Toyota Raise The Bar Re Oil Consumption

[CharlieFarlie]

I have it on good information that Toyota now require the 2AD engine to be burning ONE LITRE per thousand miles instead of the old requirement of HALF A LITRE per thousand miles before the cars qualify for a replacement engine...

Now as many of You will know My car will be getting a re evaluation in the coming weeks....

So is this good or bad news ???

Good I think.... My careful topping up says I'm using almost exactly that magic figure of one litre per 1000. But this is around the town.....

My old engine burnt very little oil when driven around town but absolutely drank it when on the motorway......

If My car passes the test and doesn't require an engine then fine I can sell it with a clear conscience... This I sincerely hope will be the outcome . It will after all still carry the engine warranty for another 18 months....

If it fails and it will if the consumption goes up when driven up and down the motorway as it will be in the next few weeks then the case gets put forward to Toyota to decide what they want to do to resolve the situation.. At no point has it been said that another engine will automatically be fitted ..

What I will say is that I have faith in the Dealer to sort this sorry situation out..

But the bottom line is that the rules have been changed...

I would be very keen indeed to hear Johns (Kingo) view on this ?? This is apparently a very new policy.... MMMmmmmmm

Charlie.

[Big Kev]

Aha but Charlie....in a recent post from Ormi, he stated that it was "one litre per....", which I seem to remember was refuted by Anchorman, almost politely as usual, to be "half a litre.......", then suddenly we have confirmation that it is indeed "one litre per...."

Did Ormi have the most recent "bulletin" and quote therefrom....? This engine stuff is costing Toyota a shilling or two, so maybe some actuary type brain has been employed here, and is now hedging bets....?

I stand to be corrected hereon, but I detect a bit of covering of the posterior here, non....?

I now have a talking dipstick in my engine....yesterday it asked me, in Japanese of course, "why you keep pulling me out of here, Fat Bassa....?" Just checkin'.....

Big Kev

Meant to say.....Darth Vader texted me....won't be joining after all....there's a limit to the "dark side" after all.

[Jozsef]

I have it on good information that Toyota now require the 2AD engine to be burning ONE LITRE per thousand miles instead of the old requirement of HALF A LITRE per thousand miles before the cars qualify for a replacement engine... MMMmmmmmm Charlie.

Bbbrrr...... Excuse me!

Old requirement .....Oil consumption worse than 0.5 litre per 621 miles (1,000 km)

New requirement ................................................. 1.0 litre per 1000 miles (1,600 km) ????????

Because?

Jozsef

[Big Kev]

.....could it be to slow down or spread the supply and demand situation Toyota find themselves in, where the demand for engine replacement (for half litre oil burners) is outstripping their capability to supply replacements within a reasonable period....? Afterall, their engine making facility I am sure makes more money building for NEW cars rather than 5/6 year old ones....? Just a wee thought.....

As for possible reversion to engine build at dealer, should this problem ever become mine, I would prefer the car to catch fire before somebody tried to rebuild a very complex lump like these.

Big Kev

[dervdave]

I have it on good information that Toyota now require the 2AD engine to be burning ONE LITRE per thousand miles instead of the old requirement of HALF A LITRE per thousand miles before the cars qualify for a replacement engine... MMMmmmmmm Charlie.

Bbbrrr...... Excuse me! Old requirement .....Oil consumption worse than 0.5 litre per 621 miles (1,000 km) New requirement ................................................. 1.0 litre per 1000 miles (1,600 km) ???????? Because? Jozsef

Some 2.2d have been given exchange engines from Toyota because of oil burning problems.

[CharlieFarlie]

Aha but Charlie....in a recent post from Ormi, he stated that it was "one litre per....", which I seem to remember was refuted by Anchorman, almost politely as usual, to be "half a litre.......", then suddenly we have confirmation that it is indeed "one litre per...."

Did Ormi have the most recent "bulletin" and quote therefrom....? This engine stuff is costing Toyota a shilling or two, so maybe some actuary type brain has been employed here, and is now hedging bets....?

I stand to be corrected hereon, but I detect a bit of covering of the posterior here, non....?

I now have a talking dipstick in my engine....yesterday it asked me, in Japanese of course, "why you keep pulling me out of here, Fat Bassa....?" Just checkin'.....

Big Kev

Meant to say.....Darth Vader texted me....won't be joining after all....there's a limit to the "dark side" after all.

The system or requirements change was made last week Kev so whether or not Ormis post was in that time scale or not I haven't a clue...

[Mistermena]

So its seems like Toyota are raising the bar in an effort to cut there losses on these new 3/4 engines! This can only be a bad thing for owners who are suffering oil usage in my view!...

