1 2 3 ... 6
JG Pasterjak
JG Pasterjak Production/Art Director
8/3/22 10:55 a.m.
feature_image

You may have noticed that we haven’t said much about a situation currently sweeping social media: the non-warranty of a detonated 2022 Toyota GR86 after the dealership learned the owner was using it in “drifting” events (which was actually an autocross).

We haven’t discussed it much because we don’t have complete or verifiable information. Most of us don’t, which is …

Read the rest of the story

paddygarcia
paddygarcia GRM+ Memberand Reader
8/3/22 11:16 a.m.

It's intriguing that a strong brand like Toyota still has private distributors vs a 50-state national sales company. 

Noddaz
Noddaz GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
8/3/22 11:18 a.m.

Thank you for following up on this.

Slippery
Slippery GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
8/3/22 11:26 a.m.
paddygarcia said:

It's intriguing that a strong brand like Toyota still has private distributors vs a 50-state national sales company. 

I think they go WAY back. Take Toyota South East/Jim Moran here in South Florida. They helped Toyota become what they are today, its a partnership from day 1 of Toyota in the USA.

Jim Moran

"In early 1968, he was contacted by a friend from Chicago who said that Toyota wanted to establish a dealer network in the Southeast U.S. and wanted to talk to Jim Moran, who asked what a Toyota was. The company had been unsuccessful at breaking into the American market at the end of the 1950s and was trying again. Moran declined, but his friend was insistent that Moran drive one. According to Moran, he tested everything to see if it would break. While cruising at 55 mph on the interstate, Moran shifted into reverse, and the engine and transmission survived. Moran concluded that although Toyotas weren't as stylish or comfortable as domestic vehicles, they were well-built, reasonably priced, and destined to change the automotive business.[11] On October 26, 1968 he entered into an agreement to distribute Toyota vehicles from the port in Jacksonville, Florida to the states of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, North and South Carolina. His Southeast Toyota Distributors (SET) was founded that year[12] and in 2006, distributed over 400,000 vehicles, 20% of all new Toyotas sold in the United States. "

CrustyRedXpress
CrustyRedXpress GRM+ Memberand HalfDork
8/3/22 11:32 a.m.
  • Finally, remember to be a responsible consumer of media. Check sources, even if it means just opening a second browser tab and googling the name of a person or a company. It seems a lot of the heat around this incident stems from information that is quickly thrown into the public sphere and lacks context. Sometimes, simply providing that context can help better ground a story in reality.

Truth!

Sk1dmark (Forum Supporter)
Sk1dmark (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand Reader
8/3/22 11:33 a.m.

In reply to Slippery :

And sure enough from the wikipedia page Gulf States Toyota opened in 1969, making them early adopters in the US.

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
8/3/22 11:34 a.m.

I think what we're really learning from this is how byzantine corporate structures can become. When you're buying a Toyota from a dealer, there might be a couple of different levels between the dealer and the actual entity that bolted the car together - especially since it's a Subaru. 

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter)
Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
8/3/22 12:05 p.m.

This rational, cautious approach to a controversial subject is a good example of why I am proud to be a member of the GRM community.

ztnedman1
ztnedman1 Reader
8/3/22 12:44 p.m.

I have no dog in the fight other than I'm no Toyota cheerleader.

 

That being said, denying on the basis of motorsport(just the use not even modified), for a car that is advertised as motorsport, that comes with motorsport stuff upon purchase means they are in the wrong.

 

Mazda did it right with the ND1.

 

Companies spend how much in advertising?  How much has the GR marketing and advertising cost?  Part of that marketing is creating fans who then buy the boring stuff from you too.  We are told this segment is insignificant.  We are told the % of people who use it for intended use is insignificant.  It's so insignificant in fact, that apparently 11k is worth denying vs the MILLIONs spent to get that buyer into that position. 

 

The failure isn't the problem.  The denial isn't the problem.  It's why they denied it that is the problem.  

 

Rakem through the coals. 

 

And the nonsense about Toyota corporate not knowing... Seems like they should know that kind of E36 M3 in their biggest market by far.  That's the same excuse college coaches used and NFL coaches, and politicians...etc it doesn't matter if you didn't know, you should have known, so guilty by association.

