2001 Toyota Tacoma

I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND WAS ALERTED TO THE FRAME CORROSION. I CAN ACTUALLY PUSH MY FINGER THROUGH THE RUST AND FRAME, HOLES ARE VISIBLE IN THE FRAME. THE TRUCK IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND I FEAR OF SAFETY FOR MY FAMILY. I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND THEY ADVISED ME THAT THE VOLUNTARY BUYBACK PROGRAM FOR FIXING THIS WAS EXPIRED. I AM NOW LEFT WITH AN IMMACULATELY CLEAN CAR IN PRISTINE SHAPE THAT CANNOT BE DRIVEN AND I AM LEERY OF EVEN SELLING TO SOMEONE ELSE REGARDLESS OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FRAME. REPORTS OF THIS PROBLEM ARE POPPING UP ALL OVER AND IT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH AS A SERIOUS MATTER AND SUBJECT TO SAFETY RECALL. LESSER ISSUES HAVE HAD RECALLS AND IT HAS BEEN LEFT UP TO TOYOTA TO PROVIDE VOLUNTARY BUYBACK PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF BEING MANDATED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.

IN REVIEWING YOUR WEBSITE FOR RECALLS ON THE TOYOTA TACOMA, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS ONE MISSING THAT CAME BEFORE THE RECALL FOR THE SPARE TIRES. THE ONE I SPEAK OF IS THE RECALL ON THE VEHICLE FOR FRAME PERFORATIONS OF WHICH MY VECHICLE NOW HAS AND HAS DEEMED UNSAFE FOR DRIVING. I BELIEVE THIS RECALL SHOULD BE ENFORCED BY TOYOTA AS MYSELF AND NUMEROUS OTHERS HAVE VEHICLES THAT CAUSE SAFETY HAZARDS FOR NOT ONLY OURSELVES BUT INJURIES TO OTHERS. THESE VEHICLES ARE STILL ON THE ROAD, AS OTHERS LIKE MY SELF WERE NOT AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS SITUATIN TOYOTA HAS PLACED US IN BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING NOTHING TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION, I'D LIKE TO TAKE M VEHICLE IN FOR THE TIRE RECALL HOWEVER I WILL NOT RISK MY LIFE IN ORDER TO GET THIS REPAIR DONE. AS AN AGENCY TO IS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM HAZARDS, I AND MANY OTHERS (VISIT FACEBOOK PAGE TOYOTA TACOMA FRAME DEFECTS) FEEL THAT YOUR AGENCY SHOULD STEP-UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. *TT

2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO EXCESSIVE CORROSION RECALL. *SMD A LOCAL MECHANIC INFORMED THE CONSUMER, THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CORROSION AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. THE DEALER REPAIRED THE SPARE LIFT TIRE PLATE UNDER THE RECALL. HOWEVER, THEY STATED THE RECALL FOR THE FRAME HAD EXPIRED AND THEY WOULD NOT DO THE REPAIR.

FOLLOWING ROUTINE SERVICE INSPECTION ON 4/2/2014, SIGNIFICANT PERFORATION OF MY 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA 4X4 TRUCK FRAME WAS IDENTIFIED, DUE TO CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH RUSTING. ACCORDING TO A 2012 TOYOTA DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSTIC, NO INDICATION OF RUST WAS NOTED DURING THE DEALERSHIP SERVICE INSPECTION. ALSO, NO HARD COPY DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY TOYOTA CORPORATION REGARDING AN ALLEGED VOLUNTARY RECALL CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CORROSION OF FRAME. ACCORDING TO THE TOYOTA CORPORATION CASE WORKER ASSIGNED, HE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANY HARD COPY DOCUMENTATION OF SAID VOLUNTARY RECALL CAMPAIGN NOTICE REGARDING CORROSION OF TRUCK FRAME; IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE CASE WORKER DID SAY HE COULD PROVIDE 'VERBAL' CONFIRMATION THAT NOTIFICATION WAS SENT TO MY RESIDENCE AT THE TIME. AT THIS TIME, I AM CURRENTLY CONSIDERING LEGAL ACTION, PENDING FURTHER REVIEW OF CASE. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A MINOR REAR END CRASH WHERE THE DRIVER AND THE PASSENGER'S HEAD REST BECAME FRACTURED UPON IMPACT. THE CONTACT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE HEAD REST FRACTURING WITH SUCH A SLIGHT IMPACT. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED AND NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 95,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, A LOUD NOISE EMITTED OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT ENTIRE FRAME WAS FRACTURED. THE VEHICLE WAS DECLARED UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE EXTENDED SERVICE WARRANTY EXPIRED AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 160,000. UPDATED 4/29/14*CN *TR THE CONSUMER STATED DECLINED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE BUT WILL HOWEVER REPLACE THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER DUE TO CORROSION BUT NOT THE FRAME. *TR

ON 5/7/13 MY TOYOTA TACOMA AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY, WAS INJURED, AND WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCIDENT. UN-INSURED DRIVER, 2008 TOYOTA SCION, WAS CAUSE OF ACCIDENT, AND SCION'S AIRBAG WORKED. 2008 TOYOTA SCION WAS RECEIVED BY MF AUTO ON 4/4/13, PURCHASED BY YUKA OKUNA, INSURED BY GEICO ON APRIL 9, 2013 & RE-INSURED ON APRIL 10, 2013 W/ALL STATE INSURANCE (POLICY 4/10 TO 10/10?), AND POLICE REPORT STATED AMANDA LONGLEY OWNED CAR & INSURED BY SAFE AUTO. YET INSURANCE COMPANIES CLAIM IT IS 'PHANTOM OR GHOST DRIVER' AND NOT INSURED AT ALL- NOT LAWFUL IN STATE OF INDIANA AS PROOF OF INSURANCE IS REQUIRED? IT APPEARS BMV RECORDS MAYBE ALTERED AFTER POLICE REPORT- POLICE VERIFIED INFORMATION AT SCENE OF ACCIDENT? ADDITIONALLY, NOTICED POLICE REPORT STATED "SAFETY EQUIPMENT EFFECTIVE" WAS NOTED "YES" FOR SCION & TACOMA BUT MY TOYOTA TACOMA AIRBAG DID NOT WORK PROPERLY- PERCEIVED UNSAFE PRODUCT. LASTLY, TACOMA TOYOTA WAS IN A SEPARATE ACCIDENT IN 2004, NOT MY FAULT (REAR ENDED AT AROUND 35-40 MPH), AND AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY- CAUSED A LOT OF DAMAGES AND INJURY. TOYOTA FAILED TO PROVIDE A SAFE PRODUCT AND IS A CAUSE OF LOSS IN MANY WAYS- TOO MANY LOSSES TO DETAIL. TOYOTA WAS INFORMED IN WRITING BUT FAILED TO ADDRESS PRODUCT SAFETY CONCERNS ADEQUATELY AND APPEARED MORE CONCERNED ABOUT BRAND REPUTATION THAN SAFETY OF PEOPLE? (SEE PHI MATRIX FOR SOME REASONS- LINKED TO STOCK PRICES/BRAND/ DESIGN /BEAUTY ANALYTICS).

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS CRACKED. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, WHO STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS CRACKED ON BOTH SIDES NEAR THE SHACKLES. THE FRAME WAS WELDED BUT THE PROBLEM RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE INCIDENT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000.

THE FRAME ON THE VEHICLE IS RUSTING. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT TACOMA'S HAD RUSTY FRAME ISSUES UNTIL AFTER I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE. I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS FRAME WILL CAUSE UNSAFE DRIVING CONDITIONS IF SOMETHING GIVES OUT WHILE DRIVING. I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE RESALE VALUE OF A YEAR CLASS OF VEHICLES THAT ARE KNOWN TO HAVE RUSTY FRAMES. *TR

THE FOAM IN THE HEADREST OF BOTH THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER SEATS HAS DETERIORATED TO THE POINT THAT THE METAL BAR UNDERNEATH IS EXPOSED. NEITHER SEATS HAVE HAD SEAT COVERS, THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN IN ANY WRECKS, AND THE HEADRESTS HAVE BEEN USED NORMALLY. I HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR A FIX TO THIS PROBLEM AND THIS LOOKS TO BE COMMON FOR THIS GENERATION OF TOYOTA TRUCKS. THIS SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE FOR A VEHICLE OF THIS AGE AND IS A VERY DANGEROUS PROBLEM FOR SUCH AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF SAFETY EQUIPMENT. *TR