Toyota Apparently Takes Design Problem as Not Their Worry

Toyota appears to be stone walling on a design fault since limp home mode gets them home, not considering when limp home mode kicks in or how fast the vehicle is going or who is behind it. If not for episodes during reviewer tests it might still be a closely held ‘no worries mate’ fault.

Based on the responses from ever more manufacturers in Australia regarding their vehicles’ problems it is getting ever harder to list those having enough integrity to take care of their customers.


Toyota aren’t the only ones but it’s not a design flaw until thousands of people get upset or someone dies then their PR people kick in to wash away all our concerns.


For what it’s worth:
THERE IS NO SAFETY issue here?:see_no_evil:

I diligently enquired on my RACQ ( web site and the over arching Automobile Association of Australia ( web site.

Well their search engines drew blanks to ‘hilux engine limp home fault’. There are no headline safety alerts or articles on their sites.

There is nothing to report. Although I have somehow managed to purchase two new insurance policies and an all inclusive escorted holiday to Europe for my partner, children and their spouses with a club discount on 10% :innocent:
Nearly did!


Big corporation and integrity?

Hit that nail on the head. Squarely.

Automobile association taking time out from being government apologists on everything including revenue raising/road “safety”, selling members insurance and holidays and all manner of other crap to actually represent the interests of its motoring membership? I’ve commented on this before in this forum Here and here …. It’s actually a bit of a hot button of mine, since I’ve had a few bas experiences with them, including one occasion where I was told a key retrieval service I had paid for was no longer in use an they had no register of the key tags, and another where they told me that their head office could not do a roadworthy on a motorcycle for interstate transfer because they had nobody qualified. This was the RAA. I did have one mixed experience with RACV where a well known Melbourne Toyota dealer sold me a second hand Toyota with a dodgy RACV roadworthy passing it as good when it needed literally thousands of dollars of work, work that another Toyota dealer and a couple of engine specialists diagnosed the likely cause of in a few minutes and all agreed - subsequently agreed by RACV at their testing facility. Dealer gave a full refund and I walked home - Toyota Australia seemed completely disinterested in their dealers grubby dealings saying second hand vehicles were not their responsibility so accordingly I took it they don’t care about their dealers ethics or integrity either - be disappointed but not surprised I keep telling myself.

Perhaps its time for a test of motoring associations? Noting that you don’t necessarily have to live in the state/territory they are based to be a member. How many vehicles they have on the road for roadside service, response times, etc, what their sales and marketing for unrelated products, how flash their offices are :slight_smile:

Back to the faults/recalls - it’s amazing what they weasel out of. Have a look at the BMW fork stanchion issue - people hospitalised, reports of failures world wide, huge delays before finally BMW admitted the problem.

I guess thats a few of the reasons we are here on this forum :slight_smile:


At least a few journos are onto it

From a few days ago -


There are also a few much older threads on various forums that could be related.


I too have written about a systemic fault with Ford’s dual clutch transmissions at:

That one doesn’t limp, it locks. It has to be dragged resisting onto tilt top truck.


Two great proposals here.
An important one re Choice’s opportunity for a calculated expansion as a much larger champion of members who are vehicle owners, and a recognition of the massive reach of these motoring organisations into other business areas.

First Whirlpool, then the NBN, next Toyota.


Should we agree we need a road test - How many exotic vehicles will it take? Which bikes, 4WD, exotic and luxury samples? You get to keep samples - right? It already sounds out side of Choice’s budget.

It might need to be less pragmatic and more budget driven factual. Not good viewing? “Drive Away no More to Pay” sounds equally dorky. Does Choice also need to beware the “checkout syndrome” - too much consumer knowledge devalues the economy?

A less well informed view:
In the instance there is any hint of bias in what I suggest next I’m also a member of the RACQ and live in Qld. So a minority view at best - given nearly 2/3rds of us live in NSW and Vic.

How well do we know how most other organisations, magazines etc fund their highly exacting reviews, reports and consumer feedback? What are the facts or should they even be a concern? We mostly know reviews are typically sponsored with free loan vehicles, launch events, closed media track events, lunch on Fraser Island?

I feel that Choice and importantly it’s membership defends it’s independence. Even agreement to shopper discounts are no go for Choice members as they would need to be group negotiated with Choice as an organisation.

The RACQ label themselves variously as a “not for profit enterprise” and the “largest club in Queensland”. Notably, membership is voluntary, many of the services and products are available in other ways, and none are arguably essential.

Of course a not for profit that makes a profit “virtual profit” (as the RACQ does handsomely) has to do something with those extra funds that is appropriate. It’s too long a discussion for the here and now.

