FJCRUZR said:
Why is one person getting their truck fix under warranty for a known issues and the other not for the same issues because that one dealer is not aware of the problems...
I think by now, with the level of discussion this has had here and in the Blue Room that this has already been answered.
It helps to understand how Toyota's regional systems have evolved, and how decision making varies from region to reason. It also helps to understand Toyotas (TMS's) thought process. They don't deny there were issues, they are just unsure of the cause- the relative inconsistency of occurrence and statistically insignificant number of claims is puzzling. I believe (having been one of the first in the country to perform a factory authorized apron swap) that it was a frame flex issue- but then again I'm not an engineer. The third design of aprons was not, to my knowledge at least, to correct a "flaw" in the second design, but more to improve upon it.
FJCRUZR said:
The bulges on my truck happened before the lift and ARB/winch bumper, since I put them on the bulges didn't get much worst(in two years of driving and wheeling) but yet the dealer says the bumper is the problem!
Well, without evidence of the bulges documented prior to the bumper installation, it is quite understandable why they would make that assumption- and let me tell you why: the Body Shop Manager (or Service Manager) doesn't really care WHO pays for work, he cares that
someone pays. Toyota pays the dealership a fair profit for warranty repairs, so it's not like they is declining coverage because he has to do warranty work for "free".
Declining warranty coverage usually happens if something is 'likely to be' (in his mind) or already 'has been' (in his experience) kicked back on a warranty audit, and therefore it is logical that he will decline coverage. Often times this can be talked through to a good compromise, especially if his reasoning is based on a 'likely to be' scenario in his mind. Remember, the more calmly & logically you can outline your story, the easier it will be for him to sell the same story to Toyota should he be questioned on an audit... you are in essence "loading his lips".
Interestingly, I know other Toyota Collision Center managers right around me that have absolutely no idea about this issue, and would probably balk if it was presented to them. Along with that, many old-school managers still have the mindset that if there are any modifications they are uneducated about, their knee-jerk reaction is to say no. Aftermarket is a bad word to them, they were trained that way, and frankly many of those old-school guys have risen to positions where they are making important decisions based on antiquated ideas from closed minds.
Suspensions are a real typical issue- lifted truck with larger tires has a transmission problem- what is this guy gonna say? It's not entirely his fault, that's probably exactly how he was trained and that is still the prevailing culture where he is and among those he interacts with.
There is a procedure for customer grievances to be worked out, and actually in my experience it usually works out for the customer even if it is in doubt... sludge motors are an excellent example of Toyota spending big bucks on engine replacements when most of the time it was the customer's fault for failing to change their oil at recommended intervals. In fact, that experience set the stage for Toyota's tougher warranty scrutiny over the past 4-5 years- they really got taken by a lot of people, and are sensitive to the potential of warranty abuse.
Just throwing this out because I know a lot of people think the guy is intentionally putting the screws to people, when in fact it is often a more complicated issue and involves more people up the chain.
I can just tell you from my experiences in the Toyota world that sensibility, attitude & relationships are very important factors. Usually the guy who stomps in ranting & raving & looking for a bad experience gets exactly what he expects.
Also remember that it helps if you are a regular customer
I encourage everyone who hasn't done so already to get familiar with this:
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act
Basically, the burden of proof is on the dealer to prove that the modifications/parts installed are
directly responsible for the failure.
I.E. A suspension system cannot be blamed for the air conditioning, but a case
might be made that oversize tires contributed to a transmission failure.
Each dealership's Service/Body Shop/Fixed Operations Manager can interpret the data as they wish, which is why Toyota provides a system for arbitrating complaints.
FJCRUZR said:
Forgive me for my frustration, I just never imagine having those kind of issues with Toyota.
I know. Believe me, my posts are not meant to be construed as defensive of Toyota, although I am sure someone will want to spin it that way. I really just want everyone to have an understanding of both sides. It is my hope that taking the emotion out of it and getting people to act calmly and rationally will help things get resolved quickly and pleasantly.
Resign yourselves to the fact that it really is not a wide-spread problem statistically speaking, therefore it is not a widely-known problem,
There are channels, but finding them and successfully negotiating them can be challenging.
I am not saying any of this is "right", or diminishing the importance of the issues that have occurred, or negating the value of the customer experience... its just how it is, and I hope this knowledge helps someone get a satisfactory resolution.
). I don't make policy for Toyota, I am just relaying my experiences in the hopes of helping someone find a resolution to their problem. Maybe you won't, and for that I'm sorry.
