GR Corolla catches fire; Toyota denies warranty claim

[john_pifer]

Truly mind-boggling that Toyota allowed this to become a public relations Chernobyl.

As someone else alluded to, they probably would have been better off from a PR perspective just to replace the guy’s car. But, then, we also don’t know the whole story yet. And we may never.

I considered a GRC, but ended up deciding on an Elantra N due to the latter’s superiority as a daily driver and family car, better interior, better value for the money, and a few other reasons including Toyota dealerships’ smug attitude and markups.

 

[wavinwayne]

...what the heck does the tire speed rating have to do with their lame denial???...

This is what caught my attention as well. The whole Toyota response seems like it was a weird human/AI mish-mash.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Regardless of the origin of the engine hole and fire, what the heck does the tire speed rating have to do with their lame denial???
That car wasn't very old; did it have the OE tires on it? Pretty much any car sold today has tires which are speed-rated for more than 85mph. Did a replacement tire somehow make it onto the car after the accident and it was a poorly chosen tire?

Car had 21,000 miles. Dollars to donuts they were OEM tires

I will say, Toyota uses some cheap OEM tires. It might be valid after all.

 

[MolaKule]

Just last week we had a new Ram pickup catch fire on the main street about 50 yards from our house. It was in flames in less than 1 minute and totally consumed in less than 5 minutes.

I have absoutely no info on how it started, what he may have been carrying, or why it was consumed so quickly. There was no real explosion per se, just a very fast burn. Luckily the driver jumped out, called the FD, and is fine.

 

[02SE]

Toyota taking a page out of Fords 'lame reasons for warranty denial' handbook?

 

[dnewton3]

This would be a great application of the M/M act ....
Toyota is (presumably) blaming either the speed, or the tire, for a catastrophic engine failure?
They would have to PROVE the claimed product CAUSED the failure.

If they want to blame the speed, then why do they make a car that goes 85mph or greater? Why don't they have a speed limiter in the car that prevents 85mph if that engine cannot sustain it? (and we all know that vehicle speed and engine speed are NOT directly proportionally related in all gears). So how can VEHICLE speed be a problem? Perhaps they could have claimed that engine speed (rpms) was a cause, but it sure didn't seem that the engine was redlined in that owner video. I think we all recognize this is a bovine scat excuse. Neither vehicle speed nor engine speed should have been claimed as a contributing factor in that failure.

And the tires? Likely OE installed; some large brand name we'd all recognize. If Toyota wants to blame the tire(s), then they have to prove the tire(s) caused the engine failure/fire. Good luck with that when they go to court against Michelin, Goodyear, or whoever made the tires on the vehicle.
Q: How do you go about proving that a tire caused a hole in the back of the engine block?
A: You can't. But you try to bamboozle the owner and hope they don't pursue it.

 

[wemay]

85mph is a normal drive on S. Florida freeways. Anything above that, you gotta put your coffee down.

 

[Fa24wrx]

Crazy! Toyota has really dropped the ball recently regarding failures and warranty denial.

 

[mk378]

Car catching on fire is primarily an insurance issue. Unrepaired crash damage suggests the owner didn't have collision/comp in place.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Car catching on fire is primarily an insurance issue. Unrepaired crash damage suggests the owner didn't have collision/comp in place.

They were reading car damage off a carfax report - which likely got there exactly because it was repaired.

Either way who cares. How does a collision put a rod through a block?

 

[Pew]

I'm another way of seeing this, is the auto manufacture responsible for replacing every car destroyed in a fire that's still within warranty?

 

[SC Maintenance]

I'm another way of seeing this, is the auto manufacture responsible for replacing every car destroyed in a fire that's still within warranty?

Depends on what caused the fire?

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

I'm another way of seeing this, is the auto manufacture responsible for replacing every car destroyed in a fire that's still within warranty?

Of course not which is why they attempt to determine the cause of said fire.

 

[dbias]

A car fire is an insurance claim and let the insurance company subrograte back against Toyota if they feel it’s worth it.

 

[Pew]

Depends on what caused the fire?

Of course not which is why they attempt to determine the cause of said fire.