 

 

logdog (Forum Supporter)
logdog (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UberDork
8/3/22 12:49 p.m.
Keith Tanner said:

I think what we're really learning from this is how byzantine corporate structures can become. When you're buying a Toyota from a dealer, there might be a couple of different levels between the dealer and the actual entity that bolted the car together - especially since it's a Subaru. 

Thats a good point.  It especially gets complicated with import companies.  Generally speaking if you buy a domestic in the US you are buying something the parent company designed, engineered and built, then retailed to dealers for sale to customers.

Disclaimer - These are just assumptions based on experience dealing with imports at a corporate level-

With an import like Toyota you may have a set up where the parent company is in Japan.  Then you have Toyota Motor North America that is a "totally separate company (wink wink)" that buys the cars from the parent in Japan, then sells them to distributors that then sell them to the dealers.  The fact they name their US plants things like "Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky" and their R&D "Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America" tells me those are also likely "totally separate companies (wink wink)".

What you end up with is a giant pair of Japanese pants with pockets all over the world arguing about who gets to hold the money laugh

gcmak
gcmak
8/3/22 1:03 p.m.

Looking forward to the additional details your team uncovers. Staying tuned.

Matt B (fs)
Matt B (fs) UltraDork
8/3/22 1:13 p.m.

In reply to ztnedman1 :

It does seem like a false economy to me as well.  Perhaps it likely stems from these corporate middle-men distribution structures.  They may not have a strong financial incentive to protect certain niche model reputations as much as the actual manufacturer.  Or maybe it's just plain old short-sightedness for the sake of quarterly earning reports.

tremm
tremm Reader
8/3/22 1:14 p.m.

Fool me once.

Wonder how many people are going to see that headline and say nope. Seems like Toyota has little to gain, and lots to lose, with the Subaru/BMW relationships. I don't get it. Maybe Toyota needs licensing from them or something; I don't understand what value the companies have to offer Toyota.

Opiewho
Opiewho New Reader
8/3/22 1:21 p.m.
ztnedman1 said:

I have no dog in the fight other than I'm no Toyota cheerleader.

 

That being said, denying on the basis of motorsport(just the use not even modified), for a car that is advertised as motorsport, that comes with motorsport stuff upon purchase means they are in the wrong.

 

Mazda did it right with the ND1.

 

Companies spend how much in advertising?  How much has the GR marketing and advertising cost?  Part of that marketing is creating fans who then buy the boring stuff from you too.  We are told this segment is insignificant.  We are told the % of people who use it for intended use is insignificant.  It's so insignificant in fact, that apparently 11k is worth denying vs the MILLIONs spent to get that buyer into that position. 

 

The failure isn't the problem.  The denial isn't the problem.  It's why they denied it that is the problem.  

 

Rakem through the coals. 

 

And the nonsense about Toyota corporate not knowing... Seems like they should know that kind of E36 M3 in their biggest market by far.  That's the same excuse college coaches used and NFL coaches, and politicians...etc it doesn't matter if you didn't know, you should have known, so guilty by association.

 

 

That is assuming that the reason for the denial was actually his participation in a Motorsports activity. Only the owner at this point has stated that as the reason. As GRM states, we should not jump to conclusions....for all we know the guy didn't fill up the oil fully on the oil changes he performed himself.

arthuruscg
arthuruscg New Reader
8/3/22 1:23 p.m.

In reply to paddygarcia :

Especially when the distributor has the power to control the PR for the OEM. It's no longer the days where 1 bad experience is spread by word of mouth to a few people, now, it can be spread fast enough to have a large affect next months sales numbers.

Just think about how many people were about to buy but decided to wait until this plays out.

engiekev
engiekev HalfDork
8/3/22 1:29 p.m.

I'm going through a similar issue with our Porsche cayenne diesel. The dealer states that Porsche denied a warranty claim, but Porsche is stating that the dealership is totally independent from them and has the final say (insert spiderman meme)

Straight from Porsche customer care rep: "Porsche dealerships are independent businesses and conduct day-to-day business as they see fit. To that end, yes, the decision is ultimately up to a dealership’s individual assessment."  

 

Per another source:

"Dealers are not Porsche per se – they are independent companies who own a franchise right to represent Porsche – just like most McDonald's restaurants. This provides them with the closest connection to the manufacturer, easier access to resources and strict rules of operation within that franchise agreement."

https://www.pcarwise.com/news/independent-repair-shop-versus-dealer-service-be-careful-with-this-comparison/#:~:text=Dealers%20are%20not%20Porsche%20per,operation%20within%20that%20franchise%20agreement.