If an organisation such as Choice were to put the state motoring organisations to the test - it would be useful to know how their products compare to the open market. In practice they should be providing for members the lowest cost like for like for insurance etc. Travel and insurance make tidy profits - mainly from members as it would make little sense to purchase from the RACQ as a non member and miss the 10% discount. There are some of these areas covered by Choice.

Each state motoring organisation has overheads. They are run by professional business managers and staff. They appoint members through the AGM to key roles. As an organisation (even a not for profit) grows it needs more senior staff. And using a tried and tested remuneration model – the more staff you manage and the greater your financial responsibility the greater the competitive salary. The RACQ has more recently expanded into home services and banking. These may fill a genuine need for some and possibly provide great value. Alternately the decision may just feed on the need for convenience and our insecurities to gain more “virtual” profit?

Hence there is a challenge for any third party review to determine by what criteria you assess value for money, as well as efficiency and quality of delivery of the relevant services.

As an RACQ member I’d also wonder whether there is a gap between my expectations of RACQ and RACQ’s corporate direction. It is note worthy that you can join an online forum on RACQ live - however the level of discussion appears to be low. You also need to login using a “Disqus”, Facebook, Google or Twitter ID. There is no option to login using just your RACQ member details. Disqus is a specialist provider that shares much with all. It’s assumed they service RACQ. There is enough information on line to question whether anyone should ever sign up to a Disqus ID or post to pages they service?

The RACQ also has a second members forum - that looks more like a survey and marketing tool -called “RACQ Members Voice”. From my participation in this group - it is firstly not like Choice’s forum. It is specifically a marketing tool - where members independently complete surveys. It is typically a one way street. Individual comments are not shared or published. In some ways it works also as a push marketing tool. The recent survey on the new RACQ bank appeared just after the banking service was put in place - not before. Typical questions in the survey appeared to be more aimed at informing you or testing your knowledge of the bank - than fundamental questions such as do you support the RACQ going into banking? Now the lead in script to the original program was not dishonest. It is just open to interpretation. I may be unique in my assessment.

So I wonder just how would you go about fairly assessing the benefits, the personal outcomes, and ethical values of any “not for profit” enterprise"? Or even comparing all the state public motorists clubs to each other. NRMA insurance markets in Queensland as well as NSW which seems a little un-sibling like of them. Which organisation is more ethical?

What ever path taken a fully informed review may need a representative sample of actual members who have sufficient experience of all the products and services to be able to properly assess each in turn.

For the moment at best can Choice offer a “desktop” review? How meaningful might that be? It is easiest to compare products that are in the open market such as car insurance.

However the real value for many members may not in these products. We use RACQ as a couple primarily for it’s road side support services. Our assessment and experience with other products has had variable outcomes. Some of our extended family relied on the RACQ for many services, more out of trust and as a defence against complexity than out of convenience. Although now the shop fronts are nearly all gone!

In respect of motoring organisations such as the RACV, RACQ, NRMA etc,

For membership what needs do they respond to?
How well do they deliver each service or product? Consumer satisfaction, and is this deserved?
Do they deliver value - competitive products and services?
How do they respond to complaints from members?

Noting it is up to their members to choose to exercise control over the not-for-profit charter, business direction and management team:
Do the organisations themselves suggest or promote themselves differently to how they act or perform?
Is their a genuine return to members directly or are members satisfied how surpluses are directed elsewhere?
Does each organisation deliver what all members need or are there short comings?
Is their a gap or short comings in the consumer advocacy by these organisations?
How truely independent is each organisation?

In history there once were a great many community “mutual funds” that provided some relief or support where the state did not. Many no longer exist. Some evolved. There are now large insurance businesses that are profitable and public listed.

Are the organisations serving the motorists morally still “not-for-profit” much like an old fashioned mutual society, or is it simply a quirk of the tax system they exist as they are? Independent of the legal and political realities is it better they stay this way to offer an option to counter the march of the global retailers?

Ultimately - while I expect the RACQ to be at the forefront of consumer protection by taking on the giants in the Motoring World, I sadly regret they do not!


Now the RACQ are Bankers as well, how do you separate the profits from the Banking from the non-profit side of their operation though they also may be non profit with the Banking returning any profits back to their members with increased services. Now I am not saying that is what is happening but it may be the line they are speaking and it could be the outcome in reality. But how do you test it and value the returns? Are the returns really reflective of the aims of the organisation/s?


What is this syndrome? I searched, but got a bunch of responses about dating.

Surely this creates some conflicts of interest. Lending money for cars and providing consumer advice? I’m sure there are plenty of other opportunities for conflict.


