Failure After J02 Recall - Discussion Threads

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Opie

Subaru/Toyota identified a potential defect/failure, engineered a step by step repair for it that is provided to the dealerships/technicians and is covering 100% the cost of the correction on vehicles, what more should Subaru/Toyota do?

For such a labor intensive job (for the average shop tech) Toyota and Subie did not provide adequate compensation time for completing this job carefully in the very beginning of the recall. Many of the problems after the recall was first issued (in addition to misapplication of sealant) were due to a bunch of techs rushing things to get under the billable time constraint for warranty work. As techs became more familiar with the process they could have revised down the amount of time designated for the recall repair. Some techs will always rush and be sloppy no matter what, but this likely would have helped with several of the first recalls performed which resulted in problems for owners.

[Opie]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

For such a labor intensive job (for the average shop tech) Toyota and Subie did not provide adequate compensation time for completing this job carefully in the very beginning of the recall. Many of the problems after the recall was first issued (in addition to misapplication of sealant) were due to a bunch of techs rushing things to get under the billable time constraint for warranty work. As techs became more familiar with the process they could have revised down the amount of time designated for the recall repair. Some techs will always rush and be sloppy no matter what, but this likely would have helped with several of the first recalls performed which resulted in problems for owners.

This may be true in Toyota's case as I don't have access to their repair information or their warranty time paid, but in Subaru's case, they pay plenty of time for the tech to perform the repair properly, and their time has not changed since the recall was released.

And again, quality issues due to a technician trying to "beat" the billable time isn't really either Toyota or Subaru's fault unless the time allowed was was too little to reasonably complete the repair. In Subaru's case the repair pays the technician 12.5 hours (almost 2 days of work).

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Opie

This may be true in Toyota's case as I don't have access to their repair information or their warranty time paid, but in Subaru's case, they pay plenty of time for the tech to perform the repair properly, and their time has not changed since the recall was released.

And again, quality issues due to a technician trying to "beat" the billable time isn't really either Toyota or Subaru's fault unless the time allowed was was too little to reasonably complete the repair. In Subaru's case the repair pays the technician 12.5 hours (almost 2 days of work).

Yeah, I should have said for Toyota techs who are not used to tearing down flat fours and reassembling them. The Subie techs should have already built the experience previously.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

Yeah, I should have said for Toyota techs who are not used to tearing down flat fours and reassembling them. The Subie techs should have already built the experience previously.

My understanding is the mechanic failures have nothing to do with it being a flat four, but with the use of sealant rather than a gasket. Most other flat fours use gaskets, hence no problem but also the same problem is as likely on the Subie side as the Toyota side. It's just Toyota had the lion's share of the first year's production.

[killmequickly]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Subaru is in no way obligated to step in and cover the dealership's screw ups. Everybody needs to understand the separation between the dealer and Subaru. Just because they sell their cars it does not make them the same company.

I just have to point out as I have before that these statements are not entirely correct.

Yes they are definitely separate entities, but there is definitely a mutual relationship which also means there is some level of obligation between the two. Relationships such as these, much like any other business franchise such as restaurants, service, etc. are a two way street. Like McDonals, State Farm Insurance, and any other franchise you can think of.

Most people don't realize that all these franchises are also separate entities because they see a big McDonalds sign or a big State Farm Insurance sign but in reality they are individually owned by a separate legal entity made by a regular person like you and me who wants to own their own business.

So let us pose these question:

If dealerships have been blowing engines because of shitty workmanship who is at fault?

If dealerships have been blowing engines because they were not properly trained who is at fault?

If dealerships have been blowing engines because they were given an ok on a particular training program when it was realized later that the program was not adequate enough or fully addressed problems who is at fault?

If dealerships have been blowing engines because they were given inadequate information or not enough information who is at fault?

If dealerships have been blowing engines because of overzealous sealant usage, then the manufacturer steps in to update (twice) and emphasize sealant issues in both the training manual and with a reiteration of the sealant placement diagram and future issues almost completely stop, who is at fault?

Did the manufacture not specify enough information about the sealant itself?, the properties of the sealant?, the sealant usage?, was this emphasized in training?, did the manufacture know beforehand the dangers of too much sealant?, to what extent?, was this information shared before the last update to the manual?

