Toyota Engine Sludge Problem

obyone · March 2002

Sir. The sludge that is referred to in this forum is located on the interior of the engine. What you have there is an oil leak that dried up and collected dirt while doing so.

bob57 · March 2002

Several posts have said Toyota knows the "problem(s)" and hasn't done anything about it yet - except to say change the oil more often - inferring that is a band-aid fix. I feel if Toyo has come up with an analysis of a "defective" part or parts or design then it would have leaked out by now. A secret is not a secret if more than one person knows it.
It's like some people said we never went to the moon and it was all faked. How could 100,000 people working at NASA on the moon shots keep that a secret? (I was there)
Do we know Toyota actually did a change on the engine for the '02? Any documentation out there? Do we know if Toyota did an analysis on this problem? They said they did. So, did Toyota build an engine running on the edge of technology and later discover that the oil needs to be changed more often to prevent gel?
I think the last statement is the only thing to go on right now until some type of proof (not the mags or experts or my friend says...) is carved in granite. Sludged engines are not just a Toyota problem but, yes, they may be more prone if the oil isn't changed more often.

webguyster · March 2002

Post #4591..."I think the last statement is the only thing to go on right now until some type of proof (not the mags or experts or my friend says...) is carved in granite. Sludged engines are not just a Toyota problem but, yes, they may be more prone if the oil isn't changed more often."

Change the oil more often than what?

mcgreger · March 2002

I test drove a Pontiac Vibe(aka Toyota Matrix), and had a chance to look through the owners manual. Still two change intervals; but the first one is set at every 3k miles for the short trip, heavy traffic, long idle sort of driving scenarios-the long term highway driving is still at 7.5k miles. And they are fairly specific in their description of the shorter term oil change schedule-not like the previous Toyota manuals which I think erred with their 5k mile intervals for severe driving conditions. How many people maybe saw 5k vs. 7.5k and just decided that for such a small difference(2.5k), why not just go with the 7.5k(or longer) interval because it was less hassle and cheaper than having more frequent oil changes.

jj35 · March 2002

tccmn1, you posted the following under the Toyota Sedan Camry forum (post #3253):

"Again, I was told by the service manager that there will be a service bulletin sent out to 3.5 million Toyota owners of vehicles from 1997-2001 (Camrys, Avalons, Siennas, Highlanders 4's and 6's) all mfg. prior to August 2001. The VIN's will also determine the problem vehicles.
The symptoms are; smoking, check engine light coming on, oil levels going down. Once you spot one of the three symptoms, you are to call your local Toyota service and notify them of the issue. They will have a Toy Rep. come out and view your car and determine if it fits the 'recall' scenario. If it does, they will cover the expense. There will be a 1 year window for owners to respond or deal with this issue. After which time, their coverage is gone."

This sounds similar to the special policy adjustment, but I thought Toyota was pretty clear that the SPA was not a recall nor warranty coverage - I am wondering if Toyota has changed their position or maybe your dealer is not using the right terminology. Or is this something new and different from the SPA? Maybe Cliffy1 can fill us in.

mfjj · March 2002

I'm about to buy an 02 Camry V6. I know Toyota says they didn't change anything to fix the sludge problem because there was nothing to fix, but I'm hoping the changes they made to achieve the ULEV status (and possibly a different part supplier) might have made a difference.

This car will be used in relatively mild climate (Delaware) for off-hour daily commute, 20 miles highway cruising each way. I don't think this is "severe" driving condition and I'd really like to use the 7.5K maintenance schedule. But will Toyota believe me? Does synthetic oil help? I mean, if I use Mobil 1 Synthetic every 7500 miles at the dealer's shop, does it matter whether the driving condition is normal or severe? I'm asking this not so much as a technical question, but more in terms of what would satisfy Toyota regarding warranty repairs. Thanks!

jj35 · March 2002

The dealer that I see is recommending 5,000 mile oil changes using Castrol Syntec in my Sienna van. They did not inquire about my driving conditions, but I easily fall within the 7,500 mile parameters listed in my manual.

