2000 Toyota Tacoma

DO TO AN ERROR BY TOYOTA, THE FRAME ON MY VERY WELL MANTAINED TACOMA IS ALMOST UNSAFE TO DRIVE DO TO THE THE CORROSION ON THE FRAME, MAYBE ONE MORE YEAR.MY TRUCK HAS ONLY 80,000 MILES,NO SUFACE RUST,ENGINE RUNS GREAT.I KNOW I'M NOT ALONE WHY IS TOYOTA ALOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS? THERE ARE OWNERS ALL OVER WHO TOYOTA REFUSES TO HELP,AND MAKE THINGS RIGHT.TRUCKS ARE BREAKING IN HALF HELP!!!

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS UNDERGOING A TIRE CHANGE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE DEALER THAT THE REAR SUBFRAME OF THE VEHICLE WAS SEVERELY RUSTED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OUT OF WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 137,524.

THE TRUCK HAS FRAME CORROSION THAT MAKES THE CAR ILLEGAL TO DRIVE. IN 2010, IT WAS RECALLED FOR THIS ISSUE. I BROUGHT IT IN TO A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP IN 2010 AND 2013 FOR THE WARRANTY. BASED ON A LETTER I RECEIVED FROM TOYOTA, TOYOTA WAS SUPPOSED TO BUY BACK THE VEHICLE IF CORROSION WAS PRESENT OR SPRAY CORROSIVE RESISTANT COMPOUNDS (CRCS) AT NO COST TO ME. THE DEALERSHIP DID NEITHER. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THEY SPRAYED CRCS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE DEALERSHIP. TURNS OUT THEY DID NOT SPRAY AND SIX MONTHS AFTER THE WARRANTY ENDED THE FRAME WAS DEEMED SO CORRODED BY AN OIL CHANGE MECHANIC AT AN INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, I CAN NO LONGER DRIVE THE VEHICLE. TOYOTA AND THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP WILL NOT ADDRESS THE LETTER THEY SENT ME AND THE FACT THEY DID NOT SPRAY CRCS AS DISCUSSED. THE VEHICLE IS VERY UNSAFE, I DID WAS I WAS TOLD, AND THE DEALERSHIP IS NEGLIGENT IF FOLLOWING BINARY RULES OF THE WARRANTY--REPLACE THE VEHICLE OR SPRAY CRCS. THE DEALERSHIP CLAIMS "THEY HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY TO DO ANYTHING" BUT A LETTER I RECEIVED FROM TOYOTA SAYS DIFFERENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED REGULARLY AND RAN WELL AND HAS NO ISSUES BUT THE FRAME MAKES THE VEHICLE UNSAFE AND INOPERABLE. THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE IS NO COLLAPSING AS WELL. THE FRAME IS ROTTED THROUGH.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS PREMATURE RUST AND CORROSION ON THE FRONT AND REAR FRAMES OF THE VEHICLE. THE FRAMES FRACTURED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR FURTHER INSPECTION. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND REFUSED TO PROVIDE A PERMANENT REMEDY. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. UPDATED 03/11/16*LJ *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS UNDERGOING AN OIL CHANGE, THE MECHANIC NOTICED THAT THE UNDERCARRIAGE OF THE VEHICLE WAS RUSTED. AS A RESULT, THE MECHANISM THAT HELD THE SPARE TIRE UNDER THE VEHICLE COULD NO LONGER HOLD THE SPARE TIRE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OUT OF WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 104,000. THE VIN WAS NOT PROVIDED.

DURING AN ANNUAL VEHICLE INSPECTION, PERFORATIONS WERE FOUND ON THE FRAME OF MY TOYOTA TACOMA. I WAS ONLY MODERATELY WORRIED SINCE THIS ISSUE WAS COVERED BY AN EXTENDED WARRANTY ISSUED BY TOYOTA. WHEN I CONTACTED TOYOTA TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE, THEY INFORMED ME THAT THE VEHICLE MISSED THE 15 YEAR WARRANTY BY 11 DAYS AND THAT THEY WOULD NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, HONOR THE WARRANTY. THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION IS TROUBLING SINCE IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE, WITHIN AN 11 DAY TIME PERIOD, FOR A FRAME TO BECOME RUSTED TO THE POINT OF A 3 INCH BY 12 INCH PERFORATION. THE FRAME ROT CLEARLY OCCURRED DURING THE 15 YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD.

WHILE HAVING A TIRE REPAIRED, MECHANIC NOTICED A BROKEN SHOCK ABSORBER MOUNT. UPON HIS ATTEMPT TO REPAIR, HE FOUND SEVERE FRAME RUST, WITH INSUFFICIENT METAL REMAINING TO REATTACH THE MOUNT. AFTER AN APPOINTMENT WITH THE LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER, I WAS INFORMED THAT THE FRAME WAS UNREPAIRABLE, AND THAT SINCE THE "PUT IN SERVICE" DATE WAS FEB 2000, I WAS TOO LATE FOR THE EXTENDED WARRANTY PROGRAM. APPARENTLY, IF I HAD FOUND THE PROBLEM 5 MONTHS EARLIER, I WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR A BUY-BACK. AS THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE, I CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE MANUFACTURER'S TIME LIMITATIONS. I AM THE SECOND OWNER, AND OTHER THAN THE FRAME RUST, THE TRUCK SHOWS NO CORROSION. I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTICE OF FRAME RUST PROBLEMS, OR THE INSPECTION AND EXTENDED FRAME WARRANTY OFFER FROM TOYOTA. SINCE GETTING THE BAD NEWS, I HAVE FOUND NUMEROUS SIMILAR STORIES ONLINE. THIS WAS AN ADMITTED MANUFACTURING DEFECT, AND DEFINITELY IS A SAFETY ISSUE, AS THE FRAME CAN COLLAPSE OR SUSPENSION COMPONENTS CAN BREAK LOOSE. THERE ARE THOUSNDS OF THESE VEHICLES IN DAILY USE, AND THE MANUFACTURER SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, OR BUY-BACK. PLEASE HELP!!!

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHERE IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE REAR FRAME WAS CORRODED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 199,340. MA 08/14/15 UPDATED 10/26/2017*CN

VEHICLE PARKED IN DRIVEWAY AND DRUNK DRIVER HIT 2 VEHICLES, TOTALED ONE & 99% ON TOYOTA. AFTER REPAIRS, REPAIRMAN MADE STATEMENT THAT WE HAD RUST ON UNDERSIDE AND WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND HOW TO FIX IT. JUST THIS MONTH A FRIEND TOLD US ABOUT THE RECALLS AND HOW TO FIND OUT MORE. WE FOUND THE RECALL AND WAS GIVEN A CASE MANAGER AND TOLD THAT IT WAS A WARRANTY AND IT EXPIRED AND THE NEXT DAY THE ARTICLE ON THE RECALL WAS NO LONGER ON THE INTERNET.