I do not see anything in that throttle body out of the norm and certainly no signs of water ingestion.
As for the following: wow. The more this goes on the more in the dark I become. All of the compression readings are down and they state 30% leakdown on the questionable cylinder and which could be heard in the crankcase.
On the flipside another compression test shows 190 on all cylinders.
They state a 2 to 4 MM lower piston height on the questionable cylinder which could certainly point to a bent rod.
At this point I admit that Iâm at a bit of a loss over the who to believe on the compression tests. The former means a new engine and the latter says everything is fine.
The only easy way of sorting this out would be to connect a vacuum gauge to the intake. The vacuum gauge never lies or makes mistakes. A steady 20 to 21" of mercury would mean the 190 is correct. A 16 to 17 reading and possibly a wobbly needle would mean the former 155 to 170 and major issues.
So, Toyota corporate is now telling us that we shouldnât have been told by the dealer that the issue isnât under warranty but that itâs inconclusive without tearing the motor apart. Also said that if itâs a bent rod, itâs automatically not warranty because a bent rod could only be caused by water ingestion, not a covered defect.
Heâs going to lose money on that deal, but wonât necessarily lose future sales. This deal was not done in a vacuum. If the dealer is too short sighted to recognize that the OP can cost him future sales, maybe (probably) in excess of the loss on this Highlander, he can find out the hard way. There is a dealer near me that chose not to fix a problem they caused properly. I wonât buy anything from them, and Iâll tell anyone that wants to look there what happened. One car sale lost blows the small amount they would have spent fixing my problem correctly.
I really donât think the police get involved with them.
Some CPOs are actually inspected, but @VDCdriver and @VOLVO-V70 are right - a lot of them are pencil whipped. Unless the CPO warranty is very good I avoid them.
The onus is on the dealership/company denying your rightful coverage to prove that theyâre in the right. In short, unless thereâs evidence youâre not telling us about, they canât do that and are obligated to perform the repair. Maybe send 'em a letter explaining that to them, and make it known that youâre a lawyer. As Iâm sure you know, oftentimes when a party knows theyâre ripping you off, they become more willing to cooperate when they know an attorney is in the picture.
I donât understand Toyotaâs hard line position that if thereâs a bent rod it is automatically deemed to be caused by water intrusion and couldnât have been caused by a defect, especially when thereâs zero evidence of water intrusion. Does a bent rod really equal water ingestion?
A bent rod could also be caused by the ingestion of a foreign object such as a nut, small bolt, screw, or part of a spark plug. In a case like this the top of the piston on the faulty cylinder would have some gouge marks in it. This would mean a service error in the past of some sort although itâs difficult for me to think of what kind of repair would be going on that lead to an issue like this as the spark plugs would have to come out.
Unless as I mentioned a piece of spark plug broke off and dropped into the cylinder.
A bore scope could be used to check the top of the piston for gouge marks and in my opinion should have been done while they were diagnosing this thing.
I donât understand why Toyota corporate is saying its inconclusive without tearing the motor apart. Why would they need to scatter it to the 4 winds because of something they claim to know already; IF itâs a bent rod? I thought they already figured that out.
Any chance of pulling weather and employment records up and telling corporate Toyota; look here, Iâve been in this area for several weeks and there has been little or no rain nor has there been any flooding. I donât see how they can claim water damage if there is no evidence of it.
I still think the best thing to do is remove a door sill plate and lift the carpet a bit. If itâs clean under the carpet then that car was never under water. Take a few pics and show them to both dealer and corporate.
That wonât help with the dealer or Toyota since theyâre saying it could be caused by driving through a puddle. Toyota is adamant: bent rod equals water ingestion whether thereâs evidence of actual water ingestion or not. We win and they lose on that theory in arbitration but meanwhile, weâre without a car for 6-12 months.
This dealership âcertifiedâ a vehicle as a CPO car - that they didnât actually go through. This was clear from the first post in this thread: The mis-matched tires is not acceptable for a Toyota CPO.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that the CEL didnât come on for the FIRST time until the new buyer bought it and drove it for a week or two. Ok - dealership couldnât have known about a possible issue. BUT - that really doesnât matter. You see - a CPO vehicle has a warranty - and this is most definitely well within the powertrain portion. The dealer or area rep has to have definitive evidence of userâs malfeasance to deny a warranty coverage. In this case, the dealer has a MASSIVE financial conflict, as they stand to lose money. If they cover the repair, they are likely admitting their tech is an idiot - and also my implication, admit that they failed in their certification process (which can get them in hot water with Toyota). Area reps often have financial interests as well - whether in the local dealer, or in the form of incentives.
