Tundra engine recall - interesting news

Hybrid uses an electronic pump with an accumulator assembly.

47070-48100 - Brake Booster Pump Assembly with Accumulator - MSRP $2,303.53

Looking at the non-Hybrid assembly now to figure out what drives the vacuum pump on the back of the RH cylinder head.

 

Found the difference.

Hybrid - Housing Sub-Assy, Camshaft, RH - 11103-F4020 (updated to 11103-F4021)
Non-Hybrid - Housing Sub-Assy, Camshaft, LH - 11103-F4010 (updated to 11103-F4011)

So the vacuum pump is 100% cam driven as @hagrid said. The difference is the cam housing.

 

So "cam housing" is part of the valve cover, or head, or like a cam tower assembly the 2nd gen has?

 

Separate cam housing as the 3UR has.

See diagram here: https://autoparts.toyota.com/products/product/housing-sub-assy-camshaft-rh-11103f4011

 

TRDoffroadPRO

Yes mine is a Non Hybrid built in Alabama. That is where all the engines in the recall are from. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. The recall ends on the Feb 23 builds. That's why I'm confused as to why my 2023 January build is not on the recall list. If anyone has a Jan 23 build recall, please let me know.

 

Somewhat off-topic, but relevant overall. Let's talk about how JD Power, Consumer Reports and Dashboard-light evaluate reliability.

JD Power is the simplest one. JD Power has multiple indices, the most relevant for this discussion are Initial Quality Study (IQS) and Long-Term Vehicle Dependability Study (VQS). Both are very simple to understand. They are based on surveys that collect answers from vehicle owners directly.
IQS is based on number of issues during 1st year of ownership. The index is number of complaints reported per 100 vehicles. An index of 100 could mean that every vehicle in the sample had one issue or it could mean that half of the vehicles had two issues and half had none. JD Power collect additional more specific information that they sell to manufacturers, but they don't make it available to the general public.
VDS is based on number of issues during first 3 years of ownership. The index is number of issues reported per 100 vehicles.
The difference between IQS and VDS is that IQS considers all issues, while VDS considers actual failures. So for example, a complaint about infotainment being slow (by design) is recorder in the IQS but not VDS. On the other hand a defective infotainment that had to be replaced would impact both IQS and VDS.
The biggest limitation of JD Power VDS is that it doesn't rate the seriousness of the issue. Obviously a defective power mirror is not as serious as a dead engine that leaves you stranded in the middle of nowhere. But for the index, they both count the same. Of course, JD Power does have detailed information about each and every reported defect and shares it with paying customers, but for the public in general it's mostly obscure.
The other issue is that VDS covers only 3 years of ownership. There is some logic to that. The older the vehicle get, the bigger the impact of preventive maintenance. So vehicle maintenance becomes a bigger factor in overall reliability than the vehicle design and quality itself. Also, JD Power customers are mostly interested in the information that affects warranty claims, so after 3 years vehicle problems aren't that relevant for the manufacturer (on the contrary, more failures mean more revenue).

Consumer Reports collects information from subscribers. Unlike JD Power, they do consider failure seriousness in the overall reliability rating. Because of the population of CR subscribers, in practice CR reliability ratings are relevant for vehicles that are less than 7 years old. Older vehicles "fall of the radar" screen in the surveys, and while historic numbers are published, they are mostly irrelevant. CR also calculates what they call "predicted reliability" which are a combination of surveys and the manufacturer's history of addressing issues effectively. "Predicted reliability" is a guess and there are numerous examples where the actual rating for a particular model changed drastically after a couple of years of real-life data.
The biggest issue with CR reliability ratings is owners' bias. As the ratings are based on subscribers surveys, human psychology plays a big role. People who buy vehicles that have traditionally been considered reliable tend to underreport problems or rate the issues with lesser severity. On the other hand, people who purchased vehicles that traditionally had poor reliability tend to overblow problems. This perpetuates the myth of some brands being inherently reliable while other are "junk".

