2001 Toyota Tacoma

I BOUGHT THIS TRUCK IN JUNE 2014 FROM A PRIVATE DEALERSHIP IN VIRGINIA, THEN MOVED FROM MARYLAND TO SEATTLE. I HAD IT INSPECTED IN MARYLAND, IT PASSED, BUT I DISCOVERED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED COMPLETELY THROUGH- THE LEAF SPRINGS ARE NOT EVEN ATTACHED, MAKING IT UNSAFE TO DRIVE. I CONTACTED TOYOTA, AND THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD THE RUST TREATMENT APPLIED IN 2011, BUT THE EXTENDED WARRANTY EXPIRED IN 2013, SO THEY ARE REFUSING TO HELP. I HAVE ONLY HAD THIS TRUCK 9 MONTHS AND IT IS BASICALLY WORTHLESS AND DANGEROUS. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, A SQUEAKING SOUND EMITTED FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE BALL JOINT WAS FAULTY AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 140,000.

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THE SUB FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE SUB FRAME WAS CORRODED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE FAILURE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 144,321.

I TOOK MY TOYOTA TACOMA PICK UP TO SIGNATURE TOYOTA IN BENTON HARBOR, MICHIGAN FOR A FRAME RECALL AND THE DEALER INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS NOT RECALLED AND I HAD LETTER IN HAND THAT SAID IT WAS. NOW IN DECEMBER 14, 2014 I TOOK IT BACK TO THE SAME DEALER FOR THE SPARE TIRE RECALL AND THEY SAID THAT IT COULD NOT BE FIXED BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE THE FRAME RECALL FIXED AND I TOLD THEM THAT I HAD IT IN THERE AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS NOT PART OF THE RECALL. AND THEY WOULD NOT FIX IT AND TOYOTA WILL NOT FIX IT EARTHIER. THEY ARE TELLING ME THAT THE TRUCK IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. I TOOK THE TRUCK TO JORDEN TOYOTA FOR A SECOND OPINION. I THOUGHT THAT SIGNATURE WAS TELLING ME THE TRUTH WHEN IN FACT THEY WEREN'T. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE REAR FRAME BECAME DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE REAR FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 220,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, A DEER JUMPED INTO THE ROAD AND CAUSED A CRASH. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE FAILURE OCCURRED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 145,000. UPDATED 3/26/15*CN UPDATED 03/30/15*LJ UPDATED 10/30/15 *JS

RECENTLY, I BROUGHT MY 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA INTO THE DEALER IN HYANNIS, MA TO ADDRESS A RECALL OF THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER. THERE WAS A PRIOR RECALL/EXTENDED WARRANTY ON THE FRAME AND I ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT THAT AS WELL. I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE IN 2013 FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER, WHO ADVISED ME THAT HE HAD BROUGHT THE TRUCK INTO THE ORLEANS TOYOTA DEALERSHIP(IN ORLEANS, MA), DURING THE PREVIOUS RECALL/EXTENDED SERVICE PERIOD - IN MAY 2011 - WHEN HE HAD RECEIVED NOTICES, AND THAT HE WAS ADVISED THE FRAME WAS SOLID AND DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM. ACCORDING TO TOYOTA'S RECORDS, ORLEANS TOYOTA DOCUMENTED THAT THE FRAME WAS CHECKED OUT AND PASSED THEIR INSPECTION. NOW, ACCORDING TO [XXX]. AT TOYOTA NATIONAL CUSTOMER RELATIONS DEPT., THE RECALL/EXTENDED SERVICE WARRANTY PROGRAM ON THE FRAME THEN EXPIRED LATER, IN SEPT., 2011. NOW, HERE IS THE CATCH-22 THAT I AM CONFRONTED WITH ?? I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY . [XXX] AND OTHERS, THAT AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION, IN MAY 2011, IF THE ORLEANS TOYOTA SERVICE DEPT. HAD PROVIDED A RUST PREVENTATIVE COATING TO THE FRAME, THEN THIS VEHICLE WOULD HAVE HAD AN EXTENDED WARRANTY OF 15 YEARS ON IT. AGAIN, THE PREVIOUS OWNER BROUGHT THE VEHICLE IN AS INSTRUCTED WHEN HE HAD RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL PROBLEMS. THE PREVIOUS OWNER DOES NOT KNOW WHY HE WAS NOT OFFERED THE RUST PREVENTION COATING BACK IN 2011, AND WAS CONTENT THAT THE FRAME WAS SOLID, BECAUSE HE HAD BROUGHT IT IN TO ORLEANS TOYOTA, AND THEY HAD INSPECTED IT. I UNDERSTAND THE NHTSA CURRENTLY HAS 134 OPEN COMPLAINTS JUST ON THIS YEAR 2001 TACOMAS WITH THIS PROBLEM. I FEEL STRONGLY THAT TOYOTA SHOULD RECONSIDER AND FIX THE PROBLEM, SINCE FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT WAS TOYOTA 'S ERROR IN NOT APPLYING THE RUST PREVENTION COATING BACK IN 2011. FOR TOYOTA NOW TO NOT STAND BEHIND THE VEHICLE BASED ON THEIR ERROR IS A POOR, AND DANGEROUS ACTION ON THEIR PART. THANK YOU! INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR