1995 Toyota Tacoma

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR AN UNRELATED REPAIR WHEN THEY NOTICED THAT THE FRONT AND REAR FRAME WAS COMPLETELY CORRODED DUE TO MASSIVE RUST. THE MECHANIC INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE DAMAGES WERE SEVERE AND BEYOND REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 180,000.

I PUT MY TACOMA IN REVERSE AND HEARD A SNAP AND CLUNK FROM FRONT AND REAR. FRONT RIGHT SUSPENSION RUSTED THROUGH, BROKE AND RIGHT REAR SHOCK. LOCAL REPAIR SHOP SAID RUSTED THROUGH, BROKE, THEY CAN'T ADJUST CASTER SETTING ON FRONT ALIGNMENT BECAUSE NUTS ARE RUSTED SOLID CAN'T REMOVE NUTS . PULLS TO THE RIGHT, STEERING WHEEL IS TO RIGHT. FRAME IS ALSO VERY RUSTED AND MIGHT FAIL BEFORE TOO LONG. MY WIFE AND I TOOK MY TACOMA TO TOYOTA DEALER IN 2010 TO HAVE $2,342.21 WORTH OF SERVICES DONE. REPAIRS NOT DONE CORRECTLY AND PERMANANTLY. WE TOOK IT BACK TWICE AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD COST US $1,900.00 TO REPLACE CONDENSER FOR LEAK . WE PAID $250 TO HAVE LEAK REPAIRED TO BEGIN WITH OTHER REPEATED CHARGES . MY ONLINE HISTORY SAYS $520.00 TO FIX LEAK . TOYOTA SERVICE REP DID NOTHING BUT TRY TO OVERCHARGE AND RECHARGE US FOR REPAIRS WE PAID FOR AND REFUSED TO CORRECT THE REPAIRS WE PAID FOR . TOYOTA DEALER INSPECTED MY TACOMA FRAME AND DECLARED IT GOOD IN 2010, REFUSED TO UNDERCOAT MY FRAME. THREE YEARS LATTER 2010 IN 2013 FRAME IS EXTREMELY RUSTED. TOYOTA REFUSES TO BUYBACK OR REPLACE FRAME. WE BOUGHT TACOMA IN 1998 BEFORE FRAME RUST PROGRAM BEGINNING IN 2008. SECOND OWNER, NEVER RECEIVED RECALL OR EXTENDED FRAME RUST WARRANTY LETTERS. WE WERE TOLD THERE WASN'T RECALL OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEED TO BE DONE IN 2010. THEY NEW EXACTLY HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAD IN THE BANK AND TRIED TOO TAKE EVERY PENNY WE HAD IN THE BANK , REFUSING TO PROVIDE EXCELLENT SERVICE REPAIRS. WE HAD TO PREPAY FOR STAINLESS STEAL EXHAUST . TOYOTA SERVICE REP. PUT THE OLD OXYGEN SENSORS BACK IN CHARGED US FOR ONE AND SAID WE WOULD HALF TO PAY ANOTHER $200 TO $300 FOR ANOTHER ONE .ENGINE LIGHT CAME BACK ON HALFWAY HOME WHICH IS WHY WE TOOK IT IN FOR THE FIRST TIME. WE PAID FOR WASHER FLUID WIRE REPAIR WHICH BROKE AGAIN IN LESS THAN THREE YEARS.WE LEFT TOYOTA DEALER VERY ANGRY IN 2010 AND HAD REPAIRS FAIL. *TR

1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE FRAME RUST. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE HE TOOK THE VEHICLE IN FOR THE RUST PERFORATION RECALL IN 2008. HE WAS INFORMED OTHER THAN SURFACE RUST, IT WAS NOT BAD ENOUGH TO REPLACE, AS NO HOLES OR SOFT SPOTS WERE FOUND. ALTHOUGH, HE DID NOT TAKE THE VEHICLE BACK FOR A RE-INSPECTION, HE WAS INFORMED BY A TOYOTA REPRESENTATIVES THAT THE TRUCK WOULD NOT FAIL ANOTHER INSPECTION AND THE FRAME WAS NOT BAD ENOUGH TO WARRANT A REPLACEMENT. IN 2011, THE FRAME CRACKED AND IT WAS WELDED TOGETHER. IN AUGUST 2013, THE FRAME SPLIT IN HALF AGAIN. THE CONSUMER RETURNED TO THE DEALER, WHERE THEY INFORMED HIM, HAD HE PURCHASED THE VEHICLE THERE, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HELP HIM.

