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 86 of 88: 1; ...; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86; 87; 88; Prev; Next; Last

#850 of 877 by Mr_Shiftright HOST May 03, 2002 (1:17 pm)
I would think that if you had any damage from sludge this would have shown up a lot sooner than 50,000 miles later, especially since you don't have lots of sludge now. It's hard to know if this cam bearing failure might have just been a manufacturing defect from the get-go. Without huge amounts of sludge currently, or evidence of oil starvation throughout the engine, I don't know how you could ever prove a sludge-related incident. I suppose you could closely inspect the oil galleys that feed the cam bearings and see what's up there.
#851 of 877 Signing Off for Now by tmsusa1 May 03, 2002 (2:17 pm)
Five weeks ago Toyota Motor Sales USA started this forum to provide an alternate venue for dialog with our customers. We also felt it was important for Toyota to use every available means to communicate the facts about our expanded Customer Support Program (CSP) for engine oil gel -- sludge. Toyota's first communications regarding the original Special Policy Adjustment (SPA) really missed the mark. Some felt we passed blame to Toyota owners for their sludge problems, and we regret causing any of our customers undo hurt for that perception. Also, we saw many competing theories--many obviously well thought out-- about the causes of sludge, what constitutes proper maintenance and the virtues or risk of different oil formulations. We felt compelled to address those to the best of our ability and extend appreciation to the "sludge theorists" out there as well as our own TMS USA technical staff for their contributions. It now appears to me that we've addressed all of the relevant issues surrounding the sludge problem as well as our important customer assistance plan for affected owners-- at least those queries and comments that can be reasonably addressed in a public forum such as this. Today, in addition to the ongoing CSP, we have many individuals at the dealership, regional and corporate levels (including special Executive Team Priority associates) working one-on-one with the handful of customers who still have problems or concerns or for whom--or whatever reason--were not originally handled in the manner in which they deserve. As everyone hopefully knows by now, we've set up special sludge hot lines for this very purpose: Toyota Engine Gel Customer Assistance 1-888-654-6421 Lexus Engine Gel Customer Assistance 1- 888-802-9436 And a special email address (corpcommstoyota.com) which will remain active indefinitely. The people staffing these lines are fully versed in all the details of our Customer Assistance Program and have the means and every intention of bringing individual matters to a satisfactory conclusion. While we are ending our active involvement with this forum, we most certainly are not abandoning our customers. In fact, this forum has probably actually helped us to recognize some faults in our customer response system. We've now addressed those, and I truly believe Toyota will be showing an even higher level of customer concern because of this experience. Should Mr. Shiftright and Edmunds decide to close this forum we have requested that it be archived to preserve the FAQs for the future reference of Toyota and Lexus customers. Thanks to everyone who took the time to offer thoughtful observations and constructive criticism. Please be assured that we are using this valuable information to enact improvements in our customer handling processes from the dealership level on up. Our ultimate goal is to achieve a satisfactory resolution with each customer--a mutual understanding that includes an apology and--we hope-- restoration of confidence in Toyota.
#852 of 877 Thank you by barbz May 03, 2002 (4:14 pm)
Thank you for answering some questions but I think the most important questions are unanswered. Like why does a maintained car still get sludge and why should we change our oil every 2,500 to 3,000 miles when the book says 5,000 to 7,500 miles. Answers to those questions would help restore my confidence. thank you
#853 of 877 In parting, my 2 cents worth by jethrog35 May 03, 2002 (7:00 pm)
In spite of this recent debacle, the world would be a much better place if everyone made cars to the standard that Toyota/Lexus does. I tip my hat to Toyota.
#854 of 877 Stealth1969 by stl66 May 03, 2002 (8:13 pm)
How many miles were on your Sienna when you first had the sludge problem? What kind of maintenance did you do?
#855 of 877 I still would like to know why I had to sign a release? by catgem May 03, 2002 (9:05 pm)
I will call and try to find out.....it just seems weird, in light of the new policy, which covers everyone....