[CharlieFarlie]

So its seems like Toyota are raising the bar in an effort to cut there losses on these new 3/4 engines! This can only be a bad thing for owners who are suffering oil usage in my view!...

Not necessarily.. If an engine can burn a litre of oil with NO detrimental effect to the DPF or Cat converter or any of the other gubbins then all it means is a few litres of oil each Year..

If on the other hand in the long term it does have that detrimental effect the owners will be copping an unfortunate one......

A question though ? Why the change in calculative figures ?

Is it because the first person to work out those definitive calculations was wrong and therefore cost Toyota a fortune ??

Or is it to save money ..........................

[Mistermena]

I dont think that you or I believe that burning 1 ltr of oil every 1000miles is going to do any good the the D-CAT/DPF ect long term?!... And can owners stand the cost of that oil usage over a period of time?... If I had an engine that was burning that amount of oil I'll sell it! Or if I had to keep it I'd put the cheapest !Removed! oil I could find in it! Bugger this C2 spec synth lark...

[tatteam]

So its seems like Toyota are raising the bar in an effort to cut there losses on these new 3/4 engines! This can only be a bad thing for owners who are suffering oil usage in my view!...

Not necessarily.. If an engine can burn a litre of oil with NO detrimental effect to the DPF or Cat converter or any of the other gubbins then all it means is a few litres of oil each Year.. If on the other hand in the long term it does have that detrimental effect the owners will be copping an unfortunate one...... A question though ? Why the change in calculative figures ? Is it because the first person to work out those definitive calculations was wrong and therefore cost Toyota a fortune ?? Or is it to save money ..........................

Why don't MrT pay for the oil expenses...... sure then something more serious will be carried out.

Thanks Charlie for the info you're giving us. Good luck

[CharlieFarlie]

So its seems like Toyota are raising the bar in an effort to cut there losses on these new 3/4 engines! This can only be a bad thing for owners who are suffering oil usage in my view!...

Not necessarily.. If an engine can burn a litre of oil with NO detrimental effect to the DPF or Cat converter or any of the other gubbins then all it means is a few litres of oil each Year.. If on the other hand in the long term it does have that detrimental effect the owners will be copping an unfortunate one...... A question though ? Why the change in calculative figures ? Is it because the first person to work out those definitive calculations was wrong and therefore cost Toyota a fortune ?? Or is it to save money ..........................

Why don't MrT pay for the oil expenses...... sure then something more serious will be carried out.

Thanks Charlie for the info you're giving us. Good luck

I think the expense of a few litre of oil Mate pales into insignificance when compared to fitting a new engine..

Toyota have in the past been outstandingly brilliant when it has come to sorting these issues. No question..

My Question is as above really..

Why the change in calculative figures ?

Is it because the first person to work out those definitive calculations was wrong and therefore cost Toyota a fortune ??

Or is it to save money ..........................

I suppose at some point the drawbridge had to be lifted as there were so many engines being replaced....

Reading into the current situation either those engines were replaced without need (Some of them ) Or engines needing replacement in the future simply will not be getting done. Or at least not at the expense of the manufacturer.

I would very strongly suggest that Anyone looking to buy any Toyota Vehicle in the future that has the 2AD engine consider it for half a second and then buy something else..

[CharlieFarlie]

So its seems like Toyota are raising the bar in an effort to cut there losses on these new 3/4 engines! This can only be a bad thing for owners who are suffering oil usage in my view!...

Not necessarily.. If an engine can burn a litre of oil with NO detrimental effect to the DPF or Cat converter or any of the other gubbins then all it means is a few litres of oil each Year.. If on the other hand in the long term it does have that detrimental effect the owners will be copping an unfortunate one...... A question though ? Why the change in calculative figures ? Is it because the first person to work out those definitive calculations was wrong and therefore cost Toyota a fortune ?? Or is it to save money ..........................

Why don't MrT pay for the oil expenses...... sure then something more serious will be carried out.

Thanks Charlie for the info you're giving us. Good luck

I think the expense of a few litre of oil Mate pales into insignificance when compared to fitting a new engine..

Toyota have in the past been outstandingly brilliant when it has come to sorting these issues. No question..

My Question is as above really..

Why the change in calculative figures ?

Is it because the first person to work out those definitive calculations was wrong and therefore cost Toyota a fortune ??

I suppose at some point the drawbridge had to be lifted as there were so many engines being replaced....

Reading into the current situation either those engines were replaced without need (Some of them ) Or engines needing replacement in the future simply will not be getting done. Or at least not at the expense of the manufacturer.

