GR86 Vehicle Security

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not suggesting that owners should accept Toyota’s response, but have a practical question for the group.

In terms of theft prevention, is the immobiliser more valuable than the alarm ? Ie. The immobiliser stops the car from starting but the alarm is merely making noise to deter thieves and alert anyone nearby to an attempted theft?

The reason for my question: Toyota seem to justifying their position based on the insurance grouping, but I suspect premiums will start to increase exponentially if GR86’s become disproportionally targeted by thieves ? (Similar to the problems with Range Rovers, IIRC)
 
911sse said:
You Sir are correct - regardless of the fact we may not have in the car what was expected, the questions asked require this response alone to an insurance company. In terms of a case, I may be wrong but 'class action' is from across the pond. Sometimes shouting about the right thing in the right way gets the outcome required. However, as others have said, in no way is a Toyota dealer or a specialist hacking away at my car to install an alarm, unless it's a pretty simple process. The sleep I loose at night (which is all but nil) has nothing to do with whether this car is alarmed. I am holding off until the right time to send the right email. But patience always rewards.
Click to expand...
+1 watching from the sidelines. I wonder what the response would be if a good few ask for a refund because of the lack of alarm. I have mentioned previously that a dealer paid for heated seats to be retrofitted to a a previous car (a lease) after the spec changed mid order and I wasn’t informed. I found out the week before delivery and said it was a deal breaker for me.
 
Scaramanga said:
In terms of theft prevention, is the immobiliser more valuable than the alarm ? Ie. The immobiliser stops the car from starting but the alarm is merely making noise to deter thieves and alert anyone nearby to an attempted theft?
Click to expand...
I speak from a position of zero technical knowledge/insight, but I'd rather have an immobiliser than alarm. Lots of people take no notice of alarms. Immobiliser plus visual deterrent stoplock plus keys in Farraday pouch will hopefully do the job.

There's always aftermarket anti-theft solutions too (Ghost and the like).
 
I am sorry but we do not have anything further to say on the matter in relation to the alarm aspect and I can only refer you back to our previous response.

Kind Regards
Click to expand...

Looks like Toyota aren't willing to do anything else and consider this a satisfactory resolution.
 
Whilst I’d agree most alarms tend to be ignored anyway they still have value by ensuring any potential thief isn’t able to attempt a stealthy get away with the car if they overcome the immobiliser.

There’s also the principal of the matter. Not only was it listed on the specification of the car but it’s the sort of thing you expect to be standard equipment on a mundane hatchback let alone a head turning sports car.
 
Last edited:
Pretty poor from Toyota, considering the good press the car has and continues to get. Alarms are, in this day and age, less of a deterrent than they used to be for sure but I'd rather have one than not, especially when it is supposed to have one. If someone's taking it off the drive at 3 in the morning I would rather know there and then so I can call the police, not at 07:30 when I want to take it to work!

To suggest it doesn't affect insurance premiums seems a bit naive and unprofessional... maybe not in the very short term but, as shown above by someone already having an attempt made on their car, as more thefts are attempted and (hopefully not!) successful, the lack of alarm becomes more and more common knowledge? In turn, premiums go up and/or companies don't want to insure it.
 
Hachi-roku said:
Whilst I’d agree most alarms tend to be ignored anyway they still have value by ensuring any potential thief isn’t able to attempt a stealthy get away with the car if they overcome the immobiliser.

There’s also the principal of the matter. Not only was it listed on the specification of the car but it’s the sort of thing you expect to be standard equipment on a mundane hatchback let alone a head turning sports car.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with all of that - I suppose I'm trying to not get annoyed by the situation!

Got to watch the old blood pressure now I'm approaching my half-century!
 
MrsMiggins said:
It has just occurred to me that we all paid our deposits by card and therefore possibly have recourse under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. I'm going to raise a complaint via Trading Standards AND my credit card company.
Click to expand...
Yes I think mine was CC, that will add some weight to a claim since you have the power of one massive organisation behind you rather than a one man vs bigcorp situation. Is everyone who is looking for redress going to take it on personally or is there any appetite for a group approach?
 
I think everyone affected should do the Trading Standards plus cc company approach. If Trading Standards AND the banks apply pressure I expect Toyota will make things right.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk

Reporting to Trading Standards

Report a trader who has broken the law by contacting the Citizens Advice consumer service or Advice Direct Scotland.
www.citizensadvice.org.uk www.citizensadvice.org.uk
Screenshot_20231110_193615_Brave.webp
 
Last edited:
I’m keeping my powder dry for the moment to see how things evolve but not opposed to throwing my name on a list of aggrieved buyers if we don’t see a move in the direction of an an acceptable resolution from Toyota UK.

It’s certainly making me begin to think more about adding a Ghost and increase my desire to pick up a Nardi wheel. Paired with a snap off boss it’ll improve my only slight gripe on ergonomics and aid security in one move.
 
