I like that cartridge filter because (1), I can change it without getting any oil on me or anywhere else other than the piece of newspaper I have read to wrap the filter in, and (2), I don't have to mangle it with a screwdriver and wait for it to drain before I can legally toss it in the trash.
Toyota finally comes clean...
- Thread starter Da Game
- Start date
- Status
I like that cartridge filter because (1), I can change it without getting any oil on me or anywhere else other than the piece of newspaper I have read to wrap the filter in, and (2), I don't have to mangle it with a screwdriver and wait for it to drain before I can legally toss it in the trash.
That has got to be THE DUMBEST and most irresponsible comparison I have ever seen. Really. You're gonna sit here and try and compare Toyota to Enron???
You Toyota bashers are really diggin now, really grasping for anything.
We do see the Honda sludge monsters as well. It is on a smaller scale than Toyota becouse most Honda owners were more accustomed to frequent service visits. The rocker design Honda has used for years required regular visits as well as the interference engine design kept customers going in for maintenance. After working for Toyota for many years and hearing one saleman after another tell customers that the Camry didn't have to have the valves adjusted(half truth) and it would not bend valves like an Accord if the belt broke many customers left with the sense that all they had to do was put gas in and drive.
Perhaps many of you are aware of Hondas new regular service schedule which includes 10K oil change intervals. Most of us would agree 10K intervals with plain dino oil is going to cause problems with many drivers who definitly fall under severe service. Lets see how many engine problems Honda will see with 10K intervals in the 4cyl. chain motors they are now producing.
Toyota is a kiretsu organization bent on domination of it's market...period. They make good products...but not that good. My wifes Lexus RX330 has had 5 recalls. It's a good vehicle but overpriced. The American people are brainwashed into thinking the Japanese re-invented the automobile. That's crazy. Toyota is finding out that they can make 1 million cars almost perfectly but making 9 million is a different story. They will turn into GM soon.
toyota makes houses and buildings in Japan, its true! i bet theyre relible, i'd drive one of those houses any day
Hirev ,
I'm sure you didn't intentionally try and spin this with your post , but lets look at where you did just that .
You posted ;
" It all comes down to proper maintenance for the conditions you drive in. Easily 50% of the people on the road do inadequate maintenance for their driving conditions. "
Actually , there are studies which suggest if cooling system maintenance alone is considered , and incorrect as well as inadequate is tallied in , its more like 90% .
Of course , the terms of settlement shows that " lack of maintenance idea " , the very one they stiffed their customers with for oh , soooo long , utterly failed in court .
At this point , and with the actual terms of settlement in mind , not only does that dog not hunt , but that dog is dead .
Moving forward ,
- hey , I didn't come up with their slogan - they did ... lets look at some of the original post to see why toyota more than likely signed off on this settlement :
Toyota position : ' Toyota insists the problem arises mainly when owners fail to change their oil frequently enough. '
COURT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ' Sludge can result from poor engine design; overly tight tolerances between moving parts; improper cooling; and poor maintenance by consumers. '
I'd be happy to explain the poor engine design , overly tight tolerance stuff , the improper cooling and how it applies here to both engines if you 'd like .
You also might find it helpful or encouraging , depending on your position , to reread the original post in full . Nobody who hasn't perform reasonable maintenance gets a free ride - its just now the many that did get a fair chance for compensation .
The next set of errors in your post are data driven .
You posted ;
" Until recently, for decades Toyota stated 3750 miles OCI (Schedule "A") for severe conditions. Examples are short trips under 5 miles, temperatures remain below freezing, extensive idling and or low speed driving to name a few. "
" Or 7500 OCI miles for normal driving conditions (Schedule "B"). Problem is if you read the examples in the owner manuals. Some Toyota owners fit into Schedule "A" category BUT followed Schedule "B" 7500 mile OCI category or worse. I would bet a quart of oil that the people who have sludge issues with Toyota did not changed their oil at 3750 miles. "
Your information here regarding schedule A is incorrect . As a result , all your closing conclusions are also incorrect .
You also missed how toyota incorrectly wrote the owner information on how to distinguish which schedule to use . Of course , this is only item #12 on how they put themselves , and their owners in the ditch . Even if they had written this correctly , the only difference would have in time to failure for some .
Schedule A for these afflicted ( no ms ) vehicles and engines was/is specified by toyota as an oil change interval of 4MO or 5000 miles which ever came first .
