Need some expert opinions Shop ruined my crank!

[slapdappy]

of course they are liable. their mistake(s) caused the damage.

 

[jhfleet]

The bolt in my hand ordered by vin for the 99 (4/99) 4Runner is as The Durk said, 90119-16006.

A while ago when doing the timing belt on the 96 the parts guy got me the torque spec out of their shop 'puter- 217 ft lbs. Is it for trues? I don't have anything to say it is or isn't.

For the new bolt, 217 is correct. I have no idea if that much torque is a good idea with the old bolt which started out with an optimum torque of 184 ft lbs.

 

[kball]

I did my timing belt back in 2011. I have a 96 and I ordered some parts from 1sttoyotaparts.com which is Titus Will Toyota in Washington. I got a bolt from them based on my VIN. This is what they sent me, a 16031, which is the earlier style bolt with built in washer. I torqued it to around 190+ and used blue Loctite and haven't had any issues.

 

[mercuryrising17]

An update on my situation.
The shop that did the timing belt is claiming that the crankshaft was going out when they performed the timing belt change and timing gear change. The owner claims that the crankshaft did not go out because the crankshaft pulley was coming off but rather the pulley was coming off because the crankshaft had a wobble in it causing the bolt and pulley to move out an inch. At this point it's going to have to be a small claims court process. What do you experts out there think my chances are? I find it real hard to believe that 100 miles after te shop puts the pulley on that it starts coming off and ruins my crank. I'm going to have it towed to a Toyota dealership my buddy works at tomorrow and file the small claims in Friday. Anyone else buy what the shop is saying or are they just covering their asses? Why would it be fine until they 100 miles after they worked on it?

Thanks guys, pretty frustrating day

 

[jhfleet]

They're trying to weasel out of their liability. If they found preexisting damage they had an obligation to advise you. I doubt that a small claims court would bite on their story.

 

[wake_rider]

They're trying to weasel out of their liability. If they found preexisting damage they had an obligation to advise you. I doubt that a small claims court would bite on their story.

Bingo.

Had there been prior damage or wear, they would list that prior to doing the work. This is a pretty weak post-facto attempt at avoiding responsibility.