Prado Engine Mount Failure

Yes I consider that quite low especially for a 2005 build. I have seen plenty with 300k + motoring along nicely.

165 isn't even warmed up yet on a toyota. As for toyota being expensive blah blah blah, what ever mate, this guy is asking for help not for a toyota bashing. If it was such a common thread why would toyota outsell every other brand by nearly double the second place getter?
Tim

Cheers Ron.

I believe the active mounts were only on diesel models.

On mine, the rubber mount seems to be fine. It looks like the weld to the chassis has just failed.

I have found old threads from other forums of this happening and it seems to be a real hit and miss incident with early V6 120 Prado's.

Owners got them repaired under warranty. Some had to jump up and down a bit. But as you say, I might be out of luck considering the age. I will contact Toyota service tomorrow and see what they say.

I do recall Toyota quality control falling over and the big public grovel. Maybe I can refer to that?

Beach40 - Anything that gets you some free repairs is worth a try. [:-)

After many years of owning many brands of equipment, I've found the "warranty" system works like this ...

1. You go into the managers office and complain bitterly about a much-earlier-than-expected failure.

2. The manager immediately tells you your warranty expired long ago - and that you're the only one having this problem, so it must be the result of abuse.

3. You start to raise your voice and advise the manager that you can produce a long list of similar complaints and where warranty repairs were done, well after warranty finished.

4. Manager refuses to consider your claim point-blank, telling you your breakage is "fair-wear-and-tear".

5. You raise your voice much louder, adopt a physically-larger presence by puffing yourself up, and ensure you're standing in a higher spot than the manager, to gain the physically-intimidating, "standing-over-the-other-person" position.

6. You threaten to contact Consumer Affairs, write to Toyota Headquarters, and get in touch with "Today Tonight" producers.
You state forcibly that the unsatisfactory performance of the vehicle, and the even less-satisfactory customer service of this particular dealer will seriously affect your future purchase decisions - and also result in much bad-mouthing of Toyota, at every chance you get in the future.

7. Manager agrees to re-consider your case, but has to O.K. it with Toyota Australia chiefs.

8. You agree in a conciliatory tone, that this is a more satisfactory approach to a problem that is causing angst to you both, and you wish to see it resolved without resorting to litigation.

9. You leave the premises on good terms and a week later, Toyota send you an offer to carry out some repairs at their cost.

This is pretty much standard fare of how you get any success with poor performance complaints - and no matter who or what company it is, they all adopt the same attitude and technique.

As a mate once said, "to get yourself into the right frame of mind to discuss a potential warranty claim, slam your door on your hand, and then go into the managers office" ... [;-)

Good luck, let us know the result.

Cheers, Ron.

At Stage 5 you would have been asked to leave our premises.

Thanks Ron. I have been thinking thats pretty much how it will go. I need to have all the relevant responses, letters, etc lined up before I meet with said manager.

Anyone have contact details for Toyota Australia?

Shaker - does that mean your premises sticks with no.2?

I think i would have to agree with SHAKER on this one.

Don't come and HARASS/BULLY me in my workplace on an issue that is 5 years out of warranty.
I'm guessing your Prado has been super reliable and not cost you barely a cent except regular maintenance, grow up and cough up!

QUOTE: "Shaker - does that mean your premises sticks with no.2?"

Not necessarily, it means that civility & reason go a lot further!

How long do you expect Toyota to hold your hand for?
Google will find Toyota's contact details.

When I had my 'discussion' with Toyota over the dashboard cracking fiasco, I eventually had to talk Sydney as they were the closest office to me.
Letters etc that went to Melbourne, including a summons from the CTTT, were ignored.

So I would expect that each capital city may have an office that deals with that state's problems.

bill

"QUOTE: "Shaker - does that mean your premises sticks with no.2?"

Not necessarily, it means that civility & reason go a lot further!

How long do you expect Toyota to hold your hand for?
Google will find Toyota's contact details."

Shaker - Be sure to let us know when you intend on using this civility and reason that you preach so much about.

You're pbviously just another classic keyboard hero along with TTTSA.

Shaker & TTTSA - My post (802634) was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I've never gone into any managers office with an intention to bully and harrass.

However, you'd surely have to admit, that positions (2.) & (4.) are just the standard reply to all warranty queries - and that many people, myself included, have become angry, and raised our voices, and got into heated arguments over warranty issues, when we are;

1. Treated like mushrooms.
2. Given "standard refusal" replies, that refuse to even accept the slightest responsibility for any mechanical problem, when its patently obvious, that there IS a major problem, that is not confined to just my vehicle.
3. Not treated with honesty, nor given our due consumer rights - which extend past set warranty periods, when a vehicle doesn't meet acceptable perfomance and reliability standards.

America has "lemon" laws, relating to vehicles, which came about because angry consumers had to resort to litigation and institute consumer protection legislation - all because car manufacturers refused point-blank to accept that they DID often produce vehicles that did not perform to acceptable levels.

We buy 4WD's to go 4W-driving. They aren't blacktop shopping trolleys, that never see the city limits signposts.
As a result, a 4WD owner expects, and should get, a 4WD that performs satisfactorily and reliably, under 4WD conditions, for a acceptable length of time, that extends well past the standard miserable warranty period.
Consumer law in Australia backs this belief up.

