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
401 reports, newest first.
Structure, May 28, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUB FRAME WAS PERFORATED DUE TO RUST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A PRIVATE MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 102,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 111,000.
Steering, Suspension, May 21, 2014
AFTER BEING DRIVEN ON THE HIGHWAY APPROXIMATELY 60 MILES, THE 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA TRUCK WAS BEING BACKED INTO THE DRIVEWAY WHEN STEERING SUDDENLY LOCKED. UPON INSPECTION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER WHEEL WAS NO LONGER ATTACHED TO THE CAR. THE LOWER BALL JOINT HAD FAILED. I DETERMINED THAT TOYOTA ISSUED A RECALL FOR MY VEHICLE MODEL AND YEAR (NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 05V225000) FOR THIS ISSUE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONSEQUENCE: THE LOWER BALL JOINT MAY SEPARATE FROM THE KNUCKLE CAUSING LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL AND A CRASH COULD OCCUR. IT SEEMS THAT OUR VEHICLE EXPERIENCED THIS ISSUE FOR WHICH VEHICLES WERE RECALLED BY TOYOTA. HOWEVER, WHEN I CALLED TOYOTA, I WAS TOLD THAT OUR VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL AND THAT TOYOTA WAS NOT WILLING TO DO ANYTHING. WE HAD TO SPEND THE MONEY AND TIME TO FIX THE FAILED BALL JOINT AND ARE CONSIDERING REPLACING THE DRIVER SIDE BALL JOINT PROPHYLACTICALLY AS WE NO LONGER TRUST THE WHEELS TO REMAIN ON OUR TRUCK. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A WHEEL COME OFF A CAR. IF THE WHEEL HAD DISENGAGED FROM OUR CAR 2 MINUTES PRIOR, WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS MOVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, THE CONSEQUENCES COULD HAVE BEEN SEVERE. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT TOYOTA IS NOT INCLUDING OUR CAR IN THE RECALL - EVEN THOUGH THE EXACT SAME ISSUE FOR WHICH THE RECALL WAS ISSUED (FOR OUR VEHICLE MODEL AND YEAR) OCCURRED ON OUR CAR. IF THE ACCIDENT HAD HAPPENED AT HIGH SPEEDS, SOMEONE WOULD HAVE DIED AND A LAWYER WOULD BE CONTACTING TOYOTA AND NHTSA. PERHAPS THE RECALL NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED! *TR
Suspension, Structure, Tires, Wheels, May 12, 2014
HI, I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN FOR MY VEHICLE AS I LOVE MY TACOMA AND HOW IT DRIVES AND WORKS FOR ME IN MY DAILY LIFE. AS I HAD TOOK MY VEHICLE IN FOR A RECALL ON MY SPARE TIRE CABLE, THE TECHNICIAN AND SERVICE MAN HAD TOLD ME THAT IN MY FRAME OF MY VEHICLE THERE IS A LARGE RUSTED OUT HOLE. SINCE THEN, I REALLY HAVEN'T FELT SAFE DRIVING MY VEHICLE ANYWHERE AS I'M AFRAID THAT MY FRAME WILL BREAK AND CAUSE A REALLY BAD ACCIDENT. I'VE ALSO HAVE HAD IN THE PAST WHERE MY DAD'S VEHICLE (1998 TOYOTA TACOMA) WAS RECALLED FOR THE SAME EXACT THING (FRAME ISSUE). AS FOR MY VEHICLE, I AM THE SECOND OWNER AND MY BROTHER WAS THE FIRST. THIS VEHICLE HAS BEEN HERE IN THE MINNESOTA WEATHER ALL ITS LIFE TIME. PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, IF NOT, I WILL PUSH THIS FORWARD WHERE I WILL GET SOME ATTENTION TO MY VEHICLE, MY SAFETY, AND OTHERS. AND PLUS, I WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE THIS INTO A LEGAL MATTER AS I LOVE MY TOYOTA. *TR
Suspension, Structure, Apr 25, 2014
I BOUGHT THIS VEHICLE USED IN 2011 AND WAS NOTIFIED OF A RECALL FOR FRAME RUST. BY THE TIME I GOT AROUND TO SCHEDULING AN APPT, I WAS INFORMED THE RECALL HAD ENDED. NOW, HOWEVER, THE FRAME IS SEVERELY CORRODED AND IS STARTING TO GIVE WAY AT THE REAR SHACKLE. I FEEL THIS VEHICLE HAS BECOME A SERIOUS HAZARD TO DRIVE DUE TO THE FRAME BUCKLING. IF THE RECALL WAS PUT INTO EFFECT, TOYOTA IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, AND NOW IT HAS BECOME A SERIOUS LIABILITY AND SAFETY ISSUE. I WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS VEHICLE REPAIRED TO THE POINT OF MAKING IT SAFE, BUT FEEL THAT I WAS NOT GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS DONE UNDER THE LIMITED TIME LEFT ON THE RECALL WHEN I BOUGHT IT. THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS ISSUE WITH THE FRAME CONSTRUCTION IS EVIDENT BY THE FACT THAT THE BODY HAS ALMOST NO CORROSION PRESENT. THERE APPEARS TO BE A MANUFACTURING ISSUE WITH THE HEAVY FRAME STEEL THAT SHOULD NOT BE CORRODING LIKE THIS. THERE IS CURRENTLY ALSO AN ACTIVE RECALL FOR THE REAR TIRE CARRIER - WHICH IS RELATED TO THE SAME ISSUE. AGAIN, THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY AND LIABILITY ISSUE THAT I THINK TOYOTA IS OBLIGATED TO ADDRESS BEFORE SOMEONE IS HURT OR KILLED BY THIS PROBLEM. CONTACTING TOYOTA DOES NO GOOD, AS THEY REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THE PROBLEM. THEY SAY THIS WAS NOT A RECALL BUT A WARRANTY EXTENSION THAT HAS NOW RUN OUT. HOWEVER, THERE IS A SEVERE DEFECT PRESENT IN THE FRAME THAT THEY ACKNOWLEDGED AND NOW REFUSE TO STAND BEHIND EVEN THOUGH IT IS A DANGEROUS LIABILITY FOR ANY VEHICLES ON THE ROAD. *TR
Structure, Apr 25, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUBFRAME WAS PERFORATED DUE TO RUST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 154,000.
