Last I heard, RayO mentioned strut replacement by the dealer would be the way to go as that gets you a lifetime warranty and of course, the quality and other niceties that you'd expect from OEM parts.
Last I heard, RayO mentioned strut replacement by the dealer would be the way to go as that gets you a lifetime warranty and of course, the quality and other niceties that you'd expect from OEM parts.
Wow! Someone not only listens to what I say, they even remember it!
Struts, shocks, and exhausts replaced at a Toyota dealer have a lifetime parts (including related parts) and labor warranty at any Toyota dealer in the U.S. and Canada. Many independent and chain shops offer a "lifetime" warranty that may not include labor or related parts like nuts, bolts, bushings, etc. so when you go back, you still end up paying something.
You should get a 4 wheel alignment done when the struts are replaced.
Check the rear shocks to see if they need replacement; don't replace them unless they need it.
I need suggestions since our 2000 Sienna needs front struts. OEM Vs after market? Dealer Vs local shop? Do the rear shocks while I'm at it? We bought the van new, it has 130,000 miles and has been perfect in every way.
Also, anything else in the front end to have looked at while doing the struts?
Thanks guys, I usually use OEM but the van is 7 Y/O. But I do know that I cant go wrong with Toyo OEM. Off to the dealer for me.
Thanks again
I'd hate to whip out some more RayO advice but I believe at one time he's also stated that if you've used OEM parts and they lasted for 7 years, then why not pay the additional costs associated with OEM and hopefully your vehicle lasts another 7 years.
OK, done quoting. :) I hope I was accurate again!
This is spooky! I was thinking, but didn't post my usual line that if the original struts lasted 130k miles, then you could reasonably expect the replacements to last about the same mileage, plus get the next replacements for free!
Since mrstevo is a good listener, he can come climbing and rappelling with me this Saturday. I worry a lot less about people who listen than people who are not good listeners or retainers!
Hi Ray O. I hope you're doing great :-) I remember you wrote recently that you drove your son to his new college.
Would that be UIUC, I'll guess? UIUC is very similar in many ways to my alma mater, MU.
Thanks for asking!
I'm doing great - I'll be at a climbing tower at camp on Saturday with #2 son and the weather is supposed to be in the 70's.
#3 son is in his second year at ISU, which is about an hour closer to home than UIUC.
========
Woah, 3 sons?! You got quite the college expense ;-)
And a daughter too!
Good news is, while RayO has quite a big financial burder by putting his children through college, he at least doesn't really have to worry about them driving rigs that'll break down and if they do, he can likely fix it. That'll save a few thousand per kid right there...
My kids drive my old Avalon, and it has been pretty reliable. Come to think of it, it's time for an oil change, and I suppose I should deal with the check engine light some time in the near future ;-)
Below are some notes and the beginning of my response. Some of it may be of value to the respondent.
"Even I have made mistakes on this concept before" states this anonymous responder (AR). There was no real need to tell us that. But there is a need to give more detail on the points raised.
We are asked to believe that I have used the wrong failure force, but no figure is given by AR for what he believes it should be.
We are asked to believe that I have applied this force over the wrong distance, but no figure is given by AR for what he believes it should be.
We are asked to believe that I have computed the energy demand wrongly, but no figure is given by AR for what he believes it should be.
No figures are given for the yield stress or energy demands that AR asserts, nor is there a comparison between my figures and his assertions. AR also makes no mention of the length of column section that he has used and no justification has been given for his choice.
There is little else >
We are asked to believe that I have applied this force over the wrong distance, but no figure is given by AR for what he believes it should be.
We are asked to believe that I have computed the energy demand wrongly, but no figure is given by AR for what he believes it should be.
No figures are given for the yield stress or energy demands that AR asserts, nor is there a comparison between my figures and his assertions. AR also makes no mention of the length of column section that he has used and no justification has been given for his choice.
There is little else >
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.