2001 Toyota Tacoma
Problems, recalls and owner-reported issues
Structure is the leading concern among 401 owner complaints filed for this model year. This is the 7th highest complaint count among 26 Tacoma model years with reports.
Of the 2001 reports, 41 involved a crash and 4 involved a fire. 36 people were injured and 7 people died.
What owners report most often
Recalls and investigations
Tires, temporary/emergency spare tireNov 23, 2012
Toyota is recalling certain model year 2001 through 2004 Tacoma light trucks manufactured from August 28, 2000, through August 27, 2004, and originally sold, or currently registered, in the following cold climate states with high road salt usage: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. The spare tire in the subject vehicles is located underneath the rear of the vehicle and held by a spare tire carrier. A lift plate on the carrier is used to help raise, lower and retain the tire. During its manufacture, the lift plate may not have been sufficiently coated with anti-corrosion materials. If the plate is insufficiently coated and the vehicle is operated in cold climate regions where road salts are frequently used, road spray can reach the carrier assembly and corrode the lift plate.
Corrosion of the plate could cause it to break, which could result in detachment of the spare tire from the vehicle. Detachment of the spare tire could result in a road hazard which may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.
Toyota will notify owners, dealers will inspect the vehicle and replace the spare tire carrier lift plate as necessary, free of charge. The recall began in February 2013. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.
Campaign 12V542000 on NHTSA.gov
Exterior lightingJul 17, 2006
CERTAIN AJ MOTORSPORT COMBINATION LAMPS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON THE ABOVE LISTED PASSENGER VEHICLES. COMBINATION LAMPS NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
LACK OF AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS IN THE LAMPS WILL DECREASE LIGHTING VISIBILITY TO OTHER DRIVERS AND MAY POSSIBLY RESULT IN A VEHICLE CRASH.
AJ MOTORSPORT WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND OFFER REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE LAMPS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 31, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT AJ MOTORSPORT AT 626-618-2026.
Campaign 06E065000 on NHTSA.gov
Exterior lightingMar 23, 2006
CERTAIN PRO-A MOTORS CORNER LAMPS, TURN SIGNALS, AND HEADLIGHTS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION LAMPS THAT ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
WITHOUT THE AMBER REFLECTORS, THE VEHICLE WILL BE POORLY ILLUMINATED, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN A VEHICLE CRASH WITHOUT WARNING.
PRO-A MOTORS WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND OFFER TO REPURCHASE THE LAMPS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 3, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT PRO-A MOTORS AT 323-838-2988.
Campaign 06E026000 on NHTSA.gov
Suspension, front, control arm, lower ball jointMay 17, 2005
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, DUE TO A MANUFACTURING ISSUE IN THE FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER BALL JOINT, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE SURFACE OF THE BALL OF THE JOINT MAY HAVE BEEN SCRATCHED. THE BALL JOINT MAY EVENTUALLY EXPERIENCE EXCESSIVE WEAR AND LOOSENESS, RESULTING IN INCREASED STEERING EFFORT.
THE LOWER BALL JOINT MAY SEPARATE FROM THE KNUCKLE CAUSING LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL AND A CRASH COULD OCCUR.
DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER BALL JOINTS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 5, 2005. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Campaign 05V225000 on NHTSA.gov
Fuel system, gasoline, delivery, hoses, lines/piping, and fittingsMay 19, 2003
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, DURING SIDE IMPACT NCAP TEST (I.E. LINCAP TEST), A FLANGE AT THE REAR END OF THE DOUBLE CAB BODY DEFORMED AND INTERFERED WITH THE FUEL INLET HOSE THAT CONNECTS THE FUEL FILLER PIPE AND FUEL TANK, RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO THE FUEL INLET HOSE.
THIS DAMAGE COULD RESULT IN FUEL LEAKAGE, WHICH COULD RESULT IN A FIRE IF IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE.
DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUEL HOSE PROTECTOR ON THE BODY FLANGE. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN JUNE 3, 2003. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Campaign 03V189000 on NHTSA.gov
Tires, sidewallJun 7, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: 4X2 TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH TU4 WHITE LETTER TIRE UPGRADE OPTION AND DISTRIBUTED BY SOUTHEAST TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS IN THE STATES OF ALABAMA, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, NORTH AND SOUTH CAROLINA. TIRE DAMAGE MAY HAVE OCCURRED DUE TO IMPROPER INSTALLATION, WHICH COULD CAUSE THE TIRE TO DEFLATE OR A BULGE APPEARING IN THE SIDEWALL OF THE TIRE.
AN IMPROPERLY INFLATED TIRE COULD RESULT IN VEHICLE HANDLING PROBLEMS OR A BLOW OUT OF AN IMPROPERLY INSTALLED TIRE.
DEALERS WILL CHECK ALL FOUR TIRES, REBALANCE AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE ANY DAMAGED TIRE. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN JULY 3, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT SOUTHEAST TOYOTA AT 1-800-301-6859.
Campaign 01V186000 on NHTSA.gov
Representative owner complaints: structure
227 reports, newest first. Show all
Structure, May 6, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUB FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND DENIED SERVICING THE VEHICLE UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 12V542000 (TIRES) DUE TO THE CORROSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 98,000.
Structure, Apr 16, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT UPON INSPECTION, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME HAD CORRODED DUE TO RUST. THE MANUFACTURER PREVIOUSLY ISSUED A VOLUNTARY RECALL RELATED TO THE STRUCTURE BUT THE RECALL EXPIRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO WELDED THE AREA WHICH EXHIBITED A HOLE AS A TEMPORARY FIX. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 134,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
Structure, Apr 9, 2013
THE FRAME WAS RUSTED, AND WE WERE AWARE OF RECALLS. 2 WEEKS AGO WE HAD IT INSPECTED AT THE DEALER WHERE WE BOUGHT IT. THE MECHANIC TOLD US THE VEHICLE WAS UN-DRIVEABLE. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT SENT THE INFORMATION TO TOYOTA BUT THE RECALL CLAIM WAS DENIED. THE MECHANIC GAVE US A NUMBER TO CALL TO PLACE A CLAIM. THE REPRESENTATIVE TOLD US WE HAD BEEN MAILED A LETTER IN 2011 SAYING THE VEHICLE NEEDED UNDERCOATING. SHE ADMITTED THAT IT WAS SOMETHING TOYOTA WAS DOING LEGALLY TO AVOID HAVING TO HONOR THE RECALL CLAIM. SHE ALSO SAID THAT THE UNDERCOATING WOULD HAVE BEEN USELESS SINCE DEFECTIVE STEEL WAS USED TO CONSTRUCT THE FRAME. AGAIN, THE CASE MANAGER TOLD US THE CLAIM WAS BEING DENIED. *TR
Structure, Other or unspecified, Mar 20, 2013
