Failure After J02 Recall - Discussion Threads

[ermax]

Originally Posted by DJ72

It did not happen to nearly as many Subaru BRX’s because there were strict instructions to ensure technicians are very careful with the sealant.

There are way less BRZs included in the recall than FR-S. FYI, the FB20 (also included in the recall) that is in other Subaru’s is nothing like the FA20 that is in the BRZ. As for detailed instructions, the Toyota instructions are actually better than the Subaru instructions. The original Toyota instructions didn’t have as many warnings as the Subaru instructions but Toyota was quick to revise the instructions (within weeks if I recall) to include the same warnings Subaru had. I make a living as a software developer but have rebuilt a hand full of engines including my 2013 FR-S. I rebuilt mine (at about 84k miles) due to spinning the #3 rod bearing before the recall was even announced. I had to use the standard instructions in the Toyota service manual which has dramatically less detail and virtually no warnings at all. I have about 15k miles on mine post-rebuild and I drive the living crap out of it (redline at least a dozen times per day) and its running fine. My point is, even with the vague instructions and having zero official training as a mechanic I was able to rebuild it fine so dealers should be able to do it with dramatically more detailed instructions. The only way I could see this falling on Toyota rather than the dealers is the amount of time they are willing to pay for the work. If I recall they are paying 12.5 hours but in reality it should be more like 18 if you want to do a good job. I’d say I spent 10 hours simply cleaning packing. If you rush the mechanics like this it’s just looking for problems.

All that being said, I will not be doing the recall on my car. Not worth the risk and if a spring does happen to fail I would still be covered under the recall.

I’m sorry to hear about your sons car. I’m also sorry for what they are charging for a problem they (the dealer) caused. I spent around ~2300 on parts (short block, seals, oil, coolant, packing and other random stuff). You would think they (the dealer) would at least eat the labor.

[Ingen]

Originally Posted by Impureclient

This is really leaving a bad taste in my mouth for buying Toyota products if this is how they treat their customers. I figured I was trading
in for a 2nd gen. 86 when they come out and my son is getting very close to buying a Tacoma that was based off my recommendation.

My whole life I have owned toyotas. I don't mind them, they're wonderful cars, adn Toyota has always done right by me.

For me, this experience has soured me on "collaboration cars" where you get subaru or bmw to make most of the car, then badge it toyota. or whatever the case may be.

The new supra is a hard no for me for this reason, EVER. That said, a purely toyota developed car? That would be fine, they seem great, if a bit boring. It's a shame toyota refuses to make anything interesting without getting someone else to help them spice up their car.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Ingen

I spoke with a local dealership. I will not name them, in appreciation of their honesty.

Since the recall was launched, they have conducted 15 repairs.
Of those, 4 suffered catastrophic engine failure within 6-12 months, 5-10K miles.

Toyota evaluated all 4 cases. They deemed that none of the 4 were due to the repair, and therefore would not receive any financial assistance with subsequent repairs.

As a counterpoint, the dealership I took my car to for the recall was pretty large and had two master techs qualified to do the recall. They said they had done about 20 recalls to date with 0 coming back with any issues.

Granted I haven't put many miles on my car since getting it back, but so far no engine lights, strange sounds, or even loose bolts that I can see.

I think this is going to come down to the skill (and attention/time available) for each dealership.

[marco1ca]

If this has already been shared, just ignore it, it looks relatively new though


https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-...-engine-fires/

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by marco1ca

If this has already been shared, just ignore it, it looks relatively new though

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how this is going to go anywhere.

The fault is not with the recall itself but with the work performed to complete the recall by individual dealership/mechanics. If the work was being done by Tesla (who has no dealer model so would have been directly responsible for the actual recall work that failed) I could see it. But for this to work you would have to sue all the individual dealers involved that did the poor work, not Subaru/Toyota.

I suppose if you could prove the instructions provided by Subaru/Toyota were faulty and it was following those instructions that caused the failures, then yes, maybe it would work.

[marco1ca]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how this is going to go anywhere.

You're probably right, but at least it creates some legal noise that may help to support others on here who have individual claims.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how this is going to go anywhere.

The fault is not with the recall itself but with the work performed to complete the recall by individual dealership/mechanics. If the work was being done by Tesla (who has no dealer model so would have been directly responsible for the actual recall work that failed) I could see it. But for this to work you would have to sue all the individual dealers involved that did the poor work, not Subaru/Toyota.

I suppose if you could prove the instructions provided by Subaru/Toyota were faulty and it was following those instructions that caused the failures, then yes, maybe it would work.

This ^
Not sure if people realize that the dealerships do not belong to Toyota or Subaru. As much as I would like to see them succeed I strongly believe that this class action is doomed as it is not directed at the right parties. Think they would have a tough time proving the instructions were bad when going up against the companies legal teams and engineering department.

