Although there is already a "sticky" on this issue in this forum about the recall, a new and important development has occurred that is very troubling and may ultimately affect many of the 1.6 million vehicles covered by the LSC 90K (recall) which replaces a defective rubber oil line hose with a replacement hose that was supposed to be stronger. Despite the fact that the "campaign" documents essentially extend the "warranty" to March 2013, Arlington Toyota of Palatine Illinois (a Chicago suburb) has refused to cover oil line replacement and engine damage caused when the new rubber recall hose replacement rutptured and the engine essentially ran out of oil
Facts: Owner has a well maintained 2006 Rav4 with a placed in service date of 07/25/06. She takes it in to Arlington Toyota in April 2010 at 31,719 miles for regular oil change service and LSC 90K (recall) hose replacement. According to her receipt, correct parts were replaced pursuant to LSC 90K. The car was taken into Arlington Toyota for service every 5K miles thereafter. Then, on Christmas Eve 2011 at 48,471 miles - just 16,652 miles after the vvt-i recall hose was replaced and only 2,000 miles since her last oil change visit, the replacement oil line ruptured causing the oil to rapidly drain out of the engine so she has it towed to Arlington Toyota.
Arlington Toyota ignores the March 2013 date noted in the LSC 90K documents and tells her "you are only entitled to one oil line replacement .... " and hands her a $700 bill for new oil hose, ancillary damage, and tow. Within 15 minutes of driving it off the lot, the engine starts making loud noises and the owner has it towed back to Arlington Toyota. They tell her essentially "tough luck" and want $1,200 just to inspect the engine for damage .... which is probably going to run into the thousands of dollars. She calls Toyota headquarters and gets no relief. I called and sent an email to their service department director and told him of the many cases where Toyota paid for post warranty repairs relative to this issue and was stunned by his has callous response " the warranty is up and it time for her to take reponsibility and ownership of the vehicle." WOW I told him - had Toyota taken ownership and responsibility for its admittedly defective parts in the first place and replaced the rubber oil lines with the metal ones used in the manufacturing process beginning in April 04/08, this problem never would have occurred in the first place !!!!!
[She had the car towed to an independent shop where the curent plan is to have the car fixed, ask for reimbursement ..... and probably sell the car for fear something like this could happen again. What is particularly ironic and absurd here is that had the owner NOT taken the vehicle in at all for the recall in April 2010 and the origianl oil line failed, she clearly would have been covered by LSC 90K since that document clearly states the "recall" is good through April 2013 and there is no sense of urgency about bringing the car in prior to that date.]
Another LSC 90K Oil Line failure: A similar story is found in the Edmunds.com Camry forum where a 2008 Camry had the recall performed in September 2010 and the replacement oil line blew Thanksgiving day 2011. The dealer paid for the repair but the person that posted the
announcment does not accept private messages so it cannot be confirmed that the car was still within the 60,000 mile limit of the powertrain warranty.
Look at how fast these oil lines ruptured: Just 16,652 miles and 20 months on the Rav4 and 14 months on the Camry. Even the old 2005 Avalon hoses did not go out this fast. Since the new improved rubber oil line is suppose to be reinforced with Kevlar or some other such substance, I didn't figure we'd be hearing about any failed LSC 90K replacement rubber hoses until about 2015! And oh what logic: "Dear Toyota Customer: We are recalling your defective oil line that has already lasted you 30,000 miles with another part that will fail right after your warranty expires ... ya know ...... we just don't want to pay for your new engine !!!"
Warning to anyone with 2GR-FE V6 engines manufactured prior to April 2008 where the recall has been performed: Since the new hose is subject to failure, essentially 1.5 million or so people are driving vehicles that are potentiall "ticking timebombs." If other dealers follow the policy of Arlington Toyota, once your powertrain warranty has expired by either the passage of time or by the mileage limit and it has been more than one year since the LSC 90K oil line replacement was done, then repairs that occur as a result - which can easily run into the thousands of dollars - will not be covered by Toyota.
What you can do if your affected vehicle is approaching or has past the applicable dates of warranty expiration: Go back to your dealer and demand that the dealer either:
(1) replace the "band aid" rubber hose fix called for in the LSC 90K with the same all metal oil line that Toyota/Lexus installed on all 2GR-FE V6 engines manufactured beginning in April 2008 even if you have to pay some reasonable charge. There are many threads in many Toyota & Lexus forums on this. Many people have already used the metal oil line replacement despite an assortment of lame excuses by dealers stating that the metal version either would not fit and/or the all metal line would void their warranty
or
(2) that the dealer put in writing that the LSC 90K replacement hose is guaranteed until at least March 2013 ... or longer.
Question: Has anyone else heard of other cases where the oil line recall repair failed and if so, how was the issue resolved and was a cause determined? Either the dealer(s) did not perform the original service at all, incorrectly performed the service, or Toyota has a bad batch of parts. All possibilities SHOULD have been investigated by the dealer(s) as soon as these oil line failures occurred.
https://sites.google.com/site/toyotav6oillinescandal/
Update as of February 8, 2012: Owner appealed to the President of Arlington Toyota with positive response. Toyota picked up the tab for all repairs which essentially amounted to a new engine. Parts replaced include new short block, cam assembly, gear assembly, & water pump. Arlington is also throwing in some brake work as a goodwill gesture.
