Topic: Legendary (un)reliability?

[emsvitil]

I'll put this here.........

Why did Toyota go to the single timing chain and POS plastic guides on the 22R engine?

The old dual timing chain and metal guides lasted forever...........

[H8PVMNT]

I'll put this here.........

Why did Toyota go to the single timing chain and POS plastic guides on the 22R engine?

The old dual timing chain and metal guides lasted forever...........

I think the single chain was intended to lighten things up to eak a little more power and rev-happiness out of the engine.  The plastic guides were just dumb I have no idea.  Had to be an attempt to cut cost?

I even lament the aluminum rockers.  They are noisy.  The cast steel rockers ae nice and quiet and I think the difference in weight is completely negligible. I have the heavy stteel rockers on my hybrid and it still goes pretty good.

[Lewis Hein [OP]]

If you don't like working on old stuff and figuring out issues on old crusty pickups then these things probably aren't for you.  I would estimate a minimum of 6 months of driving, diagnosing and fixing to beat the cobwebs out of any old Toyota. Even after that you will NEVER, EVER obtain the "legendary reliability" they used to talk about because you will never have a new set of Toyota parts built by Toyota.  If that's not your thing than you would be better off leasing a new cute ute and getting a new one every three years or 36K miles.

I actually do like it at times, but not when it's 20F with a howling wind, I have many pressing obligations, and suddenly have to cram twice as much into a weekend to get the truck fixed so that I have it when I need it. I have 8 months into this thing, and the cobwebs still aren't all gone. It only has 200,000 miles on it -- If the standard of reliability were 300-400,000 like the Toyota legend seems to set, it should still be going strong. Instead, I find broken things every time I turn around, and the only reason I haven't walked away in disgust is that it's so easy to work on. But if I had bought a domestic 4x4, I'd probably have come out ahead because of similar ease and number of repairs, cheaper parts, and less over-hyped reputation boosting the price. (Disclaimer -- I have never actually worked on a domestic vehicle, so this is more of a reasonable guess than a firm assertion)

Even the pickup I grew up with was a bit on the flimsy side, as complained about earlier. And it was bought new.

[Gnarly4X]

I'll put this here.........

Why did Toyota go to the single timing chain and POS plastic guides on the 22R engine?

The old dual timing chain and metal guides lasted forever...........

You can pick out any number of well known design flaws in all kinds of engines, drive trains, chassis, and vehicles through out their history, and Toyota is no exception. The list of automotive design safety failure law suits is endless.  The number of model recalls every year is some times staggering.

The 22 head has a design flaw in number 3 chamber. The water port in too close to the chamber and it cracks across into the chamber… leaks coolants.

The plastic timing chain guide design was absolutely a major fubar!  The Japanese engineers who were working on that project were apparently wasted on Sake!  The area around the bolt holes on the driver’s side guide is too thin and inadequate, and the pressure from the chain fractures the plastic material around the bolt. I have documented this some years back on my own t-chain replacements. What is disturbing to me is that Toyota knew about the flaw, and any aftermarket manufacturer knew about it, but did nothing to redesign it  The redesign would have been very simple.  Then out came the steel backed guides, which effectively eliminated the guide from breaking around the bolt hole and preventing the t-chain from slapping against the cover.

Toyota's reason for the single chain and plastic guides was most likely manufacturing cost reduction at a time when they were competing heavily for brand recognition in the US and world markets.

In a sales-driven business model there are only typically two ways to increase profit... increase revenue or reduce costs.

I believe, generally speaking, the automotive industry works on a rather thin profit margin.

COG.. Cost of Quality is probably one of the most discussed and researched aspects in just about any manufacturing process designed for mass consumption.


Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

Hi Lewis,

Everyone’s experience is different.

It appears from your commentary that you – unfortunately - acquired an old truck that was very badly abused, basic factory recommended maintenance totally ignored, and owned by someone that had absolutely no mechanical aptitude or comprehension of responsible vehicle ownership.  And now, you appear to be, perhaps unfairly, blaming Toyota, in 1985 – 32 years ago - for failing to meet some nebulous reliability level with very limited auto mechanical experience or hands-on comparison with other manufacturers.

