92-96 Camry: Sludge? Common Problems?

In news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Jimmy being of bellicose mind posted:

You ARE a bit behind the times.

Here you go, Mr. Arrogant. Toyota seems to know more about the problem than you do.

There's always room for the classics: Shakespeare, the musings of Plato, cheap Harley jokes.

About 3.3 million owners ....... about 3,400 complaints.

As an former owner of a 99 V6 sludge monster, I can tell you oil changes every 5,000 miles kept the car sludge-free for 75,000 miles up until we traded it for another Lexus.

-

-- Curtis Newton snipped-for-privacy@remove-me.akaMail.com

ICQ: 4899169

In news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Jimmy being of bellicose mind posted:

Jimmy .... the pertinent passage in the AutoNews article:

"Toyota says it has received about 3,400 sludge-related complaints since 1999. Spokesman John Hanson says the automaker never denied coverage to any customer who could prove the vehicle's oil and filter were changed at the specified maintenance intervals called for in the owner's manual."

What davidj92 meant was ... out of those 3,400 complaints, how many had valid paperwork showing minimum oil servicing for the life of the vehicle? NOT all those 3,400 qualified and those who didn't obviously believe they are getting the short shrift. What else would you expect?

So Mr. Smartypants, I ask you: how many sludged V6 engines has Toyota cleaned and how many of these engines has Toyota replaced outright? Do you know?

In news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Jimmy being of bellicose mind posted:

True ... oh so true! LOL

In news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Curtis Newton being of bellicose mind posted:

One tenth of one percent. Astonishing indeed. And not all of those

3,400 were valid claims.

visit the toyota faq and there talk about it and even compensation for some who had the sludge. for all quotes there is an equally opposite quote

The key issue is that Toyota acknowledges the problem, along with many of their mechanics. The fact that only 3400 people have reported the problem, or have experienced it so severely that it impacted engine performance, is somewhat irrelevant. The point is that this is proof that the engine has a *design* problem - other wise Toyota would never concede to repairing it

Please don't anyone try the old "they're just doing it to maintain their reputation in the face of invalid consumer complaints." No corporation takes the liberal repair and reimbursement stance that Toyota has with knowing full well that they are responsible for the problem and will lose a lawsuit over it. Toyota is known for its conservative warranty coverage. In this case they are even reimbursing owners for previous repairs. Not to mention, they will be paying out over $30million before they are done with this fiasco. There's no way Toyota management would make that decision unless they were sure they'd lose in court - the stockholders wouldn't stand for it. After all, if it's just .01% complaining, the complaints would not be an issue.

In news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Jimmy being of bellicose mind posted:

"Somewhat" ... meaning that for that most part, 3,400 out of some three *million*, three hundred thousand means about one tenth of one percent brings the incidence of sludge damage most probably owner induced. The Problem Toyota acknowledges is with the customer primarily.

"Toyota says it has received about 3,400 sludge-related complaints since

1999. Spokesman John Hanson says the automaker never denied coverage to any customer who could prove the vehicle's oil and filter were changed at the specified maintenance intervals called for in the owner's manual." Yet, you continue to state, insinuate and allude that Toyota is wrong and/or lying to cover a truth that you are privy to. That is the number I want you to state: All the people who, like you, have evidence and proof that Toyota is lying. I'm still waiting while you try to make another smoke screen. davidj92

More of your manipulations of the truth. Quote the words that Toyota spoke to say they acknowledge any problem other than owner neglect. Or show me where any of their "Toyata Mechanics" said anything in the article to support your claim. davidj92

Nonsense. First, Toyota is not known for their liberal out-of- warranty" coverage. Just the opposite in fact. Toyota does not conduct widespread repairs of this sort (millions of $'s) unless they think they would lose in court on the only issue that counts - responsibility. A management decision made on any other basis would be irresponsible to Toyota's investors and would result in a lawsuit of its own. They know that. If they could prove that they were not responsible they would do it in court - it's a win-win for them. It's not like they haven't been there before on out-of-warranty issues. Look it up in the history books.

Second, they tried to blame it on owner maintenance. That didn't work out when some owners starting showing up with receipts in hand to prove oil changes. Toyota's own mechanics have reported problems with cars they maintain regularly. Go buy some Toyota mechanics and service managers a few beers and let me know what your research shows.

