1999 Toyota Tacoma

MY 1999 TACOMA HAS JUST BEEN DECLARED UNSAFE TO DRIVE BY A LOCAL REPAIR SHOP DUE TO EXCESSIVE RUST ON THE FRAME (I BROUGHT IT TO THE SHOP TO HAVE SOME A/C WORK DONE). AS PART OF THE TOYOTA SERVICE PROGRAM, THE TRUCK WAS INSPECTED LAST IN OCTOBER 2013, AND PASSED THE CORROSION TEST. AT THAT POINT THE TRUCK HAD 106,000 MILES. I HAD PURCHASED THE TRUCK AFTERWARDS, BASED ON THIS INSPECTION BEING DONE BY TOYOTA AND PASSING. THE TRUCK NOW HAS 119,000 MILES ON IT, AND IT IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. I CALLED TOYOTA CORPORATE AND THEY STATED THAT SINCE THE TRUCK IS NOW OUTSIDE THE 15-YEAR COVERAGE PERIOD, I HAVE NO OPTIONS. I SHARED THAT THE TRUCK WAS INSPECTED BY THEM AND THAT IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A TRUCK TO GO FROM NO RUST ISSUE TO SIGNIFICANT RUST ISSUE IN LESS THAN 2 YEARS AND LESS THAN 14,000 MILES. SHE (PHYLLIS) AGREED WITH ME AND SAID THAT SHE WOULD BE FRUSTRATED ALSO AND THAT IT MAKES SENSE THAT THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED, BUT IT IS NOW OUTSIDE OF THE PERIOD SO I HAVE NO OPTIONS.

THE VEHICLE WAS RECALLED DUE TO CORROSION IN THE FRAME BENEATH THE LEAF SPRINGS. THE REPAIR WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FIXED IN JULY 2011 BY SPRAYING ANTI-CORROSION CHEMICALS. HOWEVER, THIS DID NOT SATISFY THE PROBLEM AS THE REAR IS SO RUSTED OUT IT IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. NEITHER THE TOYOTA DEALER NOR THE TOYOTA COMPANY WILL FIX THIS NOW AS PART OF THE RECALL BECAUSE IT IS "EXPIRED" SINCE THE CORROSION NOW IS SO COMPLETE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE "FIX" IN 2011 DID NOT WORK. THE TRUCK HAS LESS THAT 125,000 MILES AND SHOULD NOT BE RUSTED OUT.

THIS 1999 TOYOTA TACOMA FRAME IS COMPLETELY CORRODED AND CRACKED. VEHICLE IS ESSENTIALLY USELESS, NEARLY VALUELESS, AND A FINANCIAL AND SAFETY LIABILITY. WHEN I BROUGHT THIS TACOMA TO NORTHERN NEW YORK FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO, THE FRAME WAS IN NEARLY MINT CONDITION, AS WAS THE REST OF THE TRUCK. FOUR AND A HALF YEARS LATER THE FRAME IS COMPLETELY ROTTEN WITH RUST WHILE THE REST OF THE TRUCK IS IN GREAT CONDITION. THERE IS NO OUTWARD INDICATION THAT THE TRUCK IS READY TO CATASTROPHICALLY FAIL AT ANY MOMENT. THE EXTREMELY POOR CORROSION RESISTANCE OF THESE TOYOTA FRAMES IS AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO AMERICAN CONSUMERS. THIS POSES A RISK TO MY FAMILY'S SAFETY AND THE PUBLIC'S AS WELL. THIS ALSO REPRESENTS A FINANCIAL LIABILITY. TOYOTA PICKUPS ARE VALUED IN THE MARKETPLACE AS A TOP TIER VEHICLE, BUT IN REALITY HAVE A NEGATIVE VALUE. I AND OTHERS HAVE EACH LOST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN THIS INVESTMENT WHILE TOYOTA IS ONE OF THE MOST PROFITABLE AUTO MAKERS IN THE WORLD. I DEMAND THAT WE PROTECT CONSUMERS FOR THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE AND PRESSURE TOYOTA TO RECALL AND NOTIFY THE PUBLIC OF THE RISKS WITH THESE PICKUP FRAMES.

