Toyota RAV4 Forums banner
221 - 240 of 607 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Hi again all. Well, I've been away from home several months and dealt with trying to order the line. I'd posted on the order attempt with Toyotapartspeople.com It ended up after a month I found out from them that they could order the line special order (could not return the part), which I would have done if it didn't take a month for them to find out.
After that I had attempted an order from Carson Toyota at www.newtoyotaparts.com That order was fulfilled and was $29.25 with shipping for the pipe and all 3 gaskets. So there's another possible source for everyone trying to find the oil lines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
gobraphil said:
There is a revised part for this and they went back to having a rubber hose section, albeit a beefy hose.
That was the solution Toyota tried with the 05 Avalon TSB. And all newer models of the 2GR-FE engine should be equipped with the "revised" part with the "improved" rubber hose section. However, there's two problems with this, first if the revised part did get fitted on the 2GR-FE engines after 05, that's the engines that are having problems now on the RAV4, so the revised part did not fix the failure. The second is that the revised part never took a new part number... Now some may not see an issue with this, however I deal with mechanical parts all the time in my job. Anytime a part has a design flaw and it redone or recreated, a new part number usually generates, or at least a lot number for the parts. Now from what I have seen of Toyota's part system, I haven't noticed a lot number and the Avalon TSB does not state any difference between identifying the old and new rubber hoses. So I have not seen any way to actually verify that the "revised" part is indeed improved and being installed.
I hope that Toyota does not attempt to try this "revised part" info to fix and try to pacify owners with this problem showing up now. Especially when there is an actual revised part (the all metal line) that according to Toyota's parts system costs less than the failure prone rubber hose sectioned line. I find it very poor of Toyota to pretend that the rubber hose is fine and not install the metal line on ones that have had failures. But I see that poor reasoning is due to if they admit that, then they have to do a TSB for everyone else's.
I am still a little interested in the true cause of failure. Everyone points to the rubber hose, however rubber hose does not just fail. It fails due to being used improperly where it receives chaffing, too much pressure, too much of a temperature that breaks it down, or with fluid that can break the hose down. Now, it appears to be safe to disregard the fluid possibility. The temperature is a possibility (leading to dry rot, etc.) though usually people in a certain climate (ie. desert) would be prone to failure first and noticed in a trend. That leaves chaffing and too much pressure as most likely causes. What interests me, is that in RPM's replacement guide the one picture shows a filter:
/forums/album_pic.php?pic_id=8665
I would be interested to see that filter on engines that have had the hose fail. I wonder if that filter is getting clogged and causing a pressure build up that leads to hose failure.
Of course, this is my mechanic side trying to find solutions.
 
G

·
RUV4 said:
gobraphil said:
There is a revised part for this and they went back to having a rubber hose section, albeit a beefy hose.
That was the solution Toyota tried with the 05 Avalon TSB. And all newer models of the 2GR-FE engine should be equipped with the "revised" part with the "improved" rubber hose section. However, there's two problems with this, first if the revised part did get fitted on the 2GR-FE engines after 05, that's the engines that are having problems now on the RAV4, so the revised part did not fix the failure. The second is that the revised part never took a new part number...
There is a revised part number, i will have to post it tonight. The mfg date on the package was 5/9/09.

I'm sure the rubber section is cheaper to produce than the steel for warranty claims and will last at least 50k miles, more than long enough for toyota to get in the clear on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
RUV4 said:
gobraphil said:
There is a revised part for this and they went back to having a rubber hose section, albeit a beefy hose.
That was the solution Toyota tried with the 05 Avalon TSB. And all newer models of the 2GR-FE engine should be equipped with the "revised" part with the "improved" rubber hose section. However, there's two problems with this, first if the revised part did get fitted on the 2GR-FE engines after 05, that's the engines that are having problems now on the RAV4, so the revised part did not fix the failure. The second is that the revised part never took a new part number... Now some may not see an issue with this, however I deal with mechanical parts all the time in my job. Anytime a part has a design flaw and it redone or recreated, a new part number usually generates, or at least a lot number for the parts. Now from what I have seen of Toyota's part system, I haven't noticed a lot number and the Avalon TSB does not state any difference between identifying the old and new rubber hoses. So I have not seen any way to actually verify that the "revised" part is indeed improved and being installed.
I hope that Toyota does not attempt to try this "revised part" info to fix and try to pacify owners with this problem showing up now. Especially when there is an actual revised part (the all metal line) that according to Toyota's parts system costs less than the failure prone rubber hose sectioned line. I find it very poor of Toyota to pretend that the rubber hose is fine and not install the metal line on ones that have had failures. But I see that poor reasoning is due to if they admit that, then they have to do a TSB for everyone else's.
I am still a little interested in the true cause of failure. Everyone points to the rubber hose, however rubber hose does not just fail. It fails due to being used improperly where it receives chaffing, too much pressure, too much of a temperature that breaks it down, or with fluid that can break the hose down. Now, it appears to be safe to disregard the fluid possibility. The temperature is a possibility (leading to dry rot, etc.) though usually people in a certain climate (ie. desert) would be prone to failure first and noticed in a trend. That leaves chaffing and too much pressure as most likely causes. What interests me, is that in RPM's replacement guide the one picture shows a filter:
/forums/album_pic.php?pic_id=8665
I would be interested to see that filter on engines that have had the hose fail. I wonder if that filter is getting clogged and causing a pressure build up that leads to hose failure.
Of course, this is my mechanic side trying to find solutions.
All very good points.