After answering these honestly, I think you will realize that just because a franchisee is a separate entity from the franchisor one can be held liable for problems seemingly occurring from the other depending on the situation.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by killmequickly

I just have to point out as I have before that these statements are not entirely correct....

Not sure I agree with you. First, I don't know a single person that doesn't understand car dealerships are not owned by the manufacturer. Heck, 99% of the time the owner's name is on the sign outside. In addition competing advertisements between dealerships makes it clear that "Joe's Subaru" and "Mary's Subaru" are two very distinct organizations both claiming they are better than the other.

That is completely different from, say, McDonald's where there is no indication of the ownership, except maybe on a small sign in the building, and the advertisements or all corporate level. In addition, in these types of franchises the location is a "manufacturing or co-manufacturing site" more than a "sell an end product" site.

In each of the questions you asked, to me except for maybe one or two, the answer is the "the dealership or its employee". Even in the case where there was additional instructions/training provided by Toyota/Subaru it was clarification of the proper technique but my understanding it was not a change to the proper technique given in the original documentation.

The original instructions didn't say "put gobs of compound all over the engine and don't worry about it falling into the ports". It was more the later instructions said, "OK, you guys are doing this right, let me clarify"

[killmequickly]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

except for maybe one or two

This is the exact point I was trying to make. Even if you answered "yes" or even "maybe" to even one of those question it shows that there is a probability that the burden and liability can be pinned on the manufacturer even when it seems the dealership are the ones blowing things up.

As for the 99% of times, that is a flat out inflated number. Type "Toyota Dealer" and your "City" or any other manufacturer into google maps.

Here are the top returns that google came up with when I typed "toyota dealership houston", I invite you to do the same with any manufacture and city:

1. Toyota of Alvin (Alvin is the name of the locality)
2. Classic Toyota Galveston (Another locality)
3. Community Toyota
4. Sterling Mccall Toyota
5. Tejas Toyota
6. AutoNation Toyota Gulf Freeway
7. Mac Haik Toyota
8. Toyota Center (A sports center arena)
9. Gulf Coast Toyota (Another locality)
10. Demontrond Hyundai
11. Toyota of Katy (Another locality)
12. Joe Myers Toyota

As you can clearly see, about half the dealers in houston are very ambiguous using either the locality or a vague name like "community" or "tejas" (spanish for Texas). One could say these dealers are trying to obfuscate the fact that they are different from the manufacturer in order to retain a certain aspect of trust and confidence in the consumers.

As for "I don't know a single person...", I personally know a few that didn't know the difference and there are many that are susceptible, such as the elderly who are still able to drive, foreigners, immigrants or the newly immigrated, people whom English is not their first language, teenagers and new drivers, and believe it or not women especially those who are lower income or disadvantaged. Some knew they were different entities but believed that they had the full backing and support of the manufacturer, like some sort of venture or partnership.

TLDR, by answering yes to even one of those questions you have proven my point that it can be argued that manufacturers can be held liable for issues that seem to be dealer caused. Also, dealers try their best to represent the manufacture which they are franchised to, and they are in fact a franchise just like McDonalds, the difference is the dealer franchise agreement probably stipulates that they may not use ONLY the manufacturers name on their business' building, but must include the manufacturer name along with other words, whereas the franchise agreement with McDonalds probably says "you MUST place 'McDonalds' ONLY on your building with no other wording".

[humfrz]

(where did @Tcoat run off to?)




humfrz

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by killmequickly

This is the exact point I was trying to make. ...

As I said, even in those one or two cases it was a qualified "manufacturer" answer, but from what I can tell most of their response has been to either help the owner with the dealer, or to clarify instructions that were not being followed properly. The dealer or its representative still made the error.

I liken it to an HVAC company with an authorized Trane sticker on the side of their truck, inadvertently blowing up the condenser in my AC when working on it. It would expect the HVAC company to fix it, not Trane.

99% was hyperbole to prove a point, and I didn't think anyone would take it as fact. Again, all dealerships have some type of identifier in them. There are no US Toyota dealers named "Toyota", where there are no McDonald's named "Joe's McDonalds" or "McDonalds of Burgerville". I also think most reasonable people know the difference between dealer and manufacturer, and if they don't understand it once it is explained.

