1996 Toyota Tacoma

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT NOTICED CRACKS NEAR THE FRONT AREA OF THE SUB FRAME. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER AND AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, BOTH OF WHICH DETECTED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY RUSTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNAVAILABLE. UPDATED 10/24/13*CN

THE MAIN BODY FRAME ON MY OTHERWISE VERY NICE TOYOTA TACOMA JUST BROKE COMPLETELY IN TWO WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET. AFTER INVESTIGATING HOW THIS COULD HAPPEN, I LEARNED THAT TOYOTA ADMITTED THAT THEY MANUFACTURED AND SOLD UNSAFE TOYOTA'S DURING THE MID-90S. THEY CLAIM TO HAVE FIXED THIS BY OFFERING OWNERS OF THESE DEFECTIVE VEHICLES A BUY-BACK OPTION OF 150% VALUE FOR 15-YEARS FROM THE DATE THE VEHICLE FIRST SOLD. MY COMPLAINT IS THAT TOYOTA NEVER ATTEMPTED TO NOTIFY ME THAT I HAD PURCHASED AN UNSAFE VEHICLE AND I HAD NO IDEA THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THIS TRUCK UNTIL THE MAIN FRAME BROKE. I HAD JUST INVESTED $1,000 THE SAME WEEK IN A NEW CLUTCH AND OTHER NEEDED REPAIRS AND WHEN I NOTIFIED TOYOTA THEY TOLD ME THAT I WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY REPAIRS BECAUSE THE 15-YEARS ALREADY PASSED. SINCE TOYOTA ALREADY ADMITTED WITH A BUY-BACK PROGRAM THAT THESE TRUCKS WERE FAULTY AND BUILT WITH A LOW QUALITY METAL, HOW CAN THEY NOT BE RESPONSIBLE WHEN THE VEHICLE PREMATURELY FAILS? WAS MY TRUCK TO SUDDENLY BECOME SAFE AT 15-YEARS OLD? I UNDERSTAND THAT NO MANUFACTURER WARRANTIES THEIR VEHICLES FOREVER, BUT SINCE TOYOTA ADMITTED THAT THEY SOLD US JUNK, AND THE FACT THAT THEY MADE NO ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT ME AS AN OWNER OF ONE OF THESE PIECES OF JUNK, AND THAT THE VEHICLE'S MAIN FRAME SNAPS WHEN THE VEHICLE IS IN OTHERWISE GREAT CONDITION, TOYOTA SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE AND CONTINUE TO BUY-BACK EVERY VEHICLE THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE FAULTY MANUFACTURING. WHEN I CALLED TOYOTA, THEY TREATED ME LIKE DIRT AND EVEN REFUSED TO HAVE SOMEONE REVIEW MY CASE AND GIVE ME A CALL BACK. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE STARTED TO VIBRATED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT AFTER INSPECTING THE VEHICLE HE NOTICED THAT THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE OF THE FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR INSPECTION OR REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE WHO DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 200,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 296,000.

1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. ATTORNEY WRITES ON BEHALF OF CLIENT IN REGARDS TO A RUST CORROSION PERFORATION PROBLEM *TGW THE CONSUMER NEVER RECEIVED A NOTICE STATING THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER LEARNED ABOUT THE PROBLEM IN NOVEMBER 2001, AND HAD THE VEHICLE INSPECTED, WHERE IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT RUST WAS PRESENT. *JB THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED AND THE CORROSION PROBLEM WAS FOUND IN NOVEMBER 2011, WELL BEFORE THE CUTOFF DATE. UPDATED 08/28/12 UPDATED 10/15/12