Please correct me if I’m reading your posts wrong.

It is my opinion, that clearly, in the entire world of automobile manufacturing, Toyota’s automotive design and engineering prowess and reliability is considered by practically every automotive research entity, publication, consumer and market studies, and sales numbers, in the recent past and currently more consistently at the top of the list than any other manufacturer..... but I am biased.

Gnarls. 

[Lewis Hein [OP]]

It appears from your commentary that you – unfortunately - acquired an old truck that was very badly abused, basic factory recommended maintenance totally ignored, and owned by someone that had absolutely no mechanical aptitude or comprehension of responsible vehicle ownership.

That is a fair summary of the case. As far as blaming Toyota, it appears likely to me a priori that at least some of those GMs and Dodges must have had similar abuse -- where are their endless problems?.

[H8PVMNT]

Mee meeh blably blah blah...   

[Gnarly4X]

Mee meeh blably blah blah...   

That is Montana-ese for "chatting"....

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

That is a fair summary of the case. As far as blaming Toyota, it appears likely to me a priori that at least some of those GMs and Dodges must have had similar abuse -- where are their endless problems?.

HI Lewis,

You may be confusing reliability with dependability.

There is a correlation.

However... if you took a 1985 Toyota shortbed, 5-speed, stock, off the showroom floor, and any other 4x4 in it's class of that year, and took them to Moab to do any number of 1/2 dozen trails, the Toyota truck would blow the doors off of any other brand for "dependability" or the longest MTTF - Mean Time To Failure.

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

..As far as blaming Toyota, it appears likely to me a priori that at least some of those GMs and Dodges must have had similar abuse -- where are their endless problems?.

Hi Lewis,

Your questions are good, it's just you are on the wrong site.  Go to any one of a number of GM, Dodge, Ford sites and ask for some anecdotal proof that Toyota sucks and you'll get some excellent biased feedback.

You are on a Toyota 4x4 site.  We have to be careful in this highly evolved society of PC, micro-aggression, egomaniacal, destroy-whatever-you-don't-like, barbaric terrorism, pathetic self-interest, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-civil rights, and absurd violence.

We don't want to bash the competition too badly, and cause a social media uprising, and then create the need for the anti-Toyota snow-flakes to have their safe-space.

Regarding the term "abuse".  What does that mean?... you can take two identical vehicles, driven by two different owners, one owner could abuse and destroy the vehicle in 100 miles.  The other owner could drive the vehicle 100,000 miles without a failure.  Which vehicle would then be considered more reliable?

The preponderance of evidence is out there... you just need to do some research.  Or... you could spend the next 20 years experiencing different vehicles and then draw your own biased conclusions.

This discussion - Toyota vs XYZ- albeit not a new one, is not really priori.... it is simply posteriori.

Gnarls.

[Lewis Hein [OP]]

Your questions are good, it's just you are on the wrong site.  Go to any one of a number of GM, Dodge, Ford sites and ask for some anecdotal proof that Toyota sucks and you'll get some excellent biased feedback.

This is what worries  me: What you have said (and I believe you) amounts to stating that if I ask the same question in different places, I get different answers. Most of the answers will be backed by knowledgeable people who have spent many years owning, driving, and fixing vehicles of their favorite brand. So I can ask here in Toyotaland and find out that Toyotas are the best ever. I can go to GMland and find out that Toyota is junk and GM is the only decent vehicle make out there. Then I can ask the same question in Dodgeland, Fordland, and get a different answer each time. One of these answers will be true, but I don't know which one.

The preponderance of evidence is out there... you just need to do some research.  Or... you could spend the next 20 years experiencing different vehicles and then draw your own biased conclusions.

I've done days of research and got nowhere. Where is said evidence?

