Corolla Sludge

  How many people really check the oil level between changes?

 

If the oil light only goes on when the engine is already damaged, isn't that a bad design?

Should a Corolla be using more than one quart between oil changes?

Most important...

If you saw this thread on a Neon board discussing Neons, wouldn't you assume that it was the Neon's fault because all Neons are crap, in your opinion (Paul, at least), even though Neons have not had this problem in general?

Also, what's with the ****umption that because a problem is not widespread, that it doesn't exist? That there can be no manufacturer defect unless everyone has it? Doesn't pass muster...

And 27,000 to 33,000 miles is 6,000 miles which is within Toyota's recommended intervals. If you follow Toyota's recommended maintenance, not some mystical crap that pAsses around on the Internet, your engine should NOT fail like this. Especially without any kind of visible oil leak or blue exhaust plumes. And if you're losing THAT much oil, you SHOULD notice it on the ground or in the air behind you...unless it all came out at once while driving as the result of some sort of catastrophic engine failure. (Like when my wife shifted from drive to reverse in my 1989 Caravan at 65 mph by accident, blowing a seal in the transmission which lost us a BUNCH of fluid all at once, noticeable mainly because it landed on the exhaust! ... hence mAssive blue smoke plume which wouldn't be noticeable otherwise. Oh, yes, and I KNOW if it had been a Toyota it wouldn't have leaked at all    but sorry, no 1989 turbocharged Toyota minivans available.)

Dave,

No one would be happy about a car that burns one quart every 1000 miles, but many car makers claim this is within specifications.

It may not make an owner happy, but if there is a spec that is followed, you don't have much of a legal leg to stand on if that spec is enforced and pretty close to industry norms.

Let's just extrapolate and say there was 1/2 quart of oil in the vehicle. If over 6000 miles three quarts were burned, that is a quart every 2000 miles, if over 4500 miles that is a quart every 1500 miles.

You are right, you probably wouldn't notice that out the tail pipe, nor would you see spark plugs rapidly fouling.

But you would notice it had you checked the oil sometime in the middle of the 6000 miles.

I contend that if you are burning at a slow rate, the only way you will notice it is by checking the dipstick.

If you are burning at a fast rate, you would have fouled spark plugs and other such drivability problems until you get to the "Mother of all Drivability Problems" which is a connecting rod or two hanging out the side of your engine block.

I've asked the guy about the CEL's he had and he says they were for the gas cap or evaporative emissions codes and nothing to worry about. I also asked about leaks, and he said there were no great puddles found under the car, and it doesn't seem like the underside is covered thick with oil.

So it is not illogical to conclude that the oil was not checked frequently enough.

He also admitted that he didn't followup on the 100 mile checkup. That is what kills his case, he was given a recommendation by the dealer and didn't follow up, didn't even open a complaint that the Oil Warning Light he complained about three weeks ago was on again.

If he were rapidly losing oil, wouldn't that light come on again in short order? Wouldn't you go complain that the light was on again if you brought it to their attention before?

I feel sorry for the guy, but I don't think Toyota owes him a new engine.

TB

I don't think that the fact (if it is a fact) that Rahul did not get back to Suburban Toyota at exactly 100 miles is relevant. It was Suburban Toyota where Rahul was told that he had sludge and he was back at Suburban Toyota within 400 - 500 miles. Not 100, so slap his hand, but don't deny him warranty coverage because he took a little longer. It took another 18,000 miles before there was any significant damage and maybe it could have been averted if something had been done earlier.

It would be nearly impossible for me to get my car in by 100 miles after a service visit. I would just have to leave it with Toyota or something. My work involves too much travel and it could be 5 or 7 days before I could get back. If that 100 miles is so critical, it would have been best if Suburban had offered to keep his car for observation rather than request that he get back so quickly.

We can go through a bunch of "could have, would have, should have's" on this situation. It does not erase that Rahul was strapped with a hefty repair bill on a vehicle that was barely (? not sure of this) out of warranty. I am surprised that Toyota did not try to do a little more for him.

As for Rahul, it seems to me that the 51,000 mile failure could be linked to the 33,000 mile discovery of sludge. You would have been definitely still under your drivetrain warranty at 33,000 miles, something else in your favour.

