Lack of changing the oil? Nope, the problem was caused by a faulty PCV and ventilation system. The reason you see non stop comments is because the sludging was pretty much a non stop issue. It happened to us, therefore those so-called reliability surveys are useless.
I loved the headline that caught my eye as I read my paper today: "U.S cars embraced by young buyers". The article went on to say that more and more younger buyers are switching to Ford and GM. Sales of the world-class Chevy Cruze are up an incredible 73 percent last month. The Ford Focus continues to be the world's best-selling vehicle. I've long been a fan of American cars, and I'm excited to see them now being recognized as the best in the world by automotive experts.
Toyota was sued by thousands over engine sludging and lost.
Owners with proof of oil changes before the recommended interval, were denied warranty coverage because the service was not performed at a Toyota dealership. The class action lawsuit was for only a few model years, but the scope of the problem extends far beyond that, leaving owners to have to shell out, or lose the use of maybe the only car they can afford. Yes, I know that this is a repetitive subject, but there is more than one perspective. As a former Corolla owner, paying for an engine repair bill that's worth as much as the car is not a good feeling.
A car manufacturer can not legally refuse to perform repairs under warranty, as long as you have receipts to prove the required servicing was done by yourself or another service facility. I'm a car enthusiast, and perform all my own required maintenance. Neither Ford nor GM has ever refused service under the warranty because of this. Japanese companies are terrible about not honoring their warranty. This is especially true of Toyota, but a good lawyer can usually set things right.
Great, who wants to hire a lawyer for a warranty repair? Sell and move on. I switched to domestics and only pay a lawyer for property settlements.
And here we go again with the exact same anti-import comments. Look - those of you who spend copious amounts of time trying to convince those who are perfectly happy with their Toyotas to shift to "domestics" aren't going to achieve that.
Besides - you can go on and on about your so-called domestics, but the fact that a number of American full sized truck manufacturers had to shut down their assembly lines for a time after the Tsunami in Japan, because they needed parts from JAPAN to actually make their trucks, basically more or less fills your assertions full of holes.
Too bad Toyota is still ranked as the No.1 most reliable automaker in the US.
The engine failed in my brother-in-law's car after only four months. The replacement engine cost $30,000. His dealer DID honor the warranty, but I assure you, for $30,000 most folks would hire a lawyer.
What? The replacement engine was $30,000?! A NEW Corolla is only about $16,000!
If I have to hire an attorney with any car, import or domestic under a year old, switching is going to happen.
The good news is no attorney has been required with my GMs after 2003. Anti-Attorney, not Anti-Import is the correct terminology in our case. If it happens to us with a GM, we will buy another brand. Won't be Toyota. Perhaps an Audi or Infiniti.
Toyota lost all credibility as a quality vehicle years ago. If people still want to waste time sitting in the service department, waiting for recall fixes, that is their business. Personally, I prefer vehicles I can actually drive. In seven years, my Ford has never seen the inside of a service facility.
The thousands of Toyota's with low-mileage failed engines, and the two I saw today abandoned on the side of the freeway with their hoods up, were probably once rated No. 1 in reliability too.
Where did it say Corolla? Maybe a high end Lexus.
If Toyota lost its credibility of being a reliable automaker, then how come they are still ranked as the most reliable automaker? Somehow that statement makes no sense.
Also - how come the Camry is the best-selling car in the US? If one were to make a statement that such and such company has lost credibility, with facts that defy that statement, then I suggest the person making the statement present some actual facts to base their claims on.
I pay ZERO attention to so-called "reliability surveys". My last GM car was rated "much worse than average" in reliability and never had a single repair in 8 years. My current GM car is 11 years old this summer, has 120,000 miles on it and was also rated "much worse than average" in reliability. Thus far I have spent a total of $77 in repairs on it.
There was a six-car mid-sized SUV comparison in yesterday's USA Today. Toyota finished DEAD LAST. (The Hyundai Sante Fe was no. 1).
Sure - people can buy whatever they want despite ratings. I'm sure that more than a few people will go out and see a movie rated at 2 stars and claim it's the best movie they've ever seen. That doesn't mean it was a good movie based on what everyone else says...
Surveys are meant to give consumers a broad collective result from a huge sampling of people. So it's safe to say that if a product, sold to 100's of thousands of people has a bad rep, then that indicates more people were dissatisfied with the experience of owning it. Likewise a product that has a high level of satisfaction, naturally had more buyers who were happy with that decision.
So that gets us back to the notion that someone would have that Toyotas lack reliability, when in fact they are the highest rated in reliability. As such - is the counter-statement that "Oh yeah, well I don't like those surveys" mean those surveys are wrong? If so, then how? That basically flies in the face of basic economic principle. But I think it's more because those making such comments refuse to admit they are probably wrong for making such a statement to begin with.
Toyota manipulates the media in the attempt to create an illusion of superiority. An example of this is the radio ad I heard that stated "80% of all Toyota's built in the last 20 years are still on the road". This is a ridiculous figure, even if they counted all the ones broken down beside the road. Would anybody believe they actually researched every Toyota manufactured since 1993?
Many people will believe it, if they hear it enough times. This is the market Toyota targets, and makes most of its sales from I believe.
We have a section in our city called Junkyard Row with rows of vehicles now organized by manufacturer. There are rows of Toyotas. Technically they are still on the road.
Another aspect on reviews is the past few decades. I used to have great success with both Toyota and Honda models. I was very opinionated and felt they were the best. And many we had were. So we bought again. After 2000 we had many issues with engines and drive trains. Our survey today would be far from glowing.
A lot of people are still driving their older models, and many from the 90s. When they re-buy newer, I feel if their experience is like our own, they will modify their survey. I feel the older models were great. That does not make me anti import. I praised them, but not today. What I dislike is if you say anything less than positive on here, it seems like you are immediately labeled as anti-import. If the quality remains, a customer remains.
Next page of comments >
Copyright 1997 - 2014 CSDO Media Limited Advertise on this site