Failure After J02 Recall - Discussion Threads

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by killmequickly

Where did you get your data on the 30 spun bearings pre-recall? I have heard of a few engine failures on new engines but I haven't seen any data or compilation thereof on dates tied with estimated numbers. Based on your last comment are you admitting that there is a problem and an opportunity for a class action? Isn't this exactly what is going on and what DJ72 is informing people about?



Your argument here is weak, just as you point out that the victims of the incidences involving fire are making an assumption so to are you making an assumption. The only difference is their assumption is based on their first hand experience of the incident and everything that lead up to the fire.

You assume the common denominator is that they were driving hard. But were they?, how do you know? Did you go through the other 80 complaints to see (assume) if they were driving hard or not?

I would argue that 2 fires out of 80 is a very reasonable number. Do all engine failures lead to an engine fire? No of course not, but an engine failure increased the likelihood of an engine fire. It depends on a variable of factors.

On the flip side, it could also be possible that they were indeed driving hard which not only resulted in the engine failure (from either sealant, or design flaw/oversight) but also an engine fire, wouldn't you agree?



Again, assumptions. The first quote he stated he was on his way to his regular mechanic to have the repair inspected. The fact that he was driving on a paved road at sonoma raceway to get to his mechanic does not equate to hard driving.

In the second quote, the fact that he was driving for 2+ hours, again, does not equate to hard driving.



The number of investigations (it is not "current investigations", it is total investigations, period) means nothing. As you can clearly see there are 4 recalls, and 0 investigations which means investigations does not = problems that are relevant. Just because they did not investigate does not mean there isn't a problem big enough to initiate a recall or a class action.

If people choose to go the class action route, let them, and stop shitting on DJ72 we should be here to support each other and help solve problems not call each other shills and defend companies which in the past have cut corners and knowingly hid information which cost real lives.

I have never ever through all this bickering said there was no problem nor not to seek legal assistance. The pre recall issues are well documented on this forum if you read anything beyond these class action threads.

So it is o to assume the fires were based on recall work based on flimsy data but it is not OK to assume the cars may have been pushed hard based on equal evidence? I am trying to point out that saying these things are bursting into place all over as the article seems to imply could hamper any claims not help them. You can bet that the Totota lawyers are going to ask EXACTLY what driving was being done on a race track and through highways know to attract canyon runners. I have rode that road and it is difficult to believe that the guy on Highway 1 was driving around at 25mph.

I have explained a dozen times why I feel the class action is a mistake and will just end up screwing people over. I will not stop telling people what I think. DJ72 is nothing but a shill or a 16 year old that read something and thinks it is cut and dried. His whole "I am a big business man and know things" spiel confirmed this even if it was almost completely unintelligible.
.

[humfrz]

DANG!




humfrz

[DJ72]

Your response about the failure after the JO2 is totally correct. I can’t post anymore. Too many morons on here that probably work for Toyota. I am not a lawyer. I can’t stand lawyers. Noise just had to be made to get Toyota to pay attention. I just couldn’t bear the thought that I had to shell out $7,000 for engine failure that had nothing to do with the care of the car. Anyhow, Toyota sent me a check to cover the cost of the engine replacement. I work for a large corporation, so I understand how they operate. Anyhow, good luck!

[RickyBobby]

This thread is getting, what's the word I'm looking for, "surreal".

Originally Posted by DJ72

Anyhow, Toyota sent me a check to cover the cost of the engine replacement.

Toyota Corp coughed up $7G for a new engine. How did you get them to do that? Skeptic, hell yeah. As proof please post a picture of the check.

[killmequickly]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I have never ever through all this bickering said there was no problem nor not to seek legal assistance. The pre recall issues are well documented on this forum if you read anything beyond these class action threads.

So it is o to assume the fires were based on recall work based on flimsy data but it is not OK to assume the cars may have been pushed hard based on equal evidence? I am trying to point out that saying these things are bursting into place all over as the article seems to imply could hamper any claims not help them. You can bet that the Totota lawyers are going to ask EXACTLY what driving was being done on a race track and through highways know to attract canyon runners. I have rode that road and it is difficult to believe that the guy on Highway 1 was driving around at 25mph.

