2AD Engine: life after warranty

[maher]

When I was young and naïve, I believed that Toyotas were reliable and so bought an old RAV4. Alas, this was only 3 months ago and it just so happened to be a 2006 D4D...

3 months on, I'm now nursing my pride being stuck with a lemon which is drinking oil like it was beer. Service Manager didn't even bother to look at the car when I told him the symptoms: just confirmed it was the known engine issue and told me to trade it on quickly. Given the amount of cash I'll loose doing this, am chewing my limited options and wondering: 

1. what is the general failure mode: will it just continue to drink oil, or will it eventually go kaput?

2. has anyone had any success patching up these engines using 'cheap' means - i.e. head gasket sealant additives or minor work?

3. has anyone paid out for a full fix: in which case, how much did you spend to get it right?

4. has anyone had any success pursuing Toyota central for older cars (but within their mileage limits)?

Mat

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

The issue is fairly well publicised - Honest John, etc.

The following topic contains information from someone who has tried a repair - 

The cover Toyota provided for the issue was goodwill on a case by case basis , but limited to 7 years or 111,846 miles from first registration, whichever occurred first. So if the vehicle has exceeded either the age or the mileage limit, that is it.

 

[daveh_rav4]

I don't have this type of Rav4 thankfully (by the sound of it)... all very well Toyota showing 'goodwill' upto seven years and or a milage;  but as this was a design fault, perhaps Toyota should consider the customer goodwill involved here... like customers thinking that their next car WON'T be a Toyota!  That holds good for the flywheel fiasco as well...  If you mess up, you hold your hand up, make good the mistake and then everyone will respect you for it and maybe buy the product again.

[FROSTYBALLS]

Providing cover for 7 years or 111,846 miles is more than the majority of other vehicle manufacturers would consider providing.

[daveh_rav4]

Sorry, can't agree... most folks would expect a Toyota costing as much as these do to last more than seven years or 111,846 miles (where did that obscure number eminate from?)  I do a low milage... 3-4k a year, so seven years and 30,000 miles and I have a wrecked Toyota! No thank you mister...  Toyota should fix ALL of these vehicles regardless of miles or time scale; it's a design fault so they should step up to the plate and swallow it.  Under UK consumer law... an item should be fit for purpose.

[maher]

there is a bitter irony to all of this...

I've been running 'pocket money' cars for over 10 years now. Typically, all 9-10years old, typically all with 100k on the clock. BMW, Alfa Romeo, Saab, Volvo, etc: been through a number of them. The RAV4 was actually the most expensive of the bunch: costing twice what my last car did with the same mileage/age. BUT - when I asked why it was priced so high for an old car, I got nothing but "it's a Toyota: its good for the miles". All the usually research areas never showed up anything but praise for the reliability. It's only when you enter specific terms into google do you uncover the truth. 

As it now turns out, the Toyota is actually second-to-bottom in my own personal reliability states: well below Alfa Romeo. Only BMW sits worse...

BUT, although I'm more than happy to moan about them (believe me, my words cannot be expressed on a public forum), I don't want this thread to turn into that type of session: I'm stuck with this now and need to find the best-worse solution: where have people gone from here?

[fordulike]

When you say drinking like beer, how many litres per month are you putting in? I know you've only owned it 3 months, but hopefull you're keeping tabs on how much oil the engine is using.

[alan333]

5 hours ago, daveh_rav4 said:

111,846 miles (where did that obscure number eminate from?) 

It's equivalent to 180,000 km

[maher]

5.6litres over 2,400miles. In less than three months I've actually done a complete oil change! Loosing coolant as well, but to a much smaller degree (about 1litres worth over this period). 

By Toyota limiting their goodwill to a case by case basis they are actually causing a bigger headache for themselves. Let's face it, the default reaction to major work for a lot of people is 'trade it isn't which is obviously what the last owner did and is what I might have to do. Just keeps pushing the bad experience onto more and more people

[fordulike]

I feel your pain Mat. Oil consumption isn't something that can be spotted on a walk-around or test drive. If it was just the oil consumption, I would personally keep the car, but coupled with the coolant loss, I think I would have to let the car go.

[FROSTYBALLS]

It is thought that only a small percentage of cars were  affected by the oil consumption/head gasket issues. The majority of affected vehicles will have had the rectification work done during the period of cover. 