This is sadly going to take legal action. Without the âclassicâ signs of water intrusion, the only way to prove this is the cause of the issue is an engine tear-down. That is not cheap. And once torn down, it has to be repaired or it is money wasted.
Your insurance doesnât want to pay to tear down the engine because that is almost ½ of the cost o the repair - the dealer doesnât want to because of their obvious precarious position.
I would have a sit-down meeting with the general manager of the dealership (not just a âsales managerâ) - or even the owner if the dealership is a family-owned unit. Explain all that you have encountered and seee if he will be reasonable. If not, then next stop is an attorney.
There is a Honda service bulletin, # HSN1105-10, that addresses the cause of bent connecting rods but I canât find a link to it.
The bulletin shows pictures of bent connecting rods and uneven carbon marks at the top of the cylinder wall indicating that the piston is not square with the cylinder.
Hondaâs position is that bent connecting rods are caused by hydrolock, by water or gasoline in the cylinder.
You know what you need to do, prepare a complaint and file it with your local court of first impression. When whoever is defending it calls you, tell them that if the defendant does not unwind the deal, defense counselâs grandchildren will still be answering motions. If you donât do a lot of litigation, perhaps call upon a colleague who does.
Guess I will bow out of this discussion. Iâve already said what I would do; raise the floor carpet up a few inches and check for dried mud. Every car Iâve ever seen that got flooded to any degree had debris in those places that the dealer detail guys never touch.
That means under the carpet, inside the doors, behind kick panels, and so on.
You are an attorney. Litigate them until hxxx freezes over. I suspect at this point you still have not advised them you are an attorney. A firmly worded query on your letterhead just might make a difference.
People all over the country routinely pay a lawyer to send a firmly worded letter to prod the process.
Regarding the tires and the CPO inspection, hereâs what the 160 point checklist says in regards to the mismatched tires. Cut and pasted below from Toyotaâs site but someone chose to pencil whip it. Best of luck.
All four tires must be of same brand, model, size, tread design, speed and load rating per OEM vehicle specifications
My experience with bureaucracies has convinced me that they fear two things: legal.action and bad publicity when the person going up against them is right and it would cost the bureaucracy more to fight a case they might lose than to just do what it is supposed to do.
That doesnât prove that the vehicle had not been inspected, the technician may have included replacing the tires in the recon estimate but the used car manager did not approve tire replacement.
Technically this vehicle didnât meet CPO standards until those tires were replaced but this have nothing to do with the engine damage.
BS . . . ingesting water isnât the only thing that could cause a bent rod
Theyâve certainly adopted a very smug attitude
key word âcouldâ
And they havenât proven you drove through a puddle
For that matter, they havenât even proven the rod(s) are bent, either
Well, Iâll add something to that . . . based on my own experience
When same brand cars get traded in at a new car dealer, there is ever expectation that as many as possible will get CPO status
Mechanics often get yelled at and ridiculed when they point out that a certain vehicle doesnât meet the criteria. There are only x amount of dollars allotted for each vehicle. And mechanics are even yelled at when a vehicle needs a set of 4 tires, which will usually exceed the amount allowed for each vehicle. As if itâs his fault the tires are worn out . . .
We have a couple very shady dealers near me. I know a few people whoâve bought from them and regretted it. They are extremely dishonest. I drove 30 miles past them to buy a vehicle instead of buying from them. And theyâve been in business for decades and I donât see any signs of them going under. Iâm not convinced that cheating a customer does anything to their bottom line. There are always more suckers out there.
You seem to be wanting a different answer. Youâve been told here and in the Highlander forumâŚTAKE THE VEHICLE TO A DIFFERENT MECHANIC. You need a third party to look at this. Dealer and insurance adjuster are looking at their own best interest.
Actually, I was looking for feedback regarding the dealerâs, Toyotaâs, and the insurance adjusterâs findings related to compression, water intrusion, sir boxes, and more, and I appreciate being educated on the many issues that have been raised.
A third party inspection has already been arranged.
What some dealers donât realize us that a customerâs time is valuable just as the dealerâs employeeâs time is valuable. The dealer obviously didnât want to pay for the time to have the vehicle thoroughly inspected for certification. On another item, Tom MvCahill in his book âWhat You Should Know About Carsâ in the chapter on buying a used car mentioned mismatched tires as a warning sign. He stated that if the tires were different brands and the odometer read low mileage, either the odometer had been wound back or âthe car was owned by a spike tester for the railroad who used his own carâ. He did allow for one tire of a different brand. This book was published in the early 1960s. Today itâs even more critical that tires be matched.
