Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I am right there with you on principles. The MFG has to fix ALL known issues in a reasonable and timely manner.
Pucky is speaking good stuff here. It is totally about cost VS benefits.
If this issue were about failing engines or problems without potentially very easy fixes, we'd all shut up and cheer you on.
I'm one of the ones that suggested you try the $10 pipe fix earlier. Either extend, or divert to the side. You yourself above believe the Borla solves the problem. The solution I'm suggesting is in no way voiding any waranty, AND is completely reversible. So maybe think of it as, try it and hope it works, drive the car like that, save your health, continue to fight Toyota for us, and we'll all win.
I wish i had the sulfur issue so I can try the fix myself. Or i'll send you $10 just to satisfy my own curiousity.
BTW, to my point earlier about sulfur being here to stay, the guys on the miata forum are complaining about this as well. The point still is it shouldn't get into the cabin. The miata guys deserve the smell being so happy driving their zippy cars around. ;-) (i own one)
Rensho, Even if you don't smell the sulfur, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem...right?
I'll say it again. During my arbitration Toyota said that the vent on the rear is sucking exhaust into the cabin. They also said it's up to me to prove it's a hazard. Based on what I know, I think it is. I could be totally wrong, but you never know until you look at the data.
I agree it's an easy fix, but what about all the other people? If it's a common problem, Toyota should fix it. The burden of proof is on the consumer. Or we could just all accept it and move on.
I see a potential barrier to solutions in this case, and it has do do with different assumptions on the part of you and Toyota. I believe you are assuming (1)that you're getting a lot of exhaust in the cabin, and (2)that the fact that you can smell the sulfur means that you're getting an unhealthy dose of exhaust gases there. I think you are also assuming (3)that you aren't/haven't been getting any exhaust in the cabin of other vehicles because you can't smell it.
I'll bet that Toyota shares none of these assumptions with you. The only specific reference I found on the detectability sulfur exhaust smells asserted that you can detect them at levels far below those that are a hazard. Carbon monoxide is just the opposite, of course, and I'll bet we all occasionally get a big dose from a car or truck in front of us that isn't running right, even if we don't smell anything. Once they're warmed up and operating correctly, many gasoline vehicle engines don't seem to smell at all, so detectable odor isn't much of a guide to hazard level or to the amount of (yours or somebody else's) exhaust in the cabin.
These different assumptions don't make Toyota's position or behavior or assertions *right* of course, but they make it hard for them to justify resolving the problem in a way that suits you.
So please let us know what happens here, and what you learn. And to be conservative about the health of your wife and child in the meantime, I humbly suggest you try keeping the fan on and the air intake on fresh instead of recirculate.
Totally agree. That is why i'm cheering you on, and don't want you to give up. ;-)
I'm saying since i can't smell it, it is tough for me to try fixes. Without a CO or other gas analyzer that is.
Is the CO in my car as well?!? I am very worried about my kids. What damage could have happened to them already without my noticing? Is the exhaust leaking in there all the time, or only when I smell the sulfur? I am very worried.
If Toyota has thus far failed to remedy your situation for you, I would simply fix the car myself, and take into account what has happened to you next time you buy a new car.
Is the CO in my car as well?!? I am very worried about my kids. What damage could have happened to them already without my noticing? Is the exhaust leaking in there all the time, or only when I smell the sulfur? I am very worried.
So I wouldn't freak out about it, but CO is nothing to fool around with, you are certainly right about that.
To give you an idea of how clean cars are getting, in London a new Saab was tested and the air coming out of the tailpipe was cleaner than the air going into the engine from the outside.
I am not a person that goes out looking to stir things up I usually take things at face value and move on but I just can't stand for this. I am in sales and travel in my car several hours a day over long distances and the smell is killing me not to mention the health ricks involved?? I also ride motorcycles and I can promise you I have never smelled things like is on the bike and you can smell just about everything when you are in traffic on a bike.
Sorry to go on so much but very upset. Has anyone gone to their local media and tried to alert the public of this. I am going to contact the local news 5 on your side and see if they will air something on this. I know taking on a big company is next to impossible but if I can slow sells in my area maybe Toyota might start looking into this I will let you know the out come. If anyone else has already done please let me know how it turned out.
One last thing if you have not already done so please call 1-800-331-4331 and lodge a formal complaint with Toyota. They will record it and pass it along to Corp.
Thanks for your time and I hope we can get something done.
"The smell that you are referring to is caused by the high sulphur content in Canadian gasoline. The smell is in fact indicative that your 4Runner is operating properly. This is not an uncommon
situation with most manufacturers today.