I LIVE IN VIRGINIA. THERE WAS A SAFETY RECALL FOR INSPECTION OF THE TRUCK FRAME FOR RUST CORROSION. AT THE TIME VEHICLE HAD THE RECALL I WAS BEING TREATED FOR A MENTAL DISABILITY AND IN MENTAL HOSPITALS. I WAS NOT OF SOUND MIND OR JUDGMENT TO UNDERSTAND THE "RECALL NOTICE". WHILE HAVING OIL CHANGED BY THE TOYOTA DEALER THE FRAME OF THE TRUCK WAS NOTED TO HAVE HOLES IN THE FRAME CAUSED BY RUST. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION HAS REFUSED TO REPLACE THE FRAME OF THE TRUCK HONORING THE RECALL EVEN THOUGH I PROVIDED THE NECESSARY INFORMATION FROM DOCTORS PROVIDING DOCUMENTATION OF MY ILLNESS AT THE TIME OF THE RECALL. ON MARCH 14, 2013, THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN IN FOR A SAFETY RECALL FOR RUST OF THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER; WHICH COULD FALL OFF CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. THE TOYOTA DEALER REPLACED THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER CONSISTING OF TWO METAL PLATES WITH FOUR BOLTS THAT WAS BOLTED TO A DEFECTIVE FRAME THAT HAS HOLES DUE TO CORROSION; ALSO, THEY REPLACED SUPPORTS THAT RUNS BETWEEN THE TWO FRAME RAILS; THEY DID NOT REPLACE THE CABLE NOR THE RUSTED PART THAT HOLDS THE WHEEL TO THE PREVIOUS ASSEMBLY PARTS. THIS HAS NOT FIXED THE ISSUE BECAUSE THEY HAVE ONLY REPLACED THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER PLATE ONTO A FRAME THAT HAS HOLES DUE TO RUST THAT IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. I NEED THIS VEHICLE AS I AM ON DISABILITY AND LIMITED INCOME; I WANT THE FRAME REPLACED OR A NEW TRUCK WITH THE SAME OPTIONS AS I HAVE ON THE 2001 TACOMA. TOYOTA RECEIVED A 25 MILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT FROM DANA CORPORATION, SUPPLIER OF THE TACOMA TRUCK FRAMES, PROPER ANTIRUST PREVENTATIVE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PREVENT CORROSION, WHICH WAS A COST SAVING FOR ONE OR BOTH COMPANIES. FROM 1995 TO 2004 THE TACOMA TRUCKS HAVE HAD THIS PROBLEM. BY REPLACING THE FRAME TOYOTA WOULD NOT BE LOSING ANY MONEY BECAUSE THEY GOT THEIR MONEY FROM DANA CORP SUPPLIER OF THE TACOMA FRAMES. *TR
Structure, Mar 18, 2013
I PURCHASED THE BEST TRUCK I COULD EVER WISH FOR, 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA; IT'S AN XTRA CAB WITH TRD WITH THE SR5. TODAY AT 113500 MILES IT STILL LOOKS AND RUNS SHOWROOM NEW. BUT IT HAS THE RUST ON THE FRAME AND BAD TOO. TOYOTA REFUSES TO HELP IN ANY WAY. IN 2012 THE FRAME WAS PERFECT, NOW IT IS ALMOST EATEN THROUGH. I LOVE THIS TRUCK BUT IT IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND I AM VERY DISPLEASED WITH HOW THEY ARE HANDLING THE SITUATION. AT 113500 MILES I OPT TO GO WITH TOYOTA COMPARED TO CHEVROLET BECAUSE TOYOTA HAD A WONDERFUL REPUTATION ON RELIABLE VEHICLES AND I WAS SOLD ON THAT. WHEN THE RECALL WAS SENT OUT, I WAS LIVING IN VIRGINIA AND BATTLING CANCER SO I MISSED THE RECALL. I BELIEVE TOYOTA SHOULD WARRANT THEIR PRODUCT OR CLOSE DOWN THEIR PLANTS IF THEY WON?T HONOR THE ISSUES AT HAND. I WANT A NEW FRAME OR AT LEAST ANOTHER TRUCK WITH MY ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION, MY BABY IS GORGEOUS. I AM NOW ON A FIXED INCOME WITH BLOOD CLOTS IN MY LUNGS DUE TO THE CANCER I NEED MY TRUCK. *TR
Structure, Mar 11, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS HAVING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE PERFORMED, THE TECHNICIAN NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED AND CORRODED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED WHO RECOMMENDED THAT THE VEHICLE NOT BE DRIVEN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 71,000.
