Toyota Sludge Engines

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:



So image if you were running cheap dino and 87 octane gas. You might be getting a rebuilt engine from Toyota now even with 3k OCI. And they swear they don't have a problem
mad.gif


And once my warranty runs out that will cost me how much? OUCH! I'm not sure I want to give that too much thought!
smile.gif
Time to sell this thing now? I wonder how many of these sludge-prone Toyotas acutally hit the 200K mark.
 
quote:

And once my warranty runs out that will cost me how much? OUCH! I'm not sure I want to give that too much thought! Time to sell this thing now? I wonder how many of these sludge-prone Toyotas acutally hit the 200K mark.

Actually initial they refused to cover this under waranty. Now it's a special coverage against engine geling for 8 years. BUT on those initial not covered ones. To clean out the engine ran $3,000 if caught early enough. A new engine ran $8500. Yeah. Problem I have is I keep cars 10 years and expect to with this one.
 
I was thinking of buying a second-hand Toyota V6 but after I looked at the vehicle log books at work, decided it would be too nerve wracking.

In Australia, the books still call for 15,000 KM changes with at least an SL oil
shocked.gif


It gets very hot here too
 
If I recall correctly Terry reported that he got the lowest wear numbers in his Toy V6 with "cheap" Exxon 10W30 Superflo dino with some additives to extend the change interval.
 
I wonder how widespread the sludge problem really is. These engines were/are in the Camry, Sienna, Highlander, Avalon, Lexus RX300, and Lexus ES300. There must be hundreds of thousands of them out there! I'm hoping that the problems have only been with with non-synthetic oil that hasn't been changed often enough. I was hoping to keep my wife's 2001 Sienna for at least another 5 or 6 years, which would mean I'd need to get about 150K miles out of this engine.

[ August 13, 2003, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: harrydog ]
 
It'd be interesting to know the percentage of those that have had sludge problems.
Even .005% amounts to 16,500!
 
It can not be any worse then all the vechiles with defective intake manifold seals on GM 3.1,3.4 and 3.8 V6's. This can allow coolant into the crankcase. How about all the 3.1,3.4 and LS1's with piston slap? What about the oil consuption issues with LS1, LS6 and Northstar engines. How about all the copper, iron and lead these throw? How about ford with explodeing Crown Vic's, Windstars that have 38 pages of TSB's for electrical problems, the Firestone fiasco, the Mustangs missing 150HP, the escape with drums that fell off the vechile going down the road. How about Daimler Chrysler and their sludge problem witch they still deny, or all the belly pan gaskets, head gaskets and oil pump failures and lets not forgett about all the trany issues with DC.

COnsidering that all of the Domestic brands had been produceing the same engines until recently for the last 40 years and still could not get it. I think that a 3-5 span on two engines is really a small issue by comparison!Yes it is bad but it pals in comparison to what was called durablity in detroit!
 
I know alot of people who had GM vehicles with the 3.1, 3.4, and even the 2.8 V6 in their cars, and have never heard of the intake seal problem. These little pushrod engines (aside from the early 2.8's)have earned a solid reputation for durability under some very demanding conditions. As far as the piston slap issues with the LS1's, well LT1's have some slap too as well as many other engines that have hypereutectic pistons in them. Some piston slap is harmless, and most LT1's and LS1's don't have severe slap that causes cylinder wall problems and so forth. As far as Mustangs missing 150hp, well take that 0 off the 150 and only account that to the 99 Cobras. Ford fixed this and now have the 03 Cobras that are underrated by at least 20hp, have an all forged bottom end, can run mid 11's all day long with just bolt ons without missing a beat, and can then make a long vacation back home from the track all for a measly $35k. As an owner of a Grand Cherokee with the Magnum 5.2, yes I would agree that the Magnums do have a sludge problem, but not as bad as Toyotas and in most cases not enough to have a significant effect on durability. Yes I agree, Toyota makes a good product, but I also think their durability especially for their engines is overrated when it comes down to the kind of use that the LT1's, LS1's, and other sbc V8's undergo in muscle cars and trucks. I could go on and on about this, but if Patman sees this, he might chime in with his seeing a sbc Chevy going to 500k without a rebuild and having never seen a Japanese motor go that long.

Jason
 
quote:

Originally posted by mebanditws6:
I know alot of people who had GM vehicles with the 3.1, 3.4, and even the 2.8 V6 in their cars, and have never heard of the intake seal problem. Jason

I have a 1997 Lumina 3.1 with 83,000 miles on it. I bought it new and had never heard of the intake seal problem till I read about it here. So far mine is original. Based on what people on here tell me, it will fail eventually.
 
I suggest that you look at the TSB's for the engines in guestion for the last 10 years. You can not argue with TSB's.

The 3.1 and 3.4 are the most problem prone engines that GM has! The 3.8 is the most reliable and durable. I have never owned a vechile new or used that had piston slap until it had over 150,000 miles! This is simply not acceptable! The 3.1 and 3.4 really developed a sever problem to an extreme when GM went to the Dubont 66 glass reinfored nylon manifold. They redesigned the manifolds. Changed suppliers. They have finaly redesined the gaskets and have but out many bullitins telling tech's to use the right kind of thread sealant(white kind). They have also revised the torq. sequence. At one point they were recomending that RTV be apllied over top of the exsisting gaskets before reinstallation. I do not know if this is still recomeded or not!

The power output and intended use should have no bearing on how you judge the vechile. If it is released from the OEM with 406HP it had better be 406 durable HP. If it is not durable it should be redesigned! It does not mater if it is a 150HP 2.2L 4 cylinder or a 406HP V8. The manufacture either builds a durable product or it does not! At no time is their any excuse for bad design or poor execution.

Their is no aspect of an engine that is not explored from a durability stand point. If your engine knocks and burns oil at 24,000 miles then rest assured the OEM is aware of this. The only time they do anything is if the number of complaints exceeds some magical number set buy the bean counters and lawers or if the Government get's involved.

Quite often cost cuting measures are implemented without testing. This is especialy the case with older designs that have been rather problem free for a good number of years. They start looking at how they can save 1/1000 of a cent per part. Often when they make a change like this they do not test it. They let the public do their durability testing for them. If the complaints are below some magical number then the redesign is considered a good move!

The fact not opion about Toyotas durability is really not very debateable. It is a statistcal fact not an opion. Ever industry measurement of long term durability puts them at the top of the pile. One such source is J.D. Powers.

As a consumer durability is so important that I chose to buy an import vechile at market price over useing my supplier discount to buy a domestic. This is very common practice were I work. Only about 50% of the people working their choose to buy domestic even though we get a supplier discount!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top