I wonder how this varies between OEMs.

 

captainawesome
captainawesome Dork
8/3/22 1:32 p.m.

I was there when said engine seized. It was the first run of their heat and even worse it was his co-driver that got the run where it decided to call it quits. That's about all I can validate other than he has been at most of the events in our region this season. Not a hoon it till it blows type of guy. A serious I love autocross type of guy. One of us as far as I'm concerned. When we pushed the car on the trailer he was particular as to where we could even touch the car when rolling it onto a trailer to be taken home. He was gutted. If it truly was the snake mess of sealant in the oil pickup that did the bearings in, I don't see how they can refuse to repair or replace.

dannyp84
dannyp84 Reader
8/3/22 1:50 p.m.
ztnedman1 said:

I have no dog in the fight other than I'm no Toyota cheerleader.

 

That being said, denying on the basis of motorsport(just the use not even modified), for a car that is advertised as motorsport, that comes with motorsport stuff upon purchase means they are in the wrong.

 

Mazda did it right with the ND1.

 

Companies spend how much in advertising?  How much has the GR marketing and advertising cost?  Part of that marketing is creating fans who then buy the boring stuff from you too.  We are told this segment is insignificant.  We are told the % of people who use it for intended use is insignificant.  It's so insignificant in fact, that apparently 11k is worth denying vs the MILLIONs spent to get that buyer into that position. 

 

The failure isn't the problem.  The denial isn't the problem.  It's why they denied it that is the problem.  

 

Rakem through the coals. 

 

And the nonsense about Toyota corporate not knowing... Seems like they should know that kind of E36 M3 in their biggest market by far.  That's the same excuse college coaches used and NFL coaches, and politicians...etc it doesn't matter if you didn't know, you should have known, so guilty by association.

 

 

What's the story with the ND1? As much as I like the 86/BRZ, I think the Subaru engine was a bit of a mistake. I wish they had updated the 3SGE to meet emission standards, or even just put a higher compression head on the 2.0 they use in the Corolla. My girlfriend's Mazda3 has a more joyful engine than the flat 4 in the 1st gen BRZ. I'm less sympathetic to the cost-sharing between two brands for a low volume sports car considering how good the ND2 Miata is, and how little it shares with the rest of Mazda's lineup. With that said, I'm glad these cars exist at all, but if I was looking to buy one I'd probably pad my budget for engine problems.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter)
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltraDork
8/3/22 1:53 p.m.

This is ironic.  I agree.  We don't know all of the facts.  But I will also point out this isn't a big deal.  It's just an engine in a car.  However, you'll find tons of media and people here that jump to conclusions on world events, court cases, and laws without even doing basic research.  The irony is thick here.  
 

I could create a list of examples, but I don't want to anger the mob by pointing out what should be so obvious.  
 

Living in a country where an hour will be spent looking at the spot of a football in a meaningless game from every angle but people will demand legal action without understanding basic civics or current laws is nearly comedic.

But the poor engine.....  

 

So yes I agree.  I just wish everyone and all media could see the broader applicability.  

Hoondavan
Hoondavan HalfDork
8/3/22 1:57 p.m.

This escalated quickly. I saw something about it on a FB group I follow & saw the memes here this morning .  GRM Memes is how I stay in touch w/emerging news and cultural events these days. Did you know George Jettson (the cartoon) was born on 7/31/2022?!?

I would like to know more & I'm sure there's lots of information that hasn't been disclosed at this point.  The fact it's the dealer franchise, not Toyota, denying the warranty is new information (thanks, GRM!).  

Something about the interaction likely caused somebody someone at the dealership to stalk this guy's social media profiles. I think it's worth each of us rethinking how we use social media.  Using personal, easily identifiable information on social media could impact your profession or possessions. What's to keep your insurance company from deciding to drop coverage because you drive your car at track days or competitive events?  SCCA autocross registrations, results and photos are pretty easy to find online.  Most employers probably do the same thing.

Once I get another auto-x/rally-x car I'll probably remove the license plate (FL) and look into using a different version of my actual name.