I'll send them an email over the weekend giving them a chance to remedy the situation, a kind of letter before action, as it's better for them to offer something even if it is inadequate, at least you have given them the chance to put things right. If it goes full legal then it adds weight to your case that they tried and failed to come up with a satisfactory solution. However you cut it though the response of "no alarm and it doesn't need one" is the absolute most pathetic response ever and a complete dereliction of responsibility.
 
Well, the following post is likely to be unpopular in some quarters and I may receive some criticism from GR comrades, but I'm 'big enough and ugly enough' to accept this, as the old saying goes.

Who knows - some of our comrades may not violently disagree with everything I say.

Concerning the lack of an alarm
  • Should Toyota have fitted an functioning security alarm to their desirable GR86 model? Of course they should have.
  • Bearing in mind they didn't fit an alarm, should Toyota have advertised the GR86 as having one? Of course they shouldn't.
  • Is this all rather poor from Toyota in terms of quality assurance? Yes it is.
  • Should Toyota carefully consider their response? Yes they should.
  • Bearing in mind the fitted immobiliser (and steering lock I have added), will I let the lack of an alarm significantly spoil my enjoyment of the car? Absolutely not.
  • Am I minded to get rid of a car I absolutely love, out of principle, and risk 'cutting off my nose to spite my face'? Definitely not.
The question I have for fellow owners is - what, reasonably, do we propose that a) we should do about it, and b) what do we consider to be an appropriate and realistic response? I'm particularly interested to hear what new contributors to this forum - who seem very exercised about this specific issue but have yet to contribute to any other thoughts or reflections about the car - think.

We have to consider the tone of our communications with the Toyota representatives. Hysteria needs to be avoided; being sensible and measured needs to be embraced and propagated. We need to be proportionate.

We have to be careful to avoid a Daily Mail/The Sun/a local Newspaper furious/disgusted/outraged/news article 'sad face' response, like this.

Capture.PNG


I think we would be wise to recognise that any unrealistic attempt to make a 'fast buck' from Toyota ("I want my comp-en-say-shun"), especially if conveyed in a rude, objectionable manner, is likely to result in being given short shrift.

Deleted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One more point to contemplate, if this goes wider in the public domain, it alerts the er, individuals who might be attracted to have a go at nicking a GR86..

Having said that, I am pretty pissed that another item was removed from our cars after we ordered them.
 
Deleted
Click to expand...

If it's a choice between this and an alarm, I'm 100% taking new GR merch.

As to the rest of your post, it's a reasonable point. I'm loving the car and there's no chance of me trading it. If I'd known from the start that there was no alarm I'd have still bought it. What is most disappointing is the whole approach from Toyota. Mine arrived with no washer fluid, they didn't know about the alarm and now they're shrugging. This is my first Toyota and when my wife needs a new car we'll be looking at other options.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Happy to keep this thread active, but please use other websites if you wish to comment on sex aids - these posts have been removed.
 
I’m still awaiting a Dear John from Toyota UK regarding the alarm.

Once that comes in I’d happily add my Orca number and registration to a group letter.

Something simple, but with the force of a group representation.

“The following owners do not accept a simple dismissal of the mis representation of the sales and marketing of the GR86 in the UK market.
Toyota UK are responsible for producing the marketing and specification details for the GR86 model. Within that specification it was clearly stated that both an alarm system and immobiliser came with the car.
There is no alarm system, and I / we are unable to accept that concludes the matter.

I would ask that Toyota reconsider their position before I make formal complaint to trading standards for mis representation of the UK GR86 product.

I would like Toyota to retrofit the alarm at no cost to the owner, alternatively-
*Financial compensation- to spend on additional security
*Ghost system supply and fit
* 360 on when parked front and rear dash cam
* 1st full service free of charge”
 
Silver Fox said:
The question I have for fellow owners is - what, reasonably, do we propose that a) we should do about it, and b) what do we consider to be an appropriate and realistic response? I'm particularly interested to hear what new contributors to this forum - who seem very exercised about this specific issue but have yet to contribute to any other thoughts or reflections about the car - think.
Click to expand...
I expect Toyota to provide what I paid for. Will I get rid of the car if they don't? No. As you say I'm not inclined to cut my nose off to spite my face.

I fully expect Toyota to offer something. They are clearly in breach of their responsibilities with regard to consumer protection legislation and can't just shrug their shoulders and walk away. Whether they do it the easy way or the hard way is up to them. I think in the long run they'd be wise to just admit they've made a mistake and offer a fix. Either money, merch, a retrofitted alarm, servicing or something else of equivalent value.

This level of incompetence is not what I'd expect from a company like Toyota. Embarrassing for them.
 
What grates the most is their attitude of "it doesn't have one and doesn't need one", no apology or offer of correcting their error. Obviously this is their opening gambit designed to cost them nothing (if they get away with it) so they may as well try it on. I think they know it won't wash but at least they tried to get away with a no cost fob off. Also for the record I still haven't had a response to my query 7+ weeks ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top