2003 Toyota Tacoma

THE FRAME IS TOTALLY RUSTED OUT, AND THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. I KNEW IT HAD SOME RUST ISSUES BEFORE I PURCHASED THE TRUCK, BUT I CONTACTED TOYOTA CORPORATE TO SEE IF THIS VIN WAS PART OF THE RECALL IN WHICH TOYOTA REPLACES THE FRAME OR BUYS BACK THE TRUCK. THE REP I SPOKE TO SAID THAT IT WAS INDEED IN THE RECALL AND THAT, AFTER I PURCHASE I SHOULD TAKE TO LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AND IF THE FRAME HAS PERFORATION THEN THEY WOULD REPLACE THE FRAME. SO IN GOOD FAITH I FLEW TO NJ, BOUGHT THE TRUCK, WHICH ONLY HAD 60K MILES ON IT AT THE TIME, AND DROVE IT BACK TO NC AND IMMEDIATELY TOOK TO OUR LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. THEY SAID THE FRAME INDEED HAD PERFORATION AND WAS ELIGIBLE FOR FRAME REPLACEMENT. I LEFT THE TRUCK THERE, BUT THEY CALLED ME THE NEXT DAY AND SAID THEY WERE SORRY BUT UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, THEY HAD DISCOVERED THAT THE 2003 TACOMA WAS A "NORTHERN TRUCK" AND HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY "UNDERCOATED" AND WAS THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM THE RECALL THAT WOULD FIX THE FRAME. I CALLED TOYOTA CORPORATE AND UPON FURTHER CHECKING, THEY SAID THAT IF THE 2003 TACOMA HAD BEEN UNDERCOATED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER (AT NO COST TO OWNER--A SERVICE TOYOTA PROVIDED FOR FREE ONCE THEY DISCOVERED THAT THEY HAD USED BAD STEEL FOR THE FRAMES OF THESE TRUCKS) THEN IT WOULD BE COVERED IN RECALL. I EXPLAINED THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT THE TRUCK IS THEIR REP HADN'T TOLD ME THAT THE FRAME WOULD REPLACED. THEY SAID THE REP HAD NOT LOOKED FAR ENOUGH INTO THE MATTER AND HAD TOLD ME WRONG AND THAT I WAS BASICALLY STUCK WITH A TRUCK I COULD NOT DRIVE. I PAID $6500 FOR THIS TRUCK AND I CANNOT PUT $12,000 INTO IT TO FIX THE FRAME. AND I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO! TOYOTA NEEDS TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR USING BAD STEEL FOR THESE TRUCKS. SO DO I KEEP DRIVING IT UNTIL THE FRAME BREAKS AND INJURES MY, MY FAMILY, OR OTHER DRIVERS? THEN I WILL SUE TOYOTA! PLEASE HELP ME GET THIS RESOLVED!

I PURCHASED A 2003 TACOMA IN APRIL OF 2016 FROM MATTHEWS MOTOR COMPANY OF COVINGTON, PA. FAST FORWARD TO 12/2017 AND THE FRAME NOW HAS A COUPLE HOLES IN IT NEAR THE REAR DRIVERS SIDE WHEEL WHERE THE GAS TANK ATTACHES TO THE FRAME. THERE IS A KNOWN ISSUE WITH THESE TRUCKS FOR THE FRAMES. CONTACTED TOYOTA TO HAVE IT ADDRESSED ONLY TO BE TOLD THE CAMPAIGN EXPIRED. THE TRUCK WAS INSPECTED IN 2011 (BEFORE I OWNED IT) UNDER CAMPAIGN "ZTH" AND NO RUST PERFORATION WAS FOUND, AND AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, AN UNDERCOATING WAS APPLIED AT THIS TIME. I AM TOLD HOWEVER THAT BECAUSE THE TRUCK WAS NOT UNDERCOATED / DIDN'T HAVE A CORROSION PREVENTION TREATMENT APPLIED UNDER CAMPAIGN "90D" THAT IT NO LONGER QUALIFIES FOR COVERAGE UNDER CAMPAIGN "ZTH." HOW CAN THE TRUCK NOT QUALIFY FOR THE CAMPAIGN NOW WHEN IT DID IN 2011? MOREOVER, I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY LETTERS ABOUT THIS ISSUE SINCE PURCHASING THE TRUCK, DESPITE THE OBVIOUS SAFETY ISSUE PRESENTED BY A POTENTIALLY FAULTY FRAME. I WOULD HAVE TO INSIST THAT TOYOTA INSPECT MY FRAME, ACKNOWLEDGE IT IS PERFORATED FROM RUST FROM THE INSIDE OUT AND FOLLOW THROUGH WITH CAMPAIGN ZTH, NOT ONLY FOR MY VEHICLE BUT FOR THOSE IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE.