It took years for Toyota to admit that they had a problem with QC. It took litigation in the U.S. to make them admit it and do something about it.
If Toyota had stepped in earlier, with pro-active action towards QC problems - then it would have cost them a lot less money, and enabled them to avoid the tarnish that now stains their name.

Cheers, Ron.

We are talking about an 8 year old vehicle, that is FIVE years OUT OF WARRANTY here.
This would not appear to be a warranty issue at 8 yrs after purchase.

@ beach40, don't know how you come to your conclusion that i am a keyboard hero.

Simply stated that harassing and bullying someone is no way to win votes.

I have personally had great results with warranty issues with Toyota, while I was covered by warranty of course.

Regards
KEYBOARD HERO.

Ron, I hear what you say about 4wds are made for off road, but what we lose sight of is, that as soon as modify them with suspension lifts, snorkels to increase wading depths & hang winches off the front, we are enabling the vehicle to exceed its design limits.

Beach 40, as far as being a keyboard hero, I think not, I have told many people to their face exactly what I have I have said to you here. You haven't even mentioned if you are the original owner & can vouch for its history.

So Shaker it turns out you're a big mouth know it all that shoots his mouth off without bothering to seek facts first.

Your little mate is also a self styled expert on anything and everything.

Fortunately there are still a few on this site that know how to conduct themselves like civilised grown ups.

Shaker, I understand where you're coming from - and obviously, as a dealer, you would be rightfully obliged to reject warranty claims where a vehicle has been substantially modified outside manufacturers recommendations - and where it has also been used outside its designed parameters - as in rock-climbing, for example.

However, it appears that many Toyotas do have numerous faults appearing in recent times, that can be slated directly back to poor QC in the early 2000's. It often takes several years for poor QC to show up.

These poor QC problems are showing up in vehicles that haven't been seriously modified, and which haven't been abused.
As such - and seeing as Toyota has admitted to poor QC in a number of areas - I believe Toyota needs to adopt a better approach to handling complaints where a vehicle has not met expected, "reasonable durability" levels.

Cheers, Ron.

Thanks Ron, at least you can be civil, I have no idea what I did to deserve the personal attack from the OP.
Firstly, after 18 years in the retail side of the industry I am no longer involved.
I don't disagree with you at all, but I think after 8 years it is stretching it somewhat, the OP hasn't even declared if he is the original owner.
I also have a Prado 120 series which broke the main bonnet catch out of the underside of the bonnet, it didn't even cross my mind to expect Toyota to attend to the problem, the vehicle is also newer than the one in this thread.

Thank you contributors, perhaps we could all have a Bex and a lie down. This may help you keep it confined to the topic without this degenerating into a slagging contest.

Could we offer some advice that posters have a think about how THEIR DELIVERY may be RECEIVED.

Thank you for assisting in maintaining the standards that so many want to see on the site.


Cheers,


The Squad

Capt Wrongway - And if it's not a common problem, then why should beach40 be expected to wear the cost of the repair, now?

It's obviously a QC failure in the manufacture his vehicle (a robot weld failed to reach the required QC level, but slipped through, anyway - that's unacceptable!) - and as such, Toyota should wear at least 50% of the repair cost, as the weld has failed halfway through the vehicles life.

Cheers, Ron.

I'm sorry Ron, I may not have expressed myself well. At no point in my comment did I suggest that beach40 should not approach Toyota on this. What I should have said was .... after approaching Toyota and being rejected on a "long out of warranty claim", it should be an easy fix if the chassis is not damaged.
In a perfect world all vehicle manufactures should stand by their product after the warranty expires if it is a manufacturing fault. Unfortunately that just does not happen and it would be extremely difficult to prove after such a long time period. I to feel for beach40 and a few of my friends who suffered dash and inner guard cracking during warranty and after, with no satisfaction from Toyota.


* Note : on my first post my 03 120 did 275,000k not 175,000k, without a single problem.

Capt.

Winner W - I've been involved with warranty claims since 1966, as a business person - and in recent years, as a consumer. So I have a little experience.

Consumer law as regards warranties in Australia covers more than just the written warranties.
There are two important additional terms under consumer warranty laws - "fitness for purpose" and "acceptable quality". These are implied and not subject to any statutory written warranty.

A person buying a quality 4WD - even used - reasonably expects that the product is durable enough for all normal accepted uses, and is fit for the purpose for which it was designed - four-wheel driving on unsealed roads.

I would consider it reasonable, that if I purchased a Prado, I would expect to be able to drive that Prado to the end of its design life (approx 15 yrs and 300,000kms, say), without the chassis or any of its attachments cracking or breaking off.
I would expect that chassis cracks or broken attachments would appear at the END of its design life.

In beach40's case, he's got a Prado that is effectively only halfway through its designed life, and an engine mount bracket has broken off.

Unless Toyota can prove that the damage has been caused by abuse or by use in conditions for which it was never designed - then I personally, would fully expect that Toyota should at least come to the party with a 50-50 split on the repairs to the broken engine mount.

Here's the copy of consumer law on motor vehicles, it should be compulsory reading for all.
Pages 3 to 11 covers the area we're discussing, and the chart on page 11 is clear.

http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/acl_resources/downloads/industry_guides/motor_vehicle_sales.pdf

Cheers, Ron.