Dashboard-light collects information from used car dealers. The methodology was created by two automotive engineering students and was actually the subject of the master thesis. I had a copy of their thesis but can't find it anymore. They clearly underscore the deficiencies of both JD Power and CR and wanted to come up with methodology that would address two of the limitations:
- focus on new(er) vehicles only
- owners' bias
They also wanted to focus on what, in their opinion, matters most - the powertrain. This is somewhat arguable, as non-powertrain issues can be equally or more expensive to fix than powertrain problems. But, on the other hand, collecting information about all types of problems would be such a monumental task that it would not be practical.
DL basically collects reports from used car dealers, in which the dealers report how many of the vehicles traded-in had an engine or transmission problem. They also report the mileage at which the vehicle was traded-in. Because powertrain issues are one of the main reasons for which people trade-in their vehicles, this allows DL to estimate the average mileage at which powertrain problems become common for different vehicle brands and models.
For that reasons, DL ratings have the following limitations:
- They are only relevant for older vehicles. In practical terms, vehicles that are more than 5-7 years old, and over 100k miles
- As mentioned above, they omit all other types of issues that are not directly related to the powertrain
- They suffer from "vehicle cost" bias. For example, a cheap Nissan Versa is much more likely to be traded-in at first sight of a CVT problem than an expensive Chevy Suburban. In case of the Nissan, it's a better financial option to replace a cheap car with another cheap car than spend thousands of dollars on a new transmission. On the other hand, if you own a 10 year old Suburban, it's cheaper to replace the transmission than to buy another 10 years old Suburban in better shape. Hence, DL ratings favor expensive vehicles over cheaper vehicles.
- The ratings are relative instead of being absolute. A "100" ratings means that this is the best vehicle in class, while "0" means that it's the worst. It does not mean that "100" is perfectly trouble-free. In practice, the actual difference between best and worst reliability is approximately a factor of 2x. A vehicle rated "100" may have 10% probability of powertrain failure during the study timeframe, while a vehicle rated "0" probability will be 20%. Also, the average mileage at which "100"-rated vehicles fail may be 150k miles, while "0"-rated ones fail on average at 100k miles. Not trivial, but a far cry from the psychological difference between a "0" and "100".

Finally, there is a 4th place where you can look at reliability reports - truedelta. It's methodology is reasonably good, but because of little market penetration the vehicle sample is very limited. For that reason I omit it from the discussion.

The ONLY people who know for sure how reliable are their vehicles are the manufacturers. And of course, they don't share their statistics with others. One piece of information that is somewhat available is average warranty costs per vehicle. These are reported in some form or another as part of financial disclosures to shareholders, and frequently combine cost of warranty repairs and recalls. Here is one example of the type of information you can dig out, but there is no single source similar to JD Power or CR that summarizes all the info.

Bottom line, if you want to have a full picture of which manufacturer or model is reliable or not, you need to consult as many sources as possible and draw your own conclusions.

 

November 2, 2021 through February 13, 2023

There seem to be a few from January & February 2023 that fall within those dates that are not included in the recall. It can be assumed that they are in a batch of engines known to not have debris and are not included in the recall due to this reason.

 

Sorry gang, I have read every page on this thread (as evidenced, by an obnoxious amount of likes), and must have missed that key point. If the hybrids and gas power plants are made at different plants (sorry @Bnmyers1 not trying to insinuate you are wrong, more that I didn't know this!) perhaps the "debris" claim might be right? Wouldn't that be a damn hoot!?

 

The V35A-FTS (Type '21) - non-Hybrid & Hybrid - used in the Tundra, Tundra HV, and Sequoia HV are assembled at Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Alabama (TMMAL).

If anyone says otherwise, they simply do not know what they are talking about.

 

The debris was proven by a former member purchasing a new short block from November 2022 and finding debris within the oiling system. Said short block has never been run and is still in their possession to this day.

 

I'll go out on the speculation limb.