webguyster · March 2002

If I were getting a new Toyota, I would really consider if I were going to follow the normal or severe maintenance. My belief is synthetic is the best way to go, and if it were more cost effective, we would not rely on dino oil. As far as Delaware being mild, I would consider, does it get below zero in the winter, and over 90f, in summer??? It may seem normal, but by the words of the book, you still might consider the climate severe.

jj35 · March 2002

The 2000 Toyota Sienna manual does not list temperatures of over 90 degrees as a severe condition. Frequent stops and starts in below freezing temperatures is listed, however.

mfjj · March 2002

webguyster said: "As far as Delaware being mild, I would consider, does it get below zero in the winter, and over 90f, in summer??? It may seem normal, but by the words of the book, you still might consider the climate severe."

This is exactly my point. It doesn't matter how I use the car, it can always be interpreted as "severe". That's why I'm considering synthetic just to avoid the question. But will it satisfy Toyota?

By the way, the "book" defined severe as the following:
1. Towing a trailer or using a camper or car-top carrier.
2. Repeated short trips of less than 5 miles in temperatures below freezing.
3. Extensive idling or low-speed driving for long distances as in heavy commercial use, such as delivery, taxi, or patrol car.
4. Operating on rough, muddy, or salt-covered roads.
5. Operating on unpaved or dusty roads.

I've already stated the use of the car: "off-hour daily commute, 20 miles highway cruising each way". Yes, it's in Delaware, but is it severe?

armtdm · March 2002

I picked up some Amsoil product today from my Direct Jobber who maintains an inventory so it eliminates the shipping for me. Anyway got into a huge argument over the Amsoil warranty and more specifically Toyota sludged engines. As you may know, the Amsoil Warranty says they will replace an engine if their oil is used per instructions (1 year or 25,000 miles and filter at 6 months or 12,500 miles) in a "MECHANICALLY SOUND" engine and the engine fails.

To me that does not say that the oil had to cause the failure but that the engine may fail with cause unknown. Their interpretation is that the oil can never fail without a mechanical problem. Thus, only a bad batch of oil manufactured incorrectly could cause the warranty to kick in. They will never cover an engine if it fails simply by using Amsoil as directed because it will ALWAYS BE A MECHANICAL FAILURE and thus not a mechanically sound engine. I asked if they have paid any warranties under the Toyota sludge issue. They said no, never will, this is mechanical problem and not an oil problem and the engine is causing nitration. Could never be oil failure.

I pointed out that if Amsoil knew that these engines were sludge prone would you not inform customers to monitor and change oil more frequently because if it sludged AMSOIL would not honor their warranty. They said, no it is Toyotas problem. Nothing like misleading a customer in my opinion if you know the product you sell may not cover a potential problem and if it does not you will not honor your warranty.

So, IMHO this is another warranty that is not worth the paper it is printed on. In my opinion what they should be doing is simple, here's the warranty but only if you can prove the oil was bad from the factory will the warranty be honored and that will be extremely unlikely. I stated that no one has "proven" a mechanical or engine design fault with Toyota as yet and they said we don't care, the oil cannot fail unless there is a mechanical failure.

What hogwash! So, like most warranties on this planet, not worth the paper it is printed on should it ever be needed.

fxashun · March 2002

Great post. Goes back to the Amosoil debate we had a long time ago here. There is a story where a guy DID get his repairs covered by Amsoil. I called Amsoil and they said they were pursuing Toyota in that case and were doing their own study on the problem. I didn't follow up on it though.

davidfrancis · March 2002

This whole issue reminds me of the "unintended acceleration" debate many years ago. In that debate, thousands of owners reported their cars accelerating violently when the driver was trying to slow down, usually while reversing. This problem was commonly associated with Audi, although most automakers had some incidence of it.

Many people believed there was some sort of weird interaction between engine/transmission control computers and possibly ABS controllers. Ultimately it was proved that the cause was generally the driver pressing the accelerator instead of the brake pedal. When the car started to accelerate the driver, thinking his/her foot was on the brake, pressed harder, causing the car to rocket backwards. However, although there was a tendency to blame the customer, this in no way excused Audi. Their car was clearly more prone to this sort of driver error than other cars (likely due to pedal positioning, shape and feel), so they were responsible, not the drivers who made the errors. The problem was fixed by the use of transmission interlocks, which would only select reverse if the brake pedal was depressed.