Structure, Feb 11, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHASSIS, THE SPARE TIRE CABLE AND THE HOLDER BECAME CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V542000 (TIRES). THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 94,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE 95,200. KMJ UPDATED 7/29/13 *CN
Structure, Jan 29, 2013
MY FRAME WAS REPLACED UNDER RECALL BECAUSE OF THE RUST. A COUPLE WEEKS AFTER GETTING MY TRUCK BACK I WAS STRANDED IN 100 DEGREE HEAT BECAUSE I WAS UNABLE TO GET MY SPARE TIRE OUT FROM UNDER BED OF TRUCK. SEVERELY RUSTED BUMPER NO LONGER ALLOWS ACCESS TO MECHANISM TO LOWER TIRE. FOUGHT WITH DEALER AND REGIONAL MGR. THEY SAY IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE. I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE. WHY THEN DO WE HAVE SPARE. HE DID ADMIT THAT IF IT WAS HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN STRANDED ON THE HIGHWAY IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT. BUT, NO..... NOW THEY ARE RECALLING THE PART THAT HOLD THE SPARE UNDER THE TRUCK BECAUSE TIRE MAY FALL OFF. THAT WOULD BE DOING ME A FAVOR.... *TR
Structure, Jan 14, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING SERVICED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE WAS RUSTED AND THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE BOTTOM OF THE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY RUSTED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED ABOUT THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY RECALLS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 159,000. UPDATED 2/25/13 *CN THE CONSUMER STATED THE MANUFACTURER REFUSED TO OFFER ASSISTANCE DUE TO THE RECALL BEING CLOSED ON DEC 31, 2011. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THE CONSUMER SHOULD HAVE RECIEVED A NOTICE. THE CONSUMER CHANGED ADDRESSES SINCE PURCHASING THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE DID NOT RECIEVE ANY NOTICE. THE MANUFACTURER DENIED ANY ASSISTANCE. UPDATED 03/11/2013 *JS
Structure, Nov 28, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE AT AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR UNRELATED REPAIR THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THE FRAME WAS SEVERALLY CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THERE WAS A MANUFACTURER RECALL THAT WAS ISSUED THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO TREAT THE FRAME AND PREVENT CORROSION. THE CONTACT DID NOT RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF THE RECALL AND NEVER HAD THE VEHICLE TREATED. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THERE WAS NO REPAIR FOR THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THEY WERE NOT LIABLE FOR THE FRAME CORROSION. THE MECHANIC ADVISED THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT BE DRIVEN BECAUSE IT WAS UNSAFE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 230,000. UPDATED 01/14/13
Structure, Nov 27, 2012
2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO ISSUES WITH THE VEHICLE FRAME. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED HE ONLY TOOK POSSESSION OF THE VEHICLE SIX MONTHS AGO, AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE PROBLEM WITH THE FRAME AND WOULD LIKE TO GET THE ISSUE RESOLVED. *JB
Suspension, Structure, Oct 18, 2012