IT WAS UNDER WARRANTY FOR RUSTING UNDERNEATH.I'TS A1999 TACOMA THE MANUFACTOR SAID THE WARRANTY EXPIRED IN I THINK MARCH FOR MY TRUCK.BUT MY FRAME BROKE IN AUGUST AND THEY (TOYOTA) ARE NOT GOING TO DO NOTHING FOR ME ABOUT IT.I DIDNT RECIVE ANY OF THE RECALL NOTICES FROM THEM AND I TOLD THEM THIS .THEY TOLD ME THEY COULD ONLY DO WHAT THE DMV SENDS THEM WELL I HAVE HAD THE TRUCK SINCE 2006.SO YOU WOULD THINK SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE SENT SOMETHING!!! MY MAN IS SICK AND I HAVE TO BUM A RIDE AND THAT REALLY SUCKS!I'M NOT USED TO MOTHER MAY I.ANY WAY IT'S ALL A BLAME GAME.

I BOUGHT A 1999 TOYOTA TACOMA FROM A PRIVATE PARTY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. WHEN I WENT TO REGISTER THE VEHICLE THE TITLE CAME BACK AS A "REBUILD". JUST RECENTLY I GOT A RECALL NOTICE FROM TOYOTA CORPORATE WITH THE VIN OF MY VEHICLE PRINTED ON IT TELLING ME THAT THERE IS A BUY BACK FOR VEHICLES OF MY YEAR AND VIN. I CALLED TOYOTA CORPORATE ABOUT A MONTH BACK AND ENDED UP SPEAKING WITH A CASE MANAGER CONCERNING THE BUY BACK/RECALL NOTICE AND INQUIRED IF I WAS COVERED UNDER THIS NOTICE THAT I RECEIVED AS MY TITLE WAS A "REBUILD". IN MAINE THERE IS A SALVAGE TITLE AND ALSO A REBUILD TITLE WHICH ARE NOT THE SAME THING. MY REBUILD TITLE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FRAME BEING DAMAGED OR REPLACED AND IT IS THE SAME ONE THIS VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED WITH. THE TRUCK LOOKS ALMOST NEW. THERE IS NO RUST ANYWHERE ON THIS VEHICLE EXCEPT WHERE THE FRAME IS ROTTED TO THE POINT THE VEHICLE IS PROBABLY UNSAFE. THE RUST STARTS JUST IN FRONT OF THE SPRING SHACKLE SUPPORTS AND RUNS ABOUT 1 1/2 FEET ON BOTH SIDES OF FRAME. THE TOYOTA REP STATED IT WAS NOT COVERED AND THEY WERE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE TITLE. I INFORMED THE MAN AT TOYOTA THAT THIS VEHICLE MAY HAVE A REBUILD TITLE BUT THE FRAME ROTTING OUT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE THAT CREATED THE REBUILD TITLE BUT WAS STILL A RESULT OF TOYOTA USING INFERIOR MATERIALS WHEN DANA MANUFACTURED THE FRAME FOR TOYOTA. THE CASE MANAGER INFORMED ME THAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD ALREADY HAD THAT VEHICLE TO THE DEALER ABOUT A YEAR BEFORE I BOUGHT IT AND WAS DENIED WARRANTY COVERAGE DUE TO THE TITLE BEING A "REBUILD". I THEN ASKED HIM, IF THEY ALREADY KNEW THAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD ALREADY BEEN DENIED CLAIM UNDER THE RECALL PROGRAM, "WHY DID THEY SEND ME THE NOTICE WITH THE SAME VIN INFORMING ME OF THE RECALL?" HE DID NOT HAVE A VALID ANSWER FOR THAT QUESTION.