I would very strongly suggest that Anyone looking to buy any Toyota Vehicle in the future that has the 2AD engine consider it for half a second and then buy something else..

[dervdave]

Isuzu went through a similar scenario a few years back of replacing their Caterpiller designed 3.0d engines as fitted to the Trooper (injector issue)

[cabcurtains]

Isuzu went through a similar scenario a few years back of replacing their Caterpiller designed 3.0d engines as fitted to the Trooper (injector issue)

IIRC they were real junk, the 3.1d's just run as per the normal rule they are low tech.

[jedi134]

Sounds like your all getting slowly fobbed off.

A car should not consume that amount of oil, its no veron after all.

What bothers me is the rate these engines consume oil. Not every one will check their oil every 5 mins. More damage will be caused by engines running dry that contaminating dpfs.

2012 the year of austerity!

[cabcurtains]

Doesn't the book state the 1,000 mile per litre rule before seeing Mr T, perhaps they have decided to follow the official original guidelines on whats "normal"?

I'm not defending the goal post moving if this is the case, as it just causes more confusion for all.

[Uncle_P]

So if Toyota reckon it's ok to be burning a litre of oil in a thousand miles how likely is it to happen? Do all the diesels use oil, or just the knackered ones?

It certainly makes buying a used diesel a risky proposition. If may have spent most of it's life without enough oil in it, even if the current level is ok.

[Mistermena]

Some engines use some oils! But a lot of the time when an engine is using that much oil then it can mean its buggered! My Polo 1.4 TDi uses next to nothing between oil changes and thats doen over 210k! and the Pd engines are known for using oils.

[dervdave]

Some engines use some oils! But a lot of the time when an engine is using that much oil then it can mean its buggered! My Polo 1.4 TDi uses next to nothing between oil changes and thats doen over 210k! and the Pd engines are known for using oils.

I remember reading about a bloke who bought a low mileage diesel he was over the moon with until he found it was puffing blue smoke and using oil.

He blasted the living daylights out of it until it was red hot for miles on end up the motorway and said there was some intense ******* came out the exhaust but it cured the fault.

He put it down to the fact it was mollycoddled from new and hadn`t `bedded in` properly.

Obviously I`m not saying thats the case here.

[Mistermena]

Cars do need to be driven hard sometimes (When at running temp & especially oil burners) to blow the !Removed! out of the cylinders and if they've had a relatively easy life. I recon a diesel needs at least 10-17k before its bed in. I remember years ago they use to use bedding in oil for the 1st 1000miles and then drop the oil for the normal stuff. In fact me old ma's Citroen C3 1.6 Exclusive had a free oil and filter change @1000 miles as part of the dealer (Now runs on Motul 300v 5w-30) service for a new car! Dont know if they still do this? but when I buy a new car car its what I've always done. I like to know I've got the correct "Life blood" running round the engine...

[cabcurtains]

I'm sure all the manufacturers use the 1000 miles per litre cavaet or similiar, if your car was burning 1 litre per 1100 miles you would be seriously worried, unless it was a Mazda RX8...

It would also cost £100+ between services, and more serious is the point about the damage to DPF/Cat, as they are £1000's to replace.

I would be interested to know if anyone is running a car with low miles and is well looked after, but burns serious oil and doesnt have the known issues.

[dervdave]

Funnily enough I`ve had more cars, vans, trucks and motorbikes than I can remember but to my recollection I`ve never had one that any oil burning issues.

[cabcurtains]

Funnily enough I`ve had more cars, vans, trucks and motorbikes than I can remember but to my recollection I`ve never had one that any oil burning issues.

Me too, for 5yrs i used to get a new car every 3mths and the diesels normally did 1-2 litres in 15k, usually most of that in the first 5k then they calmed down, the petrols never used any IIRC.

[dervdave]

Funnily enough I`ve had more cars, vans, trucks and motorbikes than I can remember but to my recollection I`ve never had one that any oil burning issues.

Me too, for 5yrs i used to get a new car every 3mths and the diesels normally did 1-2 litres in 15k normally in the first 5k then they calmed down, the petrols never used any IIRC.

In 40yrs ownership I couldn`t afford new except 3 cars + 3 motorbikes

[cabcurtains]

Funnily enough I`ve had more cars, vans, trucks and motorbikes than I can remember but to my recollection I`ve never had one that any oil burning issues.

Me too, for 5yrs i used to get a new car every 3mths and the diesels normally did 1-2 litres in 15k normally in the first 5k then they calmed down, the petrols never used any IIRC.

In 40yrs ownership I couldn`t afford new except 3 cars + 3 motorbikes

Working for a Manufacturer helps ;)