Factory Warranty Denial

[pg1067]

If challenged and given these facts, what must a dealer show to prove that engine damage was caused by an outside influence?

If you were to sue (the manufacturer, not the dealer since, as you noted, it's a "factory warranty," not a warranty provided by the dealer), you'd have the burden of proving that the damage was covered under the warranty. The defendant would have no burden to prove anything until and unless you meet your initial burden.

[Brent89]

Agreed, but if the manufacturer defends based on damage caused by outside influence, i.e. water contamination, it seems there would have to be some showing that it was more likely than not that water caused the damage.

[PayrolGuy]

Agreed, but if the manufacturer defends based on damage caused by outside influence, i.e. water contamination, it seems there would have to be some showing that it was more likely than not that water caused the damage.

And I'd be willing to bet they have a pile of data showing that sort of damage results from water contamination.

[pg1067]

Agreed, but if the manufacturer defends based on damage caused by outside influence, i.e. water contamination, it seems there would have to be some showing that it was more likely than not that water caused the damage.

That's not how civil litigation works. You allege breach of contract/warranty, so you have the initial burden of proof. That means you have to prove (1) the existence and terms of the contract, (2) that you did everything (if anything) that you were obligated to do under the contract, (3) that the other party breached the contract, and (4) that you suffered damages as a result of the breach. Elements 1 and 2 would be easy and might even be undisputed, but element 3 will be disputed, and all that the manufacturer need do is file a responsive pleading that says, "defendant generally denies all allegations in the complaint" (or "defendant denies that it breached the contract"). Once your allegations are denied (or, stated differently, unless the defendant admits your allegations), then you have to prove that a breach occurred and, in order to do that, you have to prove that the damage was a result of something covered by the warranty. Until and unless you can do that, the defendant need to nothing but sit there and watch. It would be absolutely absurd if a plaintiff could simply file a complaint and force the defendant to prove or disprove something without the plaintiff first making an evidentiary showing.

[budwad]

No. Dealer is going by low compression on one cylinder, lower cylinder stroke by 2-4mm, and leak down check.

This entire diagnoses of hydrolock (caused by your) based on those tests is just plain BS. If you had cause the problem by driving in deep water more than one cylinder would be affected. The same results of their tests could be caused by a burnt exhaust or intake valve, a bent valve stem, a bent lifter pushrod, a blown head gasket. The stroke difference of 2-4 mm is suspect because you can measure it precisely. And a 2mm difference in stroke is nothing and it would not cause a misfire in that cylinder. A leak down check is meaningless because piston rings leak and valves leak over time but not sufficient to effect normal engine function. You are being fed a lot of crap to deny your warranty.

You buy a used vehicle and two weeks later your engine light goes on. There is no computer codes for a bent connecting rod. The computer only know that perhaps there was a misfire in that or multiple cylinders. It is code PO300 with the last digit being the cylinder number. That misfire could be caused by lots of different events. It could be caused by a bad fuel injector, a problem with the ignition coil on that cylinder. Do you know what the code was that caused your engine light to go on? Did they tell you? The dealer may have know of the defect and just reset the computer before they sold you the car.

If I were in your situation the first thing I would do is check the chain of title with CarFax to find out if the car was damaged in a flood before you bought it. I would then get it to a different Toyota dealer for evaluation.

[Brent89]

Thank you for your expertise. The CarFax was clear (which it has to be for CPO): one owner, bought, serviced, and traded at the same dealer where we purchased it.

And, yes, we’re moving it to an independent mechanic for a third opinion, then to a different dealer.

Here are the DTC's the dealer finally gave me last week.

8/17/2020 at 12.35 pm: No codes (We had the vehicle at the dealer on 8/17/2020 for some cosmetic follow up and new tires since the tires at delivery were mismatched and noncompliant with CPO requirements. While the vehicle was there, they did a scan. I don't know why they scanned it at that time.)

8/17/2020 at 5:15 pm: Picked the vehicle up from dealer and CEL came on as I drove away. I went straight back but techs were gone, so the service advisor scanned with his portable scanner and said the codes were inconclusive but it was okay to drive it. Drove it home and dropped it back off at the dealer on evening of 8/18/2020.

8/19/2020 at 8:24 am: P219F00, P219F

8/19/2020 at 1:34 pm: P035413, P0354, P011015, P0113, P035613, P219F, P219F00, P0356

[budwad]

Nothing in the codes that you posted would IMO indicate that there was anything mechanically wrong with the engine (such as a bent connecting rod). All the codes relate to sensor and electrical problems most often a coil pack. You could have a bad coil pack or a bad wire harness or a bad sensor.

If the PCM detects an imbalance in the air to fuel ratio for a engine cylinder four, a code P219F will be stored and a malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) may be illuminated. Most vehicles will require multiple ignition cycles (with a failure) for MIL illumination.

When the P0354 code is stored, it indicates that the PCM is not receiving the proper signals from the ignition coil(s) when the vehicle is in operation. This can be indicative of problems with either the primary (computer) side of the ignition coil or the secondary (spark plug) side of the coil.

P0110 - Intake Air Temperature Circuit
Excessively high or low voltage from the intake air sensor (IAT) will trigger this code. Possible causes:
Faulty IAT sensor
Dirty air filter
There's a short in the IAT sensor harness
The electrical connection with the IAT sensor's circuit is poor

If your PCM is returning a P0113 error code, it means that your Intake Air Temperature (IAT) sensor is reading at too high of a voltage. This sensor works as a basic resistor. The PCM sends it a continuous current of five volts, and monitors how much voltage it gets back.

P035613
Ignition Coil "F" Circuit Open

OBD Code P219F - Cylinder #4 Imbalance Error The trouble code P219F can be defined as Cylinder #4 Imbalance Error. The cylinder 4 is being monitored by the engine control module. This trouble code would be set by the ECM when the number four cylinder would not be as per the specifications set by the manufacturer.

For Error Code P0356, the problem means there's an open or short detected in the driver circuit for coil number 6, or other issues in the ignition process of the coil pack. And depending on the vehicle, the PCM may also shut down the fuel injector to the cylinder.

[Brent89]

Toyota’s explanation is that the codes in conjunction with low compression on cylinder 4 and piston height 2-4 mm low indicate a bent rod. They admit they can’t know for sure without getting into the engine. (I’ve seen various opinions on whether 2-4 mm is enough to indicate damage.) FWIW, the last compression check had all cylinders at spec.

Again, my issue here is that Toyota is saying bent rod = water damage, therefore no warranty, because a rod cannot bend without water intrusion. Yet, there is so far no evidence that water intruded: Dry and like new air filter, like new air intake, and no water in the oil.