Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcoat
Proof of oil changes is all well and good if there was still oil in the engine. This goes way beyond proving that the oil was changed.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mav1178
The problem is this: there is a quart of oil left in the engine.
If I went to a tire shop for new tires, ran the tires for 50,000 miles, had low tire pressure for 10k and ran it without checking the pressures periodically, and the tire sidewall blew out... do I just take my receipt of the tire change at the shop and seek reimbursement/legal relief just because I changed it at an authorized shop?
Maybe the tire shop screwed up installing the valve stem... that caused the low pressure. But it doesn't take away from the fact that to get to 1 quart in the engine, you need to 1) burn the oil away, or 2) have it physically leak (out) somewhere. Obviously we can rule out faulty oil changes since that's highly unlikely, but my point is that there's a dipstick in the engine bay for a reason, and to get to 1 quart tells me that dipstick was not used in the proper manner.
Now try that in a court of law, and it will shoot holes in the claim that is very hard to go around.
|
According to OP, Toyota's inspection concluded there wasn't any evidence of leaks or burning oil. My assumption was the spun bearing resulted in a hole in the block or pan and the oil escaped during failure. Why would Toyota tear down a motor that had a contained rod bearing failure, and not simply point to 1 quart being recovered as evidence of neglect? That's literally all they had to say. Instead they said that there wasn't any evidence of leaks or burning, but lack of lubrication caused the failure. If that's true, then Toyota put themselves into a bad spot for defending their warranty denial (assuming OP has oil change evidence). OP needs to clarify a few details.