I have explained a dozen times why I feel the class action is a mistake and will just end up screwing people over. I will not stop telling people what I think. DJ72 is nothing but a shill or a 16 year old that read something and thinks it is cut and dried. His whole "I am a big business man and know things" spiel confirmed this even if it was almost completely unintelligible.
.

Oh I read a lot, and re-read, you don't need to worry about that but I'm still waiting for the data on the ~30, 2013 pre-recall rod bearing failures (oil starvation/oil pressure or brand new from factory). Even 20 or 15, could you direct me to them? I did a few quick searches on this forum, reddit, google, NHTSA, youtube, etc., what key words did you use? I am not saying you are lying about the ~30 pre-recall rod failures (brand new 2013 or otherwise) but I would like to see the data myself before I accept it as fact.

I am not saying that assumptions are not ok, I'm just pointing out that you are being hypocritical by saying that the victims are only assuming when you are also assuming but with even less evidence/data than the victims had.

- The victims experienced the accident, did you? no.
- The victims know everything that happened leading up to the accident, do you? no.
- The victims know their vehicles, the quirks, the problems, etc., do you? no.
- Both fire related accidents heard knocking BEFORE the fires. Were you there? no.

So your assumption is lacking whereas their assumption is based on first hand knowledge, experience, and prior information to back it up. Does that mean they are correct in their assumption? NO, but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt based on their statements and my understanding of the workings of engines and how a fire could arise from rod related engine damage, especially stemming from high oil pressure scenarios. Again, I could be wrong, but I am giving them the benefit of the doubt especially since you admitted yourself that you believe there is a probable innate issue with the engines from factory and that the j02 recall (with sloppy work) could increase the likelihood of that issue not to mention the 80+ other complaints of the same exact nature.

Yes, you bet the lawyers will ask a lot of questions, but if you are referring to the class action, they will not only isolate the 2 fire related incidences, they must cover the entire spectrum which is the advantage of a class action.

The Sonoma gentlemen states in his statement that he was driving to his mechanic, did he state he was racing beforehand or that he had just gotten there and went straight to his mechanic? He didn't clarify so you assumed he was racing. And even if he was racing, were you there to see the conditions in which he was driving his vehicle?

The other gentlemen: "AS I CAME AROUND A TURN, I WAS GOING ABOUT 25MPH, I TAPPED THE BRAKE TO SLOW DOWN AS THE ROAD WAS SLOPING DOWNHILL WITH TWO HAIR PIN TURNS UP AHEAD." Do you go 40+ mph on a turn especially when the road slopes downhill next with 2 hair pin turns? Maybe you do, but he did not state he was going 25mph the entire time, you were just assuming again.

Yes you are entitled to your assumptions and opinions just like everyone else here on the forum, even DJ72, but there is no need to berate the man, call him a shill, and a 16 year old.

So what if he talks about being a big business man? or talks in a fashion you might find uncomfortable or unrelatable, maybe that's just the way he talks. Should we dismiss him, invalidate all his opinions and claims, and reduce him to just a "shill" just because of that?

You say he is almost completely unintelligible but from my view you seem to perfectly understand what the man is saying and reply to his assertions with what seems to be just as clear of an understanding.

Go search DJ72's 9 posts, re-read them, then tell me if you still think he is unintelligible.

Although I believe that DJ72 should not need to prove anything, if possible, I would also like to see the check as well.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by killmequickly

Oh I read a lot, and re-read, you don't need to worry about that but I'm still waiting for the data on the ~30, 2013 pre-recall rod bearing failures (oil starvation/oil pressure or brand new from factory). Even 20 or 15, could you direct me to them? I did a few quick searches on this forum, reddit, google, NHTSA, youtube, etc., what key words did you use? I am not saying you are lying about the ~30 pre-recall rod failures (brand new 2013 or otherwise) but I would like to see the data myself before I accept it as fact.