Toyota had no choice but to accept responsibility for a problem they created when they tightened up these motors to meet optional standards.

First, that's reported, not damaged.

Second, they have *changed* the engine design. Doesn't that acknowledge a problem with the initial design ? Are we to believe that they just spent millions and millions of dollars retooling factories because an infinitesimal percentage of owners didn't maintain their cars ?

Third, have you read the latest conditions of coverage? Toyota is covering cars "eight years from the date of purchase for all 1997-2002 Toyota and Lexus vehicles with the 3.0-liter IMZ V-6 engine and all

1997-2001 Toyota vehicles with the now discontinued 5SFE 2.2-liter four-cylinder engine". In addition, the warranty has "no mileage limitation", "Covers owners who buy used vehicles", "Reimburses drivers who already have paid for repairs", and "Includes payments for tow trucks, rental cars and other incidental expenses resulting from engines that fill with sludge"

Do you have any idea how liberal and expensive this campaign will be for Toyota ? We're talking $30,40,50 maybe $100million dollars here. Now, try and tell me again that they don't think they are responsible.

complained ? Have you read the conditions of Toyota's

If it was this small a percentage and Toyota The millions of dollars tell the story better than you and their public

In news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Jimmy being of bellicose mind posted:

The trick ... is to stay out of court in the first place. Taking care of the negligent and the whiners is cheaper than court decisions and greater negative publicity.

Don't have to try. That only one tenth of one percent of the production in question is copious proof that there is no design deficiency when maintenance is performed per the APPROPRIATE service schedule (there are TWO). .

Showing up with reciepts was not enough. Fulfilling the minimum mileages and time frame in the maintenance book does from the inception of ownership is required ... not just the last 10k miles. AS for some frank talk with a service tech in a dark corner of a noisey bar ... the response is universally "Nobody with sludge has had consecutive receipts meeting time or mileage minimums. Deal with that!

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. But I'll give you the option of clarifying what you do mean.

Yeah now you go fishing for the unknowable. Define "damage" and how you're going to make that assessment without recalling every single vehicle for an inspection. How much sludge (gelling) can be present before "damage" occurs? You don't know.

How? Tell me specifically what was changed that now produces sludge. It will be more difficult for you to do so after you learn what conditions must be present to produce sludge.

You are free to *believe* anything. Facts will probably upset you.

Listen up, 2nd time .... cheaper to coddle the whiners and the negligent than to drag everyone thru a court case that would result in the same outcome as Toyota is taking. It has become a matter of rewarding negligent behavior for the sake if minimal negative publicity.

I have been quite succinct so telling you again would be like teaching a pig to sing.

I know a very small number of techs, but the three I do know said they have never seen an engine sludged up if the oil was changed (i.e. customer was able to show receipts showing an oil change at least every 7,500 miles).

-

-- Curtis Newton snipped-for-privacy@remove-me.akaMail.com

ICQ: 4899169

Right... Toyota is spend $50 mil or more because 3400 customers didn't change their oil according to the schedule. It makes much more sense the way you explain it

Where (or how) did you arrive at that figure of $50 million?

In news:Y5kUb.169819$ snipped-for-privacy@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com, Stephen Bigelow being of bellicose mind posted:

Yeah... that DOES make for some interesting unit repair costs! LOL

Valvoline MaxLife didn't carry the API donut when it first came out, although they claimed it met API standards. One theory was that they upped the amount of anti-wear zinc/phosphorous-based additives such that it wouldn't meet the API SJ standard (i.e what some Amsoil droids have claimed). Things have changed. The only other major-label oil I recall that didn't carry the API seal was Valvoline Premium Blue 15W-40 diesel engine oil. Cummins developed it with Valvoline and specifically recommended it as meeting their warranty requirements. It now carries the API donut (SJ + several diesel ratings).

Not any more. Valvoline MaxLife now comes in 5W-30. It's the only "high mileage" oil I've seen that comes in 5W-30. The first generation of "high mileage" oils all came in 10W-30 weights. Heck - Mobil even labelled Mobil 1 10W-30 as "higher mileage formula" for a while until they decided on the more sensible "multi-car formula". My guess is that the label caused confusion with people who should have used

10W-30 in their newer cars.