From: john on
Last November, NHTSA opened an investigation into the 2006 Toyota
Corolla and Matrix with the 1ZZ-FE engine after receiving 26
complaints alleging engine stall. Some of the stalls took place on
highways or intersections -- a situation that could pose a safety
hazard. NHTSA has since received another 30 complaints on the issue

From The Detroit News:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20100317/AUTO01/3170441/1148/auto01/Toyota-weighs-Corolla-engine-stalling-fix#ixzz0iUoegh1A
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:40:42 -0700, john wrote:

> Last November, NHTSA opened an investigation into the 2006 Toyota Corolla
> and Matrix with the 1ZZ-FE engine after receiving 26 complaints alleging
> engine stall. Some of the stalls took place on highways or intersections
> -- a situation that could pose a safety hazard. NHTSA has since received
> another 30 complaints on the issue
>
> From The Detroit News:
> http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20100317/AUTO01/3170441/1148/auto01/Toyota-weighs-Corolla-engine-stalling-fix#ixzz0iUoegh1A

WOW! FIFTY-SIX STALLING COMPLAINTS!!!

Consdiering Toyota sold 387,388 Corollas that year, that's REALLY
something to worry about!!!!

Thanks for keeping us abreast of the latest blunders from Toyota, pinhead.



From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:58:42 -0400, C. E. White wrote:

>
> There were 1,186,448 vehicle targted in the NHTSA request for
> information. 26 vehicle in 1,186,448 is 0.0022%.

But that's enough for someone like 'john' to start ringing the alarm.

I think he's a Class Action lawyer trying to drum up business.

Notice how he hits and runs?



From: Hachiroku ハチロク on
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:52:34 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:39:07 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:58:42 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There were 1,186,448 vehicle targted in the NHTSA request for
>>> information. 26 vehicle in 1,186,448 is 0.0022%.
>>
>>But that's enough for someone like 'john' to start ringing the alarm.
>>
>>I think he's a Class Action lawyer trying to drum up business.
>>
>>Notice how he hits and runs?
>>
>>
>>
> Remember 'sludge' caused by drivers not changing their oil?????

It did have something to do with narrower than usual oil passages, but if
you kept up regular oil changes with quality oil you probably wouldn't see
it.

BTW, I saw a mint condition '91 or '92 Corolla wagon the other day,
unusual for this area. Usually they're starting to rust by now. This one
was perfect.



From: C. E. White on

"Scott in Florida" <MoveOn(a)Outa.here> wrote in message
news:ohm4q51sddte5si7rv68uvh4biimt3n7ch(a)4ax.com...

> Remember 'sludge' caused by drivers not changing their oil?????

Not that again. Claiming it was the Customers fault drives me crazy.
Toyota was at fault in that case. Trying to shift blame to Customers
by saying if only they had changed the oil more often there would not
have been a problem is classic Toyota misdirection. You know, "it is
not our cars, it is the idiots who buy them" defense.


The facts are clear. For a number of years Toyota built engines that
were far more likely to be damaged by sludge than engines from most
other manufacturers or even from Toyota engines from other periods. It
is impossible to say that this was always the fault of the Customers
unless you think for those particular year the Customers who bought
the sludge prone Toyota engines were some how different from average
automobile Customers, or even Toyota Customers from other years.



Yes, if the unfortunate Customers with sludge damaged engines had
changed their oil more often than required by the Toyota maintenance
schedule, or if they had made sure they used better quality oil,
or....yada, yada, yada, they probably would not have experienced the
sludge problem. However, people who treated their Toyota just like
they treated other cars, even other Toyotas, experienced sludge
problems. Either the engineers at Toyota were clueless about their
Customer base or they were too arrogant to care. Either way for
several years Toyota sold engines that were not suitable for a large
number of Toyota Customers. Trying to shift the blame to Customers
might make save some face at Toyota Inc., but it sucks if you were one
of the victims of the bad design. And it is clear that it was a bad
design since the sludge problems completely disappeared after the
engine design was changed. Given all the claims of super Toyota
quality and super Toyota Customer Service, etc., it is just plain
hypocrisy to say it is the Customers fault for not changing the oil
often enough. I suppose Toyota should have sent at a label. It could
have said - "yes we know your owners manual say you can go 75000 mile
between oil changes, but it really should say you can only go 3000
miles between oil changes - we lied about that other number."



Ed