One thing I want to caution everyone (since I fell in the same trap) is assuming a rubber hose approach isn't good enough. Several of my cars have the "metal pipe connected to a rubber hose" trick that have never failed. Thus I don't think the rubber hose approach is doomed to fail whenever it is used. I agree that the metal part will likely outlast the rubber, but as long as the rubber hose lasts the life of the car I don't care what is used.

However, the evidence is pointing to the older rubber hose not lasting the life of the car.

Toyota used a rubber hose for this section for a reason. Not sure what it is but my guess is ease of assembly of the engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
oil line replacement

i had my mechinic replace our oil line. it took him about an hour from start to finish. i purchased the line for $17, part # 15772-31030 + shipping.
if any one that is living in the denver area and would like this done, you can contact me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Guys, for reasons not worth going into I ended up with TWO of the metal hoses. If anybody wants one (especially in the Minneapolis area to save shipping) give me a PM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Well, I received my all metal line and decided since I had it I might as well get it changed. Just something to watch for anyone doing it, the two upper crush washers (aka: gaskets) are not quite the proper size for the fluid opening. Their center opening is a little oversized, so the one near the engine had sat up high enough that when the line was installed, it actually ended at the bottom where the line opening started. So it had a small leak which I was keeping an eye out for anyways. Luckily, having dealt with these washers often I'd ordered extras and replaced the top ones with the bottom one-piece kind, which actually has a better sealing coverage area.
My personal recommendation for anyone doing this modification, is to just order two of the 90430–16016 gaskets (one for the top and one for the bottom). One reason is the above mentioned leak that their better sealing area can prevent. Another is that it's easier to install since it's a one piece instead of the two separate ones. And lastly because from what I've seen, it's cheaper to use the two 90430–16016 gaskets then to get the one for the bottom and two of the others for the top. Granted, we're talking small change, but that's my recommendation.

Anyways, my original rubber hose/line looked to be in good condition. Though I could see one spot where the hose was in constant contact with the insulation on the cover. It shouldn't cause wear normally, but I've seen soft materials wear even metal lines before. Also, I noted that the rubber hose did not seem to be very well reinforced, it was very easy to bend, yes I know it's a rubber hose, but for high temp oil under pressure, it seemed flimsy. Having dealt with turbo systems and their oil coolers, I would think a steel braided line would be good. As flimsy as it seems, I don't even think it's cloth braided, though I didn't dissect it to find out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
RUV4 said:
My personal recommendation for anyone doing this modification, is to just order two of the 90430–16016 gaskets (one for the top and one for the bottom). One reason is the above mentioned leak that their better sealing area can prevent. Another is that it's easier to install since it's a one piece instead of the two separate ones. And lastly because from what I've seen, it's cheaper to use the two 90430–16016 gaskets then to get the one for the bottom and two of the others for the top. Granted, we're talking small change, but that's my recommendation.
:D That makes me happy, since I managed to order two of the 90430–16016 by accident instead of the other ones! :roll:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
RUV4 said:
Anyways, my original rubber hose/line looked to be in good condition. Though I could see one spot where the hose was in constant contact with the insulation on the cover. It shouldn't cause wear normally, but I've seen soft materials wear even metal lines before. Also, I noted that the rubber hose did not seem to be very well reinforced, it was very easy to bend, yes I know it's a rubber hose, but for high temp oil under pressure, it seemed flimsy. Having dealt with turbo systems and their oil coolers, I would think a steel braided line would be good. As flimsy as it seems, I don't even think it's cloth braided, though I didn't dissect it to find out.
I'm trying to do this this weekend but have difficulties to even remove the cover with my fat hands and fingers (its very tight there). One thing I did notice that the original rubber hose is in good shape (2006, ~30000 miles), it's reinforced some (cloth braided), and the rubber is designated "Ti AT OIL ACM GC06"

Can RPM or other people with problem check if their hose had the same or different designation? I think there could be good and bad batches of the rubber part. Since I got the metal part I will try to precede but its a major pain in the ass.