Crusin,

I have the e-mail from him where he says he did not follow up with the recommendation. So I'm not arguing the mileage.

You might make a case that the dealer should have mentioned it, but you have to make the very same case that he should have

brought it up three weeks and 400 or so miles later.

That, combined with the car arriving at the 33K service with a reported 1/2 quart of oil in the pan, and a flashing oil warning light, and

no additional complaint about the same or even similar problem until the engine fails at 51K, makes me skeptical.

TB

While I hate to agree with PC, an overzealous Toyota defender, he is probably right on this one. The 1998 Corolla are notorious for oil loss (as discussed frequently on the old forum). However, the owner here blew it by not checking oil.

This should be a warning for people not monitoring oil as well as people bying used 1998 Corolla.

Oh god, I wrote this and lost it 9sight...rewrting - My response to the followup issue is:

when I got my next oil change at FOX, I asked them if they found anything wrong? they said "nothing wrong" keep changing your oil every 3K miles" which I did. In all my subsequent visits, no one told me of any problem they noticed to the same question. Now I dont have that in writing, but I will not know whats going on inside a car till someone who looks into it.

I did not have any evidence that I was running low on oil or the engine was wearing out and my oil change frequency has to be doubled etc. When I go to a service station ,my expectation is that any problem noticed needs to be brought to my attention.

My subsequent visit to Suburban after 400 miles was met with no concern. So what should I do? I am an unsuspecting owner to any problem which is looming large INSIDE my car to which I have no access. A person who has access, should let me know.

Also if the problem was so grave, how come it did not catch anyones attention in all my subsequent visits to the service stations? Each time I got an answer "nothing wrong".

What surprises me is that sludging took place at 33K miles. My car was perfectly maintained till then, why did this happen to a perfectly built car? I could get the service details from FOX and answer TB questions. But whatever it might have been - it was not my fault, since I had entrsuted the car to the service station.

I did not have any evidence that I was running low on oil

chris---39, we (and your owners manual) have pointed out to you the only way an owner can know if the engine is running low on oil is for the owner to check the level on the dipstick. But up to 33,564 miles you never checked the oil level. Then when the dashboard oil light came on you went to a dealer to find out why the light came on at which time the dealer found only one pint of oil left in the engine. So clearly you are relying on the dashboard oil light to be an oil LEVEL indicator light even though the owners manual explains the light does not indicate the oil level. Your new engine could be ruined again if you wait until the dashboard oil light comes on before checking the oil level on the dipstick. This is true of virtually all makes and models of cars made for the last 50 years.

 

 

Yep, it's a good idea if you drive a 1998 Corolla to check the oil regularly.

According to Toyota, the 1998 Corolla can consume an entire engine capacity worth of oil in less than 3000 miles and still be running "within specifications". Nice! When I asked if they would be happy if they had to add 4 litres of oil every 3000 miles, they looked at their shoes, shifted uncomfortably and said, "No". It's pretty easy to see when an employee is reciting a company policy that they know is a load of BS.

Personally, I would never recommend buying a 1998. There appear to be significantly more complaints about them than the next few years (99-02). The 1998 was the debut of the 1ZZ-FE engine and I think that they used this model year to troubleshoot the new engine.

Cheers,

Regular Joe

4 liters Regular Joe (= 4.5 quarts) ? Is that what your owners manual says is the amount of oil that should be added to the engine after an oil and filter change?

4 liters Regular Joe (= 4.5 quarts) ? Is that what your owners manual says is the amount of oil that should be added to the engine after an oil and filter change?

Nope, I think you're reading my message out of context. Let me clarify.

 

Toyota says that the consumption of 4L of oil within 3000 miles is within the acceptable limits for oil loss. 4L of oil is more than the engine holds. That upper limit specification, as determined by Toyota, seems unreasonably high to me. It also seems unreasonable to their mechanics and service managers, at least the ones that I spoke to.

Owners should not read into this the that I have ever or that I recommend anybody putting 4L of oil into their car. Follow the recommendations as presented in your owners manual.

Cheers,

Regular Joe

Regular Joe,

I would like to know how many '98 Corolla owners have had a simmilar experience. I am aware one more guy did, but luckily he was under warranty. Toyota made design changes in '98, maybe it has something to do with higher consumption of oil. You are right in observing that this problem is specific to only '98 Corolla models.