I HAVE A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA THAT WAS PART OF A RECALL FOR A FAULTY FRAME. I RECEIVED TWO LETTERS INFORMING ME OF THIS PROGRAM. THE FIRST ONE WAS IN 2009, AND THE SECOND IN 2010. I BROUGHT MY TRUCK IN FOR ITS FREE CHECK FOR FRAME CORROSION. THERE WAS A GRAVEYARD OF TRUCKS LIKE MINE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY COULD HAVE FIT ANOTHER UNSAFE TRUCK IN THE LOT, THEY COULDN'T CRUSH THEM FAST ENOUGH. I WENT ON MY OWN AND UNFORTUNATELY I FEAR AS A WOMAN I WAS TREATED DIFFERENTLY. I WATCHED THE MECHANIC BANG MY FRAME OVER AND OVER, ENOUGH TO PUT IT OUT OF ALIGNMENT. MY NAME WAS CALLED AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT MY TRUCK PASSED THE TEST. RECOMMENDED ME TO FIX A BUNCH OF THINGS, SO AFTER WAITING ALL DAY FOR THEM TO REPAIR MY TRUCK AND SPEND 2000 DOLLARS THAT I DIDN'T HAVE, I WAS SENT ON MY WAY. MY TRUCK DID NOT FEEL SAFE TO DRIVE. LUCKILY I LIVE ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD WHERE THE HIGHEST SPEED LIMIT IS 45 MPH. THIS WAS AT FALMOUTH TOYOTA, AFTER THE SECOND NOTICE I WENT TO HYANNIS TOYOTA. THEY FAILED ME, SAID THERE WAS NO REPLACING THE FRAME, NO UNDER CARRIAGE TREATMENT, MY TRUCK WAS DEEMED UNSAFE TO DRIVE. I SIGNED A CONTRACT STATING THAT I WAS TO RECEIVE 150% MINT CONDITION BLUE BOOK VALUE OF MY TRUCK. I WAS LOOKING AT 9000.00, 10,000 DOLLARS OR MAYBE MORE IF I PUT THE MONEY AS A DOWNPAYMENT ON A NEW TOYOTA. I LOVE MY TRUCK, BUT I HAVE NEVER FELT SAFE IN IT. I WAS READY TO GOTO SALES AND FIND A NEW TRUCK. I HAD TO WAIT FOR A PHONE CALL FROM CECH, YOU KNOW THE BIG GUY,TOYOTA USA. AND AFTER THAT HAND OVER MY TITLE AND START THE TRANSACTION. I WENT BACK A LITTLE OVER A WEEK LATER TO DROP OFF MY TITLE AND GET THE RENTAL CAR THEY PROMISED ME. THEN THE DOOR SLAMMED IN MY FACE. I AM THE THIRD OWNER OF THIS VEHICLE. THE FIRST OWNER BOUGHT THE TRUCK IN 1995, JUST BEFORE THE NEW YEAR. NOW I AM LEFT WITH AN UNSAFE TRUCK THAT I CANT INSPECT, SELL OR DRIVE. $300.00 IS ALL THEY ARE OFFERING ME NOW. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR AN UNKNOWN FRAME CORROSION RECALL. THE DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE DEALER ALSO STATED THAT THE FRAME COULD NOT BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 103,000. UPDATED 05/21/12 *BF UPDATED 06/04/12

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS SEVERE FRAME RUST NEAR THE REAR WHEELS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER, WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRAME WAS FINE. THE FAILURE PROGRESSED OVER THE FOLLOWING TWO YEARS AND HOLES BEGAN TO FORM IN THE FRAME. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND OFFERED TO ASSIST WITH SPRAYING A COATING OVER THE RUST TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE. THE CONTACT DENIED ASSISTANCE AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 140,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 150,000.

1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO FRAME RUST CORROSION *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED HE RECEIVED A LETTER IN THE MAIL REGARDING FRAME RUST. THE CONSUMER MADE AN APPOINTMENT TO HAVE THE VEHICLE INSPECTED. THE CONSUMER STATED IT APPEARED THE DEALER NEVER PERFORMED ANY INSPECTION IN REGARDS TO THE FRAME OF HIS TRUCK. THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONSUMER THAT EVERYTHING LOOKED GOOD AND THERE WERE NO MAJOR PROBLEMS AND THE BODY SHOP WOULD TREAT THE FRAME, BY TREATING ANY BAD SECTIONS, THEN UNDER COAT AND CONDITION THE FRAME. TWO DAYS LATER, THE CONSUMER RECEIVED A CALL STATING THE BODY SHOP FOUND A FEW MAJOR PROBLEMS, AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO CONTINUE AND TOYOTA WOULD COME AND TALK TO THE CONSUMER ABOUT A BUY BACK AS THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE CONSUMER STATED IN TWO DAYS, THE VEHICLE WENT FROM BEING OK TO UNSAFE TO DRIVE. *JB

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS FRAME DAMAGE IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER MADE THE CONTACT AWARE OF A POSSIBLE SILENT RECALL, BUT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 203,000.