Follow up...Oil changes, Toyotas, and GM problems

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>
> >Someone (pardon for not remembering whom) posted that Toyota had also had
> >problems with sludging engines, leading to failure in some instances.
>
> >So I asked about the sludging problem while at the dealership. They
> >confirmed it had happened and gave the reason that many people tried
> >to run too long between oil changes. They said that the manual
> >clearly called for oil and filter changes near the 3000 mile
> >interval, but a lot of people tried to push oils to 7500 and
> >more. And it just didnt work.
>
> Nonsense. Car makers have allowed 7500-mile oil change intervals for
> about 30 years now and haven't had major sludge problems, despite the
> SE and SF rated oils back then being much worse at preventing sludge
> than today's SL and SM oils. Many cars now have 10,000-15,000 mile oil
> change requirements and few sludge problems. Toyota simply made a
> major mistake when it reduced the amount of positive crankcase
> ventilation (PCV) in order to regulate the combustion more accurately
> for emissions purposes (crankcase blow-by gases burn, just as gasoline
> does). Toyota reduced it too much, and any mechanic can tell you that
> this can greatly increase the build-up of sludge.

Since this Toyota business is a bit new to me, I ran a web search to see
if the dealership version of the story is the same as the people effected
are telling. It isn't.

Apparently, the manual recommended 7500 mile changes, or 5000 if under
severe conditions. We are told that the gelation problem has been noted
in cars with under 3000 miles on the oil.

The pendulum of truth is certainly not tarrying long on the side of Toyota.

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Someone (pardon for not remembering whom) posted that Toyota had also had
> > >problems with sludging engines, leading to failure in some instances.
> >
> > >So I asked about the sludging problem while at the dealership. They
> > >confirmed it had happened and gave the reason that many people tried
> > >to run too long between oil changes. They said that the manual
> > >clearly called for oil and filter changes near the 3000 mile
> > >interval, but a lot of people tried to push oils to 7500 and
> > >more. And it just didnt work.
> >
> > Nonsense. Car makers have allowed 7500-mile oil change intervals for
> > about 30 years now and haven't had major sludge problems, despite the
> > SE and SF rated oils back then being much worse at preventing sludge
> > than today's SL and SM oils. Many cars now have 10,000-15,000 mile oil
> > change requirements and few sludge problems. Toyota simply made a
> > major mistake when it reduced the amount of positive crankcase
> > ventilation (PCV) in order to regulate the combustion more accurately
> > for emissions purposes (crankcase blow-by gases burn, just as gasoline
> > does). Toyota reduced it too much, and any mechanic can tell you that
> > this can greatly increase the build-up of sludge.
>
> Since this Toyota business is a bit new to me, I ran a web search to see
> if the dealership version of the story is the same as the people effected
> are telling. It isn't.
>
> Apparently, the manual recommended 7500 mile changes, or 5000 if under
> severe conditions. We are told that the gelation problem has been noted
> in cars with under 3000 miles on the oil.

I've gotta ask. Where "are we told" that the gelation problem has been
noted in cars with under 3,000 miles on the oil. Wher did you find
this information.

And have those cars experiencing sluding always had a regular oil
change within the recommended limits? Or did the car owners in
question all of a sudden get serious about oil changes after they had a
problem.


>
> The pendulum of truth is certainly not tarrying long on the side of Toyota.

Haven't seen anything to verify this statement so far.

"John S." > wrote in message
> >
> > Apparently, the manual recommended 7500 mile changes, or 5000 if under
> > severe conditions. We are told that the gelation problem has been noted
> > in cars with under 3000 miles on the oil.
>
> I've gotta ask. Where "are we told" that the gelation problem has been
> noted in cars with under 3,000 miles on the oil. Wher did you find
> this information.

I found it in the websearch. There are lots of pages of info (and probably
misinformation as well) about this problem. Toyota flatly states that
maintain the oil changes WILL PREVENT the problem, in their website.
I have found a good bit of rebuttal for this. 'We are told' is a pretty
non accusatory phrase.