I CALLED THE TOYOTA CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE HOTLINE TO INQUIRE IF MY TRUCK QUALIFIED FOR A FRAME RUST PROTECTION COATING OR REPLACEMENT UNDER THEIR 15 YEAR EXTENDED WARRANTY THAT WAS OFFERED FOR 2001-2004 TACOMAS. I WAS TOLD THAT MY TRUCK WAS "POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR FRAME REPAIR" VALID UNDER THE WARRANTY UNTIL THE END OF 2017 AND A CASE WAS OPENED. I WAS TOLD I NEEDED TO TAKE THE TRUCK INTO AN AUTHORIZED DEALERSHIP FOR A FRAME INSPECTION, AND THEN REGIONAL OFFICE WOULD MAKE THE DECISION TO COVER IT. I WAS ALSO INFORMED OF A RECALL ON THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER THAT WAS PRONE TO RUST AND POTENTIAL FAILURE. I BROUGHT MY TRUCK IN TO THE TOYOTA OF PORTLAND TO REPLACE THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER AND INSPECT THE FRAME. WHEN I PICKED UP MY TRUCK THEY SAID IT FAILED THE FRAME INSPECTION DUE TO EXCESSIVE CORROSION AND THAT THEY NEVER REPLACED THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER BECAUSE THEY WERE WORRIED ONCE THEY REMOVED THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER TO REPLACE IT WOULD FURTHER COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA OF THE RUSTED FRAME. FINALLY THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THAT THE REGIONAL OFFICE DENIED MY FRAME REPLACEMENT BASED ON THE PHOTOS THEY RECEIVED. SUPPOSEDLY THE REGIONAL OFFICE SAID THAT THE RUST IS ONLY BAD ON THE CROSS SECTION AND THAT IS A REMOVABLE SECTION OF THE FRAME THAT CAN BE REPLACED SO THE FRAME ITSELF IS NOT DID NOT FAIL. MY COMPLAINT IS THAT I HAVE AUTHORIZED TOYOTA SERVICE CENTER PAPERWORK SAYING MY VEHICLE FAILED THE FRAME INSPECTION, AND BASED SOLELY ON PHOTOS, AND WITH ONE MONTH LEFT OF MY WARRANTY, THE REGIONAL OFFICE DECIDED TO OVERRIDE THE DIAGNOSIS AND DENIED MY WARRANTY CLAIM. THE RECALLED SPARE TIRE CARRIER HAS STILL NOT BEEN REPLACED, AND IM WORRIED THAT ONCE IT IS IT WILL UNCOVER MORE CORROSION, BUT BY THAT TIME MY WARRANTY FOR FRAME REPLACEMENT WILL HAVE EXPIRED. I WANT TOYOTA TO HONOR MY WARRANTY AND REPLACE THE FRAME ON MY TRUCK LIKE THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO DO.

DURING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, MY MECHANIC DISCOVERED THE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY SHOT, STATING HE WAS NOT EVEN COMFORTABLE WORKING UNDER IT! THE REST OF THE TRUCK IS IN REASONABLE CONDITION, AND IT ONLY HAS 111,000 MILES ON IT. I CALLED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SVC CTR, BUT THEY WERE UNWILLING TO DO ANYTHING TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. I FEEL THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY AWARE OF THE ISSUE, BECAUSE THE AGENT EXPLAINED THEY HAD A "LIMITED SVC CAMPAIGN" TO ADD CORROSION PROTECTION, BUT INFORMED ME THAT IT HAD EXPIRED BACK ON 7/31/2014. I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF THIS CAMPAIGN. THE AGENT ALSO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FRAME WAS INSPECTED BACK IN 2012 (WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE YEAR I PURCHASED IT IN, SO I ASSUME THIS WAS DONE JUST PRIOR TO MY BUYING IT), AND PASSED STATING THERE WAS "NO" RUST -- WHICH IS FALSE! MISLED BY MANY AND SOLD FAULTY EQUIPMENT THAT COULD HAVE ENDANGERED OR KILLED ME AND OTHERS, I AM VERY UPSET AND DISAPPOINTED ABOUT THIS! RESEARCHING THE ISSUE, I SEE THAT I AM NOT ALONE IN THIS, BY FAR. SO, BASICALLY, WE'VE ALL THROWN AWAY MANY $1000'S AND CAN RECOVER NONE OF IT, NOR CAN WE DRIVE THE VEHICLE WITHOUT FEARING IT WILL, QUITE LITERALLY, FALL APART!

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE INSPECTING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT BECAME AWARE OF SEVERE CORROSION TO THE REAR SUSPENSION OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER TO BE DIAGNOSED. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE SUBFRAME EXHIBITED EXCESSIVE RUST AND THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED CASE NUMBERS: 1075172502 AND 1705192164. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 180,000. UPDATED 06/29/17*LJ UPDATED 08/03/2017 *JS

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BODY AND THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE WERE PREMATURELY RUSTED AND CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS UNABLE TO PASS INSPECTION. THE MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THERE WERE EXTENSIVE HOLES, RUST, AND CORROSION. THE MANUFACTURER INDICATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN A RECALL AND PROVIDED NO SOLUTION. THE CONTACT WAS UNCERTAIN IF THE VEHICLE WOULD BE REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 91,000. UPDATED 08/03/17*LJ

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS CORROSION ON THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDE OF THE FRAME. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH AN INDEPENDENT WELDING COMPANY WHO INFORMED THAT THEY COULD WELD THE FRAME. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 124,000.