I BRAKE IN MY DRIVEWAY AT APPROX. 2 MPH, HEARD A LOUD THUMP IN THE REAR END OF MY 2001 TACOMA. WHEN I CHECKED, I FOUND THAT THE DRIVER SIDE FRONT BRACKET TO LEAF SPRING HOLDING THE REAR AXLE WAS ACTUALLY SITTING 2 OR 3 INCHES INTO THE FRAME RAIL. THE FRAME HAD RUSTED THROUGH IN THAT SPOT, THE RUST WAS SO BAD, THAT 6 INCHES OF STEEL ON BOTTOM OF FRAME RAIL WAS GONE IN ANY DIRECTION OF THE LEAF SPRING BRACKET ATTACHMENT POINT. THERE ISN'T ENOUGH STEEL LEFT TO EVEN ATTEMPT A WELD TO REPAIR IT. ON CLOSE INSPECTION OF THE FRAME OVERALL, THERE ARE MULTIPLE POINTS WHERE THE FRAME RAILS HAVE DISINTEGRATED. MY REAR AXLE IS SITTING OFF-CENTER, AND THE CAR CANNOT BE DRIVEN. IF NORMAL FORCE OR TORQUE IS APPLIED, THE AXLE WILL BREAK FREE, AND THIS WILL CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. I HEARD THAT THERE IS A RECALL ON TACOMA FRAME RAILS, SO I CALLED THE DEALER. DEALER STATED MY VIN DID NOT HAVE A RECALL; I CALLED TOYOTA, THEY TOLD ME THAT I WOULD BE CONTACTED IN 1 BUSINESS DAY. THEY NEVER CALLED. 2 DAYS LATER, I CALLED AND GOT TRANSFERRED TO THEIR "TRUCK TEAM," GOT SHUFFLED AROUND FOR 6 MORE PHONE CALLS OVER 3 DAYS, WHEN THEY INFORMED ME THAT THEY MAILED ME A NOTICE THAT I HAD TO HAVE GOTTEN A FRAME SPRAYING TO QUALIFY FOR THE FRAME RECALL. I NEVER RECEIVED SUCH NOTICE, AND TOYOTA DID NOT EVEN HAVE MY ADDRESS; WHICH THEY STATED THAT THEY GOT ALL INFORMATION FROM DMV. MY DMV INFO IS CURRENT, ALWAYS HAS BEEN. TOYOTA HAS GIVEN MY EVERY TYPE OF RUN-AROUND IMAGINABLE, ULTIMATELY DENYING MY RECALL. ON WEBSITES, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN MY SAME SITUATION...EXACTLY THE SAME. FURTHER, THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO HAD THE FRAME SPRAY, WHICH THEN PEELED OFF WITHIN MONTHS OF APPLICATION. THIS SEEMS LIKE TOYOTA DELIBERATELY TRIED TO EXCLUDE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE WITH THIS FRAME SPRAY, WHICH WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THE FRAMES WEREN'T DEFECTIVE. MY TRUCK IS DEAD. *TR
Suspension, Structure, Sep 12, 2012
TOYOTA TACOMA 2001 IN GREAT SHAPE OTHER THAN THE FRAME IS RUSTING OUT. TOOK IT TO MY MECHANIC FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OIL CHANGE; HE SAW SOME HEAVY CORROSION ON THE FRAME. IN SEVERAL PLACES, IT HAS EATEN THROUGH AND HAS PERFORATIONS. HE SAYS IT IS GETTING TO BE UNSAFE. I JUST BOUGHT THIS TRUCK ABOUT A YEAR AGO AT A DEALERSHIP IN OHIO AND WAS NOT MADE AWARE THAT THIS WAS A HUGE PROBLEM IN THE 1996-2003 MODELS, BUT THIS ISSUE IS APPARENTLY VERY COMMON AS TOYOTA DID NOT PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE UNDERCOATINGS FOR THESE MODELS. NEXT STEP IS TO TAKE IT TO THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY. AT THIS POINT, I WOULD TAKE A BUYOUT BUT WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THE FRAME/CHASSIS REPLACED AT THEIR EXPENSE. I LOVE THIS TRUCK AND USE IT EVERYDAY. VERY SCARED TO DRIVE IT RIGHT NOW AND HOPE THEY COME THROUGH TO FIX THEIR MISTAKE. THIS SHOULD BE A PUBLIC RECALL SINCE IT IS A HUGE SAFETY CONCERN AND PEOPLE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE THAT THIS IS A TIME-BOMB ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. THESE TRUCKS ARE EVERYWHERE ON THE ROAD. THANKS *TR
Structure, Jun 15, 2012
I JUST PURCHASED THIS TRUCK FOR MY SONS FIRST VEHICLE. 1 DAY AFTER I PURCHASED IT, I WAS INFORMED OF A RECALL ISSUE TOYOTA HAD WITH THESE FRAMES RUSTING EXCESSIVELY CREATING A SAFETY ISSUE WHILE DRIVING. I TOOK TO MY TOYOTA DEALER THEY CONFIRMED AND INSPECTED MY TRUCK. THEY TOLD ME IT WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. I CALLED TOYOTA CUSTOMER CARE THEY TOLD ME MY VEHICLE WAS NOT COVERED AND THERE WAS NOTHING THEY WOULD DO. I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY WON'T COVER THIS FAILURE. IF THEY ARE ONLY BUILDING VEHICLES TO LAST 11 YEARS, THEY SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN. NOW MY SON HAS A TRUCK HE CAN'T DRIVE! GREAT FIRST CAR HUH? I THINK IT'S TOYOTA DOESN'T CARE CENTER. ANY HELP WOULD BE APPRECIATED. *JB
Structure, May 4, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS ROTTEN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS, WHERE THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND PROVIDED NO ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 90,000.
