Toyota Prado Problems

Cracking of the dash is a relatively common one in the Prado, and Toyota has in the past come to the party with at least some of the cost of repairs. It seems now that they are refusing to deal on the basis that cars like yours are too old to care about. Yours is 11 years old, and has done 200,000 km, so you can’t expect Toyota to pay all the cost of repairs, but I would press them for part compensation.

The affected models were built between June 2004 and October 2007, so you should be wary of buying a 2005 model. There shouldn’t be a problem if the car has been serviced correctly and the fuel-injector seals have been changed as they are supposed to be, so check for a service record. If there isn’t one, or you would like to be sure about the car you’re buying have a mechanic drop the sump and inspect the oil pickup for an accumulation of carbon.

The latest Jeep Cherokee and Grand Cherokee are sound but I'm also fielding a growing number of complaints from Chrysler-Jeep owners. I would stick with Toyota.

You could make a claim for the cost of the 120,000 km service to be refunded, because it wasn’t done correctly, but you don't have much of a case for the engine repair. As the previous owner serviced the car and not Toyota, and the seals weren’t changed, Toyota has a perfect out.

It's not an uncommon problem. It starts with a leakage past the fuel injector seals and ends with the oil pick-up in the sump blocked by a carbon build-up. Eventually the engine loses oil pressure and the engine is destroyed. Toyota recalled and fixed affected vehicles in other countries, but chose not to do anything here. You could try approaching the company to get some compensation for the cost of replacing the engine, Toyota has done it for others who have pressed their case. If that fails you could consult your state consumer affairs people.

If the engine hasn't sustained any damage then I would keep it. But having been warned about the problem I would be very careful about the servicing going forward. The fuel-injector seals are meant to be replaced every 40,000 km service and it's crucial that they are. If they're not fuel can leak into the oil and carbon deposits can develop. The problem is that the carbon can ultimately block the oil pickup in the sump, which is what can cause your engine to seize. If you do decide to keep the Prado have your mechanic check the oil pick-up to make sure there isn't anything that could lead to blockages in the future.

Cracking dashboards have been a problem on Prados of your vintage for a long time, and Toyota was fixing some when the cars were newer. Yours is 10 years old, and from your description of the cracks they have been there for some time now, which makes me wonder why you have left it until now to make your claim. Toyota has in the past assured us that the cracking does not affect the operation of the airbags or compromise safety.

It's in the range for an average Prado of that age. If it is good condition, as you claim, it sounds a reasonable price.

The oil sludging is believed to be caused by fuel leakage past the fuel-injector seals into the oil stream. Eventually it can lead to the oil pickup being blocked, which then starves the engine of oil. It's a known problem in other parts of the world, but Toyota has not done anything about it here, even though we know of a number of cars that have suffered severe engine meltdowns. To make it worse the oil seals in question are supposed to be replaced at the 40,000km service when the valve clearances are checked and reset. It's clear that this isn't always done. Like you, I would be very angry about having the engine fail at such low kays, and I would be letting Toyota head office know about it in no uncertain terms. I know of one owner who managed to get them to replace the engine in his car when it had done over 200,000km, so I would urge you not to take Toyota's "no" for an answer and  push them to the limit. Take action through Consumer Affairs if needed. Don't worry that the Toyota warranty has expired, the company still has an obligation to sell you a product that is fit for purpose, and it would seem in this case that it has not.