Facts: Owner has a well maintained 2006 Rav4 with a placed in service date of 07/25/06. She takes it in to Arlington Toyota in April 2010 at 31,719 miles for regular oil change service and LSC 90K (recall) hose replacement. According to her receipt, correct parts were replaced pursuant to LSC 90K. The car was taken into Arlington Toyota for service every 5K miles thereafter. Then, on Christmas Eve 2011 at 48,471 miles - just 16,652 miles after the vvt-i recall hose was replaced and only 2,000 miles since her last oil change visit, the replacement oil line ruptured causing the oil to rapidly drain out of the engine so she has it towed to Arlington Toyota.
Arlington Toyota ignores the March 2013 date noted in the LSC 90K documents and tells her "you are only entitled to one oil line replacement .... " and hands her a $700 bill for new oil hose, ancillary damage, and tow. Within 15 minutes of driving it off the lot, the engine starts making loud noises and the owner has it towed back to Arlington Toyota. They tell her essentially "tough luck" and want $1,200 just to inspect the engine for damage .... which is probably going to run into the thousands of dollars. She calls Toyota headquarters and gets no relief. I called and sent an email to their service department director and told him of the many cases where Toyota paid for post warranty repairs relative to this issue and was stunned by his has callous response " the warranty is up and it time for her to take reponsibility and ownership of the vehicle." WOW I told him - had Toyota taken ownership and responsibility for its admittedly defective parts in the first place and replaced the rubber oil lines with the metal ones used in the manufacturing process beginning in April 04/08, this problem never would have occurred in the first place !!!!!
[She had the car towed to an independent shop where the curent plan is to have the car fixed, ask for reimbursement ..... and probably sell the car for fear something like this could happen again. What is particularly ironic and absurd here is that had the owner NOT taken the vehicle in at all for the recall in April 2010 and the origianl oil line failed, she clearly would have been covered by LSC 90K since that document clearly states the "recall" is good through April 2013 and there is no sense of urgency about bringing the car in prior to that date.]
Another LSC 90K Oil Line failure: A similar story is found in the Edmunds.com Camry forum where a 2008 Camry had the recall performed in September 2010 and the replacement oil line blew Thanksgiving day 2011. The dealer paid for the repair but the person that posted the
announcment does not accept private messages so it cannot be confirmed that the car was still within the 60,000 mile limit of the powertrain warranty.
Look at how fast these oil lines ruptured: Just 16,652 miles and 20 months on the Rav4 and 14 months on the Camry. Even the old 2005 Avalon hoses did not go out this fast. Since the new improved rubber oil line is suppose to be reinforced with Kevlar or some other such substance, I didn't figure we'd be hearing about any failed LSC 90K replacement rubber hoses until about 2015! And oh what logic: "Dear Toyota Customer: We are recalling your defective oil line that has already lasted you 30,000 miles with another part that will fail right after your warranty expires ... ya know ...... we just don't want to pay for your new engine !!!"
Warning to anyone with 2GR-FE V6 engines manufactured prior to April 2008 where the recall has been performed: Since the new hose is subject to failure, essentially 1.5 million or so people are driving vehicles that are potentiall "ticking timebombs." If other dealers follow the policy of Arlington Toyota, once your powertrain warranty has expired by either the passage of time or by the mileage limit and it has been more than one year since the LSC 90K oil line replacement was done, then repairs that occur as a result - which can easily run into the thousands of dollars - will not be covered by Toyota.
What you can do if your affected vehicle is approaching or has past the applicable dates of warranty expiration: Go back to your dealer and demand that the dealer either:
(1) replace the "band aid" rubber hose fix called for in the LSC 90K with the same all metal oil line that Toyota/Lexus installed on all 2GR-FE V6 engines manufactured beginning in April 2008 even if you have to pay some reasonable charge. There are many threads in many Toyota & Lexus forums on this. Many people have already used the metal oil line replacement despite an assortment of lame excuses by dealers stating that the metal version either would not fit and/or the all metal line would void their warranty
or
(2) that the dealer put in writing that the LSC 90K replacement hose is guaranteed until at least March 2013 ... or longer.
Question: Has anyone else heard of other cases where the oil line recall repair failed and if so, how was the issue resolved and was a cause determined? Either the dealer(s) did not perform the original service at all, incorrectly performed the service, or Toyota has a bad batch of parts. All possibilities SHOULD have been investigated by the dealer(s) as soon as these oil line failures occurred.
https://sites.google.com/site/toyotav6oillinescandal/
Update as of February 8, 2012: Owner appealed to the President of Arlington Toyota with positive response. Toyota picked up the tab for all repairs which essentially amounted to a new engine. Parts replaced include new short block, cam assembly, gear assembly, & water pump. Arlington is also throwing in some brake work as a goodwill gesture.