Structure, Apr 16, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR AN INSPECTION AND THEY DETECTED THAT THE REAR FRAME WAS DAMAGED DUE TO RUST AND CORROSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER ISSUED A VOLUNTARY RECALL PERTAINING TO THE FRAME AND THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000.
Structure, Mar 2, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING, THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SWERVE FROM SIDE TO SIDE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND FOUND THAT THE REAR FRAME AND WHEEL WERE SEVERELY CORRODED. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 144,000.
Structure, Feb 21, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE AT AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR UNRELATED REPAIRS, THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED BY THE MECHANIC THAT THE THE FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE MECHANIC ALSO STATED THE ENTIRE FRAME WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 110,000.
Structure, Feb 1, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS BEING EXAMINED BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHEN HE WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A HOLE RUSTED THROUGH THE FRAME. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 113,000.
Structure, Tires, Dec 11, 2011
I FREQUENTLY CHECK THE STABILITY OF THE SPARE TIRE THAT IS STORED ON THE UNDERSIDE EXTERIOR OF THE BED. RECENTLY I NOTICED THAT THE TIRE WAS LOOSE AND MOVING BACK AND FORTH. THIS PROMPTED ME TO LOWER THE TIRE BY USING THE PROVIDED CRANK HANDLE. AFTER IT WAS LOWERED TO THE GROUND I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE THAT THE RETAINING BRACKET AND CABLE SPRING WERE SEVERELY RUSTED. I FELT THAT THIS COULD POSE A POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD TO ME WHILE OPERATING THE VEHICLE ON THE HIGHWAY IF THAT BRACKET FAILS. IT COULD POSSIBLY CAUSE THE VEHICLE TO ROLL OVER AND THE TIRE TO FLY OFF AND CAUSE DANGER TO OTHER MOTORISTS. I PROMPTLY REMOVED THE SPARE TIRE FROM THE VEHICLE AND WENT TO MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER. THEY SEEMED TO LOOK PAST THE SAFETY HAZARD IT POSES AND WERE MORE INTERESTED IN CHARGING ME ORE $600.00 TO INSTALL A NEW RETAINING BRACKET. I INQUIRED TO THE SERVICE CONSULTANT AS TO WHY THIS PROBLEM WAS NOT BROUGHT ADDRESSED TO ME WHEN MY TRUCK WAS IN THERE A FEW MONTHS EARLIER FOR THE FRAME RUST PERFORATION RECALL. HE REPLIED THAT IF THEY NOTICE ANY ISSUES THEY PRESENT THE CUSTOMER WITH A LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS. AT THAT TIME THEY HAD THE ENTIRE CAB AND CHASSIS OFF TO INSTALL A BRAND NEW FRAME. I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW SOMETHING AS CRUCIAL AS THIS POTENTIAL DEADLY PROBLEM COULD GO UNDETECTED. I RECENTLY SPOKE WITH 2 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD PERSONAL EXPERIENCES PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE. ONE WITNESSED A DEADLY ROLLOVER DUE TO THIS PROBLEM AND THE OTHER HAD HIS SPARE FALL OFF AND ROLL DOWN THE ROAD. I FEEL THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE PROPER OFFICIALS AND ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN SOON. I HOPE TO HEAR FROM YOU REGARDING THIS SERIOUS ISSUE. THANK YOU. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
Structure, Jul 15, 2011
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED WHEN SHE NOTICED THAT THE UNDERCARRIAGE FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED OF AN EXPIRED VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN THEY ISSUED THAT ADDRESSED THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 144,233. UPDATED 08/31/2011 *LN
Structure, Apr 12, 2011
THE FRAME OF MY 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA WAS REPLACED IN 2010 BECAUSE OF SEVERE RUST PROBLEMS. THE REAR AXLE ASSEMBLY HAS THE SAME RUST PROBLEM , THE AXLE IS LEAKING. SHOULD TOYOTA HAVE REPLACED THE REAR AXLE ALSO. *TR
Structure, Feb 2, 2011
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS AT THE DEALER TO HAVE A CORROSION RESISTANCE PRODUCT APPLIED TO THE FRAME, THE TECHNICIANS STATED THE FRAME WAS RUSTED. THE MANUFACTURER HAD A VOLUNTARY RECALL WHICH EXTENDED THE WARRANTY FOR THE VEHICLE TO BE INSPECTED YEARLY FOR CORROSION. THE DEALER STATED THE FRAME WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND STATED THE FRAME WOULD BE REPLACED FREE OF CHARGE BUT IF THERE WERE OTHER PARTS THAT MAY BE DAMAGED DUE TO THE CORROSION THAT THE CONTACT WOULD HAVE TO COVER THE COSTS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 109,000.
Structure, Nov 23, 2010
THIS IS ABOUT MY 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA IN MASSACHUSETTS ON JUNE 6 2008 WENT IN FOR FRAME INSPECTION REPORT FROM DEALER NO ROT CONDITION IS EXCELLENT BROUGHT IT IN TODAY NOVEMBER 23, 2010. TOTAL ROT REPLACING THE FRAME, UP TO 3 MONTH WAIT FOR FRAME. *TR
Structure, Oct 30, 2010
THE 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA TRUCK I OWNED WAS RECALLED FOR RUSTING FRAME. AT THE TIME I RECEIVED THE RECALL NOTICE THE FRAME ON MY TRUCK WAS ALMOST 90% RUSTED. ON MAY 7, 2010 I TOOK IT TO FOX LAKE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP FOR THE SAID RECALL AND APPLICATION FOR A CORROSION PREVENTATIVE COMPOUND WAS PERFORMED BY THE DEALER SERVICE DEPARTMENT. ON EARLY OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR I NOTICE THAT LARGE AMOUNT OF THE APPLIED COMPOUND ARE PEELING. I TOOK IT BACK TO THE SAME DEALERSHIP ON OCTOBER 20 FOR INSPECTION RELATED TO THE PEELING ISSUE. THE DEALERSHIP CALLED BACK OCTOBER 22 INFORMING ME THAT THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING SINCE ALMOST ALL OF THE COMPOUND ARE NOW GONE. THE SERVICE PERSONNEL CLAIM THAT UPON SPEAKING TO TOYOTA, IT WAS NOTED THAT THEY ARE RESEARCHING IT. I WAS TOLD TO TAKE MY VEHICLE BACK. I HAVE THE VEHICLE WITH ME NOW BUT I AM AFRAID TO DRIVE NOT KNOWING IF THE FRAME HAS RUSTED THROUGHOUT. I INQUIRED TO THE SERVICE PERSONNEL IF THE VEHICLE IS SAFE TO DRIVE BUT DID NOT GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER. WITH WINTER APPROACHING THE VEHICLE WILL BE AGAIN SUBJECTED TO THE CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT. TO DATE I HAVE NOT RECEIVE A CALL BACK FROM THE DEALERSHIP OR TOYOTA AS TO WHAT ACTION THEY NEED TO PERFORM. NO CLAIM NUMBER WAS ALSO PROVIDED BY THE DEALERSHIP FOR ME TO USE IN CASE I CALL TOYOTA DIRECTLY. *TR