> And have those cars experiencing sluding always had a regular oil
> change within the recommended limits? Or did the car owners in
> question all of a sudden get serious about oil changes after they had a
> problem.

Good question. Wish I knew the answer. Usually where there is this level
of smoke, there are some sparks, but I dont make any blanket statements
until I know more. Some of the posters here, whose opinion I normally
respect, have made me doubt the Toyota explanation. But we both know
that owners are often lax in maintenance, and inventive in their complaints.

qslim wrote:

> We've been around and around over this in the ole' Toyota forum. I've
> de-sludged a few hundred of those darn 6 cylinders since they started
> showing up a few years back, and not ONE had documentation of a reasonable
> service history. They were all either spotty (10k intervals or more or so),
> or absent of any records at all.
>

Then sanswer me these:

WHY did they "start showing up a few years back?" Did people suddenly
stop changing their oil, or did Toyota make a change that had an
unintended effect and rendered that engine susceptible?

WHY don't other Toyota engines show the same problem at the same rate?

WHY don't other carmakers engines show the same statistics? (Some
specific engines do, and they have a problem as well!)

Most importantly, why is it so hard to admit Toyota screwed up?

wrote:

>>Toyota isn't perfect, unlike what they'd love for you to believe. They
>>laid an egg, and blaming it all on "poor maintenance" just puts more egg
>>on their own faces.
>
>
> Steve,
>
> With no disrespect intended, if they tell you to change the oil at roughly
> 3000 mile intervals, and you dont do it, who is at fault?

You are, of course. However, a 3000 mile change interval is STUPID with
modern oils, and any engine that truly REQUIRES it is a ****-poor design
and unworthy of being on the market. My 1966 V8, my '69 V8, my 73 V8,
and my 93 V6 engines ALL have passed 160,000 miles (241,000 for the 93,
430,0000 for the 73!) with 7000+ mile change intervals. 1973 American
engine technology isn't THAT much better than modern Japanese engine
technology! End of discussion.
>
> Now, I cant prove that this was the case, but IF you are given the clear
> instructions, and cant comply, it darn sure isnt Toyota's fault.

I agree when it comes to suing Toyota or doing something like that. They
covered their bases just fine, and so the only real recourse people have
is to quit buying Toyotas until they can demonstrate that the problem is
well and truly fixed.
>
> If you find a manufacturer that will approve 20,000 mile oil changes, fine.
> If I were the manufacturer, I wouldnt

No, but lots of them, including GM, allow much longer drain intervals
and have oil-monitoring systems.

This may sound like I'm ripping Toyota a new one, but I'm really not.
They've made some incredibly reliable engines over the years. My gut
feeling is that they tried something to reduce emissions or increase
efficiency, and it had an unwanted side-effect. Same thing for the
Chrysler 2.7 v6, in my opinion. Chrysler is my brand of choice most of
the time, but I won't buy a 2.7 for anything! It happens to all
carmakers. What I can't understand or abide is the attitude that
"<insert car brand here> can do NO wrong! It must be the owners!"

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
What I can't understand or abide is the attitude that
> "<insert car brand here> can do NO wrong! It must be the owners!"

Fully agree.
I maintain my cars very well and seldom have I had a problem. (Exception,
a Ford 428 Cobra that broke a piston at 17,000 miles)

Chrysler engines have traditionally been very strong, as you
say. Their Mitsubishi engine choices may not be so great.

Toyota appears to have had some some sort of problem with
these engines, but hesitates to admit it if it is so. The service
manager at this dealership states that he believes that
the problem has been solved (aha...maybe there was a problem),
but still recommends conscientious management.


Some of the web accounts I have read indicate that many owners
were less than diligent about keeping their documentation about
oil changes, and Toyota was probably looking to avoid paying
whenever they could. It was relationswise a bad move.

