V35A-FTS bearing issue? (1 Viewer)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

For an out of warranty repair on a GX550, we are talking at least 6 years into the future. That's 6 years of continued production of these vehicles (including other V35A containing models) accumulating on the roads.

With how Americans drive and how much torque these things have, I think it's fair to say donors from accidents will be readily available 6 years from now :)

edit: 6 years, not 7
 
Last edited:
So 80 or so verified engines out of over 200000 manufactured for the Tundra in the US market?

Are you all on drugs?
I think a lot of the concern is Toyota's lack of transparency on it. Ether publicly or through a "leak" Toyota could tell the world what it is doing to fix it. I'm more interested in knowing that Toyota is looking for a root cause and has a long term fix. My biggest hang-up on buying one is Toyota's relatively long history of failure to correct known errors that don't fail within warranty periods. The 5.7 is a good example with the cam tower leaks and timing chain tensioners. Both are pretty easy to fix mid-production with updated design or manufacturing adjustment, but Toyota chose to ignore it instead. It would give me a warm fuzzy feelings if Toyota leaked info about what it found and how it was fixing it or at least some indication that it was aware of the issue and trying to fix it. The 5.7 example on that is the original camshaft failures. Toyota acknowledged the issue and fixed it. People are happy. It's not a long term common problem. Do it like the camshafts, not the cam tower.
 
@hawkQTR
Posted some good info about LC300 engine failures in the Middle East.
(Wrong oil viscosity and wrong oil filter are suspects for some).

 
I've found a 2022 GX 460 nearby. I would need to remove the third row and put in a platform to get enough room. I worry that putting in a platform would increase the noise level in the interior. Then I would have to deal with the barn door and worry about the valley plate leak and transmission issues. Upside is the smooth V8 and more manageable exterior size. Downside is the 4.6L V8 isn't exactly powerful.
One could buy the GX, add the external trans cooler and change the trans fluid (it has the same trans as your 200 after all), get it undercoated every year or two, and change the coolant at regular intervals. That should address most all of the issues for at least the next decade. Valley coolant leaks are typically a high-mileage repair anyway, regular coolant changes should keep the coolant pH in check and reduce the amount it can attack and degrade the FIPG.
 
One could buy the GX, add the external trans cooler and change the trans fluid (it has the same trans as your 200 after all), get it undercoated every year or two, and change the coolant at regular intervals. That should address most all of the issues for at least the next decade. Valley coolant leaks are typically a high-mileage repair anyway, regular coolant changes should keep the coolant pH in check and reduce the amount it can attack and degrade the FIPG.
I’m not capable of adding a trans cooler or changing the trans fluid. I would have to find an independent shop willing to do that.
 
Coming from the Land Rover world (I know, I know), my concern would be what would cause the issue other than a design defect, such as improper oiling, improper bearing seating design, or improper materials? In other words, is it possible that the failures have isolated causes or is it more endemic of a defect that runs across the entire design?

And it it is one of the former, what can fix it other than opening up the engine and replacing key components or even a redesign of the short block?

Land Rover has a Ford-built turbo diesel V6 that was barely sold in the U.S. but is a big part of the foreign markets. It's known for crank failures, and the smartest analysis points to the oiling being insufficient. The crank is shorter than ideal because the business-arm of Ford and JLR wanted the engine used in so many different vehicle models that it had to be a shorter block, and thus overruled the engineering-arm. The shorter crank led to compromises being made in oiling - compromises that the engineers probably thought were barely sufficient but it turns out were actually insufficient.

I know that bringing up Land Rover in a discussion on Toyota reliability is like bringing up Sherwin Williams in a discussion about Matisse, but it's the only other case I know of crank-related failures so soon in an engine's life cycle. In fact, the Land Rover ones generally last until over 60k miles.
 
I’m not capable of adding a trans cooler or changing the trans fluid. I would have to find an independent shop willing to do that.
Drive it to MO and I'll do it for you :).

