My car was registered in April 2000. It had an intermmediate 50,000 service on 19th March this year, with no apparent or reported faults. The mileage is 48,750. A short while ago I heard an alarming clattering noise when on the over-run, which quickly developed into the problen occuring all the time. I thought I had escaped the pre-cat failure some members have experienced - serves me right for being cocky s:!: :!: s:!: I immediately took it over to my dealer for an investigation, hoping for the best. No such luck s:!: :!: s:!: The prognosis is cylinder block bore wear, invloving a short block replacement at a cost of over £3,000 (parts are £1,600 + VAT). The garage said they would contact MrT. Then the "fun" really started s:!: :!: s:!:
The standard warranty is 3 years or 60,000 miles, whichever comes sooner. Customer Relations got back to the dealer and said because the engine is over 5 years old they would not even consider making a concession towards the cost. Bearing in mind I have run 7 MR2s over the last 15 years and my wife has had 4 Toyotas the dealer suggested I tackle MrT myself. After several phone calls I have got them to reconsider and I have been offered a "generous" discount of £350 off the parts. I have already explained that there were no warning signs of engine failure eg loss of power, but that the bore wear must have been happening over some time. It would appear that most of the staff in the Research and Customer Relations Departments have no or very little mechanical knowledge of how their cars work.
I have explained that we have considerable knowledge within the ROC of this problem and as a result Toyota must accept that this is a "known fault". I need to prove this, in order to get them to re-consider their offer and at least pay for the parts. There are masses of posts and comments on the forum, too many for me to scan through for information. I am hoping that our members can provide me with information where they have got MrT to pay for repairs. I think all I would need are registration or chassis numbers - don't publish on the forum, but email me at e
roger.hemmimg31@btinternet.com e , or PM me.
I daren't use the car in case it increases the extent of damage, so it's parked up in my garage (and it's a beautiful hood down day in Birmingham)
Sorry it's a long saga, but hopefully it will bring results.
Regards
s:( :( s:( s:( :( s:( s:( :( s:(
QuoteDavid's style hoops.
You went to the expense and effort of putting those on the car
before addressing the precat issue? And you're driving a 2000? You had 50,000 miles of runtime to sort this out and could have saved the car, but you didn't - figuring that all of these warnings and whatnot were jokes? Words fail me.
You aren't alone, though. Many owners have had to battle Toyota in order to obtain an engine replacement. There are so many variables at play that I don't think you'll get much benefit from other owners' experiences. For example - your model year, where you bought the car, the mileage on your vehicle, the presence of performance upgrades on your car, the specific dealership you're working with, the attitude of Toyota with respect to the motor fault, all of these things intersect right in the middle of your engine block.
Toyota, of course, would prefer to pay for as few repairs as possible. The burden is on you to assert that a Corolla motor with regular servicing and documented maintenace and oil changes per the manual (your book is correctly and completely stamped, yes?) ought not to fail. You are within the 60K limit and have some leverage there. I'd stay on those two points, send letters, make phone calls, and generally be a pest. Start saving for the repair because there's no guarantee you'll be successful. Used engines aren't that expensive and you could find one for around $800, decat your manifold yourself, and get the a new main cat for around $700. That leaves labor and depending on what you're willing to do, the whole job could be done under $2000 or so. Good luck.
Roger can you take your phone number off and get people to PM you for it as (no offence everyone) there are some right loons out there. I can't edit this forum.
mr-s turbo - done
southernediter - I'm afraid your first paragraph didn't help. I feel bad enough about it already s:!: :!: s:!:
Quote from: "southerneditor"You had 50,000 miles of runtime to sort this out and could have saved the car, but you didn't - figuring that all of these warnings and whatnot were jokes? Words fail me.
I don't think that's a very helpful approach. There are tens of thousands of MR2s out there without problems (and a good number on here as you could have read in that general post a week or two back).
We have to remember that these are TOYOTAs. They are incredibly reliable engine wise and always have been.
What might be useful is for this group to coordinate some statistics - based on the number of cars that have had problems. Has anything like this been attempted yet?
Quote from: "martin-s"Quote from: "southerneditor"You had 50,000 miles of runtime to sort this out and could have saved the car, but you didn't - figuring that all of these warnings and whatnot were jokes? Words fail me.
I don't think that's a very helpful approach. There are tens of thousands of MR2s out there without problems (and a good number on here as you could have read in that general post a week or two back).
Couldn't agree more. Roger H is obviously feeling crap about the whole situation already...not only is his car busted, he is looking at a hefty bill......getting a slap on the wrists from you isn't going to help much.
There is no mention in his original post of pre-cat failure being the problem. Toyota diagnosed cylinder bore wear. If this is the case, then gutting the pre-cats in
this particular case would have been futile. Roger H has simply been unlucky....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't bore wear be a result of the ceramic in the precats getting sucked into the engine?
This is not an attempt to make the OP feel bad. Just a point of information. Sure it's a risk not to gut the precats. But it's also a risk just getting behind the wheel of a '2 (harder for others to see, little protection in a side impact) and we all take that risk all the time. And, there, we're risking a lot more than our cars. s:shock: :shock: s:shock:
I still believe that bore wear could be the primary cause of pre-cat failure, but I don't think any of us have enough information to say for sure. And personally I just don't like the scare tactics a few of the senior members of this board use.
Quote from: "Ernie Ball"Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't bore wear be a result of the ceramic in the precats getting sucked into the engine?
But it's also a risk just getting behind the wheel of a '2 (harder for others to see, little protection in a side impact) and we all take that risk all the time. And, there, we're risking a lot more than our cars. s:shock: :shock: s:shock:
It seems to be one of those issues where nobody knows
100% for sure, and there appears to be 2 trains of thought. Is it a design/manufacturing fault with the engine that causes bore wear, leading to pre-cat failure? Or is it pre-cat failure that causes the bore wear? Until there is conclusive proof I reserve judgement..... s:? :? s:?
As for the risk, we all do it coz we love these little cars so much! I'm sure it crosses our minds occassionally when out for a play with the top down how we wouldn't fancy our chances much if the car rolled.....but do we start driving Miss Daisy as a result..... s:D :D s:D
The MR2 for me is a buzz like riding/track daying my bike is, the pleasure far outweighs the risk s:D :D s:D
They're not scare tactics by any means. Whilst there may not be any conclusive proof that the pre-cats cause engine failure, there's more than enough circumstantial evidence available here and on SpyderChat to warrant a gutting sooner rather than later.
If anybody wants to leave them in, then that's obviously their choice. However, don't say you weren't warned...
Quote from: "Ekona"They're not scare tactics by any means. Whilst there may not be any conclusive proof that the pre-cats cause engine failure, there's more than enough circumstantial evidence available here and on SpyderChat to warrant a gutting sooner rather than later.
If anybody wants to leave them in, then that's obviously their choice. However, don't say you weren't warned...
And until a gutted 2 suffers with the bore problem we will never establish which happens first. Best to gut as a precaution as at worst you have a 50/50 chance s:? :? s:?
Quote from: "heathstimpson"And until a gutted 2 suffers with the bore problem we will never establish which happens first. Best to gut as a precaution as at worst you have a 50/50 chance s:? :? s:?
Possibly the most reasoned and simply put statement I have seen so far on this subject after loads of searching!! s:bowdown: :bowdown: s:bowdown:
As a new member to the forum, all the talk of "leave your pre-cats in and your car will die" (which is how it can come across from some....not all I must add) can be a bit disturbing. In all honesty, I found this site before buying my 2, and the wife had to talk me back into buying one as it had put me off buying one completely.....that can't be a positive image for what is essentially a friendly and very helpful owners club? s:? :? s:?
FWIW, I don't regret buying the 2 for moment, but in 18 months time when the warranty runs out I don't know which road I will take...extend the warranty, or gut the pre-cats and hope the bore wear is not an issue in itself.... s:roll: :roll: s:roll:
My apologies to Roger et alii for being overly brash in my remarks. I can only imagine how tough it is to be in that kind of spot and I certainly empathize with him. Mea maxima culpa.
Knowing how some dealerships and MrT tend to approach this issue, I'm willing to bet that the culprit in this case is most definitely the precats, and cylinder boring either led to the cat failure or resulted from gradual wearing due to ceramic particulate inhalation. In neither case is it the owner's fault and Toyota really ought to assume the repair if for nothing other than customer good will and protection of their image. All the best Roger and please keep us posted.
Quote from: "heathstimpson"And until a gutted 2 suffers with the bore problem we will never establish which happens first. Best to gut as a precaution as at worst you have a 50/50 chance s:? :? s:?
You can't be serious. You think this is happening to one in two cars and Toyota won't issue a recall? Certainly all this talk is giving the MR2 a very bad name in my opinion and I don't believe its fair or justified.
But, on the protection side, has anyone had any luck with 3rd party warranties covering this? The one provided by CSMA/Car Care Plan for example?
Quote from: "martin-s"Quote from: "heathstimpson"And until a gutted 2 suffers with the bore problem we will never establish which happens first. Best to gut as a precaution as at worst you have a 50/50 chance s:? :? s:?
You can't be serious. You think this is happening to one in two cars and Toyota won't issue a recall? Certainly all this talk is giving the MR2 a very bad name in my opinion and I don't believe its fair or justified.
Sorry what I meant was that there is not concrete proof if the precats start to break up and cause the bore wear due to lumps being sucked back into the engine or if the cylinder bores wear first and leak oil through to the precats causing them to break up. Mosts supsect that it is the precats that go first as everyone that has gutted them that we know has not yet suffered from an engine failure due to bore wear. What I meant with the 50/50 quote was that which ever theory is actually correct you eliminate the chance of it happensing by 50% by gutting the precats. Failure rates still seem to be reasonably low overall from what we know so its worth making them odds even lower and getting a nicer sound to. It can never be 100% proved that you did gut the precats thats why I have done mine well before my warrenty runs out s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Quote from: "martin-s"You can't be serious. You think this is happening to one in two cars and Toyota won't issue a recall?
I don't think anybody has said 1 in 2 s:shock: :shock: s:shock: More like 1 in 500 hundred ed or greater. Recalls are usually associated with safety issues, so in situations like this, if they agree its their problem they will just replace when it goes wrong.
According to Toyota (3rd hand via a member from a garage) they have had more actual problems with the Avensis, but then of course there are more of those around.
Quote from: "roger"Quote from: "martin-s"You can't be serious. You think this is happening to one in two cars and Toyota won't issue a recall?
I don't think anybody has said 1 in 2 s:shock: :shock: s:shock: More like 1 in 500 hundred ed or greater. Recalls are usually associated with safety issues, so in situations like this, if they agree its their problem they will just replace when it goes wrong.
According to Toyota (3rd hand via a member from a garage) they have had more actual problems with the Avensis, but then of course there are more of those around.
The Avensis have precats to don't they s:?: :?: s:?:
Quote from: "heathstimpson"The Avensis have precats to don't they s:?: :?: s:?:
So other people have said. Personally I wouldn't know.