As regards being fit for purpose under the Consumers Rights Act 2015, this means:

Fit for purpose means both for their everyday purpose, and also any specific purpose that you agreed with the seller (for example, if you specifically asked for a printer that would be compatible with your computer, or wall tiles that would be suitable for use in a bathroom). 

The contract of sale is between the purchaser and the seller - NOT the manufacturer. If the car was bought from a dealer, then the OP will have some comeback against the seller under the above Act.  If it was a private sale, any comeback is very limited.

[daveh_rav4]

3 hours ago, alan333 said:

It's equivalent to 180,000 km

Thanks Alan...do you work for GCHQ?  :)

[daveh_rav4]

2 hours ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

It is thought that only a small percentage of cars were  affected by the oil consumption/head gasket issues. The majority of affected vehicles will have had the rectification work done during the period of cover. 

As regards being fit for purpose under the Consumers Rights Act 2015, this means:

Fit for purpose means both for their everyday purpose, and also any specific purpose that you agreed with the seller (for example, if you specifically asked for a printer that would be compatible with your computer, or wall tiles that would be suitable for use in a bathroom). 

The contract of sale is between the purchaser and the seller - NOT the manufacturer. If the car was bought from a dealer, then the OP will have some comeback against the seller under the above Act.  If it was a private sale, any comeback is very limited.

Oh well, that's OK then... I am sure the OP is reassured by that.  If the Consumer (NO) Rights Act 2015 claims that his car is serving it's everyday intended purpose then Mr. Toyota can sleep easy... and try suing the original dealer (seller) under that 2015 act; I wish you well with that one!  I am sure the original Consumer Act from an earlier period would have protected the buyer more.  Makes you wonder if Toyota had a hand in drawing up the new act up?

I must admit I have no complaints about my 4.1 Rav4 (1998 Freesport),  It drives like a Swiss watch with no issues and no oil or water loss and I just love it.  However, when I hear of stories like Mat, where, having handed over his hard earned cash for a Toyota; ends up with a vehicle with overhanging manufacturing issues. I still contend that Mr. Toyota should be big enough to step in on a case like this and do the right thing; i.e. FIX IT.  If, as you say it's only a small percentage outstanding... then all the more reason for Toyota to do the right thing by the owners of those vehicles that missed the warranty window for one reason or another. Quoting warranty cut off dates and mileage limits as a get out leaves a bad taste in the mouth...

Hmmmm, Nissan make some nice 4x4's....

[FROSTYBALLS]

No-one has mentioned suing the original dealer.

If, as I said, the OP bought the vehicle 3 months ago from a dealer, be it Toyota, independent or whatever, they have some comeback from that dealer they bought it from. It isn't rocket science!

Yes Nissan make some nice 4x4's, and equally they can have similar or worse issues as the Rav4 from 9-11 years ago. Anything from diesel engine failures on the X-Trail to severe chassis corrosion on the Navara - and there have been instances of Navaras breaking in half!

[maher]

ha, ha, you obviously haven't heard about the X-Trails intercooler issues then!

Consumer credit does actually work in my favour for going back to the dealer. The big problem is actually proving that the goods were not in a satisfactory condition at the point of purchase: it's taken a smidge over 3 months to get a full handle on the consumption issues. I did speak to the original dealer (backstreet jobby) and the moment I explained the problem he got all defensive and started talking the line: resulting in 'leave the car with me for a couple of days and I will make the assessment whether its faulty or not'. So, that's the line it'll take: he'll deny everything, delay everything and be generally obstinate about the entire affair. If I take this tac, I'll probably win eventually, but its going to be a very long and painful path: with no guarantees he won't stitch me up afterwards just out of revenge (for example giving me a another dodgy motor in lue of this one: which he can legally do).  It's an option all right, just not a pleasant one.

I have contacted Toyota customer services regards this: waiting response. I may be over the 7years, but I'm under the mileage limit and certainly under the service history limit (this car has haunted Toyota dealers since new: even the tyres are Toyota supplied and fitted). It's a long shot, but worth a punt: even if they can meet me half way on the repair it'll still probably be cheaper than the money I'll loose dumping back into circulation (and therefore adding another Toyota-hating person to the list).

How much is a recon engine nowadays anyway?

