Warranty/Insurance

[ok4450]

To answer your question as to why one cylinder may have hydrolocked and not the others, I might suggest this theory. A liquid (whatever) inhaled may have been exhaled by several cylinders before the quantity was enough to lock the one cylinder up.

I just do not see a throttle body stain being any evidence whatsoever of water intrusion. As I said, that could have been caused by an unneeded induction cleaning. There has been posts on this forum before of induction cleaning being recommended on cars with as little as 15k miles on them.
No debris under the carpet tells me the car was never flooded and their statement about hitting a puddle just right or driving in rain is bogus IMO.

If push comes to shove and this ends up before a judge I might recommend naming as a defendant the guy who signed his name to that CPO form. It’s doubtful the dealer is going to want that guy in front of a judge explaining why he pencil whipped the form.

I

[Brent89]

@ok4450

To answer your question as to why one cylinder may have hydrolocked and not the others, I might suggest this theory. A liquid (whatever) inhaled may have been exhaled by several cylinders before the quantity was enough to lock the one cylinder up.

Just to be clear, if I understand what hydrolocking is, it never happened. The cylinder with the purported bent rod still works, and the engine runs smoothly.

[SteveCBT]

To go back to the beginning of this, you had a check engine light, went to the dealer, they never told you what the code was (would look like P1234) and then by pulling something out of their back pocket (not their pocket but anatomy in the same area) declare a bent rod based on the undisclosed code and an undefined stain. Is there a possibility they mixed up the paper work on the cars and someone else is driving around with a bent rod? You do not have noise or drive ability issues. Something does not smell right here.

[TwinTurbo]

@Brent89

Just to be clear, if I understand what hydrolocking is, it never happened.

Love to hear your expert opinion here.

@Brent89

The cylinder with the purported bent rod still works

What’s your definition of “works”?
Clearly, the ECM is detecting a problem with that cylinder:

@Brent89

He cleared the codes and started from scratch. Same codes came up.

Even seasoned mechanics may not “feel” driveability issues before the ECM detects them.

An engine can run a long time with a slightly bent rod but damage is being done if, in fact, it is bent.

Professional mechanics here have been kind enough to give you their expert opinions and advice. Now you’re acting like some kind of expert you frankly have no basis to work from.

[ok4450]

I am curious as to how the allegedly bent rod was measured. First it was 2 to 4 MM shorter. Then it became 1 to 2 MM shorter. One MM is not a heck of a lot and depending upon how the measurement was done 1 to 2 MM could be within the margin of error.

When doing a measurement I would only do it with a dial indicator. No mechanic pocket rulers, tape measures, or a stick with an ink pen mark on it would be valid IMO considering what a mess this incident is.

Carrying the food for thought train on down the track, how about this scenario. All of the cylinders except the guilty one have a slight carbon build up on top of the pistons. The guilty cylinder for whatever reason and which may involve a DTC may have less carbon build up on it. This means when measuring that the guilty cylinder only makes the rod appear shorter because the carbon build up on that piston is thinner compared to the others. That could account for 1 MM of variation.

[bing]

@ok4450

This means when measuring that the guilty cylinder only makes the rod appear shorter because the carbon build up on that piston is thinner compared to the others. That could account for 1 MM of variation.

And a head gasket leak could clean the carbon off the offending piston?

[jtsanders]

@Brent89

and three pictures of three cylinders

Does this mean they partially disassemble the engine to see the engine block without the cylinder head in the way?

[Brent89]

@TwinTurbo

Professional mechanics here have been kind enough to give you their expert opinions and advice. Now you’re acting like some kind of expert you frankly have no basis to work from.

Not sure how you read my comments to mean I think I’m an expert. I think I’ve made clear I know nothing about these things which is why I posted on this forum to begin with and have expressed my appreciation for all the input. I said “if I understood what hydrolock is,” the engine didn’t hydrolock. What that means is, I might not understand what it is. I claim to know almost nothing, and I am happy to learn.

@jtsanders

Does this mean they partially disassemble the engine to see the engine block without the cylinder head in the way?

Borescope images. I can upload them for those who will understand what they show. Also, here is the field engineer’s service report (minus the photos):

• Customer was present at the time of the inspection.

• Condition stated by the customer was duplicated. Check Engine Light was on at the time of the inspection.