Originally Posted by marco1ca

You're probably right, but at least it creates some legal noise that may help to support others on here who have individual claims.

Making "noise" is not always a great tactic. The individuals that sue the dealerships, as should be done, may find themselves up against an opposing lawyer that asks "well is it Toyota or the dealers fault?". If nothing else this takes a black and white case against the dealer and turns it dirty grey. Anybody that waits to see how the class action turns out will lose their chance at suing the dealer since they will go past the deadline. A quick search shows that you only have a year from when the damage occurred to file a suit. There is no way this class action will be closed within a year.
Yes, on the surface the class action looks like a quick easy and free way of dealing with this but in reality people may be screwing themselves over. Time will tell and I really, really hope I am proven wrong!

[killmequickly]

Been lurking this thread a while now, I am one of those affected by the recall with a spun rod and a 7k potential bill. I would like to add my 50 cents.



I think that there is actually a pretty good chance that the suit wins, and also believe the threat of suit and bad publicity to be a formidable tactic in this case for the following reasons outlined below.


I do however concede that its up to each individual to decide whether to join suit against Toyota and its affiliates or to file individually against the dealership.





Law firms working on Contingency



First off, lawyers that work on contingency, especially good ones with a record of winning (I checked out Carlson Lynch's website and you can see they have quit the record of winning cases under their "Completed" and "Current" case section) will not take a case unless they believe within legal reason that they have a strong argument and a strong (and winnable) case. And, that is just for regular cases, a class action lawsuit takes an even greater amount of resources, number or lawyers working on the case, and time, therefore the law firm and its lawyers needs to feel very positive about winning (making money) before it will even consider devoting their efforts towards one.


Remember they are here to make money, and in the case of contingency they are essentially working for free because they feel they will make a larger sum in return. Again, their history indicates they at least see legal merit in this situation.





Incorrect Parties



As far as the "doomed to failure" because of incorrect parties argument goes, I believe that Carlson Lynch, who are actual law professionals with many years of experience understand this issue legally better than you and I posting on a car forum and would give them the benefit of the doubt in doing their job and taking a complex case such as this. If you doubt them, check out their history of wins and current cases or maybe give them a call and ask a few questions if you have such a strong opinion in the matter.



But just for the sake of argument I believe the incorrect parties argument can be pierced by a competent law firm with the following explanation.


As a dealership you typically have a franchise agreement with a certain manufacturer whereby you have certain binding obligations along with indemnifications and other legal and financial responsibilities. Yes, you are a separate individual, or company, but you are representing the manufacturer and are acting essentially as an agent on behalf of the manufacturer in a certain capacity.


I think that the law firm can prove that each person affected had a reasonable assumption to believe that the dealership was acting as an agent for the manufacturer.



What I mean by that is, when a person wants to go buy a Toyota, they typically might think, "ok, lets go to Toyota and get a Toyota", where is Toyota?, well there are a few different Toyota dealerships, "lets go to Joe Blow Toyota and buy a Toyota". So they pick a dealership and go buy a Toyota. And when they want to get their regular maintenance done, they may think "Joe Blow Toyota can do my oil change and check my other necessary maintenance requirements for my Toyota". And when they have a problem they might think "Joe Blow Toyota can fix my Toyota no problem, I love Toyota". But then shit hits the fan and then all of sudden Joe Blow Toyota isn't Toyota anymore its just Joe Blow. Again, whether or not the Dealership is actually Toyota does not necessarily need to be proven if you can prove that the end user had a reasonable assumption in believing that the dealership represented, or led users to believe that it was Toyota, representing Toyota, and Agent of Toyota, or acting on behalf of Toyota.


Meaning, you should not be able to reap all the benefits of having others representing or doing some work in capacity of Toyota then back out when you don't like it.



I would argue most people don't understand the relationship between the dealership and the manufacturer like Toyota, because they are not privy to the intimates of the franchise agreement and what is exactly laid out within. And this is where a good lawyer would step in and attack.


Is there a clear and defined line between individual dealer and manufacturer? Or is the line blurred and ambiguous.


Is the dealer acting as an agent or representative at the time of selling the vehicle or doing repairs? What does "authorized" dealer really mean and what does it entail to the end user? These are all things that need to be argued.




Dealer vs. Manufacturer

One example I would like to give is McDonalds. I don't know if most of you are aware but the vast majority of McDonalds are franchises with individual owners; people like you and me who decide to start up their own restaurant business and decide to team up with a major corporation like McDonalds.


If I get food poisoning from a certain McDonalds I can certainly sue the individual franchisee owner, and I may or may not win.


I can also choose to sue McDonalds itself and I may or may not win. If I do win, you can bet your ass McDonalds will turn around and blast the franchisee owner from where the incident occurred and demand reparations. They are usually covered with an indemnity clause which I am sure they have or give them a warning or some sort of punishment or reprimand.