Only other viable option is just that: dump the car back into circulation - possibly with a bottle of K-Seal added. It's a horrible thing to do, but what else can I do: write off the car just to preserve Toyotas reputation?

[FROSTYBALLS]

Under the Consumers Rights Act 2015 if a fault becomes apparent within the first six months it is upon to the dealer to prove the fault wasn't there when you bought it. It isn't down to you to prove it!

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act

Take some proper advice from CAB or similar.

[FROSTYBALLS]

There have been instances on the forums where members have contacted Toyota re their vehicle breaching the age limit, but not the mileage. Toyota GB have stuck to the 'whichever comes first' principal, and the answer has been 'no'.

[daveh_rav4]

Despite what the legalities are... IMO this is morally a Toyota problem, because it is an acknowledged design/manufacturing fault and lets face it they have the money and resources to put it right, and should!  Even if the law try's to pin it on to an unsuspecting (giving them the benifit of the doubt) selling dealer/retailer... it is not right and I bet that they will fight you every inch of the way and tie you up in knots for months.... as I say; best of luck suing a dealer.   Good luck with the Toyota claim... I hope they come through for you.

OK, the Nissan comment was a bit tongue in cheek... my only experiance of them is that a friend of mine has a Nissan Overlander (I think that's what it is called) and he is highly delighted with it... I have ridden in it many times and despite it being a diesel I have to admit to being quite impressed.

[FROSTYBALLS]

2 hours ago, daveh_rav4 said:

Even if the law try's to pin it on to an unsuspecting (giving them the benifit of the doubt) selling dealer/retailer...

The Consumer Rights Act has been in force for two years come next month. So by now any retailer worth their salt, whether they sell vehicles or other products,  should be aware of their responsibilities under the Act. Aside from that, even under the previous Sale of Goods Act, the contract of sale was always between the retailer and the customer - not the manufacturer.

Manufacturers provide warranties to cover manufacturing defects, and any warranty will always have time or other limits. Toyota provided cover for this particular issue for a longer period than their standard warranty. No manufacturer will provide unlimited cover for manufacturing faults, or, if they did, they wouldn't be in business for long.

Realistically, the OP will probably stand more chance of getting redress using the Consumer Rights Act, and , if it comes to taking a form of legal action, this will be almost certainly come under the Small Claims Court where the process is relatively cheap and the financial limit is £10,000.

[CHERRYVILLE]

On 9/14/2017 at 9:26 PM, maher said:

When I was young and naïve, I believed that Toyotas were reliable and so bought an old RAV4. Alas, this was only 3 months ago and it just so happened to be a 2006 D4D...

3 months on, I'm now nursing my pride being stuck with a lemon which is drinking oil like it was beer. Service Manager didn't even bother to look at the car when I told him the symptoms: just confirmed it was the known engine issue and told me to trade it on quickly. Given the amount of cash I'll loose doing this, am chewing my limited options and wondering: 

1. what is the general failure mode: will it just continue to drink oil, or will it eventually go kaput?

2. has anyone had any success patching up these engines using 'cheap' means - i.e. head gasket sealant additives or minor work?

3. has anyone paid out for a full fix: in which case, how much did you spend to get it right?

4. has anyone had any success pursuing Toyota central for older cars (but within their mileage limits)?

Mat

 

Hi Matt,  I have a 2010  2.2 Rav 4 which has just turned 58000 miles. Bought it Feb past as it had 7 Toyota stamps in service book and car was very well looked after throughout. 6 weeks ago coolant started to disappear with no sign of leaks. Went to local Toyota agent who booked it in to find out what was going on. Bottom line was the head gasket was starting to go. Toyota denied my engine could have been one of the affected batch which they acknowledged gave this problem. Despite the main dealer service history I was left to foot the bill myself. I got a Toyota trained mechanic to rebuild my engine with new head gasket after having the head and block skimmed. Total bill was £1000. Do not expect any sympathy or help from Mr T.

Henry

[Heidfirst]

1 hour ago, CHERRYVILLE said:

 I got a Toyota trained mechanic to rebuild my engine with new head gasket after having the head and block skimmed.

Fyi, Toyota say that these should not be skimmed (hence why the factory sanctioned fix was a replacement scheme).