• Performed a vehicle health check using Toyota’s diagnostic equipment. The following DTCs were recovered:

o P011015 Intake Air Temperature Sensor 1 Back 1 Circuit Short To Battery or Open (code was set during dealership diagnosis)

o P035213 Ignition Coil “B” Circuit Open (code was set during dealership diagnosis)

o P035413 Ignition Coil “D” Circuit Open (code was set during dealership diagnosis)

o P035613 Ignition Coil “F” Circuit Open (code was set during dealership diagnosis)

o P219F00 Cylinder 4 Air-Fuel Ration Imbalance. (Customers concern)

• Freeze frame data stored under DTC P219F00 was reviewed. Data showed Cylinder #4 speed higher that all the other Cylinders.

• A compression test was performed on Bank 2 side of the engine (Cylinders #2-4-6). The following readings were recorded:

o Cylinder #2: 220psi – No abnormalities were observed or recorded when performing the compression test.

o Cylinder #4: 220psi – Abnormalities were recorded when performing the compression test. The cylinder took an extra 4-5 engine revolutions to be able to build the psi recorded.

o Cylinder #6: 225psi - No abnormalities were observed or recorded when performing the compression test.

• A cylinder leak down test was performed on Bank 2 side of the engine (Cylinders #2-4-6). No abnormalities were observed or recorded. Leak down was recorded within manufacturer specifications.

• Using a Bore Scope Cylinder # 2-4-6 were inspected. No abnormalities were observed on Cylinders 2 and 6. When inspecting Cylinder # 4 with the piston set to Top Dead Center it was visible the piston was slightly lower compared to the adjacent cylinders indicating a bent connecting rod. No abnormalities were observed on the intake or exhaust valves.

• Connecting Rod length was measured on Cylinder # 2-4-6. Cylinder #4 Connecting Rod was slightly lower (1 to 2mm) when compared to the other connecting rods.

• Inspection results were reviewed with the customer and explained probable causes for the concern.

• Freeze Frame data and DTC history were cleared from the vehicle and a test drive was performed with the customer. During the test drive diagnostic equipment was connected to the vehicle recording data from the onboard computers for further review.

• Vehicle was test driven for a total of 22 miles. Data recorded showed Cylinder # 4 turning at a faster speed confirming a mechanical abnormality inside the cylinder block.

• No repairs are commended at this time. Condition stated by the customer is a result of outside influence.
Repair Process
• No repairs are recommended at this time. Condition stated by the customer is a result of outside influence.

[Brent89]

@SteveCBT

they never told you what the code was

They have since provided the following codes:

P035413, P0354, P011015, P0113, P035613, P219F, P219F00, P0356

[ok4450]

In regard to Bing’s question, yes a coolant leak could clean the top of a piston and can even polish it to look like new.

They’re still saying the condition stated by the customer is a result of outside influence. So they’re still saying YOU flooded the car; directly or indirectly? If they could not be bothered to keep the tires all the same per the CPO guidelines then why expect they would do much of anything else.

I do not understand how Cylinder 4 is turning faster than the others. Not at all. Someone would have to explain that one to me unless they mean a faster piston speed because of a bent rod.

I also don’t understand how one can determine within 1 MM a bent rod with the use of a borescope. First it was 2 to 4 which became 1 to 2 which in theory could be carried on out to 0 to1.

Regarding the extra 4-5 revolutions required to bring No. 4 up to 220 I realize this was done with a leak down test but I wonder what would have happened if a wet test had been performed with the same number of revolutions as the other cylinders. If the results had been 220 with this methodogy one might suspect a piston ring problem which could have been caused by excess liquid such as gasoline or anti-freeze in that cylinder. Or an induction cleaner where someone went nuts with it.

[db4690]

I don’t mean to sound like I’m bragging

But I do understand all the terminology and all the results so far

Whether the results are accurate . . . I don’t know, because I wasn’t there

But I’ll say one thing, based on my experience . . . and that’s assuming the results are accurate . . . it’s really beginning to sound like there is a mechanical problem, in regards to #4 cylinder

an extra 4-5 revolutions to reach the same 220psi as the other cylinders means something is definitely going on, in my opinion

@ok4450

I do not understand how Cylinder 4 is turning faster than the others

I’m not that great at explaining things . . . but this all relates to how misfires are recognized and flagged

@ok4450

I also don’t understand how one can determine within 1 MM a bent rod with the use of a borescope.