You can confirm this and the incomplete/incorrect schedule information here .
http://www.toyotaownersonline.com/?s_van=GM_TN_OWNERSERVICES
I'm sure you didn't intentionally try and spin this with your post , but lets look at where you did just that .
You posted ;
" It all comes down to proper maintenance for the conditions you drive in. Easily 50% of the people on the road do inadequate maintenance for their driving conditions. "
Actually , there are studies which suggest if cooling system maintenance alone is considered , and incorrect as well as inadequate is tallied in , its more like 90% .
Of course , the terms of settlement shows that " lack of maintenance idea " , the very one they stiffed their customers with for oh , soooo long , utterly failed in court .
At this point , and with the actual terms of settlement in mind , not only does that dog not hunt , but that dog is dead .
Moving forward ,
Toyota position : ' Toyota insists the problem arises mainly when owners fail to change their oil frequently enough. '
COURT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ' Sludge can result from poor engine design; overly tight tolerances between moving parts; improper cooling; and poor maintenance by consumers. '
I'd be happy to explain the poor engine design , overly tight tolerance stuff , the improper cooling and how it applies here to both engines if you 'd like .
You also might find it helpful or encouraging , depending on your position , to reread the original post in full . Nobody who hasn't perform reasonable maintenance gets a free ride - its just now the many that did get a fair chance for compensation .
The next set of errors in your post are data driven .
You posted ;
" Until recently, for decades Toyota stated 3750 miles OCI (Schedule "A") for severe conditions. Examples are short trips under 5 miles, temperatures remain below freezing, extensive idling and or low speed driving to name a few. "
" Or 7500 OCI miles for normal driving conditions (Schedule "B"). Problem is if you read the examples in the owner manuals. Some Toyota owners fit into Schedule "A" category BUT followed Schedule "B" 7500 mile OCI category or worse. I would bet a quart of oil that the people who have sludge issues with Toyota did not changed their oil at 3750 miles. "
Your information here regarding schedule A is incorrect . As a result , all your closing conclusions are also incorrect .
You also missed how toyota incorrectly wrote the owner information on how to distinguish which schedule to use . Of course , this is only item #12 on how they put themselves , and their owners in the ditch . Even if they had written this correctly , the only difference would have in time to failure for some .
Schedule A for these afflicted ( no ms ) vehicles and engines was/is specified by toyota as an oil change interval of 4MO or 5000 miles which ever came first .
You can confirm this and the incomplete/incorrect schedule information here .
http://www.toyotaownersonline.com/?s_van=GM_TN_OWNERSERVICES
Last edited:
Actually , thats a very interesting observation - something I never considered before . There are , unfortunately , more similarities than differences , although the differences are important too . Even if everthing comes out they will still be here .
Toyota is mbecoming #1 because they make the most reliable cars and trucks on earth.....
The whole thing makes me shake my head...WHY would a company like Toyota, KNOWING there was a serious problem, bury there head up there you know what, and hope it would just go away....Big business, scary stuff.....
Maybe a lawsuit/settlement like this one would benefit customers screwed by GM's 3.1 V6 Intake Manifold Gasket problem. You didn't have to neglect maintenance to be a victim of that one.
My Dad recently pulled the valve cover on their 2000 Camry 4-cyl, and the portion of the engine he could see was spotless. His OCI is around 5000 miles and he uses mostly Castrol Syntec Blend.
My girlfriend's 2000 Malibu on the other hand started mixing oil/antifreeze internally and she was charged around $850 by the dealer for the cleaning and repair at around 65,000 miles. (yeah, the was probably too much for the repair, but she went ahead and did it.) I counted eight people, first hand, that I know of who had to have the same repair for their 3.1 V6. I don't like the whole "lawyers and lawsuits" thing, but, #@$%!, I'll bet a lot of people have the same IMG problem.
My Dad recently pulled the valve cover on their 2000 Camry 4-cyl, and the portion of the engine he could see was spotless. His OCI is around 5000 miles and he uses mostly Castrol Syntec Blend.
My girlfriend's 2000 Malibu on the other hand started mixing oil/antifreeze internally and she was charged around $850 by the dealer for the cleaning and repair at around 65,000 miles. (yeah, the was probably too much for the repair, but she went ahead and did it.) I counted eight people, first hand, that I know of who had to have the same repair for their 3.1 V6. I don't like the whole "lawyers and lawsuits" thing, but, #@$%!, I'll bet a lot of people have the same IMG problem.