Now we have Toyota (whose brand image is based on quality, reliability, durability and low maintenance) saying that engine sludging is not due to an engine fault, but due to inadequate owner maintenance. The trouble is, there is no evidence that owners of the specific Toyota models involved are maintaining their cars any worse than other owners. They are behaving normally (just like the Audi drivers were). The reason their cars have problems is that the engine design is clearly at fault in that it requires more maintenance than other mass market cars doing the same job. Whether there is a specific "fault" or it is just too marginal in its overall design, is irrelevant. Toyota is responsible for ensuring their car is of saleable quality. For Ferrari an unusually frequent maintenance program might be acceptable, because that is a specialist, very high performance car, but not so Toyota. They sell mass-market cars to ordinary consumers, and their cars SHOULD NOT require unusually frequent servicing, NO MATTER WHAT THE OWNERS MANUAL SAYS. Attempts to redefine "severe use" are, IMHO, a lame attempt to cover up the problem with their product.

Having said all this, no company will ever "win" by blaming their customers. People aren't stupid, and they remember these things next time they buy

fxashun · March 2002

No more posts. David set it all out right there. Great post.

tccmn1 · March 2002

My smoke started appearing last spring and through the MN. summer. Temp. had nothing to do with it.

I was originally told by two local Toy dealers to live with it...it's just oil seeping down the guides..extra lubricant for 'em. This was BLUE OIL type smoke...not hot exhaust in cold weather type or Antifreeze white type fog! They replaced my head on the 4 banger Camry at 76K under Toy ExtraCare. I swear by buying the extended warranty on ALL my Toy vehicles I've owned and my American DC minivan.

I also changed my oil EVERY 3K miles! So, they can't stick that 'not maintaining the vehicle' schtick on my case. I have a wad of invoices to prove it after nearly 5 years.

Check my post on whatever they want to call this 'letter' being sent out to 3.5MM Toy owners of various models on the Camry thread. Call it a recall, warranty, bulletin, whatever...you've still got to prove it to the Toy Rep who visits the local shops once a month or so, to visually see that you have the problem before they will cover the expense of fixing it. Check Eng. Light, Blue Smoke, or oil levels going down unusually fast are the 3 symptoms to look for.

Funny, I remember a '77 Toy pickup I had that I had to battle Toy Corp. on for a new Torque Converter. They paid for it after I wrote a nasty gram to Cust. Serv.. Back in those days we had to handwrite our feelings in letters.

The more things change, the more they're just the same!!:))

sell01sienna · March 2002

I will use Mobil 1 at next change.

The corvette & 5 other vehicles leave the factory with it !

Saw info from Larry Perry (the Magic Mechanic of Orlando, Fl)someplace (not on his web page), mentioned the very high temp these engines have, recommends synthetic and frequent changes.

My vehicle meets the 7,500\6 mo.
Svg. Mgr. said 4,000\4 mo (even with the synthetic). Seems like overkill to me.

Great posts on tailpipe smoke. Saw the white smoke\thick fog yesterday on my ford 3.8 + a bubbling in the coolant overflow.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2002

TCCMN1 -- actually, the Toyota reps comment was a bit perverse, but actually true. It IS good for the valve to have a little extra oil on it. However, it's not good to have a mosquito-fogger for a car in the mornings. If you want some extra oil in the upper cylinders, there are upper cyl lubricants that allow you to control the amount of oil up there by adding to the gas in a certain proportion. That's why the rep's answer was true but very wise-[non-permissible content removed].

DAVIDFRANCIS--great post, thanks. What the Audi 5000 debacle taught me was that the consumer could be RIGHT and WRONG at the same time!

Right about having a real problem but wrong about what caused it.

As soon as a device was installed that forced you to step on the brake before the shift lever would release into reverse--guess what?-- no more surprise acceleration problems.

