Thread: Simpson Recovery vehicle

18 months old, should be covered under warranty including recovery costs.

the recovery truck is awesome

Saw that truck myself. Awesome beast.
Didn't the couple have premium motoring organization cover?
Hilux should be under warranty.

“Apparently “ Toyota do not cover damage caused by a hose bursting (comes under ‘consumables’). They reckon they’ll try to take this up with Toyota when they get back to Perth. Although the car is only 18 months old , it has done 98,000km

They were not on the gazetted track at the time, so as per my own experience, RACV etc wouldn’t have a bar of it. I did ask if they had that sort of cover and the answer was no anyway.

Interesting, NO Toyotas come with roadside assist,not that it would have helped in this case.

I can't believe a hose that comes off during warranty is not warranty.

Geez they have done some K's in 18months,so maybe there is more to this?

The warranty on the new Hilux's is 3 years and 100,000ks, So this one is still covered by the warranty But only by 2,000ks.
Regardless of that I don't think that the hoses are covered and are considered as consumables so I don't know how these people will go considering that the bottom hose failure was the cause of the problem.

ToySan are both well known for their avoidance of warranty. If they can deny; the often do.

A known example was GU alternators - mounted low. If presenting for warranty the dealer was to remove door trim and check for a tide line inside the door. If there was one it was considered to have waded beyond design and warranty was denied.

In this case I’d be asking what the expected reasonable design life of the hoses are, and take it from there.

Oh what a let down, Toymotor

I’d be challengingly this a hose should last more than 3 years. You’d reckon you’d have a fair argument to go back at Toyota.

If a hose can't last 100,000 ks its not fit for purpose, I reckon. I'd be off to Consumer Affairs.