Most of this thread is specualtion. Here is on fact. In a fleet of thousands of vehicles, nation wide, the only vehicle brand in any numbers that completely misses services in the Toyota. I'm talking about missing two to five oil changes. The assigned drivers, when asked sing the same song, "I though all I had to do was keep gas in the tank, after all it's a Toyota", or something close to that. We get that from no other brand, and we run them all. We have had some Toyota sludge problems but as close as we can determine, it's been missed services. It happens with some domestic's but almost never with Honda's. We can acutally connect missed services to extended spark plug life. It's kind of interesting but before spark plugs became a long life service item, services were almost never missed. Same with valve adjustments in small four cylinder engines. I think Hondas do better on service intervals because many drivers are aware that the valves need to be adjusted. No flames please, I'm just giving my reaction to two decades of data.
I pretty much said the same thing but be warned;your real world experience will be quickly dismissed as being tainted information.
Not at all. The poster to whom I responded tried to equate growth in net with the quality of the product or service offered. I simply pointed out that he was making a falacious argument.
Allow me to pass on my thanks for your having misrepresented what I wrote, and for having told me that I am dumb. Good information to have.
Allow me to pass on my thanks for your having misrepresented what I wrote, and for having told me that I am dumb. Good information to have.
It's not a falacious argument to equate huge growth of a LEGITIMATE, LONG STANDING, WELL KNOWN company with success,net income, and quality. DUH.
The fallacious argument was equating Enron with Toyota. That's just ridiculous and retarded. LONG before Enron collapsed, there were analysts blowing whistles and questioning Enron as a legitimate company.
Last edited:
Drew,
You must be commended for having raised the tone of debate here. Kudos.
Your opinion of the legitamacy of the Toyoda Automtic Loom Co. is not an issue. Many investors also had a very good opinion of Enron. That's why they put their money there.
Your comments on Ford and GM are irrevelevant, and many here would take exception with them, including poor dumb me. I own a Ford, out of our current six vehicles.
You must be commended for having raised the tone of debate here. Kudos.
Your opinion of the legitamacy of the Toyoda Automtic Loom Co. is not an issue. Many investors also had a very good opinion of Enron. That's why they put their money there.
Your comments on Ford and GM are irrevelevant, and many here would take exception with them, including poor dumb me. I own a Ford, out of our current six vehicles.
How in the world did we get in a knock-down,drag-out fisticuffs about Enron? Talk about chasing rabbits.
Quote:
The whole thing makes me shake my head...WHY would a company like Toyota, KNOWING there was a serious problem, bury there head up there you know what, and hope it would just go away....Big business, scary stuff.....
One can as you say , only shake your head .
We can really only guess at the details and motivations ,but the big picture is clear , that alone is scary and a shame as well .
Independent of just not having the problem at all , the choices that were made and the only possible explanations
are truly breathtaking in their scope and implications .
Whatever the story , choosing to half step to a defeat like this and doing it dirty versus hanging on to your good name ........
Remember too , a lot of these victims were loyal , happy toyota people until this happened to them .
On that score , its also worth remembering that in this industry a happy customer will positively influence one to two intenders whereas , an unhappy one will extend negative influence on eight to eleven , depending . So really , they are going to be paying even more in a different way for quite a while longer .
Realistically , they could have staunched the blood in 98 , without all the damage , put a positive spin on the whole problem and its solution , and gone from there .
In otherwords , take care of engines already damaged by then , revise the maintenance schedule retroactively - and forward on later production .
Oh well , they do say " pride goeth before the fall " ?
May be they got confused and started to believe their own spin ?
I imagine that what they got away with previously might have been a factor as well , esp with regards to the 2VZ-FE ( 88-91 )camry/es250 ,and most esp.the 3VZ-E( 88-95 4runner/toy.pic up , 93-95 t100 .
Maybe protecting the 5VZ-FE series somehow figured in .
Which reminds me , that early 4runner community is really something else . Many of them , realizing that the 3VZ-E IS unsustainable and/or undesirable have gone ahead and transplanted something better !
It started off with the GM 3.8L as the preferred upgrade ,but now people are using the GM 4.3L as well !
Last edited:
- Status
