Toyota GR86 Problems by year

warning created immediate dangerous conditions: - Complete loss of power while driving in normal traffic - No warning allowed to safely pull over before failure - Loss of power steering and power brake assist - Risk of being rear-ended due to sudden deceleration - Could have been catastrophic if occurred during highway passing/merging The absence of warning lights before oil starvation failure is critical safety defect. DEALER CONFIRMATION: Yes - [Dealer Name] Toyota has confirmed engine failure and has had vehicle since August 4, 2025. This is second extended stay (first was January-February 2025, 42 business days). Total of 76 business days in shop out of 8.5 months ownership. Dealer confirmed warranty repair needed but awaiting Toyota corporate authorization. MANUFACTURER INSPECTION: Vehicle at authorized Toyota dealer. Dealer technicians have diagnosed engine failure. Toyota Motor Sales corporate currently reviewing warranty authorization. No police/insurance inspection as vehicle was able to be towed to dealer. WARNING SYMPTOMS: CRITICAL: NO oil pressure warning light before engine failure despite oil level being critically low - Oil changed at 500 miles post-purchase - Oil topped off July 12, 2025 (verified normal level) - Engine failed August 4, 2025 - only 23 days later - NO warning lights prior to catastrophic failure - Oil monitoring system failed to alert driver of dangerous condition ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 2024 GR86 purchased December 28, 2024

this, it would have easily rubbed through and resulted in an engine fire, which could have resulted in the total loss of the vehicle. While reviewing my vehicle, I also noticed that a friend with a 2023 Subaru BRZ had the same issue. While his rubbing was not as severe, it is clear this is not an isolated incident and affects others. I am in the process of gathering photographic evidence from others who are impacted and so far know of at least two more cases beyond the above: a 2023 Toyota GR86 and a 2024 Subaru BRZ. I will be contacting Toyota and Subaru directly; however, given the potential severity and danger of this issue, I believe it needs to be addressed immediately.

this could've caused a car accident. The invoice and work order includes information that is not correct. Specifically, I was told that oil did show up on the dipstick at the time that it was checked at the dealership however, they later changed that to say that it was checked on an incline which I find to not be credible

properly. 4. After charging the owner for an engine breakdown and diagnosis, Heritage Toyota of Catonsville provided a document that states that the damage was consistent with high vehicle speeds and high engine speeds and a data report showing an instance of the car operated at high vehicle speed and high engine speed. However, Heritage Toyota refused to provide detailed information and data derived from the diagnosis and failed to provide any statement regarding the cause of the breakdown or warranty inapplicability. 5. In response to the Plaintiff's request for warranty coverage, Heritage Toyota provided a written statement stating that the engine repair would not be covered by the multiple warranties purchased with the Vehicle. Heritage Toyota provided repair option estimates for $22,000 and $33,000. When a tow truck was sent to pick up the car, Heritage Toyota delivered the car to the tow truck driver without the motor and provided numerous loose parts for towing with the body of the car. The car was not towed and was left at the dealer. We believe that Toyota sold us a defective automobile, in violation of three separate statutes: (1) the Maryland Automotive Warranty Enforcement Act; (2) the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act; and (3) the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. We also believe that Heritage Toyota violated the law when they did not provide the information obtained from the diagnostic engine breakdown that was paid for by the owner. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)