----- Original Message ----- From: "davidj92" Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota.camry Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Oil itself
Maybe not a cooling passage design change, but there was a design change. From
formatting link
: "First, the automaker said it has made a running production change to its widely used 3.0-liter V-6 engine that will improve circulation by enabling oil to drain faster into the sump - an apparent acknowledgement that engine design has been at least part of the problem....."
"....Hanson of Toyota said the changes the company began making last month to the V-6 will make the engine better able to withstand long periods between oil changes. He repeated Toyota's contention that there is no problem with the engine's design.
"Under the cam cover is a baffle system," he said. "It allows oil to collect and condense and drip down into the cylinder head. Dirty vapor collects there and clogs up.
"We are going to change the baffling and enlarge the holes. That makes the oil drain faster and enhances the engine's ability to function under duress."
Charlene is only one of many complaining about sludge (but certainly one of the most vocal - I hate to be on her bad side). Here are a few articles that include the names of others and references to class action lawsuits:
formatting link
The list is much longer, but you get the general idea.
The last information I read on her is she could not/would not provide proof she had serviced her engine. If this is true then what should Toyota have done?
Here are a few
Ed, I read the entire article and accept parts of it for fact, and stand partially corrected on the lawsuit information and will try to educate myself on this further. I did note the contention of Toyota is substantiated by the engineers and other experts who agree that owner neglect is at least part of the problem. I also noted the correct information that sludge and it's corresponding acids are formed by cold temperatures and cold spots in the engine. These are caused by the engine not being brought up to complete operating tempertures long enough for the entire engine to heat soak and equalize in temperature. Basically caused by short trips. This is described in the owner's manual as severe duty or harsh duty and calls for a shorter service interval. Maybe a part of the equation is design but this would/should be negated if proper maintenance is adhered to. Most of the people who post in these NG's and start these anti-Toyota campaigns have no concept of this and keep talking about a cooling passage design change, which didn't happen and doesn't relate to sludge. Also, I noted the small number of complaints when compared to the total of all the engines Toyota made (1/10% is the figures I've seen in almost all articles) and that there wasn't a problem or compaint the first seven years of these engines, only in the last three years of the life of these engines. Out of some 3 million of these engines they recieved 3,400 complaints which they warranty covered if the owner could prove they serviced the engine. The article states there are appx 100 complaints to NHTSA that state they were denied coverage and could prove they had serviced their vehicle. And hundreds of others have taken other recourse for their problems. Not thousands but in total hundreds. If we assume all of these are legit then this is less than 1/30th of one percent. Hardly cause for all the accusations. Finally, I noted this:
George Peterson, president of AutoPacific, a consulting firm in Tustin, Calif., said Toyota is doing the smart thing by no longer holding customers responsible for the problem.
"The best way for a company to respond to any issue like this is not to point a finger and say, it's your fault or my fault, but to just fix it," he said. (end quote) Which Toyota did and in my way of thinking did an admirable job of it. Also, I think all people with the experience and knowledge of Toyota quality will expect them to continue to do.
Or an acknowledgement that there asre some people won't service their vehicle and try to prevent them from having engine failure and blaming Toyota. I think this might be the apparent acknowledgement instead of the author's interpretation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just see all sides.
Further supports my beliefs.
The engines duress could be owner caused, this fault thing is a two way street. Just because Toyota made changes doesn't mean they were wrong, just that they are trying to solve a problem, no matter who was at fault even if it's collective fault.
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.