In all seriousness, it's very simple to do. Any competent off-road shop should be able to do it for <$1,000. I DIY'd the brackets in my garage from $15 in steel flat stock (again 470 but very similar). The cooler (Hayden 678) is only $60 and you'll have $100 in fluid if you use MaxLife. Maybe $300 in fluid if you use WS. Then whatever OE plumbing lines you need, if the GX is not equipped with an OE cooler (some are, some aren't).
20211020_150432 (1).jpg

20211020_152255 (1).jpg
 
I recognize my limitations. If I opened up a transmission it would not end well.
 
Coming from the Land Rover world (I know, I know), my concern would be what would cause the issue other than a design defect, such as improper oiling, improper bearing seating design, or improper materials? In other words, is it possible that the failures have isolated causes or is it more endemic of a defect that runs across the entire design?

And it it is one of the former, what can fix it other than opening up the engine and replacing key components or even a redesign of the short block?

Land Rover has a Ford-built turbo diesel V6 that was barely sold in the U.S. but is a big part of the foreign markets. It's known for crank failures, and the smartest analysis points to the oiling being insufficient. The crank is shorter than ideal because the business-arm of Ford and JLR wanted the engine used in so many different vehicle models that it had to be a shorter block, and thus overruled the engineering-arm. The shorter crank led to compromises being made in oiling - compromises that the engineers probably thought were barely sufficient but it turns out were actually insufficient.

I know that bringing up Land Rover in a discussion on Toyota reliability is like bringing up Sherwin Williams in a discussion about Matisse, but it's the only other case I know of crank-related failures so soon in an engine's life cycle. In fact, the Land Rover ones generally last until over 60k miles.
The way I see it there's only a few ways that bearings fail in this way:

1 The bearings are not matched - ie the two parts that rotate against each other are not sufficiently matched and cylindrical so they hit each each other or the fluid film provided by the oil cannot keep them separated.

2 The oil flow is insufficient to maintain the fluid film thickness to keep the parts from direct contact. - Or 2.1 - Oil flow is too high. This can cause over-cooling > increase friction > thermal runaway > bearing failure.

3. The oil lacks the necessary properties maintain the fluid film thickness. This could be the wrong oil choice, the wrong additive package, air bubbles in the oil from an oil pump cavitation problem or some other issue in the oil system introducing air bubbles to the oil supply. Could also be moisture collecting in the oil for some reason or other contaminant like over-fuel conditions or low friction piston rings resulting in gasoline passing into the oil.

4. Cooling is insufficient and the heat causes expansion of one or both bearing components causing the clearance to expand or shrink causing either a wobble or a seizing.

5. The rotating assembly is not balanced or aligned with the outer bearing surface causing contact. This could be either an issue with the crank forging, heat treating, or machining or an problem with the engine block warping under heat, being cast incorrectly, being bored incorrectly or out of alignment, or being assembled incorrectly.

6. Incorrect materials - bearing surfaces being too soft is probably most common, but possibly also too hard(?)

7. Incorrect machining. If a bearing surface is machined too smooth it may not have sufficient microscopic valleys or porosity as engineered to retain oil in the material surface below the plateaus of the machined finish. Polishing too smooth can result in short lifespan.

8. Contamination in the lubricant or surfaces. This is pretty obvious one - anything larger than the fluid film thickness will cause problems.

All of these failure modes can be pretty quickly summarized into a few categories: The parts don't fit, the oil is contaminated, the oil isn't getting where it needs to be, the parts are getting too hot.

Contaminated oil is the one that's easiest to fix without an engine manufacturing change. Parts that don't fit is also usually a pretty easy fix - machine the parts better. Parts getting too hot is usually a symptom of the other stuff. And the really hard ones to fix are oil that isn't going where it needs to - that may require a partial or full engine oiling redesign. If this becomes a persistent long-term problem, I'd put my money on the problem being oil not going where it needs to go in enough volume/pressure. If it's any of the others, I'd expect it to be fixed pretty quickly.

Just my 0.02 as someone who's never seen the inside of one of these engines and just speculating from the pictures and a background in mechanical systems. An automotive machining expert or triboligist could probably add a lot to help better speculate on the issue. I'm sure Toyota has a team full of superstars in both fields.
 