Edit: cover come off, hands hurt a lot. Finished the whole thing but broke the OEM jack in the process. Removing the cover was the most difficult part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
I took a moment to take a closer look at the hose portion on the old line. On our '08, it states AT OIL ACM HX03, so the last four may be a lot or type designation. Anyways, it is cloth braided, though it doesn't seem too reinforced in my opinion, I find it pretty flimsy for a reinforced hose. Also, the outer rubber at least is quite soft. I took a close look at the hose where the clamps are installed, and at both ends the rubber was torn in the center from the clamps being installed. Granted, it's not wear a leak should start from, but it doesn't give me much faith in the quality of the hose. I've purchased much better quality reinforced hose at cheap parts stores.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
RUV4 said:
the two upper crush washers (aka: gaskets) are not quite the proper size for the fluid opening. Their center opening is a little oversized, so the one near the engine had sat up high enough that when the line was installed, it actually ended at the bottom where the line opening started. So it had a small leak which I was keeping an eye out for anyways
I wonder if you got the correct part #. The upper washers I got were identical to the old ones and sealed perfectly. I got an incorrect gasket for the bottom (a foam one, an idiot part guy must have reached for a wrong bin with parts). I reused the old one and so far so good.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
RUV4 said:
I took a moment to take a closer look at the hose portion on the old line. On our '08, it states AT OIL ACM HX03, so the last four may be a lot or type designation.
Thanks for checking, Yours didn't leak, right?
So, we know that hose "AT OIL ACM XXXX" is flimsy but didn't brake in our sample of 2. We need to figure out the marking on hoses that broke, so people can decide which ones to replace as some batches could be OK. Sad that the owners have to do this investigation instead of Toyota. Oh well.

EdiT:
I did some googling for ACM and it stands for acrylic rubber. Oil hoses are indeed made from that. The material is rated at 1000 hrs for 160-170C or 1000 hrs in oil at 150C. According to my simple calculation, the hose will see 1000-2000 hrs by the time owner drives 60,000 miles. Simply, the hose could not hold up longer than that by design.
Furthermore, ACM is resistant to oils but not fuel. As everyone knows, small amount of fuel will accumulate in engine oil, especially in city driving. That probably degraded the material over time.
Clearly, the hose designation "AT OIL" says that the hose was speced for transmission oil and not engine oil.
Additionally, ACM is brittle in temp -18 to -40C. Exposure to those temps and engine vibration could possibly produce cracks.
In summary, the engineers that designed or speced this part did not do their homework. Shame on Toyota twice.

I feel better now that I replaced that thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
friendly_jacek said:
Since I got the metal part I will try to precede but its a major pain in the ass.

Edit: cover come off, hands hurt a lot. Finished the whole thing but broke the OEM jack in the process. Removing the cover was the most difficult part.
How long did it end up taking you?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
Whole morning, but with a lot of interruptions and I also rotated tires.
 

·
Your Humble Administrator
2008 RAV4 Limited V6
Joined
·
16,971 Posts
friendly_jacek said:
Whole morning, but with a lot of interruptions and I also rotated tires.
I'm sure it was worth it for peace of mind. One less thing to worry about!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
friendly_jacek said:
Whole morning, but with a lot of interruptions and I also rotated tires.
I think I am going to go ahead and do it for the peace of mind also. Getting nasty hot in my garage this time of year, so I may wait until it cools down a bit, which is usually about the end of October here in Phoenix. :shock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
has anyone simple replaced the rubber section with stainless steel Braided hose? thats sounds like an easy fix if the kit is backordered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
friendly_jacek said:
RUV4 said:
I took a moment to take a closer look at the hose portion on the old line. On our '08, it states AT OIL ACM HX03, so the last four may be a lot or type designation.
Furthermore, ACM is resistant to oils but not fuel. As everyone knows, small amount of fuel will accumulate in engine oil, especially in city driving. That probably degraded the material over time.
Clearly, the hose designation "AT OIL" says that the hose was speced for transmission oil and not engine oil.

I feel better now that I replaced that thing.
Since your research indicates that the hose is susceptible to small fuel amounts of fuel exposure, I'm wondering if ethanol usage has contributed to that. I've read a lot of reports indicating that ethonol is causing ruptures in rubber hoses with other vehicles, particularly those that sit in repair shops for several days or weeks. I'm now curious as to how many of these ruptures can be correlated with ethanol usage since these hoses were engineered several years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Ethanol has been in the fuel around here for many years. An indirect farmer subsidy, combined with some air pollution benefits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
I know that ethanol has been around for many years, I guess should've clarified more. Has the increasing composition ethanol in our mixture of fuel beyond what the engineers envisioned ?....meaning did they even test these rubber hoses with the 10+% that Ethanol now comprises in various mixtures around the country ? Some parts of the country don't use ethanol at all, so I'm curious if there's correlation there.
 
221 - 240 of 607 Posts
Top