I NOTICED WHEN I WAS FILLING UP WITH GAS THAT I WAS LEAKING GAS WHERE THE FILLER TUBE HAD RUSTED AWAY FROM THE TANK AS WELL AS THE RETURN FUEL LINE. THEN I NOTICED THAT MY FRAME IS CRACKED IN FRONT OF THE REAR LEAF SPRINGS, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TRUCK. AFTER REMOVING THE FUEL TANK I REALIZED THAT THE ENTIRE REAR FRAME IS COMPLETELY RUSTED AWAY. LUCKILY I FOUND THIS OUT BEFORE ME AND MY FAMILY COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED DUE TO THE FRAME PRE-MATURELY RUSTING OUT. I WOULD THINK THAT THIS IS A WARRANTY ISSUE... *TR

IN JUNE 2011 I HAD MY 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA INSPECTED. I SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THAT THE FRAME BE CHECKED. THE TRUCK PASSED INSPECTION AND THE INVOICE, WHICH I HAVE, STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS GOOD. AT THAT TIME MY TRUCK HAD 166,874 MILES ON IT. ON AUGUST 3, 2013, 2 YEARS LATER, I TOOK MY TOYOTA TACOMA TO THE SAME TOYOTA DEALER WHO INSPECTED IT IN 2011. THE TRUCK DID NOT PASS INSPECTION, AND THE INVOICE, WHICH I ALSO HAVE, STATES: "THE FRAME HAS A HOLE IN IT - LOCATED PASSENGER REAR NEAR SPRING PURCH. HOLE. CUSTOMER HAS 30 DAYS FROM TODAY TO HAVE REPAIRS DONE". THE MILEAGE ON THE TRUCK IS 173,527. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT IN 2 YEARS, WITH ONLY 6,653 ADDITIONAL MILES ON IT, THAT THE FRAME HAD RUSTED TO THAT EXTENT. I TOOK THE TRUCK FOR A 2ND OPINION. NOT ONLY DID THE FRAME HAVE A HOLE IN IT, THERE WERE SEVERAL RUST SPOTS TOYOTA DID NOT REPORT, IN ADDITION, THE PART THAT HELD ON THE TRAILER HITCH IS SO RUSTED THEY SUGGESTED NOT TO USE IT ANY MORE. I CAN'T EVEN USE MY TRUCK ANY MORE! I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND GOT A CASE NUMBER. I GOT AN EMAIL FROM A CASE MANAGER WITH A NUMBER TO CALL. I CALLED JUST TO HAVE THEM TELL ME THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO FOR ME. I UNDERSTAND THE RECALL ENDED AT THE END OF DECEMBER, BUT I FIGURED AFTER THE REPORT I WAS GIVEN IN 2011, "THE FRAME IS GOOD", THAT I HAD NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. NOW, MY TRUCK SITS IN MY DRIVEWAY. IT IS A PILE OF JUNK AND TOYOTA'S MISSION STATEMENT: "TO ATTRACT AND ATTAIN CUSTOMERS WITH HIGH VALUED PRODUCT AND SERVICES AND THE MOST SATISFYING OWNERSHIP EXPERIENCE IN AMERICA" NEEDS TO BE RE-WRITTEN! THANK YOU TOYOTA FOR YOUR REPUTABLE SERVICE AND MY EXTREME LACK OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION! *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE HEARD A KNOCKING FROM UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A BRAKE SPECIALIST FOR INSPECTION AND THE FAILURE WAS LOCATED AT THE FRONT FRAME, WHICH WAS CORRODED. THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED BY THE SPECIALIST THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 174,000.

MY SON HEARD FROM A CO WORKER THAT TOYOTA HAD PURCHASED HIS VEHICLE BACK DUE TO FRAME RUST. MY SON CALLED TOYOTA AND WAS INFORMED THAT TOYOTA IS NO LONGER DOING ANYTHING TO CHECK OR FIX BAD FRAMES.I LOOKED UNDER MY VEHICLE AND THE FRAME SEEMED OK,SO I CONTINUED USING THE VEHICLE.WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE APPROXIMATELY NINE MONTHS LATTER,I HEARD A BANGING NOISE LIKE TWO PIECES OF METAL WERE HITTING.I GOT OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND STARTED LOOKING AROUND.I FOUND THE FRAME ABOVE THE REAR PASSENGER WHEEL HAD BROKE THRU DUE TO RUST.I CALLED TOYOTA TO FIND OUT WHY I WAS NEVER SENT A RECALL ABOUT THIS RUSTY FRAME PROBLEM.IF I HAD RECEIVED THIS NOTICE ,MY SELF AND OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN JEOPARDIZED. TOYOTAS REPLY WAS THAT THEY HAD SENT A RECALL.WITH THIS I STARTED CHECKING DIFFERENT WEB SITES ON THIS MATTER,ONLY TO FIND OUT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH THE SAME COMPLAINT,THEY NEVER RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE . I FEEL TOYOTA DID NOT DO WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE SAFETY OF THERE CUSTOMERS AND THE PUBLIC. IF I WAS ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN THIS HAPPENED , PEOPLE MAY HAVE BEEN KILLED. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE HAVING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE PERFORMED ON THE VEHICLE, HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY CORRODED. THE DEALER ALSO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY RECALLS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 130,000.

ON DECEMBER 23, 2010 DURING A CONVERSATION WITH A CO-WORKER I LEARNED THAT TOYOTA HAD BEEN REPAIRING OR BUYING BACK 1995-2004 TACOMAS DUE TO A SAFETY ISSUE BASED ON EXCESSIVE FRAME RUST TO THE POINT OF FAILURE DUE TO A MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT. ON DECEMBER,24, 2010 I CONTACTED MY TOYOTA DEALER, AND THEY ADVISED THAT THERE WAS A PROGRAM IN PLACE, AND THEY ADVISED ME TO BRING THE TRUCK IN ON DECEMBER 28TH FOR AN INSPECTION. ON DECEMBER 28TH, 2010 I BROUGHT MY TRUCK TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY ADVISED THAT MY TRUCK FAILED THE INSPECTION OF THE FRAME AND THAT THEY WERE CONDEMNING MY TRUCK BECAUSE THE FRAME WAS UNSAFE DUE TO A MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT. THEY PROVIDED ME WITH A LOANER CAR AND STATED TOYOTA WOULD CONTACT ME AND ARRANGE FOR A BUYBACK AMOUNT. ON JANUARY 3RD I WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED TOYOTA WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING FOR ME BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL OWNER PURCHASED THE VEHICLE IN APRIL OF 1995 AND THEY WOULD ONLY HONOR THE BUYBACK UNTIL THAT DATE IN 2010. THE DEALERSHIP STILL HAS MY TRUCK AS I WAS TOLD IT WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE, AND TOYOTA IS REFUSING TO DO ANYTHING TO CORRECT THEIR MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT IN THE FRAME. FURTHER MORE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE INSPECTION (HITTING THE FRAME WITH A HAMMER) WHICH WAS AUTHORIZED BY TOYOTA, THERE IS PROBABLY FURTHER DAMAGE TO THE FRAME THEN WHEN I BROUGHT IT IN. WITH ADMITTING THAT THEIR DEFECT CAUSES A SAFETY ISSUE, I FEEL TOYOTA SHOULD BE FORCED TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM OR BUY BACK MY VEHICLE. THEIR STANCE ON THE INITIAL INSERVICE DATE SHOULD NOT APPLY TO ME AS I AM NOT THE ORIGINAL OWNER, AND I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED BY TOYOTA ABOUT THIS SAFETY ISSUE AT ANY TIME AND HAVE BEEN THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THIS VEHICLE SINCE 2006. *TR