It might not be a design flaw that would be picked up during testing. The clearances on these engines are so tight now that just one machine slightly out of tolerance could screw things up. They use 0w-20 oil for a reason. The tolerances are roughly 10x tighter than they were a few decades ago. That thinner oil is necessary to get into the tight places and flow properly. Toyota allowed 5W-20 oil to be used for 1 oil change during the pandemic when there were shortages, but they added a disclaimer that 0w-20 must be used on the following oil change. If you look into the detail of the 3.4 engine, they are using different bearing material than the 5.7. The 5.7 engine already require 0w-20 oil. I am only speculating, but I would bet the manufacturing could not meet the extreme tolerances required to keep the bearings lubed enough. It's even worse with a turbo engine and the extra stresses they have to deal with. Could I be wrong...sure. But I know that 2024's have had bearing failures. It's documented on other forums. Toyota is probably scrambling to figure it out right now. I hope Fightnfire is wrong that Toyota won't tell us when they do find out, but I suspect he is right. I like the idea of twin turbo, small displacement gas engine for the power. However, building them en masse may take an extra level of QA/QC that even Toyota hasn't prepared for at this time.
3rd Gen Engine Failures
- Thread starter Mattedfred
- Start date
NMTRUCKER
Well-known member
There’s no ulterior motive behind my comment.It could be all sorts of stuff from improper heat treatment, bearing clearances, wrong oil viscosity, poor coating adhesion (if they use plasma spray coatings). Leaving machining debris in the block fabrication process should have been identified early on and not extended over a 2(?) year timeframe. Yes, Toyota has been designing engines for many years and so has RAM. But RAM’s ECODIESEL had lots of bearing failures. So why couldn’t it be a design flaw?
NMTRUCKER
Well-known member
Well stated.
If the root cause was debris in the engine, that's not a design flaw. And if excessive wear is occurring to the point of seizing an engine, there isn't much else to attribute to it other than FOD. It's still an issue that needs to be fixed, which they say they have. If it were something about the engine design, they would have continued to have the same failures but apparently, they have not. Probably why they have waited this long to release info, wanting to make sure it's been truly fixed.
The GM/Ram lifter issue can be considered a design flaw. If the part is made to spec and it fails prematurely at that high of a rate, then the part or the system was designed poorly. If it was just a bad batch of parts that were manufactured incorrectly, they change those, scrub the supply shelves, and life is good. Finding the root cause is often exceedingly difficult. This cause is very embarrassing but very fixable. A design failure would cost infinitely more to fix so they don't want that. They'll take the embarrassment.
The GM/Ram lifter issue can be considered a design flaw. If the part is made to spec and it fails prematurely at that high of a rate, then the part or the system was designed poorly. If it was just a bad batch of parts that were manufactured incorrectly, they change those, scrub the supply shelves, and life is good. Finding the root cause is often exceedingly difficult. This cause is very embarrassing but very fixable. A design failure would cost infinitely more to fix so they don't want that. They'll take the embarrassment.
Hilux
Active member
Hmm Toyota getting ready to crank out more replacement Tundra engines?
That is interesting timing.
Thanks! I probably should have made it its own video. It’s currently blowing up anyway with regards to views. So it works.
My 1/18/2023 build date tundra doesn't come up on any Toyota or non-Toyota website as being involved in the recall. Typically my Toyota app dings it within 1 day of the announcement for the other recalls.
The best I could do by poking in random vins I could find of trucks built between Jan 1st 2023 and Feb 10th 2023, is that perhaps some of them were built with new process engines because I found random hits and misses with recall affected trucks in that date range. Any truck built Dec 2022 or earlier I was not able to find a miss on the recall.
The only preventative thing I did when I first heard of these things last year was I changed my oil at 1000 Miles. I opened the filter and saw zero debris nor any rtv specs, the filter was spotless.
The best I could do by poking in random vins I could find of trucks built between Jan 1st 2023 and Feb 10th 2023, is that perhaps some of them were built with new process engines because I found random hits and misses with recall affected trucks in that date range. Any truck built Dec 2022 or earlier I was not able to find a miss on the recall.
The only preventative thing I did when I first heard of these things last year was I changed my oil at 1000 Miles. I opened the filter and saw zero debris nor any rtv specs, the filter was spotless.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Toyota offered a voluntary buyback of all the trucks when it’s all said and done. I just looked at their financials, and they could afford to. It would be a huge hit, but they could swing it. A buyback might also be the best thing for them in the long run for their reputation. Since there’s a decent chance this could get turned into a class action suit, they might just do it to avoid the lawsuits and also save their reputation at the same time. It would be a complicated mess, but I am sure they are weighing the option.
I guess we’ll see when Toyota finally announces the remedy.
Hilux
Active member
If Toyota was smart they would just bite the bullet and install complete dressed engines that way the dealer could just pull the cab off remove the old engine and install the new dressed engine to the trans and transfer case and be done with it, expensive as hell, yes, but also faster.
I don't think they've figured out for sure if the metal debris was the problem. Long blocks are easier to install, but not a better solution if they don't have them.
Tundradude34 just made a video talking about what people commenting on his videos think the remedy should be for the recalled engines. Seems like most people want a V8 option. I know that isn't possible and I don't think folks realize that the V8 is being regulated out of existence by CAFE and emissions standards set by the government. One thing most people agree on is that a short block replacement doesn't seem like a good idea and don't want it. To me, a short block swap feels like a risky fix and the owner is taking all the risk. Kinda like this picture makes me feel:
Hilux
Active member
Its like p!ss!ng into the wind i doubt Toyota even listens to its customers at this point.
NMTRUCKER
Well-known member
I hope that the guy who has a YT CHANNEL called “I Do Cars” would get ahold of one of these engines and go through his thorough disassembly to find out what is actually happening inside the engine. He has torn apart engines from a whole variety of manufacturers that have failed in one way or another. BTW, the CAFE standards were introduced in 1975 under President Ford.
I hope he does a teardown. That would be great if he had one right about now. Also, the CAFE standards keep getting worse and worse. Look at how much recent administrations have increased them in this graph. Auto makers are facing an uphill battle trying to do what the government mandates vs what customers want.
NMTRUCKER
Well-known member
I lived through the Arab oil embargo where there were long lines for gas and it was expensive. Unfortunately I had to get rid of my ‘69 Chevelle because I couldn’t afford gas. Part of the government’s response was the CAFE standards to try to encourage the vehicle manufacturers to make cars more efficient and that continues today but I am pretty sure you already know this history.
What's really bad about how CAFE is used now is the right hand side of that graph. They were basically flat for 20 years. Now the govt wants the average mpg to be almost 100 mpg for light trucks and over 120 mpg for cars by 2032. It's a backhanded way to force and EV mandate. Rather than develop and engineer a plan on how to get there with electric cars and grid upgrades, they just regulate ICE engines out of existence and drive prices through the roof. These small displacement turbo engines won't be around very long either with the mandates looking like they currently do.