They haven’t determined it

They’ve merely deduced it . . . they skipped the step where you remove the rods and actually measure them and document their condition

Until they do a partial teardown and see the bent rod right in front of their face, they actually haven’t determined it

@Brent89

o P219F00 Cylinder 4 Air-Fuel Ration Imbalance. (Customers concern)

• Freeze frame data stored under DTC P219F00 was reviewed. Data showed Cylinder #4 speed higher that all the other Cylinders.

P219F00 sounds like a fuel trim code, which isn’t surprising if cylinder #4 is indeed misfiring.

@Brent89

Connecting Rod length was measured on Cylinder # 2-4-6.

That’s being generous, the way it was worded

Connecting rod length was NOT measured

At best, they stuck a borescope in the spark plug tube and took some kind of measurement from the top of the piston to the top of something else . . . what that something else was, I don’t know. And I’m also wondering what they used to take this mysterious measurement.

In any case, until the connecting rod is on the bench, you can’t reasonably expect to measure the connecting rod length

It does sound like the field engineer is fairly methodical, at least

let’s hope the engine is partially torn down soon . . .

[bing]

@db4690

let’s hope the engine is partially torn down soon . . .

I don’t know so I’m just asking but it seems like we’re pretty close to where the OP has to risk his own nickel to get any farther? So do they have to pull the head? Then can they pull the piston from the bottom and then what? If they insist still it’s not their problem, but it’s still a bum cylinder, wouldn’t that at least require a short block?

[bcohen2010]

@bing

Then can they pull the piston from the bottom and then what?

Really? Even with the crankshaft removed, it is not possible to remove a piston out the bottom on any engine that I know of. You can, of course, remove a piston out the top on many cars, even while the engine is still in place.

This is not a recommended procedure, and a professional mechanic probably would never agree to do this, but as a do-it-yourselfer working on your own vehicle, it’s certainly possible. There are even YouTube videos which show this technique in action, such as replacing worn-out rod bearings with the engine still in the car.

[ok4450]

Just my humble opinion, but I do not think they can assume a bent rod based on the No.4 compression check. I know the leak down test shows yada, yada, yada. I’ve measured connecting rods and they have to be removed and on the bench.

BUT, for the sake of discussion, assume they instantly bled the 220 PSI of pressure off which was generated by 4 -5 extra revolutions. Then they gave No. 4 a squirt of motor oil and re-ran the compression test. If the number goes up to 220 on the same number of revolutions as the other cylinders then you’re likely looking at a ring problem. The unknown number was what was it before the extra 4-5 extra strokes kicked in?

That leads then to various reasons why the rings may have an issue on that cylinder. Chronic subtle misfires over the long term? Fuel injector issues over the long term? Air leak into that cylinder causing a lean condition? Someone shoving a can of Ether into the intake on a cold morning? I’m just WAGing like every one else without hands on the car.
The whole thing stinks to me. One buys a CPO car it should not be plagued with issues and again, this is just my opinion, I don’t feel the car has been swimming and I do not feel the OP is the cause of the problem. The prior owner(s) of the car likely caused a problem and the CPO form got pencil whipped.

Having problems crop up on a used car a few weeks after purchase is not that rare but all of this should not be going on with a 2019 CPO car. It was a problem child when traded in.

[Brent89]

I know this thread is really long, but I sure appreciate everyone’s input and thoughts. Here are the field engineer’s pictures of the pistons.

[ok4450]

I’m afraid that I’m still at a loss here. There are still questions in spite of the pics from the guy with laser eyes. Why a different angle on No. 4 compared to 2 and 6? The glare is because of missing carbon or the intensity of the light? Note 2 and 6 are carboned up more it seems. The glare could be because of thinner carbon or the picture angle.

Assuming the piston is slightly shorter for the sake of discussion, I might continue to wonder about what ifs. Pistons are cut on a CNC machine that is programmed. As the tooling bits wear they are changed ever so often (and CNC machines wear also) this makes me wonder if a number of pistons might be shorter than others. What if a brand new 2020 was pulled in off the lot and the same test performed? What would they say if it showed a shorter piston; or would they admit it to be the case?
I wonder what measuring some new unassembled pistons would show?
Just a hypothetical. It would be interesting to hear other opinions on all of this.

