• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About DB1

  • Rank
  1. You are attributing words to me that I have never said and positions I have never taken. Please stop.
  2. urconscience, you said "PS. That April 27th article I quoted that was dismissed as irrelevant?? I wrote it!!" Are you saying you wrote the article that you introduced with "I came across another excellent tutorial on sludge--it's worthy of a read, plus it further underscores my contention that education is probably the 'real solution' to the sludge issue"? That is just plain weird that you reference something you wrote yourself in this manner. Of course something you wrote would underscore your own beliefs. A little heavy on the ego, too, describing something you wrote as "an excellent tutorial". To each his own. But if you are quoting something you wrote yourself then I don't think you need to acutally present it as a quote giving the impression someone else wrote it.
  3. Well, Ellis, IMO that is informative, if nothing else it tells you what you need to look for if you think you have sludge ----1. smoke from tailpipe, 2. excessive loss of oil, and 3. malfuncition indicator light on.
  4. Quote from the 2005 San diego paper article in your links. Looks like you can get Toyota to pay for a sludged Toyota not covered under policy: "Some sludge victims have resorted to more intriguing methods to get satisfaction. After fighting Toyota for six months about a sludged 2003 Corolla with 26,000 miles, Mazie Passeri vowed to picket the local dealership and drive the car with the words Toyota Sludgemobile painted on it. Within days, the claim to rebuild the engine was authorized. "I will never buy another Toyota," said Passeri, of Jacksonville, Fla. "The funny thing is, the car trouble itself never shook my confidence in Toyota. It was Toyota's poor customer service and their unwillingness to accept responsibility and make things right that did it." "
  5. There were definintely some of the Toyota models prone to sludge. That is why there is a Sludge Policy that is specific to certain models and model years. If they weren't prone to sludge, there would be no policy or there would be a policy that included all models. Also, MSN Autos reports that the respective models have "significant" engine problems which include sludge. With most vehicles, you are not going to get sludge if you change the oil as recommended by the manufacturer. That is not the case with the subject models and model years. tashirosgt, Yes, it will "appear" that your engine level is low but you will have no noticeable leaks. The oil is still there, just in solid form. You will also see smoke coming out of your exhaust when you first start the car.
  6. Toyota's sludge policy is for those who have changed their oil at the recommended intervals and still developed engine sludge. Toyota will provide free repair and loaner car if you can prove you did the proper maintenance. I was able to benefit from this policy by showing that I had changed my oil properly and still developed sludge. It was like pulling teeth to get Toyota to compensate me. They are not very eager to honor the policy.
  7. Toyota recommended 5000/7500 mile oil changes on older models depending on driving conditions (5000 on newer regardless of driving conditions). There have been reports that these intervals are too long for these engines and that 3,000 mile oil changes are more appropriate. So I would say DON'T follow Toyota's recommendations - use the tried and true 3000 mile interval to play it safe.
  8. regarding Corolla sludge, quite a few complaints of sludged Corollas on the Autosafety site at Never understood why Toyota did not include all models under their sludge policy and why it was limited to certain years. You have to prove proper maintenance to be covered, so it is def. something Toyo should take care of when sludge occurs with proper oil changes.
  9. I have been looking and all I can find is the statement from Toyota that they received in the neighborhood of 3,000 "complaints". prior to February 2002. I wouldn't go as far as categorizing it as "fact" because it is coming from a Toyota PR person. Knowing how public relations works, it was carefully crafted word-smithing that led to the use of the word "complaint". This is not a failure rate, but Toyota latched onto it as such. It is no more than the number of complaints received at the Toyota customer service center over two and a half years ago. Failures have continued after Feb.-2002 and would raise that number of complaints (and failures) but the number of affected vehicles sold would remain relatively unchanged (I concede that there may have been some unmodified 2002 models still on the lots that could have modestly raised the numbers sold). Even if you go out on a limb and do a SWAG using the 3200 number as a rate of failure, this would have been as of Feb. 2002, and would not reflect a failure rate or number of complaints as of Sept. 2004. I have also found much information on continuing problems with sludge also. Even the website considers this to be a significant engine problem in the covered models. Other websites with valuable information include (you can look at the Toyota sludge announcement as well as individual complaints on Toyota models), where there is a list 60 pages long of sludge complaints, the site Toyota Owners Unite for Resolution, Better yet, go to and search for "Toyota sludge".
  10. Please, show me those "facts" (and make them current, please, not some 2 yr old data from Toyota PR before they made the problem public)
  11. The sludge topic seems to stir up some angry emotions in people. It can get nasty - at least it has on other sites - without a moderator controlling it. I appreciate the efforts of the moderator to keep this site civil, but I just wish it didn't mean closing down a whole discussion. Sigh.
  12. Here is a link to the Automotive News article in 2002 that mentioned the 3000 complaints. That number was in 2002 before Toyota even sent out the 3.3 million (wow!) letters letting people know about the problem. I can't find any updates on the numbers.
  13. I don't understand why everything "sludge" gets closed or gets moved to another discussion forum. Can't the moderators just warn those who are misbehaving and then ban them if they don't comply? I thought the closed discussion was going along quite well for the most part.
  14. No Sludge!

    Cherry128 - You are right, it has to be something Toyota has done differently from the other makes. Not only would it be a difference between Toyota and other makes as you pointed out, but between Toyota models. Why would a 2000 Camry which is covered under the engine sludge policy have this problem and not a 2000 Tacoma? I guess it could be that the other models have the problem too, but to a lesser degree so we don't hear about it as much. I have seen reports of sludge in several models not under policy like the Corolla and Matrix. DB
  15. No Sludge!

    Dave -- A friend of mine who is a Firestone technician says he mostly sees the problem in the Sienna (could be regional?). He thinks it is heat related, but more in regards to the location/placement of the engine than the engine itself. But he did say auto manufacturers increase the running temperature to meet emission standards, so it could all be part of the equation. DB