I am not saying that assumptions are not ok, I'm just pointing out that you are being hypocritical by saying that the victims are only assuming when you are also assuming but with even less evidence/data than the victims had.

- The victims experienced the accident, did you? no.
- The victims know everything that happened leading up to the accident, do you? no.
- The victims know their vehicles, the quirks, the problems, etc., do you? no.
- Both fire related accidents heard knocking BEFORE the fires. Were you there? no.

So your assumption is lacking whereas their assumption is based on first hand knowledge, experience, and prior information to back it up. Does that mean they are correct in their assumption? NO, but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt based on their statements and my understanding of the workings of engines and how a fire could arise from rod related engine damage, especially stemming from high oil pressure scenarios. Again, I could be wrong, but I am giving them the benefit of the doubt especially since you admitted yourself that you believe there is a probable innate issue with the engines from factory and that the j02 recall (with sloppy work) could increase the likelihood of that issue not to mention the 80+ other complaints of the same exact nature.

Yes, you bet the lawyers will ask a lot of questions, but if you are referring to the class action, they will not only isolate the 2 fire related incidences, they must cover the entire spectrum which is the advantage of a class action.

The Sonoma gentlemen states in his statement that he was driving to his mechanic, did he state he was racing beforehand or that he had just gotten there and went straight to his mechanic? He didn't clarify so you assumed he was racing. And even if he was racing, were you there to see the conditions in which he was driving his vehicle?

The other gentlemen: "AS I CAME AROUND A TURN, I WAS GOING ABOUT 25MPH, I TAPPED THE BRAKE TO SLOW DOWN AS THE ROAD WAS SLOPING DOWNHILL WITH TWO HAIR PIN TURNS UP AHEAD." Do you go 40+ mph on a turn especially when the road slopes downhill next with 2 hair pin turns? Maybe you do, but he did not state he was going 25mph the entire time, you were just assuming again.

Yes you are entitled to your assumptions and opinions just like everyone else here on the forum, even DJ72, but there is no need to berate the man, call him a shill, and a 16 year old.

So what if he talks about being a big business man? or talks in a fashion you might find uncomfortable or unrelatable, maybe that's just the way he talks. Should we dismiss him, invalidate all his opinions and claims, and reduce him to just a "shill" just because of that?

You say he is almost completely unintelligible but from my view you seem to perfectly understand what the man is saying and reply to his assertions with what seems to be just as clear of an understanding.

Go search DJ72's 9 posts, re-read them, then tell me if you still think he is unintelligible.

Although I believe that DJ72 should not need to prove anything, if possible, I would also like to see the check as well.

I am not doing your homework for you. The threads are there.


Was I there? No. Were you? People do not always tell the whole story. If you want to believe there was no more to it then fine. Just happened to be driving on private property at a track on the way to the mechanic? Sure. Did 2 or 3 hours (depending on what you read) in highway 1 at 25 mph. Alright. I just throw this out there to show that such things only muddy the water and can harm any claims not help them. You don't have to convince me but a judge may be a whole different story.


I have no doubt he does work for a big corporation. McDondalds is huge. Is it his car? His "sons" car? Is there even a car? He knows all about all engines but Toyota techs would be baffled by a boxer? Really? Come on man the guy is not what he claims. I do however retract my shill accusation as I just don't think he is competent enough for the job.


I am truly on the side of the people that want to be reimbursed for the shoddy work but throwing red herrings into the mix will not help the case. The courts will work on facts and will dig to get them so assumptions, bias and random finger pointing will hurt more than help.

[RickyBobby]

Originally Posted by killmequickly

Although I believe that DJ72 should not need to prove anything, if possible, I would also like to see the check as well.

Now there's a textbook example of an oxymoron.

