1999 Toyota Tacoma

I BOUGHT A 1999 TOYOTA TACOMA FROM A PRIVATE PARTY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. WHEN I WENT TO REGISTER THE VEHICLE THE TITLE CAME BACK AS A "REBUILD". JUST RECENTLY I GOT A RECALL NOTICE FROM TOYOTA CORPORATE WITH THE VIN OF MY VEHICLE PRINTED ON IT TELLING ME THAT THERE IS A BUY BACK FOR VEHICLES OF MY YEAR AND VIN. I CALLED TOYOTA CORPORATE ABOUT A MONTH BACK AND ENDED UP SPEAKING WITH A CASE MANAGER CONCERNING THE BUY BACK/RECALL NOTICE AND INQUIRED IF I WAS COVERED UNDER THIS NOTICE THAT I RECEIVED AS MY TITLE WAS A "REBUILD". IN MAINE THERE IS A SALVAGE TITLE AND ALSO A REBUILD TITLE WHICH ARE NOT THE SAME THING. MY REBUILD TITLE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FRAME BEING DAMAGED OR REPLACED AND IT IS THE SAME ONE THIS VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED WITH. THE TRUCK LOOKS ALMOST NEW. THERE IS NO RUST ANYWHERE ON THIS VEHICLE EXCEPT WHERE THE FRAME IS ROTTED TO THE POINT THE VEHICLE IS PROBABLY UNSAFE. THE RUST STARTS JUST IN FRONT OF THE SPRING SHACKLE SUPPORTS AND RUNS ABOUT 1 1/2 FEET ON BOTH SIDES OF FRAME. THE TOYOTA REP STATED IT WAS NOT COVERED AND THEY WERE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE TITLE. I INFORMED THE MAN AT TOYOTA THAT THIS VEHICLE MAY HAVE A REBUILD TITLE BUT THE FRAME ROTTING OUT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE THAT CREATED THE REBUILD TITLE BUT WAS STILL A RESULT OF TOYOTA USING INFERIOR MATERIALS WHEN DANA MANUFACTURED THE FRAME FOR TOYOTA. THE CASE MANAGER INFORMED ME THAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD ALREADY HAD THAT VEHICLE TO THE DEALER ABOUT A YEAR BEFORE I BOUGHT IT AND WAS DENIED WARRANTY COVERAGE DUE TO THE TITLE BEING A "REBUILD". I THEN ASKED HIM, IF THEY ALREADY KNEW THAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD ALREADY BEEN DENIED CLAIM UNDER THE RECALL PROGRAM, "WHY DID THEY SEND ME THE NOTICE WITH THE SAME VIN INFORMING ME OF THE RECALL?" HE DID NOT HAVE A VALID ANSWER FOR THAT QUESTION.

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT CORROSION TO THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE; HE WAS INFORMED BY THE DEALER. THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY WOULD CALL THE MANUFACTURER TO SET UP A BUY BACK. THE MANUFACTURER DENIED THE BUY BACK BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS SALVAGED. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 197,000. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 196,000.

ON 02/12/09 AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP INSPECTED, FOUND, PHOTOGRAPHED AND DOCUMENTED RUST PERFORATION ON THE FRAME OF MY 1999 TRUCK WITH ONLY 72,000 MILES. THE TRUCK WAS IN PRISTINE CONDITION OTHERWISE. A PREVIOUS INDEPENDENT WELDER/HITCH INSTALLED DECLARED THE FRAME TOO THIN AND WEAK TO INSTALL ANY KIND OF TRAILER HITCH ON THE BACK AND THERE WAS MASSIVE PUFFY, SWOLLEN, FLAKY, RUSTY AREAS TO THE FRAME ONLY VISIBLE UNDERNEATH THE TRUCK. THE MANUFACTURER RECEIVED THE E-MAILED PICTURED FROM THE DEALER AND DENIED COVERAGE UNDER THE EXTENDED WARRANTY, AND THE PLATINUM VEHICLE SERVICE AGREEMENT, TAT COST $ 1,175. THE SERVICE MANAGER EXPLAINED THE DECISION WAS TOTALLY MADE BY THE MANUFACTURER BASED ON THE FEW E-MAILED PICTURED, HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, AND FURTHER, HE HAD SEEN LESS RUSTY FRAMES THAN MINE TAKEN OFF THE ROAD IMMEDIATELY AND BOUGH BACK UNDER THE RECALL PROGRAM. I WAS SENT BACK ON THE ROAD TO DEAL WITH THE FRAME MYSELF AND I IMMEDIATELY WROTE TWO LETTER PLEADING THE MANUFACTURER FOR ANOTHER INSPECTION AT ANOTHER DEALER. I WAS DENIED THAT REQUEST. MEANWHILE, TWO INDEPENDENT MECHANICS ADVISED ME NOT TO DRIVE IT. I MOSTLY PARK THE TRUCK IN MY DRIVEWAY AND TRIED NOT TO THINK ABOUT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS AND INSURANCE THAT CONTINUE. THE REGISTRATION EXPIRED IN MY DRIVEWAY AND I DID NOT RENEW IT UNTIL THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RULES REQUIRED IT. ON 10/13/10, I DROVE MY TRUCK TO THE DEALERSHIP AND IT WAS INSPECTED AGAIN. I WAS TOLD THE CORPORATION WOULD BUY IT BACK UNDER THE RECALL. THIS TIME THERE COULD BE NO MISTAKE WITH PICTURED, BECAUSE THIS TIME HOLES EXISTED AND THERE WAS NO STEEL LEFT IN THE AREAS. MY TRUCK REMAINS AT THE DEALERSHIP AND MAYBE THE NHTSA SHOULD INSPECT IT TO SEE HOW A VEHICLE HAS TO BE BEFORE THE CORPORATION WILL DO ANYTHING. UPDATED 01/20/11 *BF