Yep, Audi bungled this one, too. They should have intervened earlier and put that device on every Audi 5000 they could find on the face of the earth.

fxashun · March 2002

I think it was Car and Driver noticed that that leather on the gear selector was starting to show a lot of wear. They asked their dealer to replace it under warranty and they said no because they "abused" it. They were not amused.

dtownfb · March 2002

Mr. Shifty: What do you think of some of the Toyota reps not accepting non-Toyota oil changes even with receipts? To me this creates another issue in this saga. Just interested in hearing your opinion on this.

cliffy1 · March 2002

That's a difficult call. If one accepts the premise that only a lack of maintenance causes sludge, receipts are not relevant. If those receipts are from the dealership, the assumption would be that the dealer didn't actually perform services that were paid for. Because those receipts are from a Toyota dealership, the warranty would be backed because it was agents of Toyota that caused the sludge.

If the receipts are not from a dealership, Toyota would not be compelled to back them up.

In this case, it isn't so much Toyota blaming the customer as blaming the people who ostensively changed the oil.

dtownfb · March 2002

Your conclusion is exactly what I was thinking. So how can Toyota discredit a garage, whether it's Jiffy Lube, Lube Express or an independent shop, without any type of investigation. If I have a friend who has been a mechanic for years and know a thing or two about Toyota and I decide to get my service done there since he is 40% cheaper then the dealership but I still follow the manual to a "T", how can they say that this garage is no good.

Another issue they will have to deal with is their own manual. Does it say anywhere that all maintenance must be done at Toyota in the manual or in any of their agreements, like the warranty booklet? I don't own a Toyota so I don't knowt he answer to this question. If not, there is no way this defense can hold up in a court.

Just something I was thinking about around 3 am this morning. I have to start getting more sleep.

innovations · March 2002

cliffy, I've been wondering all along how Toyota Dealerships handle sludged cars that have had their oil changed exclusively and within warranty at the dealerships. I think you have answered that question.

That comment actually eliminates a lot of concern on my part. I do wonder what will happen once we're all past our warranties though. I think "that" IS a real concern that shouldn't be taken lightly and could be a pro-active move by Toyota. To extend the warranty for cars that are serviced (maybe using the "severe" criteria) at their dealerships past the warranty and still develope sludge. Not forever, but within a reasonable life expectancy for a $25-30,000 Toyota vehicle.

mfjj · March 2002

Owner abuse, owner neglect -- hard to prove, but even harder to disprove. How do you prove a negative? How do you prove that your neighbor's evil kids didn't pour coolant (or god knows what) into your engine? Should Toyota be responsible for that? Of course not.

This is why we have statistics. Accord owners probably abuse their cars as much as Camry owners do. They probably also have the same luck with their neighbors' kids. If the Camry's 3-year "sludge rate" is 0.1% and the Accord's is 0.01%, there should be a scientific explanation to accompany that "don't forget to change oil" letter.

Many things in the modern world are so complex that the consumers don't need more than statistical evidence to demand action. The tobacco issue comes to mind. The burden is not on the consumer to come up with a precise explanation for the sludge. Assuming the difference really is statistically significant (and I don't know if it is or not), it's Toyota who should explain why their mass-market engines are more sludge-prone than other mass-market engines.

So, do we have any sludge statistics comparing the implicated engines against other Toyota and non-Toyota engines?

cliffy1 · March 2002

Please note that I didn't say in any definitive manner that service must be performed at a dealership. I said that IF one accepts the premise that sludge is de facto proof of a lack of maintenance, receipts from outside vendors would be irrelevant. I only posted this as a possible explanation as to why dealers and district managers may refuse to look at receipts. I'm not defending this position, but only stating it.

cliffy1 · March 2002

Interesting post. Along the same lines, how would Toyota prove the negative that the engines are not at fault?

mfjj · March 2002

cliffy1 said: "how would Toyota prove the negative that the engines are not at fault?"

I don't have an answer. I'm just saying IF there's significant statistical evidence, it's Toyota's responsibility to come up with a scientific explanation. Who knows, the explanation may well be that the Camry owners do indeed abuse their cars more than Accord owners. I will happily accept it if it's proven true.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2002

You see, this is the problem---the FIRST premise.

