In news: snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com, snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com being of bellicose mind posted:
Cars don't cause problems. Appropriate maintenance that people have NOT been doing is causing Toyota problems. Neglect is driver induced (in the absence of a oil contamination from coolant) AND Toyota so states in so many words right in the warrany book. Toyota has decided to put the matter behind them with a PR move to warrany damage from neglect where a mechanical fault is absent. The only "old" part is your insistance to the contrary.
"Philip®" spake unto the masses in news:RGLEb.11213$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
How many times?? The f***ing site is DOWN. DOWN, people, DOWN. The scum that run this site got kicked off for spamming and false advertising.
I cannot help it that your ISP caches pages for insane lengths of time.
How many times do I have to explain to people that what they see on their screens is usually NOT the site itself but a locally-stored copy on their ISP's servers?
I'll post a fuller explanation once I've calmed down.
Mike, I'm a little closer to the issue than you are. The problem is "gelling without service or extended drain intervals. It doesnt mean Toyota wont fix it. Its kinda like the Ford CV fires, we all know its there, you say its not a Ford problem, right? Did Ford install a fire supression system becasue there wasnt a problem? You will asnwer yes, so why cant Toyota fix gelling as a PR move like Ford did? Or are you swimming in denial again? Funny, its not a problem when its Ford, it is if its Toyota.
I hate to repost this, but since the page doesn't exist any longer except on my ISPs server, I figured I would post it here.
I thought the Welcome and FAQ spelled out it pretty well.
Welcome:
Welcome to the AUTO-RX report page. This web site will document the test of an engine cleaner available here.
I began this test because I was, to put it lightly, skeptical of the claims made by the inventor of this product. He has plenty of testimonials but little in the way of photographic proof.
When I presented photos of this engine to Frank, the inventor of this product, this is what he had to say:
"This is a much lower cost option than tearing your engine apart and cleaning by hand, even then you would not get rid of all sludge. Auto-Rx will -- we guarantee it!"
"One of the great benefits of Auto-Rx is the fact that it cleans sludge, varnish and all third party abrasives from your engine"
I had my doubts so I decided to put this site up where interested parties could follow my progress.
Note: This test is not condoned or endorsed by the makers of Auto-Rx. Nor am I affiliated with, friends of, or even remotely liked by the makers of this product.
FAQ's
Q - How did your engine get so dirty? A - As far as I can tell it was due to poor oil changes and possibly overheating. I bought the car used.
Q - Why are you testing this product? A - I simply want to see if it works as advertised. The claimed performance of Auto-RX is remarkable.
Q - Why are you not providing an oil analysis? A - An oil analysis would take additional time to complete and is not necessary to see the visual effects of Auto-Rx.
Q - Well that's not very scientific! A - This was never supposed to be scientific. Either the product cleans or it doesn't.
Q - What are your qualifications to perform this test? A - I feel I am qualified to pour a bottle of Auto-Rx into my engine, drive the car, and take pictures of the result.
Q - So you are going to test this product when you don't have a degree in chemistry, automotive engineering, etc? A - Neither does the typical Auto-Rx customer. No one questions their results.
Q - So you admit that there have been positive results. A - Yep.
Q - So why are you doing your own test. A - Because too many of those results were subjective. "My car runs better, faster, uses less oil etc". Or, "look what was in my oil filter after I used Auto-RX". I have been unable to find a legitimate set of before/after photos of an Auto-Rx-cleaned engine.
Q - Will you post my before/after pictures of Auto-RX? A - As long as they clearly show the engine and they are well documented.
Q - I did my own test and Auto-Rx worked great! A - Great! Send me the pics!
Q - Well, we didn't take pictures. A - I get that a lot.
Q - Why are the camshafts in the same position in both the before and after pics? A - This is intentional and was done to make it easier to compare specific areas. If you look closely they are NOT in the exact same positions.
Q - I noticed that the first set of photos show the engine covered in oil. Why do the other sets show a dry engine? A - After taking the first set, the "before" photos, I noticed that the oil film would affect the viewers ability to notice whether cleaning was happening or not. In the next sets of photos I "patted" the engine dry with an old t-shirt to remove the excess oil.
-
-- Curtis Newton snipped-for-privacy@remove-me.akaMail.com
I don't see the connection between CV police car fires and Toyota sludge.
Civilian CV don't have a particularly high fire rate. Police CV don't either, but a few unfortunate incidents have been blown out of proportion because greedy trial lawyer want money and incompetent politicians need cover. Police cars are purchased by contract in response to stated requirements. The bureaucrats and politicians did not write anything into the requirements about fuel tank bladders, or fuel tank integrity in 70 mph crashes, etc. CVs far exceed NHTSA fuel tank integrity requirements. The offering of fire suppression system is clearly a PR move - and probably a bad idea.
In Toyota's case, certain Toyota engines appear to have a far higher rate of sludge problems than comparable engines from other manufacturers, or even other Toyota engines. While I am sure the problem could have been mitigated by frequent oil changes, it appears to me that the uniquely poor behavior of certain Toyota engines does constitute a design defect. Blaming all the failure on a group of otherwise "average" Customers is horrible PR. I don't know how Toyota designs and test their products, but I am familiar with several US manufactures (non auto, although I'd bet the US auto industry is similar). The designers I know always consider "foreseeable" misuse in their designs. In the case of Toyota engines, I think it is certainly foreseeable that a significant number of Toyota owners would not be religious about changing oil. The design of the sludge prone Toyota engines might have been adequate for most conditions, but it certainly did not include a safety margin comparable to other similar engines.
