1996 Toyota Tacoma

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS FRACTURED UNDER THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE FRACTURE BEGAN FORM THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE TO THE REAR OF THE PASSENGER SIDE. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND THE FAILURE WAS CONFIRMED BUT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 176,000. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THAT RUST HAD PERFORATED THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE IN SEVERAL PLACES AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. UPDATED 03/14/12

THERE IS AN ACTUAL HOLE RUSTED THROUGH THE STRUCTURAL FRAME OF THE TRUCK. IN DECEMBER OF 2010, WHILE INSIDE OF THE 15 YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD, TOYOTA CLAIMED THERE WAS NO RUST ON THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE OTHER THAN "SURFACE RUST." IN SEPTEMBER OF 2011, AFTER THE 15 YEAR WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED, TOYOTA CLAIMED THERE WAS RUST, CORROSION, AND AN ACTUAL HOLE IN THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. TOYOTA IS CLAIMING TO HAVE ISSUED A VOLUNTARY RECALL FOR THEIR RUSTED FRAMES, BUT IS PASSING THE FRAMES UNTIL THEY ARE JUST OUTSIDE OF THEIR 15 YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD AND THEN FAILING THEM. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR HAVING STEEL RUST COMPLETELY THROUGH ON THE FRAME OF A VEHICLE THAT HAS BEEN CARED FOR AND MAINTAINED. IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD, AND IT IS AMAZING TO THINK THAT THESE VEHICLES COULD BREAK IN HALF WHILE ON THE HIGHWAY AT HIGH SPEED. TOYOTA NEEDS TO STEP UP AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR SUBCONTRACTERS CUTTING CORNERS DURING THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THEIR SELF-IMPOSED PROGRAMS ARE NOT EXTENSIVE ENOUGH, FEDERAL PENALTIES NEED TO BE ENACTED. THANK YOU. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THE DEALER CONFIRMED THAT THE FRAME WAS COVERED WITH RUST AND CORRODED DURING AN INSPECTION. THE DEALER WILL NOT REPAIR THE VEHICLE SINCE THE WARRANTY EXPIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 90,000. UPDATED 09/27/11 *BF UPDATED 10/11/11

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THEY WOULD BUY THE VEHICLE BACK BUT LATER RETRACTED THE OFFER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY A PRIVATE MECHANIC WHO INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT SHE WOULD NEED TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE FRAME. NO REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 243,000. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 240,000.

I OWN A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. I RECEIVED A "LIMITED SERVICE CAMPAIGN" LETTER IN THE MAIL ON JULY 18TH 2011. THE NOTICE STATED THAT TACOMA MODEL YEARS 1996-2000 NEED TO BE INSPECTED FOR FRAME RUST AND POSSIBLE PERFORATION. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE FRAMES IN A NUMBER OF THESE VEHICLES MAY NOT HAVE CORROSION-RESISTANT PROTECTION SUFFICIENT FOR AREA WITH HIGH ROAD SALT USE. THIS CONDITION IS UN-RELATED TO NORMAL SURFACE RUST COMMONLY FOUND ON METALLIC SURFACES AFTER YEARS OF USE. I LIVE IN NORTHERN ILLINOIS AND WITH MY VIN, MY TRUCK CERTAINLY FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY. THE NOTICE, WHICH WAS MY FIRST AND ONLY ONE RECEIVED, CAME TO MY HOUSE 90 DAYS PAST THE 15 YEAR IN SERVICE DATE THAT TOYOTA EXTENDED THE CAMPAIGN FOR. AFTER SPEAKING WITH TOYOTA, I WAS ABLE TO HAVE MY TRUCK INSPECTED. THE FRAME HAS SEVERE RUST BUT SOMEHOW MANAGED TO "PASS" THE PERFORATION TEST. THE RESULTS OF THE TEST WERE IN MY OPINION MARGINAL AT BEST. I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO HAVE TOYOTA SEND A FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE TO MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP TO FURTHER INSPECT MY TRUCK FRAME. THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED AS OF YET (JULY 27TH,2011) AND TOYOTA SEEMS TO BE PLAYING A BACK AND FORTH GAME TO GET THIS DONE. CORPORATE TOYOTA IS WELL AWARE OF THIS FRAME CORROSION ISSUE BUT IS FAILING MISERABLY BY NOT STANDING BEHIND THE PROBLEM. DURING THIS CAMPAIGN, TOYOTA HAS REPLACED NUMEROUS FRAMES AND HAS "RE-PURCHASED" MANY TRUCKS FROM CONSUMERS IN THE AFFECTED STATES. ONCE MY TRUCK WAS DEEMED "PAST 15 YEARS FROM IN SERVICE DATE", THEY ARE TURNING THEIR BACKS ON THIS ISSUE. AS STATED BEFORE, MY NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED UNTIL JULY 18TH 2011, PUTTING THE TRUCK LITERALLY 90 DAYS PAST. I STARTED TRYING TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE WITH TOYOTA JULY 19TH 2011. I WILL NO LONGER ALLOW MY FAMILY TO RIDE IN THIS VEHICLE AS I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE THAT THE FRAME WILL HOLD UP. I'M FILING THIS COMPLAINT TO MAKE SURE TOYOTA DOES WHAT IS RIGHT IN THIS CASE AND STAND BEHIND THEIR PRODUCT AS THEY SO OFTEN PROMOTE IN THEIR ADDS. THANK YOU. *TR