Since all Gen 3 engines are manufactured in the same plant, and the blocks are the same, perhaps the true reason hybrids aren't included in the recall is because the likelihood of failure due to debris is at a higher mileage, since they have a lesser number of combustion cycles than non-hybrids of equal age.

I fully expect hybrids to be added to the recall list when Toyota has a good handle on the current list of recalled trucks.

 

The average mileage at failure for the Hybrid is close to that of the non-Hybrid, so not sure that holds up.

There are less Hybrid failures because there are less of them produced. And the reason Toyota didn't recall them as they, both Toyota and NHTSA, did not see it as a safety hazard because of still having "motive power" even if the engine fails. We know that this isn't the case as reported by multiple Hybrid owners who lost ability to move the vehicle at the time of the combustion engine failure.

 

Yes, pseuudoRyan, I realize that is Toyota's current rationalization.

But, if the hybrid blocks went thru the same assembly line as the non-hybrids with "debris" problems, would you agree they should be included in the recall, eventually?

I believe they will.

 

I believe you are correct in all aspects. I never do surveys. A few reasons: I don't want to be bothered, I don't much give a shit who wants my opinion and my thoughts are if you rate a product highly, the company will cut corners just because they know can get away with it.

My Mother in Law loves doing surveys and she's a frickin whack a doodle. Whatever she thinks is good, I'm pretty much guaranteed to think the opposite.

 

They should've been included from the beginning.

 

.., and thank you for the confirmation of assembly plant!

 

We have missed you Ryan. What it must feel like to be you....

 

I am sure he's tired of hearing that all the time. Let's just move on and be thankful we have someone that knows their stuff.

 

I would be fine with it without all the pomp and circumstance, the holier than thou shit is beyond old. And the reason he was kicked off here twice and 'probably'why he was removed from Reddit.

 

Hey man, I have nothing against you. Not sure if this is even Ryan or not. Doesn't really matter to me. I am sure the moderators would be able to figure it out and would have done something by now.

 

Of course they would

 

He was removed from Reddit? Don't believe so.

Reddit is worse than Facebook. Pretty sure he just decided to not post there.

 

Has he been wrong about anything from the past or with current developments? Pretty sure he is hitting around .850-.900.

Wasn't the reason he was kicked off of here was because Toyota threatened the forum with legal action?

 

I am not him.

 

I never noticed any "holier than thou shit" from Ryan. I did notice he had very little tolerance for misinformation, and he could be a little blunt when he debunked it.

Overall, I found his posts extremely informative and helpful on many different Tundra related topics. He obviously has sources for inside information that most of us don't.

Ultimately, his demise was from posting trade-marked information without Toyota's permission, and they threatened legal actions against him and the owners of this forum...I believe twice, IIRC. I don't think Ryan ever had any malicious intentions against Toyota or this forum.

Just my opinion, fwiw.

 

Agree. And his threads always seemed very **OFFICIAL**

 

Great info as always, sudo. Keep it coming. I am wondering if I pour money into my 40k engine maintenance or wait for Toyota to recall the engine anyway.

 

Yes because 'he' simply can't help himself, he has to show just how smart he is. Which is what I was alluding to.

Also yes, 'he' continued to share Toyota documents here, after the second time he was booted here he started doing the same things on Reddit and FB. Again he can't help himself, is he right quite often, again yes however that still doesn't change the fact that 'he' is a pompous ass. Which is also what I was alluding to.

 

So people who know better should stay quiet while they see misinformation being spread? Things that are objectively 100% false should be given a free pass?

No wonder I’m not liked in these threads. Trying to have accurate info is the most valuable resource a forum can have.

 

Sorry to the group for derailing the thread. Maybe yesterday I was grumpy after being put in a rav4 and hybrid, I don't like cars....

Back on topic. My truck went into Toyota of Santa Fe yesterday for the engine, fuel tank, tonneau cover, EPB, also having them replace the 2 drive belts and a full flush (12 qts) for the trans. I will report back on the other thread when I get my truck back. I was impressed with the master tech after speaking with him.