While my 1986 2F engine with 330K miles keeps on running fine
With all of 125 hp, I'd characterize that as more of a slow stroll than a run. ;)
 
So 80 or so verified engines out of over 200000 manufactured for the Tundra in the US market?

Are you all on drugs?
This form/sheet is only for those who know about the Google Form and have taken the time to fill it out...it is, by no means, all inclusive of all failures...

I do think it is safe to multiply by 10 and even then, we'd be looking at around 900 failures of the 300,000+ MY22+ Tundra that have been produced, so still well below the 0.5% that was previously told to me by someone within Toyota that is familiar with the matter...
 
This form/sheet is only for those who know about the Google Form and have taken the time to fill it out...it is, by no means, all inclusive of all failures...

I do think it is safe to multiply by 10 and even then, we'd be looking at around 900 failures of the 300,000+ MY22+ Tundra that have been produced, so still well below the 0.5% that was previously told to me by someone within Toyota that is familiar with the matter...

Even at that number and include LC300/LX600 trucks, over the course of global manufacture, it is statistically irrelevant. Statistically, it is not even worth mentioning to the Chief Engineer or even to the ashtray engineer in a weekly team meeting.
 
Even at that number and include LC300/LX600 trucks, over the course of global manufacture, it is statistically irrelevant. Statistically, it is not even worth mentioning to the Chief Engineer or even to the ashtray engineer in a weekly team meeting.
At this point, the issue is that low mileage (less than 5,000) Sequoia and Tundra are failing with bearing issues...not sure that is irrelevant...

The bewildering part is that there are several members on Tundras and on Facebook that have been running the JB4 from Burger for over a year and they have zero mechanical issues. Most of them have been running it on the highest map which equates to +100lb.-ft. of torque, so a lot of us are unsure as to why some fail and some don't...

The lowest mileage Tundra failure I've seen is a VIN confirmed 179 mile Capstone...lowest mileage Sequoia I've seen is a 2024 TRD Pro with 1,438 miles...
 
If it's 300 engines - that's $9M in warranty costs so far. It's not a lot. But it's also more than zero. That's $30 per truck sold so far.

The reputational cost is a lot more than that though. Tunrdas are already sitting (from being overpriced IMO). Let's say this issue devalues the trucks by $250 each in market value. Now we're talking about a problem worth $25M per year ongoing. With the LC300 also developing a reputation - we might be talking even more cost to the brand. I think that's worth a discussion internally and looking for a solution.
 
Even at that number and include LC300/LX600 trucks, over the course of global manufacture, it is statistically irrelevant. Statistically, it is not even worth mentioning to the Chief Engineer or even to the ashtray engineer in a weekly team meeting.
I respectfully disagree. Given this is their star go-to engine in so many of Toyota’s profitable truck lines and given their obsession with quality/reliability, I think it’s likely even a statistically insignificant number of catastrophic failures would catch the attention of management and be mentioned to engineering and production.
 
I respectfully disagree. Given this is their star go-to engine in so many of Toyota’s profitable truck lines and given their obsession with quality/reliability, I think it’s likely even a statistically insignificant number of catastrophic failures would catch the attention of management and be mentioned to engineering and production.
It has certainly caught the attention of management and engineering...
 
I respectfully disagree. Given this is their star go-to engine in so many of Toyota’s profitable truck lines and given their obsession with quality/reliability, I think it’s likely even a statistically insignificant number of catastrophic failures would catch the attention of management and be mentioned to engineering and production.
A 0.5% random and unexplained failure rate is, IMO, not acceptable (assuming that is the actual rate, which no one other than Toyota actually knows). That's a lemon prevalence of 1 out of ever 200 vehicles, which is a Chrysler-like failure rate and too high given the cost of these vehicles. What's the random/unexplained failure rate for a UZ or a UR? 0.001%?

For Toyota money it needs to be below 0.01% - one out of every ten thousand vehicles - and honestly that seems high for something unexplainable and therefore unpreventable.
 
Silver lining if the glampers lose interest in the GX and focus their attention on the LC.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom