The word "mechanical" is still in there and, in the event of a dispute, could become a serious issue IMHO unless Toyota has a record of interpreting the phrase in our favor. The "Everything is covered" language you quoted is for mechanical failure, and the exclusions could therefore be argued as applying only to mechanical failures.
Also, the definition of "mechanical failure" is that the part failed to perform as "a result of material defects or workmanship" I am not certain what the life expectancy of an ECU is, for example, and how you can tell if there was such a defect. How do you prove this if push comes to shove? Mechanical failures seem to me to be much easier to recognize, and I see another issue here.