 

 

kb58
kb58 SuperDork
8/3/22 1:58 p.m.
engiekev said:

I'm going through a similar issue with our Porsche cayenne diesel. The dealer states that Porsche denied a warranty claim, but Porsche is stating that the dealership is totally independent from them and has the final say (insert spiderman meme)

Straight from Porsche customer care rep: "Porsche dealerships are independent businesses and conduct day-to-day business as they see fit. To that end, yes, the decision is ultimately up to a dealership’s individual assessment."  

 

Per another source:

"Dealers are not Porsche per se – they are independent companies who own a franchise right to represent Porsche – just like most McDonald's restaurants. This provides them with the closest connection to the manufacturer, easier access to resources and strict rules of operation within that franchise agreement."

https://www.pcarwise.com/news/independent-repair-shop-versus-dealer-service-be-careful-with-this-comparison/#:~:text=Dealers%20are%20not%20Porsche%20per,operation%20within%20that%20franchise%20agreement.

I wonder how this varies between OEMs.

I realize this is getting off-topic but find this interesting. I thought that dealers are more than happy to do in-warranty repairs because they can charge the manufacturer at their shop rate. Maybe it varies mfg to mfg.

If it really is the individual dealer's decision, how about approaching a few different ones?

ztnedman1
ztnedman1 Reader
8/3/22 1:59 p.m.
Opiewho said:
ztnedman1 said:

I have no dog in the fight other than I'm no Toyota cheerleader.

 

That being said, denying on the basis of motorsport(just the use not even modified), for a car that is advertised as motorsport, that comes with motorsport stuff upon purchase means they are in the wrong.

 

Mazda did it right with the ND1.

 

Companies spend how much in advertising?  How much has the GR marketing and advertising cost?  Part of that marketing is creating fans who then buy the boring stuff from you too.  We are told this segment is insignificant.  We are told the % of people who use it for intended use is insignificant.  It's so insignificant in fact, that apparently 11k is worth denying vs the MILLIONs spent to get that buyer into that position. 

 

The failure isn't the problem.  The denial isn't the problem.  It's why they denied it that is the problem.  

 

Rakem through the coals. 

 

And the nonsense about Toyota corporate not knowing... Seems like they should know that kind of E36 M3 in their biggest market by far.  That's the same excuse college coaches used and NFL coaches, and politicians...etc it doesn't matter if you didn't know, you should have known, so guilty by association.

 

 

That is assuming that the reason for the denial was actually his participation in a Motorsports activity. Only the owner at this point has stated that as the reason. As GRM states, we should not jump to conclusions....for all we know the guy didn't fill up the oil fully on the oil changes he performed himself.

 

Then shame on for Toyota for not speaking up.  This is growing legs and quickly.  Either they know about this growing legs/memes/websites and are letting this narrative grow or they don't know about it...both are bad/negligent. Unfortunately for them the court of public opinion DOES apply to people considering these vehicles.

 

Considering he had no clue this would catch on, and isn't the first on the main forum he originally posted too I have a hard time seeing why he would leave something so obvious out, before starting a crusade at someone else's recommendation.  Again this issue isn't the denail, it's that it was denied without being examined, rather just because of motorsport.  If they find he over reved,used wrong oil, under filled them that's fine, but you can't do that without even looking at the engine.  That engine was not torn down and checked, it was just denied because of evidence of motorsport.

GameboyRMH
GameboyRMH GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
8/3/22 2:31 p.m.

Remember that just recently lemachin on this forum had warranty coverage denied on his 2016 BRZ when the engine sang the song of its people, because the dealership had found that he'd done HPDEs with it, and this was in Ontario...so the problem isn't specific to Gulf States Toyota or even Toyota in general.

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
8/3/22 2:49 p.m.

In reply to dannyp84 :

ND1 had a transmission that was unique to the Miata and optimized for high efficiency. They started breaking when autocrossed. Mazda came out with about 5 versions trying to fix the problem and covered warranty replacement of the transmissions. 

dannyp84
dannyp84 Reader
8/3/22 2:53 p.m.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Oh I vaguely remember this, "optimized for high efficiency" meaning smaller/lighter and probably weaker components I suspect. If I remember correctly, the ND1 came with a smaller displacement engine in other markets, that transmission was probably up to the task for the small engine.

1 2 3 ... 6
Our Preferred Partners
oJRLBrRT8s56iWMYQbeGdrKS555rD6IEOHni5iwszcYyOX6PjmAAvtCHg5eiGIj2