Engine Sludge/Oil Gelling--Toyota's Customer Response - READ ONLY

877 messages, Last post on May 09, 2002 at 5:24 AM

You are in the Maintenance & Repair - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the M&R Host for directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Toyota, Lexus, Engine, Oil, Coupe, Convertible, Sedan, SUV

OPEN FORUM--All invited! Please Ask Questions One At A Time and Be Patient For A Response.

Outline

Messages Page 80 of 88: 1; ...; 77; 78; 79; 80; 81; 82; 83; ...; 88; Prev; Next; Last

#790 of 877 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Apr 30, 2002 (10:06 pm)
But they did own up to it with a complete reversal of policy and a whopping 8 year protection plan. I am somewhat baffled by some people's posts when they decline to accept this new policy as a total backing down from Toyota's previous position, which is exactly what it is. Toyota surrendered. War's over. Hello? Another thing we should keep in mind that there is no evidence that more than a handful of people were "offended" in the first place, and of that handful we also have no idea how many are now mollified. Nobody was killed, the environment wasn't maimed--to whom is this gigantic corporation supposed to apologize? The American people? The world? Kansas? Demands for some kind of public apology, often from people who don't even own a Toyota, seem quite out of proportion, don't you think?
#791 of 877 Answers to deg856 and davidfrancis by tmsusa1 May 01, 2002 (2:55 am)
To deg856, the answer is no--but not without trying. The "source" has been in meetings, and jj35 does indeed have a life with or without Toyota. So it has been voice mail dialog so far, but I am certain we'll connect soon and appreciate jj35's patience. To davidfrancis, the answer is actions--but you're certainly entitled to your opinion here. I personally view this more as an emotional issue rather than a question of moral responsibility. But, that is an argument that--along with many others--has been relentlessly debated here and elsewhere. The fact is we did learn much from our initial SPA response and listened to our customers' critiques. That helped us craft our Customer Support Program--or the "protection plan" as Shifty calls it--and the customers it impacts have so far very positively received it. I wrote the initial customer letter for the SPA, and I must admit in reading it today, it fails to adequately convey the true spirit of our intent in initiating the service action in the first place, that being to reach out to those customers affected by engine damage from sludge, let them know we understand what they've been through and offer some restitution and/or reassurances of future well being. Interestingly, of the 1 million SPA letters sent before we halted the mailings in advance of the new CSP--with a much nicer letter I think--46 of those recipients contacted us solely to rip us for sending out such an un-friendly first letter. That's probably a little less than a handful--but it does not mean we don't regret the inconvenience and frustration felt by those who actually went through a sludge experience or the concern expressed by some of our owners upon just reading that first letter. We most certainly do--and we're more than a bit hopeful that this new position coupled with some individual one-on-one dialog where appropriate will help restore confidence and a positive ownership experience for our affected customers.
#792 of 877 greg_amy by armtdm May 01, 2002 (3:33 am)
If the dealer replaced the valve cover gaskets when you purchased the van and did not see the sludge but it appeared 4000 miles later. Me thinks for $500 you were a nice boat payment for that dealer!
#793 of 877 rubicon by duckshooter May 01, 2002 (4:41 am)
How can you possibly relate the Firestone/Ford fiasco to this issue? First off, there were TWO companies involved and they were pointing fingers at each other. There were horrible wrecks and people died. Both companies were being sued for negligence. The proportions, rate of failure and results were horrific. In the end it was determined that the primary cause of failure was Firestone's manufacturing quality control and which was linked to poor labor relations during a strike. There is no parallel between this incident and Toyota. Spot OFF! The case with Chrysler and Iacocca's managers involved criminal conduct - fraud. Deliberate, intentional fraud. And they were caught red-handed. Are you implying Toyota has knowingly, deliberately and intentionally committed fraud? Again, this is anything BUT spot on. At very most Toyota is "guilty" of pushing design margin - like all the other manufacturers out threre. The numbers (1 in a thousand) suggest a more random origin. A more random origin - like that which would affect any other make. And just might be. I know you're going to say that you're only comparing how the company HQ reacts to a problem... not comparing the problems themselves. But again, your underlying assumption is that Toyota has something to hide! It's like "we're gonna give this scoundrel a fair trial after we've sent to town for a length of rope to hang him with!" HOW a company reacts is a direct result of that to which they are reacting! Jeff
#794 of 877 tmusa1 - my apologies by duckshooter May 01, 2002 (4:59 am)
For putting words in your mouth. I extrapolated your comments regarding "industry-wide problems" and that this is not a "Toyota-only" problem, related to oil gelling (sludge) as indicating that Toyota is satisfied that their rate is comparable to others. I can't know this and you haven't said so. Secondly - it's true that Toyota has never said this issue is the result of internet hype. Again, that is my extrapolation. If sludging is a maintenance-related issue and Toyota is satisfied that their design is not to blame, then it would follow, in my view (not yours, necessarily!) that the issue really stems from hype - not Toyota's design. Again, my apologies. I'll try to do a better job in watching my attributions. Jeff
#795 of 877 changes of opinion? by jj35 May 01, 2002 (5:15 am)
There has been some discussion about how people's opinions have changed through the course of these discussions. I am wondering if bobistheoilguy has a different opinion. I put a lot of weight on what he said before, and I would like to know if he feels the same. So, deg856, the appropriate "source" for my question would be bobistheoilguy. Although I do feel it is none of your business, deg856, I can confirm tmsusa1's response that we have been hit and miss in trying to talk on the phone since last week and hopefully will get an opportunity to talk soon - east coast/west coast time zone problems plus, as he says, our lives seem to keep getting in the way.
#796 of 877 Bobishtheoilguy by cliffy1 May 01, 2002 (7:06 am)
Great post in describing what is done to the engines. I hope that helps others as much as it did for me in understanding what is involved in "desludging" an engine and the meaning of repair versus replace.
#797 of 877 Trust by cholowicki May 01, 2002 (7:35 am)
Why aren't sludge victims passified with the new SPA? I think it's a question of trust. Sure, 8 years unlimited miles sounds great, but speaking for myself, I have very little faith in warranties thanks to my Toyota experience. I was still under my 3 yr/36,000 mile warranty when my Camry engine seized. I had my warranty and oil change receipts, and it did me no good. Now this same company is telling me that with the "new" warranty and my receipts there is nothing to worry about. I think the new SPA is great for people who have not been affected, but a little harder to put faith in for those who have already been down the sludge path. What more can Toyota do? I'm not sure there is anything more that they can or should do, other than making sure that they and their dealers honor this warranty. Consumers are fickle, and trust has to be earned, not bought.