Information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6) i purchased a certified used toyota car (vehicle vin: [xxx]) on 12/22/2008 from fremont toyota dealer ([xxx]), which leads a nightmare as it's a wrecked cert. rejected car with 2 tire valve stems broken on day 1 and day 8 after purchase and another 2 tires flat again on may 10 1. the rear right tire valve stem broke on 12/23/2008 (the first day after purchase) and the tire pressure monitoring system indicator (tpws) was on so i drove the car to the service department on 12/24/2008. dealer claim they fixed the problem and also checked all the other tires and make sure they are working. 2. on 1/1/2009, the front right tire valve stem broke again and the tpws was not on. this happened when we drove on highway 5 at 75 miles/hour and we don't even know the tire already 2/3 was flattened!! we happened to look for restaurant at that time and a person coming out of restaurant pointed to us this flat tire! if we did not exit for rest, all 5 passengers in the car could no longer be in this world now. 3. further complete discovery on this car reveals: a. bondo was applied on the following areas: left fender on rear behind wheel opening area; right door from upper center to bottom of door; and, rt quarter panel in front of wheel opening area the amount of bondo applied to the subject vehicle,clearly indicates the damage/wreck/repair in these areas were extensive. b.sand scratched and dirt under paint are obvious in many areas, this is the result of a poor quality re-paint job. the re-paint of the vehicle is further evidenced by the paint mil gauge readings from 8 miles to 12 miles. this matches kearny mesa toyota's 160 point rejection. c.the paint job alone estimate (not including the body repair) was over $2200 and yet was this re-paint was not reported. the faulty paint job is a known defect to anyone that looks at the vehicle in the automotive industry. d. the right fender was previously removed. and more. *tr
I am a mechanical engineer involved in a lawsuit dealing with this mechanical scissor jack. the case has gone to trial and been resolved. as a part of my investigation, i determined that the base of the jack is out of specification, and wobbles. the base is meant to be flat, yet all four "feet" of the base do not touch when the jack is rested on a flat surface. based on testimony by the manufacturer, the base deforms during the final assembly, and this wobble is acceptable. i have checked a 2007 camry, 2005 corolla, and 2011 camry, and these cars all have the same issue with the base. during my inspections, the jack will roll inboard during normal jacking, placing all the weight onto the two inside "feet", using only about 20% of the base. if the base is flat as intended, more of the base if not all would be used providing a greater level of stability during emergency jacking. *tr