A friend of my oldest son works at a machine shop here in OK. They contracted with John Deere to manufacture pistons for them until the contract ran out. He did this on a CNC machine that is programmable; same as Toyota who may also farm out piston work. I do not know that particular fact but methods are still the same.
He said now and then variances occur in piston production and in some cases the pistons get scrapped if the variance is too low. So that does lead me to wonder about variation here.
This, again, is all theorizing on my part.

We have a machine shop here that is well established and been in business 75 years. Great people; but once I had a Subaru crankshaft machined .010/.010 there. Upon reassembly it locked up tight while testing by hand. Odd. I drug out my micrometer sets and discovered all main and rod journals had been turned .007/.007. That will never work. Taking the crank back they refused to believe they could do something so stupid so they invited me back to check it themselves. Why would we do that they asked? Beats me. You tell me. It will work if you have a set of oversized .007/.007 bearings… nonexistent of course.
Sure enough; their mikes showed 7 and 7 so back on the grinder it went to peel another .003 off.
And keep in mind that job was not repetitive mass production work.
Pardon the length of this post; just that I’m still curious about a number of things. But that’s me: I’m the always gotta know type.

[Brent89]

Just to reiterate, the dealer is using the throttle body as the support for water ingestion causing a bent rod. Quoting the service manager: “If you look towards the bottom (between 4-5 o’clock) you can see the water stains that Toyota [is] using to deny the claim as of right now.”

Service writer stated, “As we have discussed the water entered the engine through the air intake of the vehicle. When and how we can not tell.”

He also said, “There is low compression on 2 of the cylinders. The hydro lock most likely damaged the rod end bearings and or damaged piston lands/rings. There is always possibility there could be a tweak to the rod as well, but not severe enough to lockup engine.”

They are assuming a hydrolock. Am I to understand that hydrolock does not always disable an engine and that the engine can run just fine in spite of it?

Thank you for your indulgence. You can see how this has been such a confounding journey up to now.

[Triedaq]

@Brent89. Keep us posted. I would like to know the final outcome.
Years ago, Popular Science magazine had a monthly feature “Tales From the Model Garage”. The proprietor, Gus Wilson, solved automotive problems that nobody else could figure out. If I were an executive at Toyota, I would have a detective agency track down a couple of the top notch mechanics on this board and pay them to examine the vehicle. I’ll bet the problem would be solved.
The true technicians are those who think to solve problems and have a genuine curiosity to find the cause. Years ago, my parents bought a new color television. The picture became distorted, so it went back to the dealer. His service department replaced a module and it worked for a while and the same thing happened. A second module was installed and the same thing happened. It worked for a while and the picture became distorted. At that point, the dealer sent the set back to the distributor. A factory engineer examined the television and replaced the module. The television was returned. I was taking care of my parents’ house while they were away. I was watching the set again the picture became distorted. I took the television to a TV repairman that I knew. He replaced the same module. When I told him this was the fourth replacement module he said, “Leave the set. I want to check further”. He found a 50¢ resistor was way out of specs-- the resistance was too low and let too high a voltage go to the module. That set lasted for years with no problems after that.
I just have a suspicion that the field rep is looking in the wrong place. This problem has aroused the curiosity of regulators in this board. I hope we ultimately find the root of the problem.

[Brent89]

Thanks. I’ll report for sure. A lot of folks have provided really helpful information.

An unnamed Toyota master tech has opined that there’s no way water, especially a small amount, gets in through the air intake system. He agrees with most everyone else, except our dealer and Toyota, that you’d have to “bury” the front end in water to ingest it. No way rain or water puddles could do it. He says there are too many ways for water to run off and other safeguards to keep it from getting in.

[thegreendrag0n]

since it takes 4-5 more revolutions to get to 220 psi, @ok4450 guess is that rings are of the problem

IMHO the fact that after all #4 still reaches 220 psi makes the “short rod” theory implausible since if rod was indeed shorter, through the simple geometry of the things #4 would not be able to reach 220 psi

I think the new facts strongly suggest toward a broken or worn ring and/or scuffs on #4 cylinder walls

the “wet test” must be performed and cylinder walls must be reinspected with a bore-scope to get more supporting/disproving data, but both tests are much-much less expensive than a tear-down