Follow up...Oil changes, Toyotas, and GM problems

I suspect that only Toyota knows the answer. Same with the Chrysler 2.7. Theories abound, ranging from the manufacturers cutting too far back on PCV flow rates (to reduce emissions and improve efficiency) so that contaminants aren't removed from the crankcase quickly enough, to relying too heavily on oil for heat-removal without adding an external oil cooler.

Its a statistical issue. More of these particular engines fail than other comparable engines GIVEN THE SAME CONDITIONS. Its ridiculous to assume that the owners of all these engines abuse them MORE than average. So, when a statistical anomaly appears, there is very likely an underlying cause. The fact that plenty of the engines live out perfectly normal lives means nothing, except that the flaw wasn't immediately fatal, and very few flaws like that ever get out anyway. Lots of GM 3.4 engines lived happily to 200,000 miles, but the intake manifold sealing weakness was there in all of them and caused failure in an abonormally large number of them. There are many 1981-83 Chrysler Imperials out there still running blithely along with the original fuel-injection system, but the system was generally so trouble-prone that any owner who wanted could get a free conversion to a carburetor. Not EVERY early 90s Honda ignitor module failed, but the design was flawed and recalled. Not EVERY Ford SUV with the brake fluid pressure cruise control switch has caught fire, but everyone agrees its a problem. Not every right-hand drive Toyota has had its headlights go dark, but so many have that it resulted in one of the biggest automotive recalls ever:

Need I go on?

But you are making a specific statement about Toyota selling motors of a marginal or poor design. So please back that assertion up with some facts about the engine design. Otherwise your assertion is completely unsupported.

OK, if it is a statistical issue, then please provide the statistics. How many vehicles were produced that used those motors during what I believe is a 10 year period. And of that number how many failed because of a sludging problem. All I have read to date have been rumors of a huge problem with those engines and a few people who have actually had a problem.

I'm beginning to think this supposed problem is more fabrication than reality - not unlike all of the frenzy surrounding the Audi 5000 cars. Absent any confirming statistics to the contrary I think what you have are a few people who did not care properly for their Toyota cars. The media frenzy from a couple of lawsuits appears to have convinced Toyota that it would be less costly to pay off a few people and move on.

You keep talking about statistics and statistical anomalies but so far you haven't provided any of the numbers (statistics) to show the presence or absence of a problem with those motors.

No what it means is that very few engines really had a problem. Period.

No, its been confirmed by two Toyota techs who post here. They may disagree with me as to whether or not its an acceptable design or not, but they have confirmed that this engine does experience failures more often than others experience under the same conditions. Go back and re-read the thread.

I personally will not buy or own an engine with such a clearly demonstrated weakness, regardless of whether or not that weakness almost never manifests itself under "good" maintenance conditions. I want all the design margin I can get, and since other engines can tolerate much greater abuse there's no reason to buy the marginal ones at all. I believe that will ultimately translate to much longer service even under the excellent care that *I* would give either engine. I seriously doubt you'll see even the best cared for examples of these engines (or the Chrysler 2.7, or the GM 3400) live to >400,000 miles as some of my engines have.

If you want to be a Toyota True Believer, go ahead. The point I wanted to make has been made... repeatedly.

I went back and looked and the only person I could find that sounded remotely like a tech said: We've been around and around over this in the ole' Toyota forum. I've de-sludged a few hundred of those darn 6 cylinders since they started showing up a few years back, and not ONE had documentation of a reasonable service history. They were all either spotty (10k intervals or more or so), or absent of any records at all.

Just so you don't miss it he said that the failures all had poor or no documented service history. Proof of the cause of those failures doesn't get much clearer than that.

Also, where are your statistics.

I'm not a believer in any single car because if its name. I go on facts. And so far there have been few facts, but a lot of rumor, innuendo and urban myth spread around on this topic.

Aside from the fact that its damn unusual for ONE tech to "de-sludge" a few hundred of ANY engine model, he also said that the problem "started a few years back" with the introduction of that engine. It didn't happen to previous engines, and maintenance habits didn't suddenly change just for this engine. It doesn't happen at the same frequency to other engines, even with poor maintenance, ergo this one has a unique condition. Same thing has been thrashed to death ALL over the place, and pretty much the same thing is going on with the Chrysler 2.7. If you're not up to speed on the facts, that's neither my fault nor my responsibility.

You're statements so far do not support this claim.

I'm finished with this topic.

Why would you be surprised? Toyota wasn't doing this for the owners benefit! Do you know how many millions of bucks national television advertising time costs? Toyota probably just redirected their advertising and marketing budget into paying for the recall and got even better mileage out of it and saved money to boot. It's a fantastic advertising campaign. produce a product with a flaw, then when it blows up replace the product for free, and the customer is so grateful they don't even think to get mad that the product blew up on them in the first place, thus inconveniencing them.

The goal here should be to spend the effort on producing the vehicle that doesen't break down to begin with, not on spending effort on cleaning up after it. :-)

Ted

You're right, of course, but there will always be issues, and how those issues are handled definitely reflects on the company, well or poorly. For example, VW has had a few minor supplier related problems in recent years, notably heater cores, ignition coils, and window regulators. None of these issues were really VW's "fault" as at least in two cases I know for a fact that the issue was caused by suppliers changing materials or design of their part which no longer conformed to VW's spec, which resulted in widespread early failures. Now VW eventually did recall the coil packs and window regulators, but there are still vehicles with known bad heater cores that have never been recalled, and VW seems to put off recalling until there is great outcry from the VW customer community. Also when the coil pack recall was done, they had serious supply pipeline issues which meant that people were trying to schedule warranty/recall work and they were told by their local dealer that parts were a month or more out.