Holy crap!?!? 4 liters?!?! Wow. And I thought ford was bad. Ford spec's a quart per 900 miles. After bugging the dealer for 7 months with my car consistantly drinking a quart per 850 miles, they replaced my engine. This is a 96 taurus btw. Good luck to whoever is fighting toyota for oil problems (haven't read the whole thread yet).

The dip stick really sucks. I can hardly discern the level of the oil each time I check it (I am doing it every now and then having learnt my lesson). The oil is almost colorless and the two measuring dots are quite close to each other.

If the '98 engine has some inherent problems, I am expecting that hisotry will repeat itself. To recover the money I spent, the only way is to drive this car as long as it lasts. I think should have oil samples analysed occasionally, just to make sure I catch the problem in time.

You need to somehow document that you are checking the oil. Nothing extreme (i.e., no videotapes or photos), just some sort of logbook.

A logbook for checking oil??? No manufacturer in the world could possibly require that. As per Toyota, this is a recommendation, not a requirement of the owner.

Cheers,

Regular Joe

chris---39, there are over 200,000 1998 Corollas on the road right now with their original engines. Your's would have been one of them if you had been checking the engine oil every 2 or 3 fuel stops or so. If the owner never allows the engine to run low on oil, the oil never becomes overheated and therefore never turns to sludge.

Again, back to root cause...I want to know why it ran low to start with. To me, that's the original defect.

Cheers,

Regular Joe

Again, back to root cause...I want to know why it ran low to start with. To me, that's the original defect.

Cheers,

Regular Joe

Just like I asked how much oil he added between changes, and what the oil level was at the fillup prior to the 33K oil change.

 

Not to mention how much oil did he add between changes after the 33K service. What was the history of oil consumption.

He doesn't seem to know this, and that leads me to believe that he wasn't looking.

Like I've said before, if he was losing oil at a rapid pace, this wouldn't have changed dramatically after the 33K service.

But when asked about how much oil had to be added between changes, he tells us he has to check with Fox.

If he was going to the dealer for oil to be added, there would be tickets, even from the parts department. If he were checking himself, he could tell us he had to add oil every X weeks or Y miles.

I've never said he didn't have a problematic Toyota, what I've said is he didn't help his case with many of his choices.

It is a very expensive lesson that I hope he and others learn from.

TB

I called FOX and explained the situation, requested him to send me the details. If he is able to pull it out, I will share it with you. Wait for a week or so.

Rahul

The dip stick really sucks. I can hardly discern the level of the oil each time I check it (I am doing it every now and then having learnt my lesson). The oil is almost colorless and the two measuring dots are quite close to each other.

If the '98 engine has some inherent problems, I am expecting that hisotry will repeat itself. To recover the money I spent, the only way is to drive this car as long as it lasts. I think should have oil samples analysed occasionally, just to make sure I catch the problem in time.

Difficulty reading the oil can depend on the oil as well.

 

One thing I just thought of, does the 98 have dots, or notches, on the oil dipstick? I don't have one, so I can't look at it. I know my Prizm (A GM badged corolla) with the older 4A-FE engine has hash marks, IIRC. Is there any chance you are reading the automatic transmission dipstick? Of course, it is just as reasonable to believe Toyota changed the dipstick.

However, if you think for any reason you are looking at the wrong one, please get someone to help you verify that you have the right dipstick. If you are sure, then just ignore my concerns.

For those following along, I thought this page was a pretty good addition for those folks who've lost their owners manual. Howver, the maintenance schedule they list at the bottom doesn't seem to address time, so their intervals should not be taken as gospel, regarding scheduled maintenance: http://www.samarins.com/maintenance/simple.html

I'm using Mobil 1 in my 94 Geo Prizm and after 2400 miles (about a 5 weeks of driving) is just starting to get some "color". It has also used about 2-4oz of oil in that time frame as well, as the level has dropped about 1/8" on a 1" range from full to add.

On my 87 Buick (that I just sold btw, so cars can last a long time, I just get bored with them after 75K to 125K miles) I had one oil change in the shop and they used Pennzoil. That was tough to read until it got dirty.

My 81 VW Rabbit Diesel was the easiest to read. After about 10 minutes of driving after an oil change, the oil was BLACK as coal. Diesels tend to do that to oil.

