Great Mechanics, Shame About The . . .

[Tech01]

Now it's not often that I knock Toyota engineering (would I ever do that?), but this is going to be an exception.

Our 2003 D4D is now 10 years old, with just over 100k mi (160k km) on the clock. Been ours since new. It spends its time getting us about here in Andalucia, with a mixture of motorway, urban and mountain track (dirt road) work. To get from the nearest point on our coast (Lagos) to our house is around 5km, 90% done in 2nd gear, and climbing from sea-level to 420m. Still averages a real 33mpg, nevertheless.

So, no complaints about the engine and mechanicals, then. Only notable failures have been (as you know) two failed DMFs (now sorted by SMF), and a vibrating 5th gear (replaced and OK). Otherwise only some knackered front anti-roll-bar bushes (now polyurethane), and four replacement shock absorbers.

The chassis is great, BUT, the bad news really has to be the bodywork and trim, and the lamentable way much of it is (only just) held in place. I have never seen so many different types of plastic 'rivet' and similar on a vehicle, almost all of them frail and just waiting to work loose and fall out.

A few things that have partially detached themselves or worked seriously loose include:

Front scuttle/battery cover

Wheel arches and trims, hopelessly attached

Wheel arch liners and extension pieces

Bonnet air intake

Under-bonnet front edge draft excluder

Under-bonnet sound insulation pad

Registation plate holders

Screenwash reservoir and filler

Front fog lights

Under-engine protection mats

Spare wheel cover

Rubber roof inserts, just ahead of the roof bars

Add to that the rear door/spare wheel (TSB'd), where the majority of the spot welds have popped/torn away, necessitating pairs of 4mm stainless pop-rivets either side of every failed weld.

So, my question is:

1. Has anyone else suffered from all or any of this?

2. Am I right in thinking that things are completely OK on smooth tarmac, but anywhere else it's a different story?

3. Has build quality improved since 2003?

and, I suppose:

4. How can a manufacturer have got it (mainly) so right mechanically, and so hopelessly fragile trim-wise?

Chris

[firemac]

Now it's not often that I knock Toyota engineering (would I ever do that?), but this is going to be an exception.

Our 2003 D4D is now 10 years old, with just over 100k mi (160k km) on the clock. Been ours since new. It spends its time getting us about here in Andalucia, with a mixture of motorway, urban and mountain track (dirt road) work. To get from the nearest point on our coast (Lagos) to our house is around 5km, 90% done in 2nd gear, and climbing from sea-level to 420m. Still averages a real 33mpg, nevertheless.

So, no complaints about the engine and mechanicals, then. Only notable failures have been (as you know) two failed DMFs (now sorted by SMF), and a vibrating 5th gear (replaced and OK). Otherwise only some knackered front anti-roll-bar bushes (now polyurethane), and four replacement shock absorbers.

The chassis is great, BUT, the bad news really has to be the bodywork and trim, and the lamentable way much of it is (only just) held in place. I have never seen so many different types of plastic 'rivet' and similar on a vehicle, almost all of them frail and just waiting to work loose and fall out.

A few things that have partially detached themselves or worked seriously loose include:

Front scuttle/battery cover

Wheel arches and trims, hopelessly attached

Wheel arch liners and extension pieces

Bonnet air intake

Under-bonnet front edge draft excluder

Registation plate holders, which rattle

Screenwash reservoir and filler

Front fog lights

Under-engine protection mats

Spare wheel cover

Rubber roof inserts, just ahead of the roof bars

Add to that the rear door/spare wheel (TSB'd), where the majority of the spot welds have popped/torn away, necessitating pairs of 4mm stainless pop-rivets either side of every failed weld.

So, my question is:

1. Has anyone else suffered from all or any of this?

2. Am I right in thinking that things are completely OK on smooth tarmac, but anywhere else it's a different story?

3. Has build quality improved since 2003?

and, I suppose:

4. How can a manufacturer have got it (mainly) so right mechanically, and so hopelessly fragile trim-wise?

Chris

That's unfortunate, Chris.

Our late, lamented 4.2 auto was brand new 11 years ago. Although it was never off-roaded in the accepted 4x4 sense, it did its fair share of trips on unmetalled tracks (to stables, beaches, etc). It also put up with 11 years' worth of kids, dogs, domestic haulage/removals, etc and, apart from a scratch on the glove box surround from an over-excited pug (which could never be got rid of unfortunately - the scratch, that is, not the dog), the trim & bodywork performed well.

Once the two mouldings around the rear wheel arches popped off along their top edges but they clipped back in again no problem - don't know why they both came adrift for no obvious reason simultaneously.

The OS rubber insert forward of the roof rails on my old 4.2 3-dr (just above the "Made in Japan" sticker coincidentally) never sat quite right and the little plastic moulding at the foot of the OS windscreen (about 3-4 inches long) had to be evo-stuck back into place. Oh, and the tailgate rubber bungs went walkies now & again.

Other than these niggles, the RAV's still rate as the best cars we've owned.

[three5]

Now it's not often that I knock Toyota engineering (would I ever do that?), but this is going to be an exception.