If the premise is that only neglect causes sludge (essentially, Toyota's first position), then outside receipts would have to be subjected to very close scrutiny; however, if outside receipts were all in perfect order, with mileages recorded, no extended oil change intervals, everything done just according to the book, seems to me you'd have a pretty darn good law suit if you were refused warranty.

The problem has been with outside receipts which are not in order, which appear faked (non-originals), or which have mileage intervals not acceptable to Toyota.

Then it gets sticky (no pun intended).

This is why I always want really detailed info from Toyota owners complaining of sludge and this is why they get so bent out of shape when asked, because they don't feel that have to justify their claims for warranty, even IF their receipts are a bit messy and out of order.

Owners, apparently, find sludge in a low mileage engine just as bizarre to comprehend as Toyota does. Both sides are pointing to the "obvious", and deeply polarized because the obvious isn't very obvious just yet.

innovations · March 2002

I agree completely with your anaysis shifty.

So, one more time, for the record..

Have we seen any posts with documentation indicating that a Toyota vehicle "sludged", that HAS had all of it's service performed at a Toyota dealership and within the advised milage/months time-frame?

I'm not trying to discredit others who have developed sludge. But, since Toyota's position is that this is a result of "neglect", the only valid case we are going to have would be those that have developed sludge AND have been using the dealership exclusively AND within their advised change schedule.

I'm only interested in hard facts. Maybe I missed the post. If so, please repost the info.

vince59 · March 2002

Since I bought my 98 Camry used without service records, what can I do to clean up the sludge, or at least cut down the smoke that fills my garage every morning?

Is the sludge the reason the "check engine" warning light comes on, or is it unrelated?

pronigier · March 2002

My posts disapear. Anyway I have been wondering about three items that may be realted to smoking cars, in my opinion. (1) Toyota reccomends 5w30 but even the dealers use 10w30. The Castrol website reccomends 10w30 for this car. (2) The dealer and shop I used installed an additive at 15000 and 30000 miles. Someone on this board said that this additive causes oil to thicken. (3) Running the car for an hour to flush the transmission. The manual says not to idle for more than 20 minutes. I think even that is too much. I hope this one does not disappear. Thanks

davidfrancis · March 2002

I believe post 4617, asking for evidence of perfectly maintained vehicles (according to Toyota) developing sludge, misses the point somewhat. The non-existence of such cases does not let Toyota off the hook, IMO.

Sienna owners SHOULDN'T HAVE TO maintain their vehicles perfectly in order to claim warranty for sludge; they should only need to maintain them to generally accepted community standards. If Fords, Hondas, Chevys, older model Toyotas and other current model Toyotas can survive a life of short trips in cold weather, using non-premium oil, changed every 5,000 to 7,500 miles, at aftermarket lube shops, with no regular checks on oil level, then why can't these Siennas survive it?

It all comes back to how Toyota markets their products. OK, Toyota can tell Sienna owners they must pamper their fragile vehicles as if they were highly tuned racing cars, but they can't in the next breath promote Toyotas as having bulletproof durability, quality and reliability. They can't have it both ways!!!

The owners manual requirement for an oil level check with every tank of gas is a classic case in point. Wake up Toyota! This is 2002, not 1952. NO ONE checks their oil this often nowadays. (Probably a couple of posters to this board will claim to, but I'll bet 99.9% of the general driving public don't). If Fords and Hondas and Chevys (and other Toyotas) can survive this, then so should Siennas.

To avoid responsibility for warranty on these vehicles Toyota need to show that either:
(a) Owners of the affected vehicles maintain them significantly worse than owners of other comparable vehicles, or
(b) Other comparable vehicles suffer from sludge to a similar extent as these Siennas etc. do.

I don't see any evidence being advanced to support either of these propositions so, IMO, Toyota need to fess up and fix these folks' vehicles before their reputation sinks any further into the mire.