1999 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO FRAME RUST PERFORATION *TGW WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED, RUST WAS FOUND AND DOCUMENTED AND PICTURES WERE E-MAILED TO TOYOTA. TOYOTA DENIED THE CONSUMERS REQUEST TO RE-PURCHASE THE VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER WROTE TOYOTA TWO LETTERS ASKING THEM TO RECONSIDER AND TO HAVE THE VEHICLE INSPECTED AGAIN. TOYOTA AGREED TO BUY THE VEHICLE BACK UNDER RECALL, BUT NOT AT THE VALUE THE CONSUMER WANTED. *JB UPDATED 12/28/10.*JB UPDATED 01/13/11.*JB THE CONSUMER STATED HE WOULD LIKE FOR NHTSA TO EXAMINE THE FRAME OF HIS TRUCK. UPDATED 02/10/11

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 TOYOTA TACOMA 4X4 V6. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE ABNORMALLY ACCELERATED AND CRASHED INTO THE GARAGE. THE VEHICLE WAS SHUT OFF AND THE KEY WAS NOT IN THE IGNITION WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS DIAGNOSED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO STATED THE PROBLEM WAS CAUSED BY A STARTER SHORTAGE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 90,000.

RECENTLY SPOKE WITH SEVERAL TOYOTA TACOMA OWNERS WHO RELATED FRAME RUST PROBLEM. CHECKED TRUCK AND FOUND RUST ON FRAME(FINGERS WENT THROUGH FRAME IN SPOTS. TOOK VEHICLE TO TOYOTA SERVICE AND WAS TOLD NOT TO DRIVE TRUCK DUE TO EXCESSIVE RUST ON FRAME. THEN THEY RETURNED THE TRUCK TO ME TO DRIVE HOME?? TO RETURN IN TWO DAYS WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE A LOANER TRUCK FOR ME. RETURNED TRUCK TO TOYOTA AND AFTER A HUGE HASSLE THEY ARRANGED TO RENTAL VEHICLE FOR ME TO DRIVE. NOW TOYOTA DEALER HAS KEPT THE TRUCK BECAUSE IT IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. I AM WAITING FOR SOMEONE FROM TOYOTA TO CONTACT ME - HAVE BEEN TOLD I QUALIFY FOR A BUYOUT. THE DEALER/SERVICE DEPT. HAS NOW WASHED THEIR HANDS OF THE PROBLEM, TELLING ME I HAVE TO WAIT FOR TOYOTA TO CONTACT ME BUT HAVE NO IDEA HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE - WEEKS MAYBE. IN ADDITION, I WAS NOT PLANNING TO BUY A NEW VEHICLE - DIDN'T WANT THE EXPENSE BUT MAY NOT HAVE A CHOICE. *TR

I HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM TOYOTA MOTOR CO. ALONG WITH 814,000 OTHER OWNERS OF TOYOTA TACOMA'S BUILT BETWEEN 1995-2000 STATING THAT OUR FRAME RUST WARRANTY HAS BEEN EXTENDED FOR 15 YEARS FROM DATE OF ORIGINAL PURCHASE AS A RESULT OF A FRAME RUST BECAUSE A PROCESS THAT WAS NOT DONE BY THE FRAME SUPPLIER TO TOYOTA. IF FRAME IS FOUND TO HAVE RUST TOYOTA MOTOR CO. WILL BUYBACK VEHICLE AT 150% OF HIGHEST KBB RETAIL VALUE. TOYOTA EXPECTS TO BUYBACK APPROX. 50% OF VEHICLES STILL ON THE ROAD. MOST OF THESE VEHICLES WILL BE FROM THE CENTRAL AND NORTHEASTERN PARTS OF THE US BUT THEY HAVE BOUGHT BACK VEHICLES IN ALL PARTS OF THE NATION INCLUDING CALIFORNIA. THIS CAMPAIGN BEGAN IN MID-2008. SO NOW I HAVE A VEHICLE THAT HAS SOME SURFACE RUST ON THE FRAME BUT NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT THE BUYBACK PROGRAM AT THIS TIME BUT IN THE MEAN TIME WHILE THE FRAME RUSTS INTO THE TOYOTA BUYBACK STANDARDS MY KBB VALUE DECREASES, I DRIVE AROUND A VEHICLE WITH COMPROMISED FRAME INTEGRITY IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT, AND NO ONE WANTS TO BUY MY VEHICLE BECAUSE IT HAS THIS LATENT PROBLEM NOW WELL ESTABLISHED/DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE MEDIA. *TR

TL* THE CONTACTS OWNS A 1999 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH, AN UNUSUAL NOISE WAS HEARD FROM THE ENGINE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE FLY WHEEL WAS CRACKED. REPAIRS WERE MADE ACCORDINGLY. ONE YEAR LATER, THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL MECHANIC FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND IT WAS DISCOVERED THE UNDER CARRIAGE WAS ROTTED, AS WELL AS THE MUFFLER. THE PARTIAL UNKNOWN REPAIRS WERE MADE TO THE VEHICLE AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE. THERE WERE NO RECALLS ON THE VEHICLE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 113,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 170,000.