[H8PVMNT]

I like Toyotas because they work really good off road, take more than the typical amount of abuse and I am comfortable working on them, not because of the legendary dependability.  I have had Toyotas that last longer than they have had a right to (my 1980 4x4 with a gagillion unknown miles on the original 20r, still runs, abused every day I've used it).  My 1994 pickup went through a 22re in only 125K miles after I boiled it over in the woods from a stuck thermostat and a broken bolt and drove it 6,000 rpms every day.

Any of the domestics can be really good trucks, but Toyotas and Jeeps rule the roost for the off road crowd. 

You can't buy a 30 year old truck with a quarter of a million miles on it of ANY make and expect it to be a bastion of dependability.


If you are trying to debunk the myth of Toyota dependability on this forum you are preaching to the WRONG CROWD.  Nearly everyone on here loves this things, dependable or not.  That's not the reason most of use them anyway.

My official answer is no, these aren't necessarily as dependable as people make them out to be, but some have been that good.  The drivetrain parts are HUGE for a 90 horse power 4 banger and they are really beefy and tough in stock trim.  I have had chevy's, jeeps and fords break just following in my tracks dozens of times. Are Toyotas more dependable over the long haul? Well results vary.  I don't necessarily think so but they are certainly better suited to the kind of abuses most of us idiots who like them put them through.   

Dude, if you want to work on an old Ford or Chevy, or try you luck with a 250K mile dodge, go for it.  If you like your basket case Toyota enough to learn to deal with it, then there is a ton of help on this and other communities to help you along the way.  We can pretty much choose what we want to drive.

I am not offended with what you are saying, since I have had all kinds of experiences with Toyotas and most of the dependability hype is from old men who drove slow and had regular dealer maintenance, but I guess I don't understand what your point is.  None of us here think these rigs are trash, regardless of how much we have to work on them, and I don't think you at making any headway taking down the "legend of dependability".

Your truck is clapped out and old.  Deal with it or sell it.  It's cool either way.   

[Lewis Hein [OP]]

I'm not trying to debunk any myths per se, I just want a good understanding of what is and is not myth. Lack of experience precludes me having such an understanding already, so I have to ask lots of questions. And yes, some of these questions amount to "This common statement contradicts my experience. Is it a myth?"

Truth told, I like my basket case Toyota. It's simple and easy to work on. And my point officially is: I hear everywhere about how incredibly durable Toyotas are, but my experience is not in line with what I hear. Thus, I'm on a quest to separate myth from fact. And a large part of that quest is to ask people who know Toyotas inside and out, and argue with them until they convince me why I'm wrong.

Lewis

[Gnarly4X]

Well

I like Toyotas because they work really good off road, take more than the typical amount of abuse and I am comfortable working on them, not because of the legendary dependability.  I have had Toyotas that last longer than they have had a right to (my 1980 4x4 with a gagillion unknown miles on the original 20r, still runs, abused every day I've used it).  My 1994 pickup went through a 22re in only 125K miles after I boiled it over in the woods from a stuck thermostat and a broken bolt and drove it 6,000 rpms every day.

Any of the domestics can be really good trucks, but Toyotas and Jeeps rule the roost for the off road crowd. 

You can't buy a 30 year old truck with a quarter of a million miles on it of ANY make and expect it to be a bastion of dependability.


If you are trying to debunk the myth of Toyota dependability on this forum you are preaching to the WRONG CROWD.  Nearly everyone on here loves this things, dependable or not.  That's not the reason most of use them anyway.

My official answer is no, these aren't necessarily as dependable as people make them out to be, but some have been that good.  The drivetrain parts are HUGE for a 90 horse power 4 banger and they are really beefy and tough in stock trim.  I have had chevy's, jeeps and fords break just following in my tracks dozens of times. Are Toyotas more dependable over the long haul? Well results vary.  I don't necessarily think so but they are certainly better suited to the kind of abuses most of us idiots who like them put them through.   

Dude, if you want to work on an old Ford or Chevy, or try you luck with a 250K mile dodge, go for it.  If you like your basket case Toyota enough to learn to deal with it, then there is a ton of help on this and other communities to help you along the way.  We can pretty much choose what we want to drive.

I am not offended with what you are saying, since I have had all kinds of experiences with Toyotas and most of the dependability hype is from old men who drove slow and had regular dealer maintenance, but I guess I don't understand what your point is.  None of us here think these rigs are trash, regardless of how much we have to work on them, and I don't think you at making any headway taking down the "legend of dependability".

Your truck is clapped out and old.  Deal with it or sell it.  It's cool either way.   

Well stated.  And I understand Montana-ese!

Gnarls. 

[Gnarly4X]

...

I've done days of research and got nowhere. Where is said evidence?

Hi Lewis,

Other than this site and the credible witnesses and testimony, I'm having trouble understanding your "research and got nowhere"...

But... I'm a philologist and research junkie, and research has been one of my most active hobbies since Al Gore and I invented the internet.

I have spent a zillion hours doing "research".

Just for poops 'n chuckles I spent maybe 25 minutes on google.  I simply used the search terms best 4x4, most reliable 4x4s, most reliable off-road vehicles, best all time 4x4s, best all time off-road vehicles, most reliable cars, most reliable trucks, worlds' most reliable vehicles, etc.  I searched major off-road race venues, Consumer Reports, JD Power, 4x4 magazines, and a few others.

The evidence and conclusion should be obvious.... Toyota manufactured vehicles DOMINATE the lists more frequently than any other automobile manufacturer... PERIOD. 

There are a few world class race venues where Toyota does not have a significant presence - Dakar, for example.

Since the Aussies are considered in most off-road and 4x4 circles to be well entrenched into the sport....Here's one example.....   

https://www.4x4australia.com.au/reviews/1510/the-10-greatest-4x4s-of-all-time

I'm not trying to argue or defend what I believe to be a pretty much accepted truth about Toyota 4x4s... especially the "legendary" title.... I'm just offering more information for your own mental health.

Gnarls..... pomp 'n stink... 

[V-Man]

Hey got a question.. had a great uncle that flew his plane only four to six hours per day if and when he flew, but for every hour in the air it spent two to three in the shop. Would you say that based on the time flying VS being repair that his plane was reliable or a pile of junk?

[Gnarly4X]

Hey got a question.. had a great uncle that flew his plane only four to six hours per day if and when he flew, but for every hour in the air it spent two to three in the shop. Would you say that based on the time flying VS being repair that his plane was reliable or a pile of junk?

Was his plane a Toyota, Dodge, Ford, or Chevy?

Gnarls.

[Lewis Hein [OP]]

I know nothing about airplane maintenance, although they probably undergo much more preventive maintenance than cars. If it were a car, I would definitely say it were a pile of junk, but for an airplane, I simply have no idea.

What would you say?

[Gnarly4X]

Hey got a question.. had a great uncle that flew his plane only four to six hours per day if and when he flew, but for every hour in the air it spent two to three in the shop. Would you say that based on the time flying VS being repair that his plane was reliable or a pile of junk?

For aircraft, the FAA regulations, mandatory inspection requirements, manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, coupled with the detailed data that must be logged and documented is deep and wide.

To use the terms shop hours and flight time varies between aircraft type, manufacturer, and regulations, but there is usually a big ratio between the two.  Inspections typically require “shop hours”, so there is always more hours of shop time than flight time.  The range of maintenance and inspection time vs flight time depends on the aircraft and its use.

In your great uncle’s case, without know anything about what you mean by “every hour in the air it spent two to three in the shop” ….  I would guess his plane was very reliable.

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

...
I've done days of research and got nowhere. Where is said evidence?

Hi Lewis,

I am a skeptic about some of what academia writes or publishes, however I thought this article about Toyota and the interview with the Harvard Business Review and Toyota’s President is quite revealing. It was written in 2007, so it’s about 10 years old.

Without delving into the subject of conceptual semantics, in the realm of automotive manufacturing history, the first two paragraphs pretty much sums up why Toyota’s reliability can be accurately labeled as “legendary”.

https://hbr.org/2007/07/lessons-from-toyotas-long-drive

Gnarls…. That’s just my opinion – it may be worthless.