Like the host said about the Audi owners, these Sienna owners are both wrong and right. They are probably wrong in thinking that some sort of specific "design fault" is causing the sludge, it probably does come down to maintenance. But they are right in thinking that Toyota is ultimately responsible, because Toyota designed these vehicles which require such scrupulous maintenance, but then marketed them to owners who expected (based on Toyota's carefully developed brand image) hassle-free motoring in a tough, durable vehicle.

I know it sounds a bit like catch 22 for Toyota, but THEY built vehicles inconsistent with their brand image and market positioning, so THEY have to wear it.

jj35 · March 2002

My dealer told me that the ONLY cause of engine sludge is no oil changes. On that basis, they would not even look at my receipts. If the only cause is no oil changes then their point was that they would not believe that the oil changes were really done.

Lack of oil changes is not the only cause of sludge. Toyota should have investigated these other causes (glycol leaks, high engine temps, fuel dilution, PCV failure, etc.) when presented evidence (receipts)that contradicted their theory.

jj35 · March 2002

Your posts are a breath of fresh air. Thanks.

You state that it may be a lack of maintenance issue, however, many owners of sludged Toyotas did follow the manufacturer's recommendations for maintenance. So I still think it is something more than strictly a maintenance issue. I lean towards an engine defect (or maybe poor design would be a better term) theory and fear that even meticulous maintenance isn't going to protect the engines in all cases.

It should be noted that most owners of sludged Toyotas currently own or have owned other vehicles that are maintained exactly the same way as their Toyota and these other vehicles have not developed sludge. If sludge is really just due to owner abuse of Toyotas, shouldn't the other vehicles also be sludging up?

pdalpsher · March 2002

When I bought my Toyota I agreed to the terms and conditions of the warranty. If I don't follow the maintenance they prescribe then I have not held up my end of the contract and they have every right to dis-allow my warranty claim.

Someone posted on one of these boards recently that the average interval for an oil change by the general public was over 9000 miles.

Is that interval reasonable if I'm doing severe driving (as defined by the manufacturer). That is nearly double the recommended mileage and it exceeds change interval recommendations for normal driving. I think not!

I getting really irked at the sense of entitlement that is coming across in these posts...even if they break their end of the contract. If it is found that the oil in these engines craps out at 6000 miles with severe driving then Toyota is within their rights to deny coverage to folks who don't bother to take proper care of their vehicles.

im_brentwood · March 2002

We got another SludgedHonda!

Took a 1998 Accord EX in on trade...sludge in the heads at just over 50K miles (Noticed valvetrain noise).

And I saw a SECOND sludged car this week!

A 1994 BMW 525iA with 91K miles. Buddy of mine bought it and he is PISSED.!

Still havent physucally had a Sludged Toyota yet. And I just sold another truckload and a half of crappy ones... Got 3 low-milers on rebuilt titles too. All were quieter than sewing machines.

(Remember folks, these are for export)

Bill

davidfrancis · March 2002

Re post #4623,

OK, you can support Toyota in a "legalistic" view of their owners' obligations under the warranty, but:
(1) are those obligations (every 5,000 miles - or is it 3,000 miles? - and only at Toyota dealers, using premium oil with weekly level checks if your use is "severe" apparently) reasonable in today's market? and,
(2) in any case, Toyota are misleading the public with their brand image of bulletproof reliability and durability, when their vehicles seem to be much more sensitive to "normal" servicing than other makes (and even other Toyota models). If this was a manufacturer who did not have Toyota's reputation (say, Alfa Romeo or Peugeot or Daewoo or Kia) they would not be in the same mess. Toyota are a "victim" of their own image, but they can't accept the benefits of that image without accepting its responsibilities, IMO.

david

PS the car I drive has a recommended oil change interval of 15,000 kilometres (about 9,300 miles) and I am unaware of any sludging problems - the car was designed to tolerate the low maintenance regime which its owners increasingly demand. Admittedly its not so cold down here!

210delray · March 2002

You asked if there was anyone here who had their Toyota maintained by the book at a Toyota dealer and still got sludge. That would be sandman, who used the 7500-mile interval (I don't know if he ever stated the time interval). According to him, his '96 Camry sludged at 80K miles, obviously past the warranty period. He dumped the car rather than fixing the problem.

