Check [Prestone's] web site.
@seehog … if the OP decides to keep the coolant in the engine without first consulting Toyota on the situation, that’s perfectly ok w/me. Like I posted above, I’ve exclusively used the original version of Prestone with tap water in both my 20 + year old Corolla and my 40 + year old Ford truck, changed it out every 3 years, and had good results.
George, I doubt if the OP really cares about your old Corolla.
I don’t refer to my Corolla as “old”, I say “classic” … .lol …
Toyota and Toyota dealers will advise to use Toyota parts and fluids, a Toyota representative is not going to research the OP’s selection of coolant.
No manufacturer representative is going to tacitly approve the use of a fluid not tested and approved by the manufacturer.
As regards the use by an owner of fluids in a vehicle that aren’t approved by the manufacturer, that entails risk. With some fluids, such as oil, the manufacturer will recommend a fluid that meets a recognized independent third-party standards agency specs. For others, such as coolant and tranny fluid, they may not. Different people have different tolerances for risk, and different risks have different potential consequences. The consequences for using incorrect tranny fluid could be high, so the risk is high. The consequences for using the incorrect coolant are, in my opinion, potentially high, and therefore the risk is IMHO high. The consequences for using oil that doesn’t meet the standards recommended by the car manufacturer and certified as doing so by the proper independent third party agency (SAE and/or API) are also high.
In short, I don’t recommend using, or use myself, fluids that don’t meet the car manufacturer’s recommendations. Those that feel comfortable using something else are welcome to. As long as they don’t do so on my car. It’s a personal choice. 
I presume when the folks at a third party auto products vendor put in writing that using their product won’t void any new-car warranties, they’ve researched the particular chemistries well, have a complete understanding of all the new car specifications, and know what they’re talking about. Maybe the differing opinions is that new car owners may have objectives beyond simply not voiding the warranty.
Big assumption. And you’re the one taking the risk. If they’re just selling their product, well… it’s your wallet.
I remember doctors in TV commercials claiming that all people over a certain age, including healthy people, should take Lipitor. I’ve been on Lipitor, after my first heart attack don’t recommend it for healthy people. I was recently prescribed a new diabetes med a “most common” side effect of which is congestive heart failure. I’ll pass.
As I said, I support your freedom to use something not approved by the car’s manufacturer. I support your right to believe the alternative fluid manufacturer’s website. Or their salespeople. Personally, I’ll pass.
Prestone can make their claim because the Moss Magnuson warranty repair act says that for a dealer to deny a claim, they have to prove that the non factory fluid directly caused the damage.
If you used an older high silicate type antifreeze and the water pump wore out, they could back up their denial because that has been shown. None of the new universal coolants will damage the cooling system, so the only thing you have to show is that you followed the recommended maintenance.
But with the long life coolants being used by the factories today, your warranty is up long before the first coolant change is due.
I figure it’s a choice. I can believe the guys who designed and tested my engine, including qualification testing, environmental testing, and accelerated life testing, and use what they used and recommend, or I can use a different fluid that the fluid manufacturer’s rep says will work. I choose option A.
Re: the Moss Magnuson Act, its weakness is that if a dealer shop says an aftermarket fluid or part caused a problem and denies a claim, the car owner is left having to prove it didn’t. That isn’t always easy. Don’t get me wrong, that Act eliminated a lot of problems for owners, but it has its weakness.
the Moss Magnuson Act, its weakness is that if a dealer shop says an aftermarket fluid or part caused a problem and denies a claim, the car owner is left having to prove it didn't. That isn't always easy.
It may not be as hard as some think. And many companies are not going to deny coverage if they know there’s a chance they may loose. The Moss Magnuson act allows the plaintiff to recoup court and lawyer fees.
The Magnuson-Moss act puts the burden of proof on the dealer.
Unless the dealer gives the car owner the keys and lets him/her drive away without paying and then pursues payment, than the burden of proof ends up being on he car owner. The dealer demands payment and then the car owner has to pursue a refund under M-M.
M-M has done a great deal of good. As Mike pointed out, dealers will tend to not want to deny coverage if they think they might lose (and get bad publicity) under M-M. But in the event of a dispute, the customer ends up having to retrieve the costs. Sorry, but that’s reality.
The burden of proof still lies with the dealer, the burden of collecting lies with the owner. If the owner takes the dealer to court, the dealer has to prove his case or he looses.
I never said it would be easy.
Who here has any first hand experience with using M-M with a dealer?
I replaced the Dexcool in my 2006 Chevrolet Uplander with the universal green over 5 years ago. My son now has the Uplander and he has continued to use the green antifreeze. There have been no cooling system or gasket problems in 150,000 miles.
Who here has any first hand experience with using M-M with a dealer?
Crickets…
I’m with you on that one Keith; it ain’t easy. But it is a whole lot better than it was when I was a younger man. Back then the customer had nothing to back him at all. It was a simple civil suit, won or lost on a preponderance of the evidence. And in those days nothing required the dealer to pay your legal bills if you won. And I agree with you; if the customer takes the owner to court the onus of proof is on the dealer 