1995 Toyota Celica

I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT TOYOTA CORPORATION COVER REPLACEMENT OF THE IDLE SPEED CONTROL VALVE AND FIND A PERMANENT RESOLUTION OF MY ONGOING PROBLEM WHICH HAS BEEN OCCURRING EVERY 3 YEARS, STARTING IN 1999. THE IDLE SPEED CONTROL VALVE WAS INITIALLY REPLACED JULY 28, 1999 (INVOICE #C10120). APPROXIMATELY 3 YEARS LATER (APRIL 8, 2002), THE SAME PROBLEM OCCURRED AND THE IDLE SPEED CONTROL VALVE HAD TO BE REPLACED AGAIN (INVOICE #W66160). TOYOTA OF BERKELEY AGREED TO REPLACE THE IDLE SPEED CONTROL VALVE AS OUT OF WARRANTY GOODWILL. APPROXIMATELY 3 YEARS AFTER THE SECOND REPLACEMENT (BEGINNING OF 2005), I STARTED EXPERIENCING THE SAME PROBLEM AGAIN. I ASKED THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT (TOYOTA OF SANTA MONICA) TO LOOK INTO IT WHEN I TOOK MY CAR IN FOR SERVICING. THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES CHECKED IT OUT AND SAID THE CAR STARTED WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS. AFTER NEARLY SPENDING $800 ON NORMAL MAINTENANCE OF MY CAR (60,000 MILE MAJOR SERVICE, TIMING BELT REPLACEMENT AND BRAKE REPLACEMENT), I WAS INFORMED BY A TOYOTA EMPLOYEE, WHO RETRIEVED MY CAR AFTER THE SERVICE WAS COMPLETE, THAT MY CAR DIED WHEN HE STARTED IT. I HAD HIM TALK TO THE RED TEAM REPRESENTATIVE FREDDIE VALENCIA AND HE MADE A NOTE OF IT IN MY FILE. HE ASKED ME TO PROVIDE HIM MY OLD INVOICES SHOWING THE IDLE SPEED CONTROL VALVE REPLACEMENTS SO THAT HE COULD SHOW HIS MANAGER, JULIAN SARKASSIAN (SEE ATTACHED). TO MY DISMAY, JULIAN REVIEWED THE INFORMATION AND INFORMED ME THAT TOYOTA WOULD NOT COVER ANOTHER REPLACEMENT. I HAVE ALWAYS HAD HIGH OPINIONS OF TOYOTA QUALITY AND CUSTOMER SERVICE UNTIL NOW. TO HAVE THIS COSTLY REPAIR OCCUR EVERY THREE YEARS DOES NOT LIVE UP TO TOYOTAS HIGH-QUALITY REPUTATION THAT I, MY FAMILY, AND FRIENDS RELY ON. I HOPE THAT THE TOYOTA CORPORATION WILL CAREFULLY REVIEW MY ATTACHED SERVICE RECORDS AND COVER AN APPROPRIATE REPAIR TO PERMANENTLY SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

MY DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING HER 1995 TOYOTA CELICA AND SHE SAID THAT ON HER WAY TO WORK SHE HEARD A LOUD POP AND THEN IT WOULD MAKE A GRINDING SOUND WHEN YOU CUT THE STEERING WHEEL EITHER RIGHT OR LEFT. I WENT WENT AND GOT THE CAR AND TEST DROVE IT AND IT WAS MAKING THESE TERRIBLE NOISES, BUT ALSO, WHEN I WOULD BRAKE, SOMETIMES, NOT EVERYTIME, THE BRAKE PEDEL WOULD FADE BEFORE CATCHING. I BROUGHT THE CAR HOME AND PULLED THE LEFT FRONT WHEEL AND NOTICED THAT IT HAD A BAD FRONT WHEEL BEARING. I INSTALLED A NEW FRONT WHEEL BEARING AND SEALS AND WHEN I STARTED TO REINSTALL THE AXLE, I NOTICED IT WAS BROKE, EVEN WITH THREADS ENDS AND THE SHOULDER BEGINS. I PULLED THE AXLE AND INSTALLED AN NEW AXLE. I HAD TO GIVE THE OLD AXLE TO ADVANCE AUTO AS A CORE. BUT THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BROKEN, BECAUSE IT COULD CAUSE A AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT.*AK

WHILE DRIVING VEHICLE WAS REAR-ENDED. THE IMPACT CAUSED THE DRIVER'S SEAT TO BREAK COMPLETELY WITH THE BACK OF THE DRIVER'S SEAT RESTING ON THE REAR SEAT CUSHION. THIS BROKEN SEAT CAUSED CONSUMER TO BE UNABLE TO PROPERLY CONTROL THE VEHICLE AND MADE THE SEAT BELT INEFFECTIVE. CONSUMER SUSTAINED MAJOR INJURIES AND THE VEHICLE WAS TOTALLED. CONSUMER FEELS SEAT WAS DEFECTIVE. *TT

WE TOOK THE CAR TO A IMPORT CAR SPECIALIST AND THEY INFORMED US THAT THE FUEL TANK LOOKED TO BE A MANUFACTURER OR PART DEFECT. THEY USED THE CHEVROLET, S-10 RECALL AS AN EXAMPLE. ACCORDING TO THEM, A FUEL TANK DOESN'T LEAK UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS AND AFTER INSPECTING THE FUEL TANK THEY SAW THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN HIT OR DAMAGED IN ANYWAY.

HOOD LATCH IS RUSTED AND CORRODED. THIS CAUSED THE SECONDARY SAFETY LATCH TO REMAIN IN THE OPEN POSITION WHICH PREVENTED IT FROM FUNTIONING PROPERLY. SUBSEQUENTLY, WHILE DRIVING THE CAR DOWN THE INTERSTATE, THE HOOD FLEW OPEN AND SMASHED INTO THE WINDSHIELD. DUE TO AN ONGOING DISPUTE WITH AAA OF THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION, IT IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME WHETHER THE PRIMARY LATCH IS WORKING PROPERLY. *AK