That bit about Toyota saying it only takes hitting a puddle the wrong way is ludicrous.
By that logic Highlander owners should check the weather forecast before leaving the house and in the event they get caught in heavy rain should pull over immediately and wait until the rain stops and all puddles are dried up.
Owners manuals have a 1000 warnings in them but I doubt there is a “Avoid Rain & Puddles” warning listed anywhere.
One of my son’s cars is a 96 Camaro. The entire car sits ridiculously low to the ground. A balled up fist will not even begin to go under it. The air intake is in the left front fender and approximately 12" from the pavement. In 24 years and a quarter of a million miles including many drives in heavy rain that car has never suffered even a hiccup from water intrusion: and it should be the poster child for a water intrusion issue.
Again, exactly what we said to the service manager. If it’s that easy, why is this the first Highlander you’ve ever seen to supposedly have this issue?
If they actually claim that and it’s in writing then you have completely legitimate grounds to point out that Toyota has just admitted to a major design flaw which should require the recall/redesign of every model that ingests rain in that way.
I bet Toyota corporate would be less than amused that someone representing them is claiming that driving in the rain will hydrolock the engine. That’s a ludicrous claim and at minimum is evidence that they’re grasping at straws to deny your warranty claim.
Spent the morning with the field engineer at the dealer. He cleared the codes and started from scratch. Same codes came up. Measured the piston height and concluded it was 1-2mm low. Compression was 225 on every cylinder, but the “problem” cylinder was “slow” to get to spec. Still sticking with fluid causing a bent rod. They’re putting a lot of stock in the throttle body picture I posted earlier. Ultimately, they have to get in the engine to see what’s going on.
I would think that Toyota and the dealer at this point would be money ahead to take the vehicle back, refund whatever money you have in the car and send the car to the used car auction.
It obviously shouldn’t have been sold as a CPO with mismatched tires. I think the best way out is for Toyota and its dealership would be to cut their losses as I suggested.
Toyota can’t take the vehicle back, this was a used vehicle sold by the dealer. The vehicle is in the service department, they have no authority to buy the vehicle back, the case needs to be brought to the attention of the sales department.
@Nevada_545. I guess I don’t understand the CPO warranty. I thought it was backed up.by the manufacturer which in this case is Toyota.
If it just backed up by the dealer, I still think the dealer should just buy it back and send it to the auction.
@MikeInNH. I suppose the state lemon laws then don’t apply to vehicles with the CPO warranty.
From what I read on this thread, the CPO warranty is just another scam.
Depends on the dealership. I’ve found the Lexus CPO warranty to be pretty decent. Which is a good thing, because if you buy a late-model used Lexus around here from a Lexus dealership, you don’t get a choice. If a car doesn’t pass the CPO inspection, they ship it off to some other dealership to sell.
The extended warranty doesn’t apply while the vehicle is covered by the factory warranty. Toyota won’t buy back a used car, that would be up to the dealer.
As an engineer, I am aghast at the way Toyota has handled this. They haven’t provided any photographs, measurements, or inspection details beyond the canned blurbs.
I have to wonder how many other CPO vehicles on that dealer’s lot have been sold or are currently sitting awaiting a sale that have a dubious history behind them. I would suspect (just an opinion) that if a car comes into their possession that looks clean in and out they are going to do whatever it takes to make it a CPO vehicle; and that does not mean repair all needs. This incident also makes me wonder how many other flawed CPO cars are sitting on their lot.
If someone buys a CPO vehicle they’re led to expect a visually and mechanically perfect vehicle; not one with a list of minor and/or major needs.
AutoNation - Wayne Huizenga. That may or may not mean anything…
Actually, that’s not true. Under some states’ lemon laws, if the vehicle was sold to a second purchaser (in other words, used) during the lemon law period, the second owner may enforce lemon law rights. A successful lemon law claim would then require the manufacturer to replace the vehicle or refund the purchase price. In both instances, the manufacturer would take the lemon back.
They have found no evidence of water intrusion. They’re pointing to two things, the bent rod (1-2mm) and the stains on the throttle body.
For the experts here (and maybe someone has already mentioned this and I missed it), but if the engine ingested water, how did it only go into one cylinder and not affect any others?