Now lets say 50 people get food poisoning but this time from several different McDonalds restaurants owned by several different individuals from several different states all from ordering the same thing around the same time, A McRib around 1st quarter of 2012.


Yes, the afflicted can each sue individually and they may each win or lose. However, because there are several common factors and the incidences are occurred over several states, this no longer becomes just an individual issue. People may join together and say, hey, this is no coincidence, maybe there is something going on higher up in the chain of command. Hence, they may decide to sue McDonalds rather than go through the trouble of going it alone one by one.


They may not realize what the exact issue is 100%, but they do know one common denominator, it happened at a McDonalds.


Likewise, sure you can choose to blame poor workmanship, or cutting corners by each individual dealer, however when the issue is affecting a certain make and model, year, after a specific recall workmanship, with almost the exact same results, across several states, I believe the arguments become easier to attack.


Bad instructions from Toyota?
Lack of warnings from Toyota?
Insufficient training from Toyota?
Bad internal communication and follow up when the first vehicles started blowing?
Ignoring the issue altogether?
Negligence?
Design Flaw that is bypassed/fixed another way?


The angle of attack is not set in stone, they just need to prove one. Also the argument of incorrect party is weak because a lawsuit doesn't only have to include a single party, it can encompass all dealers, or have some sort of blanket party for anyone representing Toyota as well.

[SPCorBUST]

I need to do the recall, this is blocking my vehicle registration.

I've got a fully built motor and don't want the inferior parts or unnecessary work being done.

In the absence of said work, I'm not able to register or drive the vehicle on public roads again, ever.

Given the prior replacement - this work seems waiver-able? Or reimbursement-able? If not, then it seems class action-able? Because I can't be the only one in this boat... If theres a separate thread for people like me, someone please lmk.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by SPCorBUST

In the absence of said work, I'm not able to register or drive the vehicle on public roads again, ever..

I know this doesn't help but this also isn't exactly true. You can register and drive the car, just not in California.

I absolutely agree you should be able to get a waiver. All you "should" have to do is provide Toyota with the information about what springs have been replaced and when, and with what. Based on the recall they "should" mark your car as repaired and may even provide you some refund of the cost.

Have you talked to a dealer, or to Toyota?

[SPCorBUST]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I know this doesn't help but this also isn't exactly true. You can register and drive the car, just not in California.



I absolutely agree you should be able to get a waiver. All you "should" have to do is provide Toyota with the information about what springs have been replaced and when, and with what. Based on the recall they "should" mark your car as repaired and may even provide you some refund of the cost.



Have you talked to a dealer, or to Toyota?

I'm not a resident of anywhere but California, so unless I plan to move or another state allows vehicle registration for non-residents (open to hearing about that) then no I would not be able to drive it again, ever.

I have spoken with three Subaru dealerships, Subaru of America, and Subaru Corporate. Haven't spoken to any Toyota dealerships or corporate yet, going by the recall language it seems like I need to go through Subaru, but it's worth trying Toyota.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by SPCorBUST

I need to do the recall, this is blocking my vehicle registration.

I've got a fully built motor and don't want the inferior parts or unnecessary work being done.

In the absence of said work, I'm not able to register or drive the vehicle on public roads again, ever.

Given the prior replacement - this work seems waiver-able? Or reimbursement-able? If not, then it seems class action-able? Because I can't be the only one in this boat... If theres a separate thread for people like me, someone please lmk.

The parts are not "inferior" in any way. It is the work performed by some dealers that is inferior. People have not been very upfront about how early in the program they had the recall work that failed completed but I would bet that many were the early jobs. This is high enough profile now that you are probably safe to have the work done since the dealerships don't want to deal with issues anymore than the customers do.
If you had the springs done when you had the engine built you may have some way to get it signed off. I would talk to who built it. If you did it yourself I doubt that there is anything you can do but have the recall work done.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by SPCorBUST

I'm not a resident of anywhere but California, so unless I plan to move or another state allows vehicle registration for non-residents (open to hearing about that) then no I would not be able to drive it again, ever...

Yea I get that, I just didn't want to leave the potentially unclear impression for those outside CA that the restriction applied to them.

It's a (very) gray area but you could potentially register the car with an address outside the state if you have a relative living somewhere else. You would need to provide a power of attorney to the person registering the car. I did that for a car I owned but was being used by my son in NC. This avoided the issue of emissions inspection where I live.

Before I went through all that though, I'd probably just have the work done even if I had already replaced the springs. Maybe you could get the dealer to do an inspection that proves you no longer have the recalled springs in the car. It really is about the springs, so they only have to be replaced if they are the defective ones.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by killmequickly

Been lurking this thread a while now, I am one of those affected by the recall with a spun rod and a 7k potential bill. I would like to add my 50 cents.

Thank you for an excellent contribution. I wish the best for all those caught up in this expensive mess.