Potential Cause of rumored GR86’s blown engine? Seal packing(RTV) was peeled off

[Teseo]

Originally Posted by Blighty

They also say aggressive driving isnt covered as well (or something along those lines).

While there may well be some relevance to the track driving the would stand up in court (though its debatable even then IMO and worth a challenge), for just driving it hard I do wonder if they have a leg to stand on when they are the ones that set the rev limit and control the load via the ECU. So long as you don't do a money shift (and have OEM spec parts and fluids) I cannot see how driving the car hard every day of the year (and sticking to a increased service schedule as per the manual) would be grounds for dismissing a warranty.

It's a sportcar, they will assume the car was driven hard. Thats why the warranty is denied as soon you enter in the parking lot.

[VoltsFRS2013]

Originally Posted by Blighty

They also say aggressive driving isnt covered as well (or something along those lines).

While there may well be some relevance to the track driving the would stand up in court (though its debatable even then IMO and worth a challenge), for just driving it hard I do wonder if they have a leg to stand on when they are the ones that set the rev limit and control the load via the ECU. So long as you don't do a money shift (and have OEM spec parts and fluids) I cannot see how driving the car hard every day of the year (and sticking to a increased service schedule as per the manual) would be grounds for dismissing a warranty.

What do you consider "aggressive" driving, and where have you heard this. Because I'm sniffing out some bullshit.

Yes, If the car is on track and or they check the black box and you're constantly banging the vehicle off redline, constantly not letting the engine warm up, sure. I could see where they would have an argument against you for a warranty denial.

On the flip, if you do you maintenance preventively and document EVERYTHING, allow the vehicle to always warm up properly and drive the car like it's meant to be driven off the track and something does go wrong they better be honoring their warranty.

You can drive spiritedly and "aggressive" on the street and on back roads and still be plenty within designed operating parameters.

I just recently went up to my local mountain range before It got cold here and went on a "aggressive" spirited drive in the car and only once did the car go touch 6,500 RPM. (This is where my shift buzzer is set)

If the car failed, and they tried to make the argument that i was driving it with negligence and beyond it's designed parameters I'd be asking why the vehicle still had 1,500 - 2,000 revs left on my tachometer. This car is not a racecar and your warranty will not be honored if you treat it like so. You can't play that game and expect it to always work out in your favor. But again, there is a very provable and identifiable line between driver negligence and driving your car spiritedly and responsibly.

This could be a controversial opinion as well, but if you're buying this car to take it to a racetrack every weekend and then you want to cry when your motor goes out and Toyota isn't honoring your warranty you've done nothing but shoot yourself in the foot. If your twin is your racecar, you should take into consideration the very possible possibility of things going south and you needing to have that money to front when it does.

You quite literally need to pay to play. This is a street consumer sports car. Not a cup car, not a race car.

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by VoltsFRS2013

What do you consider "aggressive" driving, and where have you heard this. Because I'm sniffing out some bullshit.

Yes, If the car is on track and or they check the black box and you're constantly banging the vehicle off redline, constantly not letting the engine warm up, sure. I could see where they would have an argument against you for a warranty denial.

On the flip, if you do you maintenance preventively and document EVERYTHING, allow the vehicle to always warm up properly and drive the car like it's meant to be driven off the track and something does go wrong they better be honoring their warranty.

You can drive spiritedly and "aggressive" on the street and on back roads and still be plenty within designed operating parameters.

I just recently went up to my local mountain range before It got cold here and went on a "aggressive" spirited drive in the car and only once did the car go touch 6,500 RPM. (This is where my shift buzzer is set)

If the car failed, and they tried to make the argument that i was driving it with negligence and beyond it's designed parameters I'd be asking why the vehicle still had 1,500 - 2,000 revs left on my tachometer. This car is not a racecar and your warranty will not be honored if you treat it like so. You can't play that game and expect it to always work out in your favor. But again, there is a very provable and identifiable line between driver negligence and driving your car spiritedly and responsibly.

This could be a controversial opinion as well, but if you're buying this car to take it to a racetrack every weekend and then you want to cry when your motor goes out and Toyota isn't honoring your warranty you've done nothing but shoot yourself in the foot. If your twin is your racecar, you should take into consideration the very possible possibility of things going south and you needing to have that money to front when it does.

You quite literally need to pay to play. This is a street consumer sports car. Not a cup car, not a race car.

Yeah I mean I agree.

In regards to where I saw that, I think it was in these forums somewhere, probably this thread?

[Spektyr]

I would just point out that it's not the "This car is not a racecar and your warranty will not be honored if you treat it like so" thing is easily misinterpreted.

Race cars don't have warranties. The statement makes it sound like if the car were a race car, treating it like one would be under warranty. But unless there's an exception I don't know about, no one builds race cars that they offer a warranty on.

Additionally, every car is a race car if you race it on a track. Granted, these cars don't meet the requirements of any reputable racing organization as they sit from the dealer, but if you put on the right go-fast-safely parts you can 100% enter these cars in legitimate racing events and 100% void your warranty doing so. Not because it isn't a race car (because at that point it is) but because nobody offers a warranty on race cars.

