Toyota Australia faces payouts as Federal Court finds faulty DPFs

Federal Court of Australia has rated Toyota Motor Australia (TMC) negatively regarding faulty diesel particulate filters (DPFs) in the top-selling HiLux and Prado, as well as the Fortuner.

Justice Lee found 264,170 vehicles were supplied with “defective diesel particulate filters”, causing problems such as “emitting foul-smelling white smoke, displaying excessive DPF messages and requiring inspection, maintenance and repair”. car repair”.

As a result, cars sold between October 2015 and April 2020 were found to be in breach of the Australian Consumer Law’s guarantee of acceptable quality.

A case summary says that while damage can be difficult to determine, an agreement has been reached to reduce the value of each affected vehicle by 17.5% – this averages out to more than $7000 for per vehicle when averaged across all models sold.

Class action attorneys have told the ABC if all affected drivers subsequently claim their damages, the total amount awarded would be more than $2 billion. However, the final tally is expected to be lower, given what this will entail.

Some drivers are likely to get more compensation because they have to take time off work to fix their cars or lose gas. HiLux owners in particular use their utes for work.

DPF is designed to capture and burn harmful pollutants. However, many of these vehicles did not regularly run in conditions conducive to burning the aforementioned pollutants (long trips at a good clip), and were congested.

Toyota fitted a DPF burn-in button to its 2.8-liter diesel in 2018 and upgraded the engine significantly in mid-2020, but the court found the previous patch was largely less efficient than it was. next update.

“There is no question that from October 1, 2015 to April 23, 2020 (Related Period), 264,170 Toyota vehicles in the Prado, Fortuner and HiLux models and equipped with diesel internal combustion engines The “1GD-FTV” or “2GD-FTV” engine was offered to consumers in Australia (Relevant Vehicle),” the court results said.

“Each Vehicle involved was supplied with a diesel exhaust after-treatment system (DPF System), which failed because it was not designed to operate efficiently under all expected conditions. reasonableness of normal vehicle operation and use.”

Toyota Australia responded in a statement: “We are in the process of reviewing the court ruling. At each step, we believe we have taken customer-focused and engineering-based remedies to address customer concerns.

“Toyota will carefully review the initial test ruling before making any further comment.”

More about the case

From October 1, 2015 to April 23, 2020, a total of 264,170 Toyota Prado, Fortuner and HiLux models with 2.8-litre diesel engines ‘1GD-FTV’ or ‘2GD-FTV’ were supplied to consumers in Australia.

Each vehicle was provided with a diesel exhaust after-treatment system (DPF), which was found to be faulty by the court “because it was not designed to work effectively in all conditions”. operate and use the vehicle normally as expected”.

Mandatory DPF is designed to capture and convert pollutant emissions into carbon dioxide and water vapor through a combination of filtration, combustion (heating and burning it) and subsequent chemical reactions. .

The first petitioner in the class action is Prado owner Kenneth John Williams, the second is a company of which Mr. Williams is the sole director, called Direct Claim Services Qld Pty Ltd (DCS).

“Evidence establishes that the Prado involved experienced problems related to the faulty DPF System,” the case introduction states.

When regeneration does not occur or is ineffective, DPF is blocked by particulate matter and vehicles experience a series of failures.

Under certain conditions, the DPF System is considered ineffective in preventing sludge formation, preventing the DPF filter from regenerating effectively automatically or manually, resulting in excessive white smoke and exhaust emissions. There was a foul odor during regeneration and indications from the engine’s on-board diagnostic system that the DPF was full”.

“The TMCA is aware that certain types of vehicles involved are being introduced to dealers by customers (referred to by TMCA, somewhat oddly, as “guests”) who have reported development concerns. Excessive white smoke emissions during reproduction and illumination by DPF Justice Lee found.

“Within the next four years prior to the adoption of the 2020 Field Fix; the number of complaints spiked; matters have been escalated to the top level of TMCA and its parent company in Japan, Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC); and a number of countermeasures have been devised, tested and failed”.

The Conclusions and Purchase Orders are completed with the following:

“In short, for Core Defect reasons, the Vehicles involved are worth less at the time of supply than they would be if they were not defective. The practice of marketing means of acceptable quality is misleading.

“DCS’s individual request will be successful. So, should a representative make statements on behalf of team members on common issues? These conclusions are in line with what might be said to be a common, intuitive response to the facts presented, and unfortunately the case has turned out to be more complicated than it should be.

The parties largely agreed on general questions to be determined at the first hearing. I cannot fathom why those popular questions, and the answers to those common questions, are not the subject of the agreement now.”