Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Toyota 4Runner Sulfur Smell from Toyota 4Runner
862 messages, Last post on Aug 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM
You are in the Toyota 4Runner Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
"** There may have been 700 posts, but were they 700 specific, separate cases? Yes, it is one of the more commonly mentioned problems with the new 4Runner" I wasn't trying to suggest that they were all specific cases, my point was that looking at a lot of different vehicle boards here on Edmunds that there is a much higher discussion level on the sulfur problem compared with discussions on other repair type issues. If you add up all of the discussions on other boards per the sulfur issue it seems to be evident that it is a widespread problem. "**A TSB is usually issued for smaller issues or for a smaller number of affected vehicles." TSB's are issued for both big and small issues, and for smaller OR larger amounts of affected vehicles - but typically it takes a pretty widespread problem to engage a repair-related TSB. Recalls, on the other hand, are most always related to safety issues, regardless of the number of affected vehicles. "**Of course, the owner must complain if they have an issue with the sulfur 'odor.' Toyota has no idea which vehicles are affected..." My point here was that Toyota is STILL using the SAME parts that no doubt are causing the sulfur issue. Why is this?? I don't understand why they would just not implement the new parts in current production runs so that future buyers will NOT have to deal with the hassles associated with this problem. My guess is that Toyota is looking at $$$ savings as the priority rather than customer satisfaction - OR, they would make sure that NO ONE had this problem in the future. I find this hard to believe, especially when the sulfur issue has undoubtedly hurt sales and put a tarnished image on the '03/'04 4Runner's. I guess it's cheaper to make the repairs compared to the amount of profit that is lost due to aggravated, unhappy or lost customers. "**Sorry to say "it's better late than never," but even Toyota can make mistakes..." By "mistakes" do you mean per the original manufacture of the defective parts, or that they waited so long to implement the TSB? If the latter, you'd think Toyota would have learned after getting their hands burned when they skirted the infamous sludge issue. It's all about money... Toyota ignored this issue for a long time probably figuring it would be cheaper to make the repairs on a "when complained about" basis rather than implement a solution in production a long time ago. But it looks like it came back to slap them in the face, and someone at Toyota finally woke up to face the facts. Obviously other manufacturer's pull the same crap, it's not just Toyota. I guess I'll never understand why these companies want to alienate and tick off so many customers before they decide to get off their arses and provide a solution to these types of issues. Baffling to say the least. |
|
|
**I wasn't trying to suggest that they were all specific cases, etc.....** --Point Taken. **My point here was that Toyota is STILL using the SAME parts that no doubt are causing the sulfur issue" --I agree with you. Toyota should have corrected this problem as soon as they realized it. I am sure that costs were (and are) a factor. All I can say now is at least the issuance of the TSB is a first step towards correction of this problem at this time. If a full production 'fix' is implemented, then Toyota can be said to be on the road to making full amends.-- **By "mistakes" do you mean per the original manufacture of the defective parts, or that they waited so long to implement the TSB?** --I suppose I meant to place more emphasis on the latter. Toyota should have responded very quickly to early complaints of the sulfur problem instead of waiting. Toyota should have learned from the prior sludge issue, but apparently they did not. Considering this is a redesigned 4Runner, there are bound to be a certain number of errors in the newly finished product. However, I can't seem to fathom how apparently none of the Toyota test vehicles would have been afflicted with the sulfur problem. I would have imagined that this problem would stick out like a sore thumb. It is "all about the money" unfortunately, even for a respected brand such as Toyota. Mercedes Benz is also lauded for their high quality, well made cars of yore. Unfortunately, even MB has suffered many quality issues over the recent year. I also own an E500 Sport with many little issues that leave me wondering how a company can charge so much for a vehicle that is not rock solid. I am much happier with my 4Runner overall.-- |
|
|
|
|
manufacturer should have corrected EVERY defect or problem (there's a difference) in EVERY model of car that they have - why don't they do the right thing immediately? Because they don't have to, that's why. I deal with lemon law litigation for a living. Manufacturers, every one of them, fight tooth and nail before settling a case. They do this because they know the average American is impatient and will sell, trade, wreck, or repo a problematic vehicle, and they won't have to come up with ANY money in about 75% of their cases if they just put you off for a while. I don't fault Toyota they're actually one of the better manufacturers - ironically, it's the manufacturers that produce the worst junk that fight the hardest - strange, but true.... |
|
| The problem with the cat converters is that they are using different a material in them now that is safer for their workers to handle and for the environment. So toatally going back to the old materials wouldn't be a good idea if only a small minority of vehicles are affected. If the consumer complains they put on a cat with the old material in it and it is over for the affected person. It did take them a while but I believe this is the best way to fix the problem while still limiting the exposure to people and environment to a more hazerdous material. | |