(Aside: you're probably way outside your insurance coverage as well, unless you notify them and pay a hefty hike in your rates - assuming they'll cover it at all.)

[mycrors7]

the word "Race Car" is a very loose term and should they use that term, the courthouse and lawyers will have TONS of fun with it.

what classifies a car as a "race car" ?
to some people, a ferrari or lamboghini is a racecar simply because its an exotic that goes fast
to others, a racecar is a fully gutted and caged vehicle with full safely equipment, such as the GR Cup Car.
Some can say a racecar is ANY car with a rollcage, bucket seat and harnesses
some people think you need 1000hp and slicks for it to be a racecar

Just drive the car and enjoy it. worry about warranty when it comes time to use it. you know the risks you take by taking your car to the track.

unless they can prove it happened while racing ON the race track, you can always fight it and with enough effort, you will win.

I can drive through local canyons and bang gears for 1hr straight, and should i blow it, im on public roads, driving the car within it's limits. I never raced it or drove it like a "race car"

what's so different about doing the same thing, but cutting it up to 10 minute sessions and doing it on a private piece of land called a "race track"

[Spektyr]

Personally, I believe that the defining line between a sports car, exotic car, or other vehicle designed for speed/performance on the road and a "race car" is the specific application of the race.

A timed competition against other drivers on a closed course.

That nearly always comes with a set of standards (including safety) that must be met. So in order for a car to be a race car it has to be ready to race (or, through simple things like changing wheels/tires/pads, able to be made ready to race.)

We could get into the philosophical "is it a fire extinguisher if it has never extinguished a fire" kind of discussion, but I believe the purest definition of "race car" is simply that it's ready to race.

Spirited driving on a public road, untimed or non-competitive events at a track, and (IMO) even autocross don't a race car make. A race car can certainly do all those things, but they don't have the three critical criteria: racing against other drivers, timed event, closed course.

Drag strip racing would count, but I'd personally call those cars dragsters rather than race cars.

[OkieSnuffBox]

I think defining a race car is pretty easy.

Can you show up to a NASA/SCCA, or other governing body for amateur racing, and pass tech to compete in a wheel-to-wheel race? If you can it's a race car, if not, it's not.

But this means all kinds of things like a roll cage, fixed-back seat, 6-pt harnesses, fire suppression system, etc.

As for the "Dragsters" thing, the NHRA has specific rules about necessary safety equipment based on times.

[Aon]

133 days later (and 157 since the initial failure) and I have the car back. See attached repair order for all the details and parts involved in the repair. I'm still working with Toyota to close out the case and will have more to say afterwards. I've put approximately 400 miles on the car with nothing mechanically troubling so far.

[OkieSnuffBox]

It seems like the noise about this calmed down. I wonder if it's:

A: People buying into the fervor and have now just accepted it might happen.

or

B: it was just for a small run of cars and the problem has since been fixed.

[soundman98]

C: it was never really a big deal, but it just ran it's time through the media circus.

[Blighty]

The only way the RTV issue really gets resolved is through forcing a recall.

If you have had yours inspected, just go to https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem#index to report that foreign matter (gasket material) from the assembly process at the factory was found to be clogging your oil pickup, which has been proven to cause engine starvation and engine failure in certain driving conditions.

Or something like that I guess.

Its the only way.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Blighty

The only way the RTV issue really gets resolved is through forcing a recall.

If you have had yours inspected, just go to https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem#index to report that foreign matter (gasket material) from the assembly process at the factory was found to be clogging your oil pickup, which has been proven to cause engine starvation and engine failure in certain driving conditions.

Or something like that I guess.

Its the only way.

Because the recall on the first gen went so well.................

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by Blighty

The only way the RTV issue really gets resolved is through forcing a recall.

If you have had yours inspected, just go to https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem#index to report that foreign matter (gasket material) from the assembly process at the factory was found to be clogging your oil pickup, which has been proven to cause engine starvation and engine failure in certain driving conditions.

Or something like that I guess.

Its the only way.

Nope. The only way a recall will happen is if engine failures from it become so prevalent that it becomes cheaper to recall 10k+ engines for a repair vs replacing the few engines that actually fail because of it.

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Because the recall on the first gen went so well.................

It went well for me But I somehow think that with the problem being about sealant, somehow I think the mechanics will be on point this time, even the toyota ones! One could only hope.

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

Nope. The only way a recall will happen is if engine failures from it become so prevalent that it becomes cheaper to recall 10k+ engines for a repair vs replacing the few engines that actually fail because of it.

It doesn't require lots of engines to explode, it just requires enough complaints to have the nhtsa ask questions.

How many cars died to valve springs in the US, I know that Toyota (not to single them out) said there was none in Australia when they made the press release about the recall, 6 years after release, and 5 years after it was fixed in the assembly line.

I just think there are so many ways that these companies can get away with not reporting issues during teardowns, would some of the engine failures of Australian cars (there was 30k 86 sold here, not a small number) been due to the valve springs? I think so. Certainly they were aware of the issue very early on, and fixed it, so it seems they just waited until they had reached past the popularity of the car so as to not impact sales significantly.

Look just my opinion, but what can reporting it hurt, does not take long.