If anyone cares to read it, Chris Tsui has written another article on The Drive. https://www.thedrive.com/news/30776/...-recall-fiasco
In it he states, without a shred of evidence that the recall in this case caused the fire, "Now, Toyota and Subaru are facing a class-action lawsuit that claims the recall fix is, as we originally theorized, causing more problems than it's preventing, increasing the risk of engine failure and, in some cases, causing cars to dangerously catch fire—just like this FR-S in California did 2,000 miles post-recall." I wonder if his editor proofread this or maybe just didn't give a crap that it's FAKE news.

Also anyone still interested in getting in on the class action lawsuit the original link is a 404. Here's the new one: https://carlsonlynch.com/scion-subaru-engine-problems/

And wasn't DJ72 in on this lawsuit?? It was he who first posted it. http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showpost.php? p=3259662&postcount=1190 This is still ongoing so, yeah, where did he, if he did, get the $7G, up from his original $6.2G figure, from??

[killmequickly]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I am not doing your homework for you. The threads are there.


Was I there? No. Were you? People do not always tell the whole story. If you want to believe there was no more to it then fine. Just happened to be driving on private property at a track on the way to the mechanic? Sure. Did 2 or 3 hours (depending on what you read) in highway 1 at 25 mph. Alright. I just throw this out there to show that such things only muddy the water and can harm any claims not help them. You don't have to convince me but a judge may be a whole different story.


I have no doubt he does work for a big corporation. McDondalds is huge. Is it his car? His "sons" car? Is there even a car? He knows all about all engines but Toyota techs would be baffled by a boxer? Really? Come on man the guy is not what he claims. I do however retract my shill accusation as I just don't think he is competent enough for the job.


I am truly on the side of the people that want to be reimbursed for the shoddy work but throwing red herrings into the mix will not help the case. The courts will work on facts and will dig to get them so assumptions, bias and random finger pointing will hurt more than help.

Well then, the burden is on you to prove your claim, as far as I can tell your ~30 number is bs.

In his statement he said he was on his way to his mechanic, can he not go straight to his mechanic when he enters Sonoma? According to you, no, that's impossible lol. You just can't admit that you are assuming things that are not stated. Just FYI Sonoma has mechanics, did you bother to think his regular mechanic is at Sonoma?

Again, re-read the statement, he said he was driving 25mph during the turn, not that he was driving 25mph the whole way. He did not specify the speed outside of the turn, you are just cherry picking and assuming. No where in the entire statement did he say, "I drove 25mph for the 2-3 hour drive."

Now your just conflating random statements together, do you know DJ72 personally? no. Your just mad at the guy for one reason or another.

At least you admit he's not a shill anymore. Great, we've covered some ground.

You can say whatever you want but the fact remains that you admitted openly that you believe there is a problem with the engines from the start and that a class action is viable. Case closed.

Originally Posted by RickyBobby

Now there's a textbook example of an oxymoron.

If anyone cares to read it, Chris Tsui has written another article on The Drive. https://www.thedrive.com/news/30776/...-recall-fiasco
In it he states, without a shred of evidence that the recall in this case caused the fire, "Now, Toyota and Subaru are facing a class-action lawsuit that claims the recall fix is, as we originally theorized, causing more problems than it's preventing, increasing the risk of engine failure and, in some cases, causing cars to dangerously catch fire—just like this FR-S in California did 2,000 miles post-recall." I wonder if his editor proofread this or maybe just didn't give a crap that it's FAKE news.

Also anyone still interested in getting in on the class action lawsuit the original link is a 404. Here's the new one: https://carlsonlynch.com/scion-subaru-engine-problems/

And wasn't DJ72 in on this lawsuit?? It was he who first posted it. http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showpost.php? p=3259662&postcount=1190 This is still ongoing so, yeah, where did he, if he did, get the $7G, up from his original $6.2G figure, from??

You obviously don't know what an oxymoron is, look up the definition.

Let me rephrase it another way for you.

I respect his decision if he does not wish to show us the check which he has no obligation to do so, but if he is up to it, I would like him to present him. The decision is up to him to show it. Not because I don't believe him, but because showing it would shut a few people up.

Your assertion that there is zero shred of evidence is your opinion. Others would see it differently.

