DRL Failures, Locker Indicator Flashing, and Chasing Electrical Gremlins

I don’t go in shouting about anything. I have discussed the MM act with both the dealership and Toyota. That with the background that I am actually a litigation attorney is the only reason I believe we even got this far with regard to a diagnosis.

if you recall, the original email said aftermarket parts were the cause but when I called Toyota they admitted they actually had no idea what was causing the fault. Had I not brought up the act and just “took it lying down” like 99% of Toyota’s normal customers, that is where this saga would have ended.

There is still a chance that I will take legal action in this case, that all depends on whether Toyota allows the dealership to perform the scope test with parts unplugged and what the result of that test is.

 

A trustworthy dealership is hard to come by. I commend you for not burning that bridge.

 

Based on what? I’m trying to make an informed decision about my next move here.[/QUOTE]

Based on the number of other owners they have to deal with who are experiencing the same issue, that number is very low. Been on this forum for a few years now and I've only seen two post regarding drl shorting out. One just recently posted and then there is yours. There are too many variables in your vehicle that you added to may have caused your issues. If it was stock then yes toyota will have no choice but to continue chasing the fault. It sucks but I really do hope you find the source of your issue. Good luck mate.

 

What does Baja Designs have to say?

 

New info:

• Toyota FTS agreed that Toyota can not force a dealership to decline customer pay work so they are going to proceed with additional scope testing on my dime.
• Toyota FTS admits that he is not 100% sure that the aftermarket parts are to blame but that he has enough info to determine that it is more likely than not the aftermarket parts.
• The dealership agrees that it would serve all parties involved better if I expose all connectors so that they can unplug each part, one at a time, to see what part, if any, is causing the voltage “noise”.
• I’m picking up the car this evening to remove the mirror caps and A pillar to expose all of the Meso part connections and put together a “key” for the tech to use regarding where and how each part is connected to the vehicle.
• I’m dropping the vehicle off again tomorrow at 7:00am for the testing to be done at a maximum of 2 hours of labor. My hope is that with all of the connectors exposed it should only take 1 hour.
• If one of the parts is to blame, I’ll pull the part and make necessary repairs. If none of the parts are to blame, the dealership will communicate the results of the test to Toyota and we will go from there.

This is good news as far as I’m concerned as after tomorrow I’ll know if the faults are caused by aftermarket parts or not.

Does anyone who has retrofitted their headlights have an extra DRL board w/driver laying around? @MESO ? I figure if all else fails I can cook the housing and replace the faulty parts. It looks like aftermarket parts are available from The Retrofit Source but I don’t want to bake and open both housings if it is not necessary.

I haven’t raised the issue with them yet as I don’t have sufficient proof that their product is the issue. I’m fairly certain that their position would be that these are aftermarket parts intended for off road use only though.

 

This is an excellent example of why I prefer to stay as stock as possible. These trucks have proven over and over to have fickle electronics.

Also, can you imagine if the OP was on retainer for you or I on a case like this?

 

Where at in Gilbert are you? Is your dealer AutoNation in Tempe? I've had really good luck w those guys. I asked for a tsb and they don't bat an eye. Just get it done.

 

Throwing this out there to try to get you to think outside your current box. Have you considered what a nightmare it is for Toyota to have a laywer monkey with multiple circuits on his truck then ramp up to sue them when it has problems? IANAL, but I have relevant experience with the technical aspects of legal cases. Have you considered how complex the electronics are for a modern truck, and to have people go in and try to diagnose it once it is modified is /real work/ that is /expensive/ and needs to be done by /experts/, not technicians. I don't think you have any idea of the complexities involved, which is why I coughed up several technical posts. I hope you get your truck fixed, but I think your approach of monkeying with stuff you do not understand then trying to wield the legal hammer because you already have it in hand is unprofessional and it really bothers me.

 

My understanding of it was he was only going to pursue the legal route (but hasn't currently thrown down the legal hammer) if Toyota refused to allow the dealership to perform work he was willing to pay them to do - retest without his mods so that he can confirm and correct the issue. I could be wrong, but that was my take.

