2022-2023 Toyota Tundra Recall - 98,600 vehicles for engine stall/failure issue
- Thread starter PWMDMD
- Start date
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
Wonder if this will end up affecting the GX550 with the 3.4L twin turbo
Or maybe just another hit. Maybe that's why my driveway has a Mazda in it!
Ah yes why blame the engineers when they can blame the workers.
Undersized bearings seems to be the trend lately.
Well. BMW S65/S85 has rod bearings as a maintenance item and these engines were preceded by the S54 which also developed rod bearing problems. We in BMW land were thinking after the S54 that there would be no way BMW would let that happen again. Boy were we wrong.
The EcoBoost is just as bad (complex)....and they are reliable. The 2.7's are getting a reputation as extremely reliable.
It's a matter of the engineers and their bosses telling their bosses what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. The so called "bean counters" come in after the sh** happens and tell them how much they screwed up. In the news just today, Toyota management apologized for lying and cheating on vehicle testing.
Did you get a Honda?
I'm talking about the engineers turning over a perfectly good design and then the beancounters cost reducing it to death.
'we don't need to hot tank those blocks a second time, they've already been done once before they were line bored, that will save $.50 per block, it will only affect XX% of all blocks and that is an 'acceptable' loss.' - Totally made up statement, but has probably happened somewhere.
That kind of thing.
Just like GM saving $2 per torque converter on their 8L transmissions that is continuing to make them bleed millions.
I have 2009 Pilot my FIL left here. I drive it once a month so it doesn’t die. He uses it when they come 2-3 times a year. It is astonishingly uncomfortable vehicle.
Manufacturing and quality control is not in the perview of the so called "beancounters." They can tell the engineers and management what it costs to hot tank a block but they don't decide whether to do it or not.
They absolutely did in the case of GM and the 8L transmissions. I'm quite sure the engineers didn't decide to go from a carbon disk to an inferior untested paper clutch disk because it was the best choice. They did it to save the $2 and to bolster corporate relations with LUK.
Respectfully, that's speculation without data.
If it were due to EPA regulations then why don't they say so?
And why just certain engines? Why not all that meet spec?
JHZR2
Staff member
That’s true. A pig of a vehicle is a pig of a vehicle. If it requires a ton of power to overcome wind resistance at speed, a higher worked engine isn’t going to help, and a superior SFC will help to a point, but we’re almost splitting hairs.
Well that explains it...
Occam's razor - Wikipedia
I wonder if they are getting Chinese steel, maybe not hardened properly. Usually defects are at the hands of suppliers. The first couple of years of Mercedes 3.5 production had balance shafts that were not hardened properly. A lot of people had costly repairs. Some of it was done under warranty. The manufacturer may go after the suppliers but that doesn't do the owners any good. Stay away from 06-07 3.5 V6 MB engines.
It is a big vehicle, but so are others, and they return better mpg, even though many are not hybrid. This engine will need a lot of tweaking to catch up with others, if ever.
Did you read my reply you quoted?
Yes, emissions, I get it.
MPG, on the other hand, is horrid for such an engine.
Also, apparently, GM does not have a problem meeting those same emission standards with a V8 engine.
The same goes for the appliance SUV category. Toyota went 2.4T, and Honda stayed with V6. Both have to meet the same emissions standards (which was emphasized by Toyota as one of main reasons dropping V6).
So, why Toyota went turbo? I think there is more to it with chasing performance and trying to reinvent itself a bit. However, they are really, really behind others in this game, and it shows.
Similar threads
- Locked