|
"However, I can't seem to fathom how apparently none of the Toyota test vehicles would have been afflicted with the sulfur problem. I would have imagined that this problem would stick out like a sore thumb..." Noticeable problems like this have always bothered me as I also cannot understand why they are not discovered during testing. I realize that manufacturers are not going to catch every little thing, that's rather obvious. But something like the sulfur issue is indeed baffling. For the all-new 4Runner model I would guess that Toyota had at least several hundred test "mules" out there in the real world. These vehicles would have put on thousands and thousands of miles in the deserts, in the mountain and on the streets. One would think that at least a few of the vehicles would have exhibited this symptom. Or, maybe the problem did arise and Toyota decided it would cost to much to re-engineer the parts vs the estimated number of complaints they might have expected to get. Another classic example of "how did this get by?" is the new Armada and the "resonating roof" issue. On many vehicles the vibrating sound waves are so bad people cannot drive the vehicles. Looks like Nissan cut a few corners and manufactured extra-thin roofs without strong enough bracing. Their solution? A few extra large tubes of glue squeezed on and around the roof cross supports, which does not seem to completely solve the problem for a lot of owners. The entire roofliner must be removed, and in many cases are damaged in the process. Amazingly, Nissan is STILL producing Armada's with the same exact faulty design. One has got to ask, HOW in the world did something like this not get noticed during the road testing phase? And what morons at Nissan are preventing a solution from being implemented as a running change? As word has spread many sales have been lost and the Armada reputation is getting a black eye. I think manufacturer's need to "wake up" concerning situations like these. With the power and expanse of the internet it's a whole new world out there for consumers to share both their good and bad vehicle experiences. Negativity towards a given model or about its problems spreads like wildfire. |
|
|
Replying to: fudge123 (Apr 05, 2004 4:39 am) Shortly after posting I called Toyota and gave them the info. They contacted my local dealer. I got a call back from them to set up a service call. I brought it in yesterday and they replaced both catalytic converters per the TSB and said I should be good to go. However, driving it home the VSC TRAC and VSC OFF lights came on and stayed on. I brought it in this morning and they referenced another service bulletin and showed me the procedure. It was a simple recalibration using a hand held unit. They took it right away and I was out of there in about 15 minutes. I drove it in to work about 20 miles and did not see the lights come back on. I let them know the aggravation and inconvenience these issue have caused however to their credit they have very good customer service. |
|
| At what number did you call Toyota? | |
The TSB for the 2UZ-FE engine(V8 powered 4 Runner) has just been released the TSB# is EG020-04. The repair procedure is identical to the V6(which was posted a couple of weeks ago).
|
|
|
Replying to: 4rnr (Jun 14, 2004 1:42 pm) |
|
|
|
Hi I just did a little research on this problem and have learned that 60 complaints have been submitted to the NHTSA for this sulphur smell. What everyone is focusing on is the smell of rotten egg however disgusting and potentially dangerous that is, it is not what will KILL. The Carbon monoxide(CO)is the real danger because it is odorless and deadly it is also getting into the car by the same means as the obvious egg smell. I was so concerned that I contacted a environmental company who came for a ride along in my 2003 sr5 4runner. This ride proved to me that(CO)is indeed entering the cabin and alarmed the tech who came along with a (CO)tester. At one point he yelled "Close the F #%%& rear window". I saw the readings go off the charts depending on the configuration of the windows, with the rear window open being the worst. I did not pay for this test as they were being kind enough to just see if I had any (CO)entering the cabin. This was enough for me! I have since contacted Toyota customer service and I am waiting to hear from the regional rep from FL. Another option for people to find out on their own is to go to the home depot and buy a (CO) tester. This can be plugged into the 110 outlet in the glove box. I did and I do not drive with the rear window down at all any longer. This is a serious problem that may be corrected by changing the location of the tail pipe to vent to the side of the vehicle. I am going to complain to the NHTSA with this post and see if this will get the people who are supposed to protect us "to wake up." If someone else could do a similar test in their state we could have more ammunition to fight Toyota. I have found out that the EPA company would do a complete test with report and all for around $340.00. I am going to see if the service rep would do this but I doubt it. If anyone has the extra money that they could afford to use PLEASE DO IT! I originally posted on a 4 X 4 site I also made a complaint to http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/complain/complaintsear- ch.cfm the # is 10078432 I have been contacted by the Rep today and he is currently researching. I think I got his attention for a different reason (CO).
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Toyota 4Runner Sulfur Smell from Toyota 4Runner
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Toyota 4Runner
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