#856 of 877 Back to Basics by spokane May 03, 2002 (9:26 pm)
It seems that Toyota’s responses have been as frank and thorough as could be expected. Although we might initially believe it to be a minor consideration, Toyota’s business performance in a very competitive marketplace is dependent on such things as the published oil change intervals. It is important to them that a competitor not be able to cite owner’s manual data on oil life as a Toyota disadvantage. While careful not to contradict the 5,000/7,500 mile published oil change intervals, Toyota is nevertheless providing strong encouragement to change oil if there is any doubt as to its condition. For example, it is suggested that the oil be changed after four months even if the vehicle were in storage during the entire interval. This guideline concurs with the published data but from my perspective, is a very stringent oil change standard. While many of us desired to see an engineering analysis of the engine lubrication question, we had to realize that Toyota’s responses would of necessity be based on marketing, sales, accounting, dealer, and other inputs as well as the engineering analysis. I believe they have now provided credible responses and a surprisingly strong special warranty. At the same time, it is certainly understandable that owners of some of the affected vehicles have not forgotten the rude treatment, costs, and inconvenience experienced during the months preceding the SPA announcement. Toyota’s explanation of the recent running change in the crankcase ventilation system is also plausible. I would not bother to try retrofitting this change to an existing engine but, as with any engine, I would inspect and clean the existing PCV system from time to time. Bob from Jacksonville has described the additional oil shearing associated with geared cam drives and pointed out that frequent oil changes will avoid problems associated with this type of oil deterioration. Bob, and others, have also provided information on recent and upcoming oil chemistry revisions. This information also provides an incentive to change oil more frequently than indicated by the automobile manufacturers. Further, please recall that Mr. Shiftright, backed by others of us who have also been focused on engine longevity for a few decades, advocates oil changes at 3000 miles or less for most types of vehicles. Perhaps we should try to regard the unpleasantness of an oil-sludged engine as we do our stock market losses – even though we don’t forget, we focus on the future rather than the past.
#857 of 877 Post #721 (pdalpsher oil analysis) by rubicon52 May 04, 2002 (1:39 am)
Pdalpsher provided a detailed description of his driving habits (not severe) and his oil analysis. The oil analysis (if I'm interpreting it correctly) indicates that his oil was "worn out" (change in viscosity, depletion of additives) at 2400 miles. His post and many others refutes Toyota's position about oil sludging being caused solely by poor owner maintenance and lends credibility to the other theories presented in this forum such as oil shearing, etc. The owner maintenance explanation never made sense to me. Although maintenance can vary greatly from owner to owner, if you look at, say, a million Honda Accord owners and a million Toyota Camry owners, one would expect the percentage of poor maintained and well maintained vehicles to be about the same for both makes. Also, Toyota buyers (in my opinion) if anything tend to be fairly responsible owners who are probably above average as far as maintenance. I only see 2 plausible explanations: 1. There is something about the design of certain Toyota engines that makes them more susceptible to sludging. 2. The sludge rate of Toyotas is comparable to that of other manufacturers, but forums like this have created mass hysteria in which Toyota owners are coming out of the woodwork with sludge compaints. Can anyone offer additional plausible explanations?
#858 of 877 PCV by armtdm May 04, 2002 (4:55 am)
Well, personally the PCV cleaning or replacement is a good try but I just find it impossible to believe. Over many many years, many many cars I have yet to see a PCV valve plugged up. In my Camry with 7500 mile changes the $4.50 part is cheap and I replace it but after 30,000 miles it appears as good as new. I just find that hard to believe. But, I use synthetic. Even other cars though, never had one of those suckers get filthy. I tend to agree with Bob on this one, the oil is simply being beat to crap in these post 97 engines and current oil can not handle the abuse. If I had a post 97 engine I would not bother with installing the new component.
#859 of 877 Shifty by duckshooter May 04, 2002 (5:53 am)
In reading your last post yesterday, something was just not right... and I realized today what it is. You said: "Fully 65% of these Americans said that 3,000 mile oil changes were "extremely important" ... "Okay, so let's presume then that of the 3,000 people who complained about sludge, that 65% changed their oil at 3,000 miles and still got sludge." "...So now we have 2,000 innocent victims..." This can't be said. The 65% figure may apply to the overall population, but when you define a non-random subset (sludgees) the 65% can't apply. Reason being - if you're in the other 35% of the general population to start with, you're more likely to be a sludgee (one of the 3000). Therefore, by necessity, the 65% figure cannot apply to the 3000 subset. In fact, you could make a strong case that only a few of the 3000 sludgees were in the original 65%. And then THIS would lead you to a few cases (a handful) of unexplained sludge - not 2000 of 3000. This is in keeping with what we've generally seen here - there are some cases of unexplained sludge but it's not evident that most cases (65%) are unexplainable. Jeff