As far as the rest, well, I guess we'll agree to disagree. We aren't going to be able convince the other differently anyway.

[nos145]

Possible failure about 750km after recall work done.
Knock noise coming from engine bay at start and low rpm.

Car at dealer. Will know more this week.

Quoting the dealer: "the knocking seems to be coming from bottom end, we did work on top end, if we diagnose and it isn't related to our issue, you will have to pay for everything".

Going to read every page of this thread to see how other people made the dealers pay up.

So far my understanding is that the pickup lines get plugged with excessive sealant.

Nice start to 2020

[killmequickly]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

99% was hyperbole to prove a point

Your blanket statement "99% of the time the owner's name is on the sign outside" indeed was an exaggeration, but it did not prove any point as far as I can tell, besides exposing the total opposite as truth.

We'll agree to disagree, however a yes with a qualifier is still and arguable yes. The argument here is not whether the dealer made the error or not. We know the dealer made the error. The question is, can the manufacturer be held liable for an error that the dealer made. In this case, can the manufacturer be held liable for damages cause by the dissemination or lack thereof of information or training.

The answer to that is of course, yes.

The fact of the matter is, all the information is internal between the dealer and the manufacturer and you nor I know what each of them knows between them so we cannot make the judgement. Toyota will never admit that they knew there was a problem or that information was not given adequately or that they knew there was a lack of training. However there is a possibility that we can plausibly place liability on the manufacturer. Whether or not it goes through is up to a judge. Ergo, a Yes with a qualifier is still an arguable Yes.

I am glad you brought up the HVAC example because I am in fact a control systems engineer by trade and have worked with HVAC retailers, sub contractors, integrator, and the manufacturers.

The problem with your analogy is HVAC manufacturers are able to sell directly to customers (if they so choose), through other retail channels, and to integrators (like myself) and sub contractors.

Because of this there is no direct Franchise for HVAC manufacturer like there is for car dealers. In that industry everyone knows there are people who make AC units and people who sell and work on AC units. There is a clear distinction. There is no Trane of Katy.

Car manufacturers for the exception of Tesla are barred by law to sell directly to consumers so their only channel is through a direct dealer (for brand new cars).

You don't need to say "Toyota" in order to confuse people. Toyota of Katy is enough to have people mistaken, and it routinely does. I'm sure there is a reason why they are unable to say "Toyota" only whether it is a clause in the franchise agreement or a statute by law. That doesn't remove the fact that people do and are mistaken into thinking the two are synonymous. Many people know the difference, but not everyone does. That is a fact.

[Opie]

Originally Posted by nos145

Possible failure about 750km after recall work done.
Knock noise coming from engine bay at start and low rpm.

Car at dealer. Will know more this week.

Quoting the dealer: "the knocking seems to be coming from bottom end, we did work on top end, if we diagnose and it isn't related to our issue, you will have to pay for everything".

Going to read every page of this thread to see how other people made the dealers pay up.

So far my understanding is that the pickup lines get plugged with excessive sealant.

Nice start to 2020

Contact their garage liability immediately, before they tear it down and conceal anything they may, or may not have, done. If Canada has garage liability insurance...

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by nos145

Possible failure about 750km after recall work done.
Knock noise coming from engine bay at start and low rpm.

Car at dealer. Will know more this week.

Quoting the dealer: "the knocking seems to be coming from bottom end, we did work on top end, if we diagnose and it isn't related to our issue, you will have to pay for everything".

Going to read every page of this thread to see how other people made the dealers pay up.

So far my understanding is that the pickup lines get plugged with excessive sealant.

Nice start to 2020

I'm sorry to hear about this...they likely screwed up, don't let them play games with you

[RickyBobby]

We can go back and forth playing the blame game ad nauseum.

I posted this awhile back. Don't know how accurate the numbers are today but even if they are a bit higher I'm still not getting the recall done. Especially here in TN where there are not many Toyota dealerships and I rarely see a FRS or BRZ on the road. http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...&postcount=740

Outside of CA where it has to be done, given the odds, I'm still a bit baffled why others are getting it done, unless your car needs other work too, i.e., new plugs, TOB, oil leaks, high mileage, or something else.

Hopefully those whose engines are toast due to the recall will get the issue resolved.

Anyone hear anything about how the class action suit is going??