[V-Man]

Ok since some of you guys are familiar with aircraft..

I will put it a better way.
Every time he landed they had to replace or fix engine parts and parts the airframe.  The number of repairs add up enough that he had his aircraft replaced three times in 18 months.

Yet the aircraft he flew is praised for It's performance and durability.   Very very few of the model of aircraft he flew are still flying to day. So why would an Aircraft that is praised for performance and durability have to be replace three times in 18 months?

Judging the aircraft by the standard that is being set by Lewis, it should be not much more then a flying death trap. 

I think some of you have it figured out, but let's let Lewis think about it.

[Gnarly4X]

I've done days of research and got nowhere. Where is said evidence?

Even the automobile-loving Brits have respect for Toyota’s early automotive engineering genius.

This has been around for awhile, but for those of you who may not have seen it, is it a testimony to the design strength of the early Toyota pickup? 

Perhaps Lewis has not seen this.

There are 3 videos of this…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWKz7Cthkk

Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

...

Yet the aircraft he flew is praised for It's performance and durability.   Very very few of the model of aircraft he flew are still flying to day. So why would an Aircraft that is praised for performance and durability have to be replace three times in 18 months?

Sounds like he might have flown a WWII military aircraft?

Gnarls.

[300k]

I could add to this thread...in the 90s my mother had a TOYOTA truck...did nothing to it, just daily drove it around for three years. no issues, sold it for more than she payed for it. gotta love TOYOTA.

[emsvitil]

Sounds like he might have flown a WWII military aircraft?

Gnarls.

Sounds more like WW I.......

[Lewis Hein [OP]]

Even the automobile-loving Brits have respect for Toyota’s early automotive engineering genius.

This has been around for awhile, but for those of you who may not have seen it, is it a testimony to the design strength of the early Toyota pickup? 

Perhaps Lewis has not seen this.

There are 3 videos of this…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWKz7Cthkk

In my opinion, NO. Why not? Well, it comes down to most of the problems that plague attempts to answer "Is car A better than car B?". As I see it, there are three of these problems.

1) Small sample sizes
2) Lack of controls
3) Hidden biases

I think it's in order to mention why every source I know of, in my opinion, suffers (or not) from these problems, starting with Top Gear.

Top Gear "Killing A Toyota".
That is truly impressive. BUT, it's only one truck. How many old Hiluxes would have failed at least one of the tests? We actually have no idea. Also, note that they did not do any of these things to a comparable S10, Courier, Dodge, or Datsun. I maintain that Toyota should only get the "Legendary toughness/durability/reliability" title if it consistently held up to their abuse in a spectacular way AND better than all the others. We simply don't know what would have happened if they had done the exact same abuse they did to that Toyota to nine others, 10 S10s, 10 Datsuns, 10 Dodges, etcetera. Thus, we know that one Toyota is a pretty tough pickup. But we don't know that it was any tougher than anything else.

This is a function of the fact that Top Gear is entertainment, not a scientific study. That's fine: I was entertained by those three videos. However, I wasn't convinced that the Toyota was measurably better than the competition because they didn't measure that.


Consumer Reports or JD Power.
These outfits do very good work. However, they have what in my mind is an insoluble problem. Either they can test a very few cars that they buy under not real-world conditions (small samples have poor predictive power), or they can do a survey. And guess what -- On survey data, cars that are mechanically identical but branded with a more reliable name tend to be more reliable. Thus, a reputation for reliability, whether or not it is backed by actual superiority, is enough to distort CR or JDP measurements.

My internet searches.
Oh, what a list of possible problems. What if, for instance, owners of GM cars are poorer and have less internet access? What if the legendarily reliable Toyotas are all in Guatemala and South Africa working for a living, while their owners have better things to do than write about what great trucks Toyotas are? These are two minor what-ifs. I could come up with many, many more. And, of course, searching on the internet for people's comments is just a really badly executed version of what CR and JD Power are trying to do. The results will be correspondingly worse.

