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 81 of 88: 1; ...; 78; 79; 80; 81; 82; 83; 84; ...; 88; Prev; Next; Last

#798 of 877 RE: changes of opinion? by jj35 by dtownfb May 01, 2002 (10:01 am)
I think few people on this forum need to tone it down a bit. I thought the idea behind this new forum was to get answers from Toyota not argue like in the other, now defunct forum. My opinion has not changed regarding this issue. I still believe the worst part of this is not the engine sludging but how Toyota handled the issue. I agree with shifty and cliffy that it probably is a combination of things that cause this that is somehow related to the engine modifications made in 1997 to meet the LEV standards. It appears that Toyota almost admits this but their use of "poor maintenance" also puts blame on the owner as well. If they used another term other then 'poor maintenance'. I think it would have satisfied everyone. I commend Toyota for offering the 8 year warranty and for creating this forum to answer any questions regarding the sludge issue. As long as they make good on the warranty and reimburse those who had trouble earlier (tmsusa1: I would suggest a written letter of apology these folks), everyone should be satisfied. My only question is regarding the maintenance schedule (this can be answered by tmsusa1 or anyone else). What should the owners follow as far as oil changes? If I were an owner, even with the 8 year warranty, I still wouldn't want to have my engine sludge. Who wants to go through the hassle? Should the owners still follow what is in the manual or should they revise their maintenance? Thanks
#799 of 877 dtown, by bobistheoilguy May 01, 2002 (11:37 am)
If you follow a path and it leads you to the wrong place, should you follow it again and see if it gets you where you want to go?, or will you end up in the same place again? If your promise yourself you're gonna make more money this year but yet you go and do the same job as you did the previous year, are you gonna make more money? Change has got to be done in order to not end up in the same place. jj, yes, I still stand by my position and as of yet no one including any of the master ase master mechanics have been able to disprove this. Fact is, We have gone through some very promising steps to see what can be done for people who are not so wise on staying up with current oil changes and I hope toyota will consider this as this dealer is looking hard at what we have accomplished. Now, no matter what the problem is that caused it, (and I can assure you,I have seen many pre 97 engine designs sludged up as well due to the same problem which isn't the engine design), it really makes no difference what I believe, but what can be done to keep it from happening and again, as stated before, drop your oil change intervals. No matter what is said in the manual, if those of you that followed it explicitly (and you know if you did or not) and occured sludge, then by changing your maintenance interval to a shorter duration will eliminate your problem. This is in your best interest to keep a great car going and not have to hassle with going through this again. Simple as that.
#800 of 877 Replies to Deg856 and Duckshooter by rubicon52 May 01, 2002 (12:59 pm)
I did assume that because Toyota's special policy covers engines of 1997-2002 vintage, that these were the engines experiencing the sludge problem. You referred to this as jumping to a conclusion. The truth is that all of us only have anecdotal evidence (except for maybe Toyota). Let me ask you. If Toyota's special policy covers 1997 to 2002 engines, what vintage of engines would you assume are afflicted with the sludge problem? Yes, I was comparing how a company reacts to a problem, not the problem itself. Is it impossible to compare company responses unless the problems are exactly the same? There will always be differences in problem severity, degree of negligence, parties involved, etc. I didn't intend to project a "business if always bad mentality". I believe I cited one example of what I thought was a positive response by business (Chrysler) and one example of what I thought was a poor response by business (Ford/Bridgestone). One of each - simple.
#801 of 877 rubicon52 - why did they pick those years if those are not the years with actual higher rate of sludge? by deg856 May 01, 2002 (3:19 pm)
That question is a logical paradox. For practical reasons they have to limit the scope of the coverage, and they apparently chose what people would consider "late model" years, but no matter what years they choose someone would ask the same question. All you can say from the special policy is that Toyota is trying to reassure the customers with late model cars who are worried to address a public relations issue, but there is no legitimate technical assumption to be made from the policy itself. Let’s say you’re looking at the warranty history of a product from 1970 to 2002. Normally the product has a 2-year warranty, but in 1993 a three-year warranty was offered for unknown reason. As a failure analysis professional, wold you jump to the conclusion (or make the assumption) that, aha, the rate of failure of the product was higher in 1993, based on the warranty period offered alone? You gave two examples (Chrysler vs Ford/Firestone) but reached one conclusion – as long as the business accepts the blame things are fine. That’s the one-sidedness that I object to. Don't get me wrong. I feel your overall position is fairly reasonable and moderate. I'm just trying to address some minor logical fallacies as I see it. San Jose, CA
#802 of 877 deg856 by rubicon52 May 01, 2002 (4:56 pm)
First, to answer your question about the change in warranty history from 2 to 3 years. No, I wouldn't assume a higher failure rate for the product. However, this special sludge policy is a little different. Toyota went from never having a special sludge policy to an 8-year policy. That's different than an adjustment to the warranty period of a long standing warranty. Also, 1997 was not just any year for Toyota. I believe that's the year they changed the design of at least the Camry from the 92-96 style to a new style (I might have the years wrong). Not only did the style change, but Toyota did a well known decontenting of their cars to remain competitive. I think if you read back over the many posts in the sludge forums, you'll see speculation about whether the 1997 changes (especially because many of the changes were to make the cars cheaper) somehow involved a design change to the engine that made them more susceptible to sludging. All manufacturers are relentlessly cost cutting and even Toyota can make a mistake. I'm not saying that happened, but that is the speculation.
#803 of 877 by Mr_Shiftright HOST May 01, 2002 (5:05 pm)
Seems to me if Toyota comes up with an 8 year plan to "restore trust", then the ball is in the customer's court to accept that policy and to make an effort to restore their own faith in the product. If someone puts out a hand in a gesture of conciliation, and you turn your back, well then you can't go away mad. You can at least grudingly shake hands and even cross your fingers behind your back if you want, but refusing to bury the hatchet is, in my opinion, counter productive for both you and the company (it doesn't encourage them or any automaker to "do the right thing").
#807 of 877 I do like Toyota's latest response, and would be 100% by catgem May 01, 2002 (9:55 pm)
happy with it, except for one thing: as far as I know, I am the ONLY person who had to sign a release to get my $$$!!! that makes me feel very insulted, especially now that they say everyone is covered. I really do take this aspect personally. My local Georgia dealer was insulting and dishonest(never telling me about the "oil filter"), but I cannot say I like Toyota's demeanor to me either, especially now that the policy changed.I wish I had waited to apply for the SPA.