Maybe it will become like NRMA… the NRMA road services is completely separate to NRMA insurance… The insurance arm sucks but the road services guys are legends.
I noticed NRMA insurance has destroyed an iconic Aussie song for one of their ads too… in it they show NRMA road services however they do show a tiny bit of text in the corner of the screen for a couple of seconds letting us know that NRMA road services is not part of NRMA insurance. :expressionless:


The Gruen program on the ABC took that ad apart. The use of the Hunters & Collectors song doesn’t make much, if any, sense, and some parts of the ad are just creepy. ( I used to work for NRMA Insurance, and started there in the '80s, before the legal eagles and bankers took over )


Many thanks for pointing this out.
Does this disclaimer assume:
A) your tv can display the text in a legible form,
B) it is displayed for long enough for the average person to detect it’s presence, that it is important, stop watching the animation, read, comprehend and remember the message,
C) your eye sight is up to the challenge,
D) if streaming your service has enough bandwidth to run at more than low res,
E) you noticed that the squiggles on the screen were just not part of the general scene

So what, apparently this must satisfy consumer and advertising standards. Otherwise the champion of consumer advertising ACMA would be on to it?

Fortunately the disclaimer does not come with one of those horrible voice overs like a political add.

p.s. I can’t see the RACQ devolving it’s other services. The value of these non breakdown support services is vested through the RACQ membership data base. You need intimate access to this customer data set for any portion to be most valuable as a stand alone business.

This is not really helping progress the problem Toyota is trying to dodge. I have however learnt about something I had not seen before. Another advertising ploy to mislead or perpetrate deception. It perhaps deserves further attention, as for the separate topic commenting on fine print on food product labels?


Toyota has form in this area, only a few years back they denied that they had a problem with sticking throttles and runaway cars, when they begrudgingly acknowledged the problem they first blamed the floor mats then later under threats for US authorities they replaced throttle pedal transducers and then did some tens of thousands of engine ECU software upgrades on customer cars.

But they’re were dragged kicking and screaming all the way denying everything, copying the VW playbook when VW cars started going in to limp mode due to their DSG transmission computer failures and they tried denying everything until shamed in the local media to act.


For what it’s worth, I had a major engine failure in the middle of nowhere in WA a month ago. (I won’t mention the brand of vehicle at this time as things are still happening and they have been very supportive.) I am in the TOP cover of RAA and I cannot speak highly enough of there help. They were fantastic. And this was a 2016 model so this should not have happened. They had a tow truck to us within 2 hours and they rang me the next day and slowly and surely the wheels started turning. It happened on a Monday and we were home in a hire car by Thursday and the said vehicle was back in Adelaide on the Tuesday.
Well, its now the 17th of August and we picked up the car, a Subaru Outback diesel today. A brand new motor and turbo were fitted all under warranty.
When we first got back to Adelaide the dealership gave us and almost brand new Forester to run around in and later Subaru Australia gave us a brand new Impreza to run around in.
I can’t speak highly enough of Javis Subaru and Subaru Australia for thier help and support._


The motor industry does seem to be protected by government.
Healthy new car sales is a good indicator of a good economy, this might be why.

P.S Please don’t blame the mechanics for unresolved vehicle issues, they are directed by management.

The industry culture needs to change!


The motor vehicle industry is very significant to the domestic economy, and valuable to those who profit from it. Also to government revenues!

For many consumers after rent or the mortgage it is the next biggest single cause of expense. Although these costs are less obvious as a single total. I budget $10k pa TCO based on an average new vehicle. A 10% reduction in these costs is worth more to us than bring electricity costs down by as much as 25%. Even a 10% reduction in fuel costs might be as valuable.

For others without a vehicle the close cousins are public transport costs including taxis and the cost of Uber.


One must also remember that the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) also apply. While a known design fault across a model should be rectified by a recall, if there is a design fault is is required to be resolved under the ACL. If one has such a vehicle, it is worth loding details on the Product Recall Website:

Also also lodging a complaint with the ACCC and the relevant State Consumer Protection Agency if the fault is not effectively resolved (e.g. band aid repairs rather than a real fix).


While that is true, getting them to step up is a different issue than our rights. As many have found it can be a trying (and trying and trying) experience. Thus there is the ongoing discussion about our need for explicit lemon laws. :expressionless:

The comments to this item are more interesting than the PC content of the item itself.




It’s apparently not just the HiLux but the 200 and 79 Series and the Kluger. We have a 200 Series and will be quizzing very closely our dealer.


Wouldn’t be surprised as many manufacturers use the same engine across multiple models.