The sulphur contained in the fuel transforms into sulphur dioxide which is then transformed into sulphur trioxide by oxidation and accumulates on the catalyst resulting in hydrogen sulfide by
reduction. This will generally occur when the vehicle begins to run rich, such as when you are stopped, climbing a steep hill, or braking
hard to slow down. The hydrogen sulfide is expelled from the exhaust pipe all at once. It is the hydrogen sulfide which is responsible
for the odour.
This odour is particularly strong when your vehicle's catalytic converter is new and dissipates gradually as the vehicle gets older.
We thank you again for taking the time to contact us and for allowing us the opportunity to comment."
While there is no solution offered here, except time, I found by making sure my back window was closed, I would not get the odor. I often had the window lowered slightly (against owner's manual warnings) when I had my two large dogs with me. I have not experienced the odor with windows closed and/or air conditioning on.
Makes me think all the more it's a combination of certain types of fuel plus the design of the vehicle plus certain driving conditions.
This is the only way to explain why it doesn't happen 100% of the time to 100% of the cars---unless we could somehow show it is tied closely to certain VIN numbers. That would be interesting, huh?
I think the question is...
Is this normal? The answer has to be no.
Is it "normal" for a vehicle to consistently expose the occupants to exhaust? It certainly is an unpleasant condition for those who are affected.
I was told to put an exhaust tip on, drive to a different county to get gas, and not accelerate to briskly. If you were told this when you bought the car, would you buy it? By the way, I live in an area where the gas is already re formulated and it still does it. So even if the EPA does change the rules concerning Sulfur content, it won't help me. But then again, sulfur isn't the issue. It's repeated exposure to exhaust for years.
I've scheduled a Lemon Law hearing and we'll see what the State has to say. If they rule in favor of Toyota, then I'll sell it out right maybe to the same dealer who said there was nothing wrong. I'm going to subpoena the factory rep who said that the vents where placed too close to the tail pipe.
They might end up treating you like one of those people who are "sensitive to scent products" and demand that the movie theater be cleared lest they faint.
I know that is not your case, but you can see how the argument could be turned against you if you base it only on an offensive odor that does not occur in all vehicles of the type.
I don't believe your case is strong enough yet for a buy-back, but I could be wrong and I hope I am for your sake.
It's also an interesting question you pose regarding why this didn't show up in testing. The reason WHY it didn't show up is also possibly the clue as to what the problem is.
Like I said before, my nose (because of my throat) is extremely sensitive - I can smell a cigarette in the next car over at a light.
It doesn't mean that I have high Marlboro levels in my vehicle, though. The proof is in the pudding - or the test equipment.
If there's no proof in the test equipment, the rest is just semantics and treading water (and getting tired) when you could safely swim to shore.
I just don't understand how anyone could think that breathing exhaust ona daily basis is "OK". No matter how low the level.
Why do we have emission standards? To limit the amount we have to eventually breath. Given that, how is this acceptable? There is no "safe" level of emissions that you can breath.
You allegations hold up fine here at Edmunds, and I understand you point - lawyers and judges, however, don't care how well you're understood on Edmunds.
Unless you can show a hazard level, all you may have is a concentration of CO that may in fact measure as no worse than anyone breathes everyday on the highway. Bingo, you are dead in court.
Smell is more related to the organic compound itself rather than the concentration I think. One can smell a skunk, or so I've heard, up to 3 miles, (!!)but obviusly the level of concentration is very very minute at the three mile limit.
Sulphur is a very powerful and pernicious odor. A little goes a long way, like skunk-stuff.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is formed when fuel containing sulfur is burned.
Sulfur Dioxide has an odor threshold. What this means is that if you can smell it, the concentration can be determined. According to the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety, the instant you smell Sulfur Dioxide the concentration is known to be 3-5 ppm (parts per million).
Reference: Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety
High concentrations of sulfur dioxide can result in temporary breathing impairment for asthmatic children and adults who are active outdoors.
Short-term exposure:
o reduced lung function
o wheezing
o chest tightness
o shortness of breath
Long-term exposure:
o respiratory illness
o alterations in the lungs' defenses
o aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease
People affected include children, the elderly, and those with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.
http://www.adb.org/vehicle-emissions/General/Health-sulfur.asp
Reference: Safety and Health for Engineers, Roger L. Bauer, ISBN 047128632-X
I work in this environment - a vehicle owner IS NOT going to be allowed to testify as a chemical engineer.
If you can't prove it, you're done..why the argument. Prove it or give up.
Go get the tailpipe extensions OR have an independent laboratory test your car for harmful levels of SO2 and issue you a report That's the only two reasonable alternatives I see that will possibly produce some kind of satisfaction for you. Otherwise I think you are wasting your valuable time in a fruitless enterprise.