Hmm....two scenarios;

• Let's say an electrical fire from a bad engine wiring harness

or

• In the OP's case where rod flew out of the block and spilled oil.
  • Assuming this was a stock powertrain car
  • Assuming this was not a stock powertrain car and had typical aftermarket bolt-ons and a tune (I haven't read anywhere if it was or wasn't stock.)

 

[SC Maintenance]

Hmm....two scenarios;

• Let's say an electrical fire from a bad engine wiring harness

or

• In the OP's case where rod flew out of the block and spilled oil.
  • Assuming this was a stock powertrain car
  • Assuming this was not a stock powertrain car and had typical aftermarket bolt-ons and a tune (I haven't read anywhere if it was or wasn't stock.)

I am no lawyer, but there is something called the UCC - uniform commercial code. In layman's terms, it says what you sell has to be fit for its intended purpose. Ie a car should not catch on fire driving normally down the road.

There are those that say just call insurance. But insurance keeps a record of every claim - whether its your fault or not. Its stored in Lexis Nexis (spelling) and if you get too many claims for whatever reason it will cost you more to insure in the future. Why should I have to use insurance for your examples above. IMHO it should have zero to do with insurance - if in fact you can trace it back clearly to a defect.

If we are not hearing the whole story then I am more than happy to hear Toyota's response and reform my opinion.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Hmm....two scenarios;

• Let's say an electrical fire from a bad engine wiring harness

or

• In the OP's case where rod flew out of the block and spilled oil.
  • Assuming this was a stock powertrain car
  • Assuming this was not a stock powertrain car and had typical aftermarket bolt-ons and a tune (I haven't read anywhere if it was or wasn't stock.)

Scenario 1: Covered by insurance. Automaker should offer something. Perhaps not a new car depending on the mileage and condition but something reasonable.
Scenario 2 part a: Covered by insurance. Automaker should offer something. Perhaps not a new car depending on the mileage and condition but something reasonable.
Scenario 2 part b: May not be covered by insurance. Will unlikely be covered by automaker.

Neither will cover negligence by the owner. Of course verbiage in the factory warranty matters. Could there be a clause regarding total loss by fire? Perhaps.

 

[Dave Hess]

Hmm.

I really don't like the idea of such a tiny engine and expect very good reliability.

Dealer will do everything not to replace this vehicle.

 

[Pew]

I am no lawyer, but there is something called the UCC - uniform commercial code. In layman's terms, it says what you sell has to be fit for its intended purpose. Ie a car should not catch on fire driving normally down the road.

There are those that say just call insurance. But insurance keeps a record of every claim - whether its your fault or not. Its stored in Lexis Nexis (spelling) and if you get too many claims for whatever reason it will cost you more to insure in the future. Why should I have to use insurance for your examples above. IMHO it should have zero to do with insurance - if in fact you can trace it back clearly to a defect.

If we are not hearing the whole story then I am more than happy to hear Toyota's response and reform my opinion.

LexisNexis actually has an office a flew floors below mine. I've ordered their report back in 2019-ish. Interesting to learn that there's a risk database out there.

I believe there's a lot left out. Imo, if the car's power train was modified then it's at the owner's risk/expense. If not then I think it's a battle if the insurance should pay or if Toyota should 'warranty' it (if they could?)

 

[SC Maintenance]

For interest I searched my 2019 Rav4 manual regarding the 85MPH speed limit. Bold is mine. No idea if this is the same as for the car in question, but it would seem they would use consistent verbiage. So the speed limit thing seems to be only about tires, and seems to allow over 85mph if the tires are adequate. Nothing about engines.

The manual says the same thing when towing only 65mph. It also says obey the speed limit in many places.

Seems like hiding behind a speed limit clause is pretty sad for the worlds biggest auto maker.

"Do not drive in excess of the
speed limit. Even if the legal
speed limit permits it, do not
drive over 85 mph (140 km/h)
unless your vehicle has highspeed
capability tires. Driving
over 85 mph (140 km/h) may
result in tire failure, loss of control
and possible injury. Be sure
to consult a tire dealer to determine
whether the tires on your
vehicle are high-speed capability
tires or not before driving at
such speeds."