Toyota in trouble - Major motor issues and now air bags?

This week news broke the Toyota is pulling more than 200,00 3.4 L V6 engines out of the tundra Lexus GX 550 and more. How does the brand respond to a major engine issue? Can it get worse? Toyota and Lexus Grand Highlander and TX have airbag issues
#toyota #allterrainnation
→ Thank you to our wonderful supporters on Patreon: www.patreon.com/allterrainnation
Jistah Guy, Rumesh Lance, Steve Poje, Mark King, John Sheerin, Randy Hughes, Richard Tokarski, Chris D, youtubecarspottersguide , Kevin Prestenbach, Michael Cooper, Justin Zimmerman, Jim Petersen, Erich Jefferson, Susan Jones, Rob Hallmark, Anthony Sparacio
FOLLOW US!
NEW ATN LIVE channel / @allterrainnationlive
Twitter: / allterrainnati1
Instagram: / all_terrain_nation_media
Facebook: / allterrainnation
Discord: / discord
Web: allterrainnatio...
Patreon: / allterrainnation
****Amazon Shopping - When you use our link for any Amazon purchases you are supporting the channel
LINK: www.amazon.com...
Are you old school and enjoy snail mail?
We do too so send us a letter!
PO Box 356
Rockvale, TN 37153

[@davep2945]

Well, we'll see if Toyota has figured out the real problem in the new turbo V6 if the replacement engines don't have the same issues a year or two from now. Until then their explanation of machining debris remains suspect. Sure, there's debris in there but to know whether it caused the engine issue or was a result of the engine issues hasn't been fully determined. No matter though as, you're right, Dave, Toyota gets a press pass with everything negative that comes their way. And their fanatic fans will buy them no matter how many times they have issues. As for Dana making the frames that rotted out, well, Dana made a lot of frames during that time period for other manufacturers that did not rust out. Those frames were built the way Toyota spec'd them and they made no changes for a very long time. As for emissions, well, Tim is correct, there are many ways to reduce emissions but manufacturers tend to go the route of least resistance whether it's the most effective or not. And we wouldn't have so many rules and regulations if it didn't take rules and regulations to force companies to do the right thing. However, just because European countries do something that is more restrictive emissions wise before the EPA mandates the same does not mean the U.S. is "behind" on the issue. We get to make our own decisions and European society is different than U.S. society or even South American society. What works in one place in the world may not be the best idea for everyone. As Tim mentioned, the ports in California generate the most emissions discharge. Commercial vehicles and industry generate more emissions than passenger auto's. So while it doesn't hurt to reduce pollution where you can it's also a bit of a dog and pony show to pretend global climate issues will be rectified even minimally by regulating passenger vehicles emissions to the point they become almost invalid as transport. But there are major lobbies and a lot of money in corporate America and not nearly the same organization amongst individuals so the little guy, as usual, gets the shaft. And when political ideology allows one to pick the "science" that supports their agenda or ignore the "science" that contradicts it, well, auto manufacturers have to decide between the lesser of evils. Comply with ill considered policy or spend billions fighting for real solutions. It's cheaper to comply. Of course, we as consumers are our own worst enemies. We say we want simple, cheap and reliable cars but we don't buy the few there are on the market save for maybe the Toyota Corolla. And for a lot of people the term cheap means a selling price that is actually less that what it costs the manufacturer to build the car. Lower powered engines can be smaller and have lower emissions but only the most devout of eco virtue signalers would buy a 200 horsepower F-150 these days. We demand safety, luxury features, quiet rides and the list goes on so the cars get less efficient and then we want power so they don't feel slow. So now we've got heavier and less efficient cars powered by larger and less efficient engines. If people were realistic and knew they didn't need 12,000 pounds of trailering ability in a half ton pickup or only added large wheels and tires if they actually used their truck off road then a lighter frame and drive line components could be used and a 300 horsepower V6 engine would feel like a 400 horsepower V8 and the cost could come down. But the press mocks anything with less than 250 horsepower as slow and under powered when it's really not. But the public is easily led and adopts the same ideals. And for all the talk about wanting change in the auto industry consumers who often have no need for a new car or at least no need for the trim level and options they bought keep taking out crazy loans to buy them. So what incentive to automakers have to change their ways? Now you know I like Nissan and I agree that there is little real direction in the company. As for the dealership experience in Lexus or Infinity dealers, yes, it is better but Nissan and Toyota dealers COULD do the same. At the time the sub brands started it was thought a separate nameplate was needed to differentiate themselves and justify the higher prices. Of course, originally there was also a significant difference in many of the cars. But for the better part of twenty years now there is so much cross platform building between the so called luxury divisions and the standard fare in both companies that paying more most often gets you little more than a name and maybe a higher grade of plastic. But, hey, when you can get $20,000 more for an ES 350 than you could for a nearly identical Avalon or the same difference for a QX60 over a Pathfinder because image idiots are still a thing then why not do it? Nissan has good designers and engineers but the company leadership is like the college football coach whose teams glory days are twenty years in the past but no one wants to kick him out because he's old and has been there so long. Loyalty is great if the things you are loyal to are still producing good results. But it can be the death of a company if they hold onto ways or people that no longer work in the current environment. Simple things could go a long way. For instance, Nissan could drastically upgrade the Frontier with a new interior, taking the Ford dip out of the front door and re-calibrating the engine for more low end torque and a little more power (both of which are rumored for 2025). Again, the more power thing. The Frontier has improved on 2023 sales so far this year and is likely to hit that 70 to 80K figure once again. Toyota will likely sell less than 200,000 Tacoma's for the first time since 2017 which was the last year they sold less that 200,000. But keep in mind that 2018 was the first year since the early nineties they sold more than 200,000. So Toyota hasn't been trouncing the competition for decades on end and as competitors get better and offers a better value I don't think it's going to be reliability issues that decrease Tacoma sales. Rather, competition is back and stronger than ever. The new Ranger won't set any sales records this year but next year I would expect it to crest 100K sales. There is still Potentially a lot of room for growth in the midsize truck market if we consider the sales volumes from the eighties and nineties even when full size trucks were still selling nearly the same amount as they are today. Although compact and mid size SUV's may be the thing that limits that sort of repeat success. Those just simply didn't exist in the varieties they do today and the ones that did exist were not hot sellers.