I live about 60 miles from the dealership. I do not intend to drive
there every time I need an oil change to get their blessing. If that
is the name of the game, I'll do something else.

I find situations like this very unsatisfying. The truth is there
somewhere, but it seems hard to get to the very bottom of this story.

Appreciate your comments.

wrote:
> "Edward Strauss" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>> Claiming to need a 3,000 oil change interval is one way of saying
>>that they cannot fix the problem in the current engine series. If
>>you feel the need to go Japanese I suggest getting the 4 cylinder
>>engine. Powers the Camry just fine. Test drive some of the new GM's
>>first though...
>
>
> When I polled the lubricating oil producers some months ago, those that
> answered
> also tended toward recommended short change intervals. Some did not answer
> at all.
>
> I dont not know whether Toyota claims a fix for their V6. I drove the 2.4
> litre 4
> (claimed 160 bhp) and it was powerful enough.
>
> I want to take a look at the new Lucerne too, but none of the area
> dealerships
> have them. They seem to have a new engine as well, but I might be hesitant
> if this is a first year production.
>
>

The Lucerne uses the iron-horse series-III 3800 and the Northstar V8 -
both have been proven as good engines, although I wouldnt personally buy
any car in it's first model year.

wrote:


>
> Toyota appears to have had some some sort of problem with
> these engines, but hesitates to admit it if it is so.

To defend Toyota for a minute... I think that's a symptom of society. A
corporation simply can't honestly admit a mistake these days without
opening itself to a FLOOD of damage claims, and I'm not just saying
people asking for a replacement engine (which they deserve), I'm talking
about people asking for a brand new car because "it shouldn't have
broken! I don't want a lemon!" Buyers seem so out of touch with reality
that they no longer understand the fact that manufacturing isn't
perfect, and "sometimes you get a bad one." And that replacing the
defective part is fair, but providing a brand new car isn't.

Masospaghetti wrote:


> The Lucerne uses the iron-horse series-III 3800 and the Northstar V8 -
> both have been proven as good engines, although I wouldnt personally buy
> any car in it's first model year.

Oh, I don't know. One of the best cars I ever bought was a first-year
Chrysler LH series (93 Eagle Vision TSi) built about 5 months into the
production run. Still have it with 241,000 miles on the clock.

In the case of the Lucerne, if its using a Northstar and a Gen-III
3800, the only "new" things about it are all low-risk engineering items.
I have to admit ignorance on many of the new GM cars, but I did notice
that the "all new" (according to the clever commercial with herds of
metallic antelope) Impala appears to have the exact same underpinnings
as a circa-1990 Olds Cutlass and Pontiac Grand Prix when you look under
one in person. And thats a GOOD thing, IMO.

I feel that my story, although slightly off-topic, might shed some
light. I bought a 1995 Toyota T100 pickup in December of 2000. 3.4
liter V6, automatic, 2WD long bed. At the time I bought it, it was
showing 219,000 miles on the clock. In June of 2002, at 242,000 miles,
it blew a head gasket. I knew that Toyota had experienced head gasket
issues with this engine and that there was a recall on them. Per the
dealership's service managaer's advice, I drove it to the local Toyota
dealership - probably 8-10 miles. I made sure the coolant was full and
drove gingerly.
So, two days after taking the truck there, the service manager calls
and says it was indeed a blown head gasket, the repair would be covered
under the recall, and that I had pitting in several cylinder bores due
to coolant leaking into the cylinders. The solution was new short
block. Here's the kicker - Toyota covered the short block too under the
head gasket warranty. I didn't have to scream, threaten, or anything.
They admitted the problem was theirs and took responsibility for it.
The repair was wrapped up in about 5 days and I now have 316,000 miles
on the truck.
Am I a fan of Toyota? Because of this experience, absolutely.
Would I be a fan of GM or Ford or Chrysler if I'd been treated the same
way? Absolutely.
Experience, though has shown me that domestic car companies/dealerships
have a "blame the owner first" policy.
Just my $.02.