1997 Toyota Tacoma

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AFTER HAVING AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WELD A MUFFLER ONTO HIS VEHICLE, THEY INFORMED HIM THAT THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY RUSTED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT IF YOU PULL ON THE FRAME, IT FELL APART. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND THEY ADVISED HIM THAT THE MANUFACTURER'S RECALL WAS EXPIRED AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE APPROXIMATELY 122,500. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BUMPER WAS RUSTED. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR A WINDSHIELD WIPER REPAIR AND THE DEALER RECOMMENDED THAT THE VEHICLE NO LONGER BE DRIVEN DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF THE RUST. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 170,000. UPDATED 01/23/13*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED HE NOTICED PEALING WAFERS OF RUST FLAKING OFF THE FRAME, IN JANUARY 2011. PRIOR TO 2011, HE NOTICED RUST COMING THROUGH THE CHROME OF THE REAR BUMPER WHERE IT CONNECTED TO THE FRAME AND YEARS PRIOR TO THAT HE NOTICED INCREASED RUST TEXTURE ON THE FRAME WHEN HE LOOKED UNDER THE TRUCK BED AT THE REAR TIRES. UPDATED 01/31/13

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE HAVING HIS TIRES REPLACED, AS THE MECHANIC LIFTED THE VEHICLE THE FRAME BENT SEVERELY DUE TO RUST. THE MECHANIC REFUSED TO WORK ON IT AND ADVISED THE CONTACT NOT TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AS IT APPEARED THE FRAME COULD SPLIT IN HALF. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND STATED THE VEHICLE WAS TOO OLD FOR THEM TO OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 212,000.

MY HUSBAND HAS A 1997 TOYOTA TACOMA. HE BOUGHT IT USED FROM A DEALERSHIP IN 2004. RECENTLY HE SAW THAT THE FRAME UNDERNEATH WAS RUSTED AND ROTTING OUT. SOMEONE TOLD HIM THAT TOYOTA WAS TAKING CARE OF THIS PROBLEM AND THEIR CUSTOMERS BECAUSE IT TURNS OUT THAT THIS IS A MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT IN THIS YEAR, MAKE AND MODEL. WELL, THEY TOLD US TAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE THE VEHICLE IN BY FEBRUARY TO RECEIVE THE 15 YEAR EXTENDED WARRANTY. WE WERE NEVER CONTACTED BY TOYOTA, THEY DO NOT HAVE US AS THE CURRENT OWNER AND MY HUSBAND COULD HAVE HAD ANOTHER 5 OR SO YEARS WITH THIS VEHICLE. 15 YEARS SHOULD BE UP IN DECEMBER, BUT THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE GOING BY THE DATE IT WAS SOLD OR SOMETHING. THIS VEHICLE IS PRACTICALLY UNDRIVABLE AND TOYOTA BASICALLY SAID OH, WELL, YOU WERE TOO LATE. I FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB CONTACTING THEIR CUSTOMERS AND I HAVE FOUND EVIDENCE OF MANY OTHER DISSATISFIED CUSTOMERS ON THE INTERNET WHO ALSO WERE NOT NOTIFIED AND WHO ALSO MISSED THE DEADLINE. I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NOT RIGHT, AND IF IT IS A MANUFACTURER DEFECT IT SHOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF REGARDLESS OF WEATHER WE BROUGHT IT IN 9 MONTHS AGO OR TODAY. THE TOYOTA REPRESENTATIVE SAID THAT THERE WAS NO LEEWAY IN THIS AND THAT THERE WAS NO ELSE I COULD TAKE THIS ISSUE UP WITH. I AM ASKING FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE PARKED, THE CONTACT NOTICED SEVERE CORROSION ON THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR A DIAGNOSTIC TEST. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED AND THERE WERE HOLES IN THE CROSS MEMBER. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE FRAME WOULD HAVE TO BE REBUILT. THERE WAS A VOLUNTARY RECALL ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE RECALL HAD EXPIRED TWO MONTHS PRIOR. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 212,000.

I AM THE OWNER OF A 1997 TOYOTA TACOMA 4X4. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT TOYOTA HAS AN INSPECTION AND REPAIR PROGRAM FOR 1995 TO 2000 TACOMAS. I HAVE REQUESTED AN INSPECTION OF MY VEHICLE. THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN ME ANY ANSWER TO MY REQUEST. THEIR ATTITUDE IS THAT RUST IS NOT AN ISSUE IN CALIFORNIA. THEY THINK THAT RUST STOPS AT THE BORDER. ALL THAT I ASKED FOR WAS A SIMPLE INSPECTION SO THAT RUST THRU WARRANTY CAN BE APPLIED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. *TR

THIS CONCERNS THE TOYOTA RUSTY FRAME PROBLEM IN TACOMAS. MY 1997 TACOMA IS BECOMING DANGEROUS BECAUSE OF THE FRAME BUT TOYOTA REFUSES ANY HELP BECAUSE OF A RECONSTRUCTED TITLE WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RUSTY FRAME PROBLEM. AS A TAXPAYER I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TOYOTA ADDRESS THIS AT THE CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS. TOYOTA IS BASICALLY USING A LEGAL LOOPHOLE TO LEAVE DANGEROUS VEHICLES ON THE ROAD. *TR

I OWN A 1997 TOYOTA TACOMA THAT SHOULD FALL INTO THEIR RUSTY FRAME RECALL BUT WAS TOLD IT DIDN'T QUALIFY BECAUSE OF A REBUILT TITLE. THE TRUCK HAS BEEN ON THE ROAD FOR APPROXIMATELY 6 YEARS SINCE THE REBUILD. THE FRAME IS VERY RUSTY AND I'VE HAD TO HAVE IT WELDED. IT SEEMS TO ME THE FRAME RUST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE TRUCK WAS IN AN ACCIDENT AND THE RECALL SHOULD BE IN EFFECT, PROBABLY WITH A LOWER REIMBURSEMENT DUE TO THE SALVAGE TITLE. IF THE POINT IS TO GET UNSAFE VEHICLES OFF THE ROAD, A RUSTY FRAME IS A RUSTY FRAME WHETHER THE TRUCK HAS BEEN REBUILT OR NOT. IT'S ACTUALLY A VERY NICE TRUCK EXCEPT FOR THE FRAME. *TR