210delray · March 2002

I had it too, beginning at 57K miles on my '97 Camry 4-cylinder. The valve stem seals were replaced under warranty. I was told that it would have cost me $800-$1,000 if out of warranty.

The dealer recommended going with 3750-mile oil change intervals in the future (I had been changing the dino oil every 5000 miles/4 months).

But it looks like the shorter oil change intervals may not help, based on tccmn1's experience.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2002

I think isell's point is worth noting--that there may be more sludged vehicles out there of all makes that go unnoticed because the sludge hasn't yet caused any severe problems.

It could also be that Toyota engines don't necessarily sludge up faster but are in fact more sensitive to sludge once it happens. OR---a combination of both...tendency to sludge up faster and greater sensitivity once it happens. This might explain why only a fraction of the engines do in fact sludge up. Type of oil + miles between changes + driving conditions = X amount of sludge. So if oil is the type that burns off fast, and oil channge intervals are at the very limit, and if driving conditions are just a bit more severe than normal, then the engine won't handle it. Lessen one or more of these factors and the sludge is lessened or doesn't occur and the engine doesn't suffer any adverse longterm effects.

So, hypothetically (I really have no factual basis for this) the Honda or BMW engine can survive sludge better than certain Toyotas. It's plausible that the oil galleys perhaps are more prone to blockage, something like that.

Not a design defect per se but marginal enough design parameters so that it could create problems under a very specific set of circumstances, with low odds of occurring exactly as needed to cause a calamity.

webguyster · March 2002

Other than what they have scripted their represenatives to say. Weather there is a design problem, or not, the bad press that Toyota is getting should be enough for them to do something more proactivly than send a SPA, or blame the owners. Show some facts to the media, such as milage and reciepts for oil changes, even if they are the bad people, that feel entitled. One article called it possible internet pandamonium. Furthermore, it will eventually affect everyone that owns one of these cars when it comes time to sell it, if the negative pubiclity continues.

http://www.wusatv9.com/consumer/consumer_article.asp?storyid=4725

innovations · March 2002

Thanks delray. I did see sandman's post. I'd sure like to find out more about his sludge. If it turns out that there are legitimate claims, it would sure help out a lot of people. ("legitimate" meaning Toyota's legal definition of a valid claim).

If we have to play by Toyota's (legal) rules, then let's do it. I'd love for Toyota to do the right thing, but they are a corporation and are using their small-print as their defense.

davidfrancis said, "The non-existence of such cases does not let Toyota off the hook, IMO."

I agree completely. I truely believe there is a problem. I didn't buy my Toyota thinking I would have to go to extremes to prevent the engine from destroying itself. I just wanted a car that was rated #1 in reliability. That I could put my wife and kids in and feel fairly confident that they would be able to get back home. I feel misled. I feel like Toyota misrepresented itself and it's image. That's their problem to fix, not mine. Unfortunantly, their marketing department probably receives the majority of their budget.

Toyota is saying that the only people who have the sludge problem are people who were negligent.

shifty and cliffy both said that if Toyota were to see a Toyota come in with sludge that "had" done all of their service on-schedule at the dealership then they would consider it "the dealership's neglect" for the problem and couldn't really blame the customer.

Since, Toyota's bottom line is covered by highly paid lawyers, we have to work within those confines. I am hoping that someone will post a sludged Toyota that HAS followed ALL the rules. Once that happens, the game changes. I haven't read every single post, but don't think that I have seen one yet. Maybe "sandman"'s will be the one.

sandman46 · March 2002

sludge was found at 80k by the dealer, not the one who performed all the oil changes. It's to bad I can not get the records because I would send them to Shifty or Cliffy or whoever just to prove what I've been saying all along. I maintained the car per Toyota instructions and not once did the dealer tell me to get the oil changed at any earlier interval.
Since I no longer own the car, believe me or not. Doesn't much matter to me. I only post here for the benefit of the owners with sludge. Everyone else who hasn't had the problem, your opinions are nice to have but really don't matter.
I know I'm not that smart about these things but this problem DID happen to me!

wain · March 2002

I drove a Highlander and a Matrix today - asked the Toyota salesman about the sludge policy.