If they are caching it, they are doing a great job. I liked the Santa Hat on the title block. Personally I don't plan to ever need the product. I believe the IP address is 69.56.130.147 . According to Arin this address belongs to:
OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc. OrgID: TPCM Address: 1333 North Stemmons Freeway Address: Suite 110 City: Dallas StateProv: TX PostalCode: 75207 Country: US
Is there any warranty the chemical wont damage gaskets NO , motor NO
Even if there was a warranty do you think you would collect, or be able to prove it, NO
The guy who did the test says he isnt affiliated with the inventor, but he takes over a hunded photos and pulls the cover several times. And does alot of tests , for Free ? BS
All photos show same apx lighting and side lighting, Suspicous
Al photos taken over time are the same as in background lighting, suspicous.
Tests are not indepently verified
Cam is in same position. It looks like it was powerwashed and re photoghaphed.
Motor was powerwashed !
Any number of chemicals will clean a motor, but safely,? And the crap is circulated throughout the motor, probably doing more harm than good.
The car probably doesnt even run, It was just cleaned, Powerwashed and re-photographed, As the entire motor and compartment are clean.
Then you are truely a Ford apologist. Rick has identified the connection in the above paragraph ... but you still don't get it. So here is the pertainent passage followed by what you are supposed to think:
Ed: The understanding you need to assimilate is that the overblown "problem" with a tiny minority of V6 sludge and a tiny minority of Crown Victoria Police fires has been addressed with a public relations solution. Toyota with a warranty extension to qualified claimants and Ford with fuel tank protection plates, warning labels, and now an optional fire extinguisher system. It is also prudent to remember that sludge has not resulted in ANY deaths.
"C. E. White" spake unto the masses in news: snipped-for-privacy@mindspring.com:
Aaaaand.....has anyone actually done a port check on that IP to see if port
80 is open? A port scan does not use HTTP, and thus bypasses the http caching proxy server. I just did using NetDemon and nmap. There is NO open port 80 at that IP address. Reprinted below is an explanation of caching servers that I sent via email to Philip:
-----------------------------------------------
There are two different kinds of Internet cache:
1) Your browser's cache, and
2) Your ISP's cache.
You can only monkey with your browser's cache. You cannot do anything about the cache Earthlink runs.
In order to improve access times and end-user (you) experience, most ISPs will store a copy of requested pages and images locally on one of their own servers, called a caching server or caching proxy server. This is especially useful for dialup users, but applies to everyone using most ISPs.
The first user to request a particular page experiences whatever delay in getting the page. The page and its associated files are drawn directly from the Web site itself. Subsequent users will see the page load faster, but will be unaware that they are not actually seeing the Web site itself, but a locally stored copy of it on their ISP's own server, which the server established at the time the original requests were made.
Most ISPs have "transparent proxies", which are caching servers that are invisible to you. You are forced to use them and unless you know how to do a traceroute, you will be unaware that they are throttling you through such a proxy.
Caching servers are used in many places on the Internet. They are used to help speed things along and to reduce load on servers downstream for commonly requested pages. The problem with caching servers is that it can take anywhere from hours to days before the cache is flushed or refreshed. Therefore, a change to a site may not be visible to the end-user until the cache is flushed and a new copy of the page is stored in the caching server for your browser to go and grab for you to see.
If a DNS entry (the thing that links a name to a locatable numeric address) has been yanked or has expired, you won't see that either until the cache has been flushed and renewed. This means that at least for a while, it will appear to the end-user that the site is still up, which is exactly what's happening here with rms13.com.
Caching servers make it troublesome for Web page authors who are uploading their work to remote hosting companies. They may have to wait for some time before seeing their handiwork online unless they are with an ISP that is willing to let you bypass their proxy/caching server. Your ISP, Earthlink, is not one of them.
My ISP, unlike most, has an optional caching proxy server. I do not use it, which is why I'm seeing the change to the DNS record before you do.
Curtis Newton spake unto the masses in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Thanks. Philip already emailed me with two of the pics. I thought they were unremarkable. The engine Philip showed me didn't have much sludge at all. I've seen far, FAR worse.
mRansley.... I beg to differ on a few points interspersed below:
In news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net, m Ransley being of bellicose mind posted:
There are people known in EVERY endeavor as "enthusiasts."
Cams are NOT in the same position for the three different photo sessions. For the MOST obvious example, image DSCF0037 (and several others) show a yellow master link on the cam chain. At the very least, the engine has been rotated for EACH of the three photo sessions. I've looked closely at the cam lobe positions.
You're guessing.
The engine has been rotated. Whether that was accomplished manually or by actually driving the car is not discernable from the photographs.
What little you can see of the engine compartment suggests an absence of dirt. Why this is so is purely speculation.
In news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net, m Ransley being of bellicose mind posted:
The evidence pictures generate more questions than answers. Anyone who has used a pressure washed or hot tanked a badly varnished cylinder head and block would be suspicious from the way the remaining varnish looks.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.