I OWN A 96 TOYOTA TACOMA AND IT HAS DEVELOPED FRAME ROT. TOYOTA WILL NOT DO THEIR BUYBACK AS I BROUGHT IT FOR ITS SECOND INSPECTION 68 DAYS BEYOND THE 15 YEAR BUYBACK OFFER. THE TRUCK HAS BEEN CONDEMNED AND REPORTED TO CARFAX, TOYOTA CORPORATE AND THE MA RMV RENDERING THIS VEHICLE INSTANTLY UNFIT TO DRIVE AND ILLEGAL TO OPERATE FOR SAFETY ISSUES..YET TOYOTA DENIES ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS AND THE DEALER SERVICE REP SAID, YOU CAN STILL TAKE THE TRUCK, ITS YOURS AFTER ALL. HOW CAN A SAFETY RECALL FOR FAULTY FRAME CONSTRUCTION INVOLVING POOR QUALITY STEEL AND ABSENCE OF RUST INHIBITOR NOT BE A TOTAL RECALL OF ALL VEHICLES ON LIST DEMANDING BUYOUT OR FRAME REPLACEMENT FOR THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE? WHY WAS TOYOTA GRANTED A 15 YEAR BACK-END TO THIS RESPONSIBILITY? FURTHER, TOYOTA PERFORMS THE INSPECTIONS AND YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED 1 INSPECTION PER YEAR. I HAD MANCHESTER NH TOYOTA INSPECT MINE ABOUT 1 1/2 YEARS AGO AND THE TECH INSPECTING COMMENTED, "..THIS ONE WAS ONE OF THE BEST HE'S SEEN YET." I DISCOVERED A BROKEN LEFT REAR UPPER SHOCK MOUNT WITH A CHUNK OF FRAME TWO WEEKS AGO AND ARRANGED AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE TO GET THE TRUCK TO TOYOTA IN FALMOUTH, MA. WHERE THEY IMMEDIATELY CONDEMNED THE TRUCK DETERMINING IT UNSAFE TO DRIVE, THEN INFORMED ME THAT I HAD EXCEEDED THE BUYBACK TERM BY 68 DAYS PAST THE 15 YEAR OLD MARK. THEN THEY TOLD ME I COULD TAKE THE VEHICLE BACK BECAUSE AFTER ALL, IT IS STILL MY TRUCK. YOU'VE ALLOWED TOYOTA TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN SAFETY INSPECTIONS AND ALLOWED THEM TO BACK-END THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR SYSTEM-WIDE PRODUCTION DEFICIENCY? HOW IS IT THEY GOT TO CALL THAT SHOT? TALK ABOUT ALLOWING THE FOX TO GUARD THE HEN HOUSE! I BOUGHT A TOYOTA AT A MUCH HIGHER PRICE THAN THEIR COMPETITORS BECAUSE OF THEIR ADVERTISED QUALITY ENGINEERING. "EIGHT OUT OF TEN COROLLAS SOLD SINCE 1985 ARE STILL ON THE ROAD TODAY" WELL, THEY FAILED MISERABLY WITH THE TACOMA, PROVEN BY THE HUGE NUMBER OF TRUCKS THEY'VE HAD TO BUY-OUT OR PERFORM A FRAME REPLACEMENT. WHY? *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AFTER HAVING A REAR LEAF SPRING REPLACED ON HER VEHICLE, SHE NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY RUSTED AND DAMAGED. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY THE DEALER AND ADVISED HER THAT THEY COULD NOT ASSIST HER SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 259,000.

I OWN A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA WHICH HAS A RECALL FOR RUST. THE ENTIRE UNDERCARRIAGE IS RUSTING OUT. I TOOK IT TO MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER FOR EXAMINATION BECAUSE MY MECHANIC SAID IT WAS IN BAD SHAPE. THE DEALER SAID IT WAS OK. A LITTLE WHILE LATER THE EMERGENCY BRAKE MECHANISM ON THE BOTTOM RUSTED OUT AND BROKE. LUCKILY IT HAPPENED IN MY DRIVEWAY SO THERE WAS NO ACCIDENT OR DAMAGE. THE TRUCK JUST ROLLED TO A HALT. IF THIS HAPPENED ON A HILL OR IN A PARKING LOT SOMEONE COULD HAVE BEEN INJURED. *TR