you guys hear anything new back fro C&D