Sometimes you just have to tilt the stick, and get the light just right so you can see the oil.

But the "hassle" of checking oil is nothing compared to the hassle of having your engine rebuilt.

Finally, I think if you stay on top of the oil level, don't let it drop too low and get those changes done every 3750miles or 3 months, which ever comes first, you will probably be fine.

But please, check your oil and other fluids at EVERY fuel stop, for the safety of those who ride in your car.

HTH,

TB

You know what? I check my oil regularly, occasionally add some, but if someone were to ask me how much I added 15,000 miles ago between oil changes I could not tell them a thing. So I guess if you are going to come to these forums and be given the riot act or go to Toyota and told no warranty coverage because we don't think you really checked your oil, then a log book is a little extra insurance. I agree it is ridiculous and you shouldn't have to do it, but look what happened to Raul.

Ellis, Rahul admitted NEVER checking the oil level inbetween oil changes. Any car owner who fails to check the oil level regularly risks catastrophic engine failure. Likewise, any car owner who fails to check the tire pressure regularly runs the risk of having a violent blow out, losing control of the car and dying in a wreck.

some food for thought.

I came accross this discussion bd. take a look

http://pub52.ezboard.com/fgr****rootsmotors...picID=153.topic

some guys report that they have hardly changed the oil and their engine is still in pristine condition. I dont know the reason behind this, maybe the models in question are old and have an archaic design that doesnt require as many oil changes.

You know what? I check my oil regularly, occasionally add some, but if someone were to ask me how much I added 15,000 miles ago between oil changes I could not tell them a thing. So I guess if you are going to come to these forums and be given the riot act or go to Toyota and told no warranty coverage because we don't think you really checked your oil, then a log book is a little extra insurance. I agree it is ridiculous and you shouldn't have to do it, but look what happened to Raul.

Ellis,

 

You are right, but we don't remember because nothing was out of the ordinary. I guarantee you, if your noticed the consumption going up, you would notice it.

I really didn't expect an exact answer, but this is the kind of information you need to notice to share with your service advisor.

Get it in writing on your service ticket, and save those service tickets.

BTW, the newly Turbocharged SVT Contour didn't use any oil I could tell over the 1500 miles from Phoenix back home.

TB

So, tell me, Paul, what makes this Corolla consume oil so rapidly that it suffer "oil starvation?" And, is this the first Corolla owner to tell such a tale? No, he is not. There have been others on this very board, as a matter of fact.

A Toyota Corolla that cannot make it between oil changes *better than recommended* without suffering major oil loss? A Corolla whose oil level got so low that the oil indicator light did *not* illuminate? Tboner claims the information says that there was only 1/2 a quart left in the vehicle, right? If so, *why* was the light *malfunctioning*? It did not come on, remember?

So, perhaps what we have here is a vehicle that has an OBD problem? Let me guess....an owner should disregard the expectation that these lights will come on to warn of impending doom? With all the high technology available, the owner needs to do *all* the diagnostics by hand?

Get real. This vehicle was *not* performing as it should.

Autoresearcher

Autoresearcher (Charlene Blake), you have already been made aware that the car didn't consume oil in a short period, rather, it went down that amount between oil changes. Oil change intervals were reportedly within limits, but were up in the 5 and 6000 mile range on average, a rather lengthy period by most standards

So why are you suggesting it disappeared in a short period?

Furthermore, you have already been made aware that only low oil pressure, not low oil level, would cause the oil light to illuminate. The oil light senses only oil pressure, and as long as there was even a little oil left in the system, oil pressure would likely be present.

So why are you telling us the oil light was defective?

You are also aware that the owner of this car NEVER checked his oil, and NEVER bothered to check anything between visits to the service for routine oil changes.

So why are you suggesting the owner bears no responsibility in the matter?

This person's engine self destructed because oil was allowed to get down to one half a quart.

The engine literally cooked itself to death.

IMO,the sludge issue has nothing to do with this man's problem, because any sludge present in the engine would come from it being overheated repeatedly as the owner never checked oil and likely ran the engine low on oil consistently.

I admit this diagnosis may be speculative, no less speculative however, than your insistence that "something was wrong with this engine".

What I cannot understand is why you have distorted certain facts you already knew about.