It's an uphill fight, every time, just to be able to give an appraisal number on a lemon law case. And I have the experience, licenses and qualifications - I still have to fight to be able to testify.
A guy off the street hasn't got a prayer. Either get some testing equipment results, or forget about it.
I'm glad you were successful, but you know what Abraham Lincoln said about someone representing themselves....
Again, I attest that I've yet to see a successful "sulphur smell" case in my contact with 6,000 cases (3,500 of which I handled).
Pretty simple. Courts and judges do NOT like/hear subjective things from laypeople. They rarely like to hear it from expert witnesses. Facts. Just the facts.
Raw hard #s are going to win here. How do you argue with that? Toyota can't do it either.
And yes, Shame on you Toyota. Shame, shame shame.
My experience with arbitrations or legal proceedings is that on the one hand the consumer comes to the table with cries for "justice" and "satisifaction" and other very personal issues while the corporate entity on the other end is just looking at the whole thing as numbers in a column.
If they "beat" you, they don't gloat over it as a victory, and if you "beat" them they don't slink away and think of it as a defeat. It's just numbers in a column to them, and if the black numbers far outweigh the red numbers at the end of the year they have accomplished the corporate mission. You are either a profit or a write-off to them. Of course, individuals in a corporate entity might very much wish to help you, but even they are still obliged to follow the rules.
So BY ALL MEANS contest any "wrong" done to you---but all I'm suggesting is that you understand the "system" and play within its rules.
The Lemon Laws, which vary state to state, were instituted to make this somewhat easier for the consumer, but again, the rules of the game are precise and you have to follow them.
The issues of "what's fair" and the 'company's duty" are certainly important in theory but all they do is cloud up the matter at hand--which is for you to either dump or correct a car that is annoying the hell out of you.
You have to approach this as you would laying down a new driveway for your house. Know what you are doing and keep emotion out of it.
Zues,
Have you ever used the MSDS for SO2 as a basis for your case?
Also, since it's not a condition I'd devalue a vehicle over, the lemon law and Mag-Moss don't apply.
Specific to the V8 4Runner, I haven't seen a case like yours yet - we'll cross that bridge when we get there - with 80 hours and 50 cases a week, I definitely don't need to look for more work than I'm assigned, especially since my opinion on the issue is that I'd be chasing my tail. Or exhaust pipe.
The first night driving 20 or so minutes in the rain with defrost on - from inside DC to the suburbs - I registered 20ppm. This alarmed me and I put a post here just over a week ago. There was a discussion of this CO concentration, essentially many helpful posts citing various agencies with the upshot that this is not a safe level, and zeuslewis offering his opinion (yet again) that only he really understands.
Over the course of the next 6 days we drove the 4Runner constantly, spent more time than I would have liked in stand-still rush hour traffic, took a 5hr trip out and 5hr trip back, and never registered CO again.
My feeling is that this exhaust entry into the car the night of the 20ppm was not from the CO that happened to be sitting there on the road. Sure, that is theoretically possible, but exceedingly unlikely on a windy, rainy night - particularly since 1hr in 4 lanes of standstill traffic on a stifling day registered 0. I think that some combination of speed, defrost, weather, and bad luck caused it to enter into the passenger cabin. We never replicated those conditions.
My impression is that this problem has something to do with the somewhat unique shape of the 4Runner (particularly the square back, and maybe the spoiler), some bad luck on Toyota's part with exhaust and vent placement, and who knows what else. If they had just put on a catalytic converter from 2002 on those 4Runners, no one would ever have known. Unfortunately they put in catalytic converters more suited to 2005 than 2003, made a sulfur stink, and thus highlighted an otherwise invisible problem that may or may not exist in other cars.
As far as I am concerned, a stink out the back that will disappear in a year or so anyway is not a big deal. Exhaust in the cabin is a big deal. I think that anyone following this forum has reached that same conclusion. My experience is that the conditions that cause the exhaust to come in are quite complex and will be virtually impossible to track down without a substantial research budget. Tacoviva made this point a week ago. Intermittant problems are extremely difficult to diagnose, and when they involve exterior airflow they become quite complex.
zeuslweis, I suppose that it is now time for you to chime in and list your incredible range of skills and tremendous depth of knowledge.... I am only a PhD researcher running 11 businesses in 4 countries, so probably cannot possibly understand the complex world you live in.
My angle is that if the judge can see the monitor alarm when it reaches those levels, I don't think Toyota could say anything. Then it would be up to them to shoot holes in it with their own test results, which they apparently have yet to perform.
If the CO monitors we buy in the store are good enough to save human beings in homes, they should be fairly reliable indicators of a dangerous situation in an automobile.