Our 2003 D4D is now 10 years old, with just over 100k mi (160k km) on the clock. Been ours since new. It spends its time getting us about here in Andalucia, with a mixture of motorway, urban and mountain track (dirt road) work. To get from the nearest point on our coast (Lagos) to our house is around 5km, 90% done in 2nd gear, and climbing from sea-level to 420m. Still averages a real 33mpg, nevertheless.

So, no complaints about the engine and mechanicals, then. Only notable failures have been (as you know) two failed DMFs (now sorted by SMF), and a vibrating 5th gear (replaced and OK). Otherwise only some knackered front anti-roll-bar bushes (now polyurethane), and four replacement shock absorbers.

The chassis is great, BUT, the bad news really has to be the bodywork and trim, and the lamentable way much of it is (only just) held in place. I have never seen so many different types of plastic 'rivet' and similar on a vehicle, almost all of them frail and just waiting to work loose and fall out.

A few things that have partially detached themselves or worked seriously loose include:

Front scuttle/battery cover

Wheel arches and trims, hopelessly attached

Wheel arch liners and extension pieces

Bonnet air intake

Under-bonnet front edge draft excluder

Registation plate holders, which rattle

Screenwash reservoir and filler

Front fog lights

Under-engine protection mats

Spare wheel cover

Rubber roof inserts, just ahead of the roof bars

Add to that the rear door/spare wheel (TSB'd), where the majority of the spot welds have popped/torn away, necessitating pairs of 4mm stainless pop-rivets either side of every failed weld.

So, my question is:

1. Has anyone else suffered from all or any of this?

2. Am I right in thinking that things are completely OK on smooth tarmac, but anywhere else it's a different story?

3. Has build quality improved since 2003?

and, I suppose:

4. How can a manufacturer have got it (mainly) so right mechanically, and so hopelessly fragile trim-wise?

Chris

Very interesting post Chris - particularly from you

I guess we have to look at why the variety of clips exists and why they are are such a bone of contention.

I feel certain that "our" clips problem is Toyota's solution to reduced manufacturing cost, i.e. the clips are designed to make initial vehicle assembly as quick and easy as possible with any difficulties that service agents have with removing and replacing clips ( and breaking them whilst doing so! ) a secondary consideration.

It is not really any different to the problems caused by manufacturers fitting an engine, transmission and all the ancillaries attached as a single sub-assembly on the "track" at the factory. In theory the engine needs removal from the 4.3 to change the water pump!

If manufacturers didn't take this approach, as with the old Land Rovers where ( almost ) everything was assembled with nuts and bolts, cars would cost a lot more. It's a competitive market and cost reduction ( clips? ) works in the customers favour at this point.

We could complain about replacement cost of clips and on the face of it there is some justification for this. I'm sure the manufacturers would claim that the cost is in the organisation required to make sure the clips are available at the dealers on a "next day" basis OR the cost of a dealer stocking such a large variety of clips when they really don't have to use very many of them as they "manage" to reassemble the vehicle, in most cases, with the old ones. There is also a feeling on the part of some customers that the money that the manufacturer didn't make on the initial vehicle is made in spares. I worked at one stage of my career for an engineering company that had to supply spares for it's equipment and know for a fact that the cost of an item supplied as a spare was 200% of the cost of the original part ( P&P extra of course! ) when the parts concerned were being manufactured in the same place at the same cost on a daily basis.

Re-reading this post, I'm not sure it has actually helped anyone very much. Thinking the issue through did reduce my blood pressure a bit though!

[Big Kev]

Wife's 4.2 has done only 40k miles, and has suffered none of Chris's problems......he obviously lives in Spain's practice area for Dakaar ralley !!! Have had occasion though to remove trim such as rear door garnish panels and wheel arch liners, etc., and I am also stunned by the variety of differing clips. Most of these are self removing wee gubbers, which quit the car at the speed of sound, never to be seen again as soon as they are subjected to removal pressure. To this end, I have collated all kinds of wee doobries of clip to replace, most of which are those push button release type.

Ye cannae beat posidrive screws.....!!!

One thing I will introduce when they bring back Krypton Factor is removing and replacing spare wheel cover within 60 seconds....PROPERLY, FIRST TIME.......no way will they manage it....LOL

[Parts-King]

Well from a parts supply point of view you do surprise me. We hardly ever supply arch liner and wheel arch clips unless they have been nudged and damaged. In fact, I have always thought the fitting of the arch extensions is way over engineered, they could easily have used a handful of pop on clips but they don't, they use a combination of rivets, male and female clips / tapes /seals which seems like a lot of expense to me. Just look at the amount of things on the arch

Kingo

[Hoovie]

Well from a parts supply point of view you do surprise me. We hardly ever supply arch liner and wheel arch clips unless they have been nudged and damaged. In fact, I have always thought the fitting of the arch extensions is way over engineered, they could easily have used a handful of pop on clips but they don't, they use a combination of rivets, male and female clips / tapes /seals which seems like a lot of expense to me. Just look at the amount of things on the arch

Kingo

I think there is one team who come up with the way to secure the arch onto the car, and another team who come up with the way to secure the car onto the arch ....

[anchorman]

I think like Chris that in the main these clips are designed to be used once. What irritates me is when they come back from a dealer falling apart. I sometimes break clips, especially in cold weather but I have a supply of assorted clips ready. I can't undestand why they don't seem to. I think a Toyota uses clips to a similar standard/amount as most other brands