Edit: I don't think he ever mentioned how Toyota and the dealership know he's a litigation attorney. For all we know it was through random chit chat while waiting for previous service.

 

Just as an aside, while not specifically the DRLs, there are a lot of threads here about people swapping various lights - from map lights to headlights - and having subsequent electrical issues.

 

I read he said the only reason he though it got this far is that they know he is an attorney. That is also how I knew he is one. I'm not going to go study all his posts, but if that is gone, he edited it.

 

I didn't study his posts either, just read through the thread and don't recall him currently taking legal action. He did say that the only reason he thought it got this far is because they knew he was a litigation attorney, but he didn't say how they knew that information. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't go in guns-a-blazing about being an attorney.

 

I did not go in guns blazing about being an attorney initially. The dealership (at least my service advisor) already knew I was an attorney just based on chit chat while at the dealership. The first time I brought up being an attorney with the dealership with regard to pursuing potential legal action against Toyota (not the dealership) was after I got the email from my service advisor regarding the denial of warranty due to aftermarket parts and the fact that the FTS would not allow the dealership to argue with them on my behalf (again, awesome dealership!). I then called the service manager and discussed the denial with him to get more information. He basically informed me that Toyota told them not to work on the car anymore, that they were denying warranty due to aftermarket part interference, and that Toyota would not provide any more information. He then advised me to pursue a case with corporate as he disagreed with Toyota's determination. I then thanked him for how awesome the dealership has been and advised him that I knew that was not his dealership's fault in any way but that I needed to send them a preservation of evidence letter in case this matter did ever go to arbitration or subsequent litigation.

It is my understanding that the fact that I was an attorney was never communicated to Toyota corporate by the dealership and there were several calls with Toyota corporate before the attorney issue was brought up. In fact I think the first time it was brought up was just because I couldn't get them to commit to a call-back time and I really needed a scheduled call since I was going to be in and out of court and depositions all week. Just as an aside, the individual did schedule a call, she missed it. I believe the first time I raised the issue of being an attorney with regard to any potential pursuit of legal action was after Toyota expressed the fact that the FTS didn't actually know what was wrong with the vehicle, after he already denied the claim for aftermarket parts, and that they wanted me to pay for additional diagnosis but refused to tell me what diagnosis would be performed or what evidence would be provided regarding the findings. I expressed that I needed this information because I just didn't trust the FTS at this point after he had denied the claim without actually knowing the cause of the issue. Specifically, how could I trust him not just to deny the claim again without actually engaging in any diagnosis.

I totally respect your opinion here, and I am very familiar with the "everyone hates attorneys until they need one" cliche, but I think you are looking at this from the wrong direction. If everyone who has gone through this type of situation chose to pursue the matter rather than letting Toyota ignore them, this type of thing wouldn't happen and the appropriate diagnosis would have been performed in the first place.

From my perspective this is what happened (this is all from memory and not from records, which I do have):