[FROSTYBALLS]

1 hour ago, CHERRYVILLE said:

I have a 2010  2.2 Rav 4 which has just turned 58000 miles. Bought it Feb past as it had 7 Toyota stamps in service book and car was very well looked after throughout. 6 weeks ago coolant started to disappear with no sign of leaks. Went to local Toyota agent who booked it in to find out what was going on. Bottom line was the head gasket was starting to go. Toyota denied my engine could have been one of the affected batch which they acknowledged gave this problem. 

The following provides some detail on which engines were affected by this issue - and for the Rav4 engines affected were built between July 2005 and December 2008: 

The goodwill provided covered a period of 7 years from first registration or 111,846 miles, whichever occurred first. So even if your car had been within the range of affected engines (and it isn't), it may have been outside the scope of goodwill on age, depending when in 2010 it was first registered.

[CHERRYVILLE]

All very well FROSTYBALLS  when ones car is within the warranty period and of course with one of the affected ( year of issue) engines.

My 2.2 RAV4  is registered March 2010 and to me, and my main Toyota dealer displayed and indeed was diagnosed with the troublesome head gasket failure.

Toyota refused any assistance relating to the repair. I even contacted Toyota UK by phone myself after the garage informed me of Mr T's  decision.

Incidentally my engine, which is original to the vehicle is one of a quite limited number of engines fitted to 2010 vehicles in that it is not interchangeable with other, pre and post 2010  because my engine does not have the 5th injector.  This apparently is fitted to the front of the engine. How do I know, I bought a 27000 mile replacement engine but it could not be fitted despite having the same engine code. Senior Toyota mechanic said he never came across this engine design of mine but on checking agreed that it does exist. I returned the engine yesterday and gt my money back. Overall it worked out the same money to get the car back on the road, now with my own engine rebuilt at total cost of £1000.

[CHERRYVILLE]

7 hours ago, Heidfirst said:

Fyi, Toyota say that these should not be skimmed (hence why the factory sanctioned fix was a replacement scheme).

Toyota trained and currently working for Toyota man  was confident my engine will be fine with .004 of the head and .003 of the block with an accordingly thicker head gasket.

If this was not to be done why is there a thicker than stock head gasket available.

[Heidfirst]

32 minutes ago, CHERRYVILLE said:

All very well FROSTYBALLS  when ones car is within the warranty period and of course with one of the affected ( year of issue) engines.

My 2.2 RAV4  is registered March 2010 and to me, and my main Toyota dealer displayed and indeed was diagnosed with the troublesome head gasket failure.

Toyota refused any assistance relating to the repair. I even contacted Toyota UK by phone myself after the garage informed me of Mr T's  decision.

There is a chance that any engine can develop a head gasket failure. Toyota are obviously confident that they had resolved the previous design/manufacturing issues that had previously caused a significantly higher rate than expected.

Irrespective your vehicle is outside the 7 years period that Toyota had allowed during the campaign & also beyond the 6 years allowed for you to claim under consumer law.

Incidentally my engine, which is original to the vehicle is one of a quite limited number of engines fitted to 2010 vehicles in that it is not interchangeable with other, pre and post 2010  because my engine does not have the 5th injector.  This apparently is fitted to the front of the engine. How do I know, I bought a 27000 mile replacement engine but it could not be fitted despite having the same engine code. Senior Toyota mechanic said he never came across this engine design of mine but on checking agreed that it does exist. I returned the engine yesterday and gt my money back. Overall it worked out the same money to get the car back on the road, now with my own engine rebuilt at total cost of £1000.

So, its a 2AD-FTV rather than 2AD-FHV. Afaik these were fitted (in varying power outputs) to RAV4s between 2007 & 2012 but those fitted in later 2010> will have also been DPF-equipped due to Euro V coming into effect. The injectors also changed design at 1 point. 

Is your RAV a manual transmission?

27 minutes ago, CHERRYVILLE said:

If this was not to be done why is there a thicker than stock head gasket available.

Is this a Toyota or 3rd party part? Bear in mind that you may have temporarily resolved the symptoms but you may not have fixed the underlying cause(s).

P.S. I always advise anybody not to to run a modern common-rail turbo-diesel (especially if DPF-equipped) outside warranty unless they can afford to pay for  unexpected bills in excess of £1k (DPF, DMF, injectors etc.). I took my own advice & had Toyota Extended Warranties on both my 2.2 Avensis.