I re-read the post, he stated he spoke to the lawyer about the lawsuit and informed everyone of the information. He didn't state whether he decided to join in on it or not.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by killmequickly

Well then, the burden is on you to prove your claim, as far as I can tell your ~30 number is bs.

In his statement he said he was on his way to his mechanic, can he not go straight to his mechanic when he enters Sonoma? According to you, no, that's impossible lol. You just can't admit that you are assuming things that are not stated. Just FYI Sonoma has mechanics, did you bother to think his regular mechanic is at Sonoma?

Again, re-read the statement, he said he was driving 25mph during the turn, not that he was driving 25mph the whole way. He did not specify the speed outside of the turn, you are just cherry picking and assuming. No where in the entire statement did he say, "I drove 25mph for the 2-3 hour drive."

Now your just conflating random statements together, do you know DJ72 personally? no. Your just mad at the guy for one reason or another.

At least you admit he's not a shill anymore. Great, we've covered some ground.

You can say whatever you want but the fact remains that you admitted openly that you believe there is a problem with the engines from the start and that a class action is viable. Case closed.

You are so busy trying to counter my statements you are not grasping the meaning of them.

First off I am not saying I feel they did anything wrong. I thought that my concern that a Toyota lawyer would play the gambit was pretty clear when I said it the first time. People going into lawsuits of any type need to be careful what they post on the public internet. You can bet your ass that the Toyota legal team is reading this and any other social network materiel on the issue.

Yes, his mechanic could be at a RACETRACK. He was driving on a private road at a RACETRACK. The evidence is circumstantial but it was still a RACETRACK and that can be used to discredit the fire.
The question of how hard he was pushing the car for the 2 to 3 hours is certainly relevant. The fact (if accepted as fact)he had slowed to 25 just before it went does not mean it was not pushed to a breaking point prior to that.

The evidence to support my claim of 30 is there for the finding. It was a major topic of discussion for over two years. I followed the reports very closely because I was nervous it would become a much greater issue than it did. It was pretty much restricted to 2013 cars and they all had the same symptom of a spun bearing.


Yes I said that the people that had them blow up on a FACTORY SEALED engine had a case for class action against Subaru. The dealers didn't cause those ones the manufacturer did. They are two totally different scenarios. They have missed all time limits though so they are out of luck.

I am not mad at anybody. Not even you. I have concerns with things being said and am expressing them. How can I make it clear to you that I really want the people that suffered loss to recoup it. I just don't feel that the class action is the way to go and that throwing a pile of misleading info into the mix confuses the case even more. The article that sparked this latest debate made it appear that the cars are bursting into flames in droves. That is blatantly false but I guess that saying "Two cars caught fire" doesn't get them click and earn them money.

[RickyBobby]

Originally Posted by killmequickly

I re-read the post, he stated he spoke to the lawyer about the lawsuit and informed everyone of the information. He didn't state whether he decided to join in on it or not.

Sure sounds like he joined the lawsuit from this post. http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...postcount=1211

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by killmequickly

Well then, the burden is on you to prove your claim, as far as I can tell your ~30 number is bs.

See, you went and made ol @Tcoat sick - shame on you -


humfrz

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by humfrz

See, you went and made ol @Tcoat sick - shame on you -


humfrz

I strongly doubt that he or anybody else here is responsible for my acute sinusitis.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I strongly doubt that he or anybody else here is responsible for my acute sinusitis.

Ouch - that sounds painful -

Back in the day, we used to snort warm saltwater -

I suggest less lines or shorter lines -


humfrz

[ermax]

Originally Posted by killmequickly

Well then, the burden is on you to prove your claim, as far as I can tell your ~30 number is bs.

It’s not BS. There is a registry thread on here somewhere for people with spun bearing on the 2013 with very low mileage. I think Tcoat is just tossing out the number 30. Could be more, could be less but somewhere around 30 sounds about right. My completely stock 2013 spun number 3 at 84k miles. I’m not the original owner so I can’t say for sure they didn’t run it low on oil or something dumb like that.