Where did you place the CO monitor? If it was up front then it was probably a very conservative estimate. I think placing it in the back near the vent would yield a better reading.
My opinion is irrelevant to this matter and what anyone decides to do. What you fail to realize is that I've worked exclusively in lemon law cases for quite a time, and I know what works. Lawyers and judges don't want to hear what you think, how scared you are, or other semantics/dramatics - they want facts - without facts, there can be no ruling in your favor.
In order for a judge to hold Toyota liable, he doesn't want to hear someone saying "I smell it, can't you smell it?"
It HAS to be black and white, it has to be one heckuva lot closer in specification and reading than 10 ppm on a home testing machine and it has to be certified, in some way, before the court will recognize it.
I could care less if you feel more important than I do - I'm trying to help with real world experience and advice - real world experience and my common sense outranks a PhD 2-1.
Oh, and as of yet, I haven't been rude to anyone, but now you have. See, you DO have one up on me!
For instance, the entire basis for believing in science is the replication of data, time and time again. No doubt Toyota would challenge that the data cannot be replicated, and that is a skull-crushing good point in an arbitration, IMO. Again, a strategy defeats what might in factbe a perfectly true fact. Another flaw in the strategy is doing the testing yourself seems to me.
So you do all the work and they do all the strategizing and you get whupped,see?
On the other hand, I have to admit that arbitrations and even courtrooms can be very wiggy at times, you really never know what the hell is going to happen.
Speaking just for myself, I've done a lot better in arbitration when I've stopped trying to "prove" something and instead worked out a good strategy to undermine the opponent.
I remember one case where I was sued for fraud for selling a Porsche---the engine blew up after a while, and the buyer claimed I "hid" something from him. Well, it was a used car I said.Gimme a break. But the buyer came in with all kinds of photos and testimony and mechanics and Porsche experts, blah blah blah, about why the engine blew, and theories about this and that---it was a STUPENDOUS effort.
Then I told the court that the buyer had taken the car to a 3rd party for a complete inspection prior to purchase.
"Oh",they said. "Since the buyer did not ultimately rely on you for the decision of making the purchase, we are throwing this case out".
And that was that. It was all about strategy, about saying the right thing at the right time. Why the engine blew up had nothing to do with it. They got bad legal advice.
I know no one is hooking up a hose and duct taping the window over while the engine's running...although when I was in 5th grade one of classmate's moms did that - bad deal.
I'll agree 110% that there is a sickening odor inside the vehicle. All you have to do is prove it, and by other means than your nose or someone else's nose. Prove it in some way that you can show, on paper, exactly what's up. Without that, all you're doing is talking. We're listening, but the judge wouldn't be.
because he couldn't prove causation and couldn't show damages. today's subtyping and DNA technologies proving whatever-coli.strain-this equals what was in the lagoon still wouldn't prove causation (so what then is the source of each body of water's bacteria,) and damages (and what the devil difference does it make anyway.)
if you don't have it all in a nice little row that flows through the right process, it's just paper. roll it up, tie with twine, and it makes a merry flame in the fireplace in the wintertime.
whether or not it makes you sick or makes you barf.
Thanks!
Many dangerous situations are diffused by a simple correction. That doesn't detract from their severity, does it?
I just dropped the car off this morning and asked them to check for exhaust entering the cabin. The service writer told me "we can check, but we won't find anything" I was floored. He said " we'll put problem not found at this time" I told the writer to call me and I'll show him and to pull the TSB on it. What a joke. Using canned responses when they know they have an issue here.
I live in Philadelphia area, and from a map I saw on this board, the gas we got here is already re-formulated. Could that be the reason? But then again it still concerns me if too much CO gets into cabin.
I have an 03 4runner v8 limited built in June. I don't experience the sulfur smell at all with all of the windows up (and with the air set to "fresh" or "recirc." With the cargo window open, I can sometimes smell the sulfur enter the vehicle. As this is not recommended per the instruction manual, I don't drive with the cargo window open. That isn't a big deal to me, but it would be nice to use all of the features of this vehicle. I don't smell any sulfur emissions with the moonroof open either.
It seems that the 04 4runners (v8) don't seem to have any sulfur problems as previously described. It looks like Toyota may have made some type of a fix in a surrepticious manner. Has anyone compared the 03 and 04 directly to see if there are any differences?
I also find it interesting that on the Toyota.com page that Toyota is now offering a tailpipe extension for the 04 4runner. I am pretty sure it fits the 03 as well.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/977267.asp
The old body style 4runner is compared to the new body style (03 04) 4runner with XREAS. Quite a difference. The handling has really improved over the previous generation with respect to rollover resistance.
There is a video link as well.
**endorsement neither expressed nor implied.