Compare and contrast with Toyota's handling of this issue. They had a problem with the ENGINE and cheerfully replaced a whole crapload of them to keep their customers happy. Now in my mind, the VW car is a better product, but my opinion of Toyota's customer service is infinitely greater. I am willing to bet that more people who know the above facts will buy Toyotas than VWs even though the VW is a superior product, simply because they don't want to deal with those combusting anuses known as VWoA and VW's dealer network. There's a lesson in there somewhere...

nate

I have always felt that the real character of a company, or a person, shows up when there is a problem. The decent company/person will do everything in their power to solve the problem they created or contributed to. The average, indecent company/person will run and hide and do everything possible to avoid any responsibility.

GM, sadly, has shown a lot of the second kind of behavior with things like it's long standing intake manifold gasket failures.

John

You're so wound up in proving you're right that you overlook the obvious. The comment "since they started showing up a few years back" indicates a new engine/design/approach was probably implemented; after a year or two, it was proven to be inadequate for engines not given proper maintenance. Sounds like Toyota was hoping to control engine temps by giving the oil a larger share of the job. And it also sounds like it works - IF people maintain the recommended oil change schedule.

When owners of vehicles ignore the service requuirements and get away with it, that's their good luck. Some engines are a lot better this way than others. But when engine problems occur because you haven't even come close to providing proper service, it indicates that the engine is less robust when it is abused. If you don't take care of it, then shame on ya'!!

The NG is thankful for that.

When an owner risks tens of thousands of dollars for a few buck worth of oil, he or she is a bloody fool.

Well, I do feel compelled to point out that VW sells cars based on "the VW mystique" that came out of the Flower children of the 60's. That's why they brought back the New Beetle.

The few unfortunate times I've ever been goat-roped into assisting a friend to fix their VW I have not found the vehicles "repairable with a simple set of tools and a few kitchen implements" as some have claimed, nor have I observed them to be espically well designed. And when my wife owned a VW rabbit before we got married I did plenty of work nursing that POS.

Interestingly, while I see a lot of older cars in the area here, I haven't seen a VW Rabbit on the road in years.

Ted

yeah, I guess I'm a member of a very small subset of people who likes VWs not because of nostalgia for the 60s (I was born in 1974) but for the cheap, economical, bulletproof cars that they built in the early watercooled era. Iconic status of the original GTI notwithstanding, they don't seem to have been all that successful in either selling cars or building a reputation back then, probably because of their execrable dealer network.

I really don't understand that comment... While certainly not as easy to work on as a 60's era American compact, I find that VW's are easily repairable with only a few special tools required, like a set of cheesehead bits, an extra long Allen wrench for the airflow meter adjustment, and a cutaway socket for the top strut nuts. My daily driver for years was an '84 Scirocco (basically a fancy Wabbit.) Now some jobs are definitely easier with a helper, I'll grant you that, like replacing CV joints (need helper to hold the wheel with the brakes so you can break loose the inner bolts... they don't just pop out of the transaxle like many other FWD cars.)

I've started to see them *again* now, just the other day I saw a guy in a white GTI tow-barring another GTI that was clearly a "barn car," apparently they're restorable now. Which means I guess that I shouldn't have sold mine as prices are going to start going back up again...

nate

I've owned a couple of Passats, and have had really good luck with them. Both were company cars, so I didn't really have to work on them. I have heard from other owners that some year models had electrical issues, but mine never did.

I have considered another Passat as a result of my Toyota research. They seem to be about as quiet and smooth as a Camry, but not as fuel miserly, if I can believe reports. Price about the same. I know nothing about the reliability of their auto trannies.

Conventional wisdom seems to suggest that the VW folks didn't figure out the automatic transmission until about 98 - the B5 platform for the Passat. Those seem to be fairly reliable, as do the A4 and onward Jetta/Beetle/Golf transmissions. However, they call the fluid 'lifetime' but it's really more like '100k' or maybe even '50k' and very, very expensive.

-Keith

Thanks, Keith... Their Value series seems to come with a turbocharged 4 cyl. Other than the requirement to use premium unleaded gasoline, does this engine have a disadvantage on reliability?

I have never owned a turbo application. Years ago, they were very expensive and unreliable. Have they been tamed?

The 1.8T is the best engine VW has made in recent memory IMHO.

That said, I'm surprised you had good luck with a Passat. Those don't seem to be as reliable as the Golf/Jetta series for some reason.

nate

You must not have owned a first generation Rabbit! What an unreliable piece of junk that was. My sister had one and her husband was an absolute maintenance fanatic. He fell for the Consumer Reports gushing review of the Rabbit when it came out and lived to regret it :(.

John

I've got a lot of friends that play with foreign cars like I play with domestics, and they will readily tell VW horror stories- overcomplicated nonsense like *pneumatic* door locks powered by a 12-v air compressor in the trunk, thermostat housings with half a dozen hoses that clamp on, etc. etc.

My personal experience with VW engineering is limited to the VW-built short block that my dad had in a '78 Plymouth Horizon. Second-worst car I've *ever* been associated with (worst was a '79 Mazda B2000), and a large part of it was the fault of the VW-Rabbit-derived short block that was built without the "need" for a harmonic balancer, and could have done serviceable duty as a hardware store paint shaker. Stupid thing literally vibrated parts off the car, cracked accessory mounting brackets, etc. I will say it never turned into an oil burner or outright failed, but even cockroaches are hard to kill.

Those types of vehicles are often kept on the road way too long. Sometimes you just gotta know when to fold 'em.

Toyota MDT in MO