Salesman had never heard of it.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2002

No, Sandman, I wasn't questioning your honesty. I believe in your case what I said was that at 80K a person is just out of luck. The vehicle is out of warranty, there couldn't be any individual adjustment. It would have to be an official factory extension of warranty for all affected vehicles, which is rare and takes a long time to happen. This is not something even the zone office can do. Such a decision would have to come from the highest levels in Japan I would guess.

zielinw · March 2002

That is the real question. It does not matter too much if Toyota does the right thing or not. It is hard for me to believe that any informed consumer would be willing to gamble 20 to 40 thousand dollars on this sludge issue.

That is what is at stake when buying a new Toyota, and having a warranty that is not honored. Now please bear in mind that I am assuming a responsible owner. And, I would think that most folks who drop 20 to 40k for a new car, are going to take reasonable care of it.

So, Toyota can take whatever position they like on this issue. But, if Toyota's policy does not seem reasonable to the consumer, they will find their target customers going to Nissan, Honda, and (maybe even the American products, if the reliability ever get there).

And since I have a current dog in this race, and I would like to obtain a new Solaris in 2003, I will not even consider another Toyota until this problem is resolved in a "reasonable" manner.

The consumer, does not need a bunch of "Philadelphia" lawyers telling them how valid their receipts are, nor second guessing their honesty. They just need to make the correct decision the next time they buy a new car.

And, for those of us who have already made the decision, we just need to pop our valve covers every 10 to 15 thousand miles, and see if any sludge is forming. I don't think there is any other safe solution in these circumstances.

paul29 · March 2002

Assuming the sludge problem may be temperature related, would it be reasonable to assume a lower temp. thermostat would be benificial. I assume the Camry V6 uses a 195deg. thermostat or whatever. Why not go 5 degrees lower, say to a 190. My Runner V6 has a 190 degree OEM and sludging does not appear to be an issue with these engines. In cold outside temps this vehicle warms the interior quicker and to a higher temperature than any other that I own or have owned in the past. (Yes I realize this engine has an iron block-alloy heads)

webguyster · March 2002

All you need is a VIN number to get maintenance records. Don't know if it is allowed to divulge info, but anyone at a dealership should be able to at least view the records. A few years back I had a low milage used Dodge, and I brought 'er in for a check engine light. The service man said it had just been checked for that, and when he discovered I was not the previous owner, he would not give me any maintenance info on record. It was not the original dealer, so any dealer should be able to pull up the VIN.

innovations · March 2002

The last time I was at my dealership I asked them if the maintenance records were transferrable, meaning to another Toyota dealership. He said that Toyota is working on a national database that can be accessed by other locations. He said it would be working real soon.

Right now their records system is independent from the other locations. I'm not sure how they track warranty records though. It might be nationwide.

pdalpsher · March 2002

I was told recently that any dealer can look up an extended warranty. It would be great to have all the records available to any dealer.

davidfrancis · March 2002

jj35, you're welcome. Your last para:

"It should be noted that most owners of sludged Toyotas currently own or have owned other vehicles that are maintained exactly the same way as their Toyota and these other vehicles have not developed sludge. If sludge is really just due to owner abuse of Toyotas, shouldn't the other vehicles also be sludging up?"

is spot on.

It's not poor maintenance per se, I believe its a design which is very intolerant of less-than-perfect maintenance.

Our host's post #4628, speculating that maybe it's:

"Not a design defect per se but marginal enough design parameters so that it could create problems under a very specific set of circumstances, with low odds of occurring exactly as needed to cause a calamity."

is probably pretty close to the mark. The lack of large numbers of other make vehicles with sludging tends to indicate that other automakers designs are more robust, and less sensitive to the specific circumstances that lead to sludging.

zielinw:

Good post, but although the marketplace will ultimately judge Toyota, and maybe punish them, that is cold comfort for the owners who have suffered losses, even if it is only the loss of confidence in their vehicle.

Toyota Engine Sludge Problem

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles