1996 Toyota Tacoma

1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO FRAME RUST CORROSION *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED HE RECEIVED A LETTER IN THE MAIL REGARDING FRAME RUST. THE CONSUMER MADE AN APPOINTMENT TO HAVE THE VEHICLE INSPECTED. THE CONSUMER STATED IT APPEARED THE DEALER NEVER PERFORMED ANY INSPECTION IN REGARDS TO THE FRAME OF HIS TRUCK. THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONSUMER THAT EVERYTHING LOOKED GOOD AND THERE WERE NO MAJOR PROBLEMS AND THE BODY SHOP WOULD TREAT THE FRAME, BY TREATING ANY BAD SECTIONS, THEN UNDER COAT AND CONDITION THE FRAME. TWO DAYS LATER, THE CONSUMER RECEIVED A CALL STATING THE BODY SHOP FOUND A FEW MAJOR PROBLEMS, AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO CONTINUE AND TOYOTA WOULD COME AND TALK TO THE CONSUMER ABOUT A BUY BACK AS THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE CONSUMER STATED IN TWO DAYS, THE VEHICLE WENT FROM BEING OK TO UNSAFE TO DRIVE. *JB

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS FRAME DAMAGE IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER MADE THE CONTACT AWARE OF A POSSIBLE SILENT RECALL, BUT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 203,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 96V129000 (SUSPENSION:FRONT). THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR REPAIRS AND THE DEALER CONFIRMED THAT THE FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND THEY ADVISED THAT THE RECALL WAS EXPIRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 114,869 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 114,879.

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 THAT AFTER RECEIVING NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN I.D. NUMBER: 96V129000 (SUSPENSION:FRONT), THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER HOWEVER, THE DEALER REFUSED REPAIRS DUE TO THE VEHICLE AGE. THE CONTACT DID NOT CALL THE MANUFACTURER. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 154,000.

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