My own experience.
This, too is not a good source of data. I have known maintenance/reliability details of less than a dozen cars in my whole life, counting cars owned by friends and neighbors. This includes sedans, trucks, SUVs, Chevvies, Fords, Toyotas, everything. All have been used differently. Some have been treated well, some have been mercilessly abused. This means that my sample sizes are so tiny as to be useless, and my data could be heavily biased by which owner had what truck.

I get it: No evidence will be perfect for a question like this one. But the imperfections I have listed are quite big enough that fans of other makes can slip through and say "Toyotas are junk, but [fill in make] is THE BEST..." and I cannot prove them wrong. I can't even be sure they are wrong.

This leaves me with....Nothing. Nothing, perhaps, except researching how the companies approach making their vehicles and combining this with the imperfect evidence that is already out there. Gnarls has already kindly started me on this path with the link to the HBR article.

Lewis.
P.S. I will say this: I have known a few people who regretted buying an American make vehicle instead of a Toyota. I've only known one (myself) who regretted buying a Toyota instead of an American make.

[300k]

I find it hard to believe you'd be more happy in a Ford than a TOYOTA...did you buy perhaps the wrong TOYOTA? maybe. I have no idea what has happened to your truck that makes you think it will never be reliable, but that's your opinion. I bet if a Ford lived the same life as your TOYOTA, the Ford would already be patio furniture made in China about 10 years ago

[V-Man]

Sounds like he might have flown a WWII military aircraft?

Gnarls.

Sounds more like WW I.......

WWII Spitefires. MK1 and MK2.   One of the best of the war....unless you were in Russia flying one.  Every one that flew on the Eastern Front was junk. Why? Because it was at least two versions behind, patched together after months of abuse and likely crashed at least once. No manuals for the crews, or manuals that had pages missing or blacked out for some reason, and they where in English not Russian.   
But it is the same as people have been telling him.  If he bought a truck that was used and I mean "used up, it will not as good as a less destroyed truck..

[Gnarly4X]

In my opinion, NO. 

Hi Lewis,

Well… you have certainly made the Chit-Chat forum a wordy discussion.

Yes, you are correct.  All of the evidence that exists that would be convincing enough for an average person can be disputed and debated from several perspectives.

In academia, politics, science, medicine, religion, and in automotive history there any number of “experts” that will emphatically disagree with facts, research, and anecdotal evidence.

I recently read a book by a well-known scientist, PhD and highly educated in one the most prestigious Universities in the US.  In this book, New York Times Best Seller, 25% of its pages were printed bibliography… his sources and peer-reviewed documentation!  And still, on a scientific forum that I frequent, the arguments, debates, antithetical posts were endless. Many of the disagreements were made by other so called experts - PhDs.  Some discourse was simply profound ignorance on the part of the person.

My point… no one is going to convince you… you will only be convinced in your own mind.  The believability of facts is not found in this forum… it will only be found inside your head.

And yes, you are absolutely correct, the videos were just entertainment, biased, not scientific, inconclusive, but seemingly was created to simply demonstrate why the early Toyota pickup has a perceived public legendary title of reliable.

In human psychology there are number of known personality disorders, according to the clinical psychologists most of us have one or more.  Because I have several, one of which I am working on to manage better, I am going to withdraw myself from this discussion so I don’t inexplicably overly expose it. LOL.

In the words of Marylin vos Savant......

“Be able to defend your arguments in a rational way. Otherwise, all you have is an opinion.”


Gnarls.

[Gnarly4X]

WWII Spitefires. MK1 and MK2.   One of the best of the war....unless you were in Russia flying one.  Every one that flew on the Eastern Front was junk. Why? Because it was at least two versions behind, patched together after months of abuse and likely crashed at least once. No manuals for the crews, or manuals that had pages missing or blacked out for some reason, and they where in English not Russian.   

Does the fact that this plane was made by a British company explain anything? 

Gnarls.