1. DRL fails for the third time.
2. I call service advisor to make appt.
3. Appt. is cancelled because service manager wants FTS to review due to repeated failures.
4. FTS is on vacation and won't be at the dealership for 2 months.
5. New appointment is made 2 months out.
6. Drop off vehicle at 7:00am for diagnosis on "FTS Day".
7. Informed by dealership that FTS was too busy to get to my car and that they are relying on Dealership for diagnosis.
8. Dealership performs diagnosis and compares my truck to stock truck which shows same characteristics as my truck. Dealership informs me in writing that they have stumped FTS and Toyota Tech Assistance.
9. Based on dealership diagnosis Toyota approves parts to be ordered and installed.
10. Two days later, without further diagnosis or involvement, Dealership informs me that Toyota, through FTS, has denied warranty repair due to aftermarket part interference and "They gave [dealership] no ability to argue and told us that was the final decision."
11. I speak with service manager at dealership who informs me that he disagrees with Toyota's decision and recommends opening case with corporate.
12. I speak with Toyota corporate who informs me that FTS actually does not now what is wrong with truck and further diagnosis is necessary, that I would have to pay for diagnosis, and that I would not be provided with any evidence or what diag was performed or what the results were.
13. I inform them that this is not acceptable and that I need more information about exactly what diag would be performed, what the cost will be, and what evidence would be provided to me. Case manager informs me that she will be out the next day and the following Monday so she would call on Tuesday with that information. I ask for a scheduled call as I would be in court and depositions. She agrees to schedule call at 10:00am local time.
14. Toyota misses scheduled call so I speak with supervisor who talks to FTS who informs supervisor of their decision and that there would be no further diagnosis. I inform supervisor that this was not acceptable and raise the issue of the MM Act and Toyota's responsibility to diagnose.
15. FTS goes back to dealership and performs scope test and determines that the issue is the foglights. Dealer provides scope test graph.
16. I inform Toyota (again) that fogloghts were not installed for first two failures so that didn't make sense and ask if test was performed with foglights unplugged.
17. Toyota informs me that FTS isn't actually sure its the foglights but that it is definitely some aftermarket part causing the failure.
18. Dealership asks FTS if they can perform scope test on my dime with foglights unplugged and FTS informs them no, because he is not actually sure the foglights are the issue.

That brings us to today.

I think that I have been EXTREMELY patient with Toyota given the multiple contradictory statements made in writing and on recorded phone calls. If Toyota didn't want this they should have just done their job in the first place. In my opinion, the actual testing and diagnosis should have been done first before the claim was arbitrarily denied for aftermarket part interference. Had they started with this scope test and said "hey customer, here is what we determined, but if you would like to pay to have us perform the test with the aftermarket parts unplugged to see if the aftermarket parts are actually the cause of the voltage noise" I would have been all for it and none of this would have happened. Instead, I was lied to, mislead, and given no path to solution other than to discuss potential legal action.

What it all boils down to is the fact that Toyota knows that the vast majority of their customers will never take these things this far, even if they are entitled to both legally and ethically, and they have instituted a corporate culture revolving around telling customer that the vehicle is "operating as designed" ("Toyota says this is normal") or that aftermarket parts are to blame. In my case, aftermarket parts may very well be to blame, but not only does the law say that it is Toyota's responsibility to prove it, but they refused to even diagnose the issue, despite an initial diagnosis from their dealership which found that aftermarket parts were not to blame.

Again, I don't want to sue Toyota, I am willing to pay to play, I am extremely patient with vendors, but I will not be lied to or walked all over by a large corporation just because the status quo is for their customers to lie down and take it. If every single customer in my position took the same route that I have, you better believe the "Toyota says it is normal" cliche wouldn't be used for comic relief like it is around here.


TLDR: Toyota approved the repair, then denied the repair and lied to me about why, then refused to diagnose, then found out I'm a lawyer and did diagnose, then refused to allow the dealer to perform additional diagnosis because they lied to me again, and now have allowed the dealer to perform additional diagnosis. Hopefully we will actually know what is wrong with the truck or at least whether the DRL failures are caused by aftermarket part interference by the end of the day tomorrow.

P.S. Come on Toyota, at least buy me dinner before bending me over and.......

 

TLDR: OP is mad he modded his truck and now Toyota doesn't want to mess with his modded truck

 

^^^^THIS

 

You are unfortunately incorrect in your summary, but you are of course entitled to your opinion.

 

I donnoooooo mannnnnnn

 

There are two issues there. One, it doesn't take into account that they did "mess with my modded truck" and authorize a repair. Two, it doesn't take into account the multiple times that Toyota has outright lied to me about the diagnosis.

Like I said, had they done the scope test on day one, and then let me pay them to do the scope test again while removing the parts, I don't think we would be here right now. I am mad, that is no secret but the root of that anger is the lies and outright refusal to do their job after getting caught in those lies.

 

I get the second part of the post is humor, but what is your basis for the "it is completely your fault" statement. Again, like I said, I'm trying to obtain info here to make an informed decision on how to proceed.

 

Do they not have a right to refuse service?