ON 02/12/09 AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP INSPECTED, FOUND, PHOTOGRAPHED AND DOCUMENTED RUST PERFORATION ON THE FRAME OF MY 1999 TRUCK WITH ONLY 72,000 MILES. THE TRUCK WAS IN PRISTINE CONDITION OTHERWISE. A PREVIOUS INDEPENDENT WELDER/HITCH INSTALLED DECLARED THE FRAME TOO THIN AND WEAK TO INSTALL ANY KIND OF TRAILER HITCH ON THE BACK AND THERE WAS MASSIVE PUFFY, SWOLLEN, FLAKY, RUSTY AREAS TO THE FRAME ONLY VISIBLE UNDERNEATH THE TRUCK. THE MANUFACTURER RECEIVED THE E-MAILED PICTURED FROM THE DEALER AND DENIED COVERAGE UNDER THE EXTENDED WARRANTY, AND THE PLATINUM VEHICLE SERVICE AGREEMENT, TAT COST $ 1,175. THE SERVICE MANAGER EXPLAINED THE DECISION WAS TOTALLY MADE BY THE MANUFACTURER BASED ON THE FEW E-MAILED PICTURED, HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, AND FURTHER, HE HAD SEEN LESS RUSTY FRAMES THAN MINE TAKEN OFF THE ROAD IMMEDIATELY AND BOUGH BACK UNDER THE RECALL PROGRAM. I WAS SENT BACK ON THE ROAD TO DEAL WITH THE FRAME MYSELF AND I IMMEDIATELY WROTE TWO LETTER PLEADING THE MANUFACTURER FOR ANOTHER INSPECTION AT ANOTHER DEALER. I WAS DENIED THAT REQUEST. MEANWHILE, TWO INDEPENDENT MECHANICS ADVISED ME NOT TO DRIVE IT. I MOSTLY PARK THE TRUCK IN MY DRIVEWAY AND TRIED NOT TO THINK ABOUT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS AND INSURANCE THAT CONTINUE. THE REGISTRATION EXPIRED IN MY DRIVEWAY AND I DID NOT RENEW IT UNTIL THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RULES REQUIRED IT. ON 10/13/10, I DROVE MY TRUCK TO THE DEALERSHIP AND IT WAS INSPECTED AGAIN. I WAS TOLD THE CORPORATION WOULD BUY IT BACK UNDER THE RECALL. THIS TIME THERE COULD BE NO MISTAKE WITH PICTURED, BECAUSE THIS TIME HOLES EXISTED AND THERE WAS NO STEEL LEFT IN THE AREAS. MY TRUCK REMAINS AT THE DEALERSHIP AND MAYBE THE NHTSA SHOULD INSPECT IT TO SEE HOW A VEHICLE HAS TO BE BEFORE THE CORPORATION WILL DO ANYTHING. UPDATED 01/20/11 *BF

MY SON WAS IN AN ACCIDENT WITH MY TOYOTA TACOMA TRUCK IN MARCH. HE LOST CONTROL AND TOTALED THE TRUCK. I WAS RECENTLY INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A RECALL ON TOYOTA TACOMA FOR RUSTED FRAMES. I WAS TOLD THE FRAME WAS BENT AFTER THE ACCIDENT. THEREFORE I THOUGHT THAT THE RUSTED FRAME MAY HAVE CAUSED THE ACCIDENT. I CALLED THE TOYOTA DEALER AND WAS TOLD BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS IN AN ACCIDENT AND NO LONGER REGISTERED IT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE RECALL. THE FRAME IS BADLY RUSTED AND MAY HAVE CAUSED THE ACCIDENT, BUT BECAUSE IT IS NO LONGER DRIVABLE THE DEALER WILL NOT INSPECT IT FOR THE RUSTED FRAME SO I AM NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE RECALL. *TR