Suspension, Other or unspecified, Apr 17, 2014
I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND WAS ALERTED TO THE FRAME CORROSION. I CAN ACTUALLY PUSH MY FINGER THROUGH THE RUST AND FRAME, HOLES ARE VISIBLE IN THE FRAME. THE TRUCK IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND I FEAR OF SAFETY FOR MY FAMILY. I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND THEY ADVISED ME THAT THE VOLUNTARY BUYBACK PROGRAM FOR FIXING THIS WAS EXPIRED. I AM NOW LEFT WITH AN IMMACULATELY CLEAN CAR IN PRISTINE SHAPE THAT CANNOT BE DRIVEN AND I AM LEERY OF EVEN SELLING TO SOMEONE ELSE REGARDLESS OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FRAME. REPORTS OF THIS PROBLEM ARE POPPING UP ALL OVER AND IT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH AS A SERIOUS MATTER AND SUBJECT TO SAFETY RECALL. LESSER ISSUES HAVE HAD RECALLS AND IT HAS BEEN LEFT UP TO TOYOTA TO PROVIDE VOLUNTARY BUYBACK PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF BEING MANDATED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.
Structure, Apr 16, 2014
IN REVIEWING YOUR WEBSITE FOR RECALLS ON THE TOYOTA TACOMA, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS ONE MISSING THAT CAME BEFORE THE RECALL FOR THE SPARE TIRES. THE ONE I SPEAK OF IS THE RECALL ON THE VEHICLE FOR FRAME PERFORATIONS OF WHICH MY VECHICLE NOW HAS AND HAS DEEMED UNSAFE FOR DRIVING. I BELIEVE THIS RECALL SHOULD BE ENFORCED BY TOYOTA AS MYSELF AND NUMEROUS OTHERS HAVE VEHICLES THAT CAUSE SAFETY HAZARDS FOR NOT ONLY OURSELVES BUT INJURIES TO OTHERS. THESE VEHICLES ARE STILL ON THE ROAD, AS OTHERS LIKE MY SELF WERE NOT AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS SITUATIN TOYOTA HAS PLACED US IN BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING NOTHING TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION, I'D LIKE TO TAKE M VEHICLE IN FOR THE TIRE RECALL HOWEVER I WILL NOT RISK MY LIFE IN ORDER TO GET THIS REPAIR DONE. AS AN AGENCY TO IS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM HAZARDS, I AND MANY OTHERS (VISIT FACEBOOK PAGE TOYOTA TACOMA FRAME DEFECTS) FEEL THAT YOUR AGENCY SHOULD STEP-UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. *TT
Structure, Apr 15, 2014
2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO EXCESSIVE CORROSION RECALL. *SMD A LOCAL MECHANIC INFORMED THE CONSUMER, THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CORROSION AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. THE DEALER REPAIRED THE SPARE LIFT TIRE PLATE UNDER THE RECALL. HOWEVER, THEY STATED THE RECALL FOR THE FRAME HAD EXPIRED AND THEY WOULD NOT DO THE REPAIR.
Suspension, Structure, Apr 3, 2014
FOLLOWING ROUTINE SERVICE INSPECTION ON 4/2/2014, SIGNIFICANT PERFORATION OF MY 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA 4X4 TRUCK FRAME WAS IDENTIFIED, DUE TO CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH RUSTING. ACCORDING TO A 2012 TOYOTA DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSTIC, NO INDICATION OF RUST WAS NOTED DURING THE DEALERSHIP SERVICE INSPECTION. ALSO, NO HARD COPY DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY TOYOTA CORPORATION REGARDING AN ALLEGED VOLUNTARY RECALL CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CORROSION OF FRAME. ACCORDING TO THE TOYOTA CORPORATION CASE WORKER ASSIGNED, HE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANY HARD COPY DOCUMENTATION OF SAID VOLUNTARY RECALL CAMPAIGN NOTICE REGARDING CORROSION OF TRUCK FRAME; IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE CASE WORKER DID SAY HE COULD PROVIDE 'VERBAL' CONFIRMATION THAT NOTIFICATION WAS SENT TO MY RESIDENCE AT THE TIME. AT THIS TIME, I AM CURRENTLY CONSIDERING LEGAL ACTION, PENDING FURTHER REVIEW OF CASE. *TR
Seats, Mar 27, 2014, crash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A MINOR REAR END CRASH WHERE THE DRIVER AND THE PASSENGER'S HEAD REST BECAME FRACTURED UPON IMPACT. THE CONTACT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE HEAD REST FRACTURING WITH SUCH A SLIGHT IMPACT. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED AND NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 95,000.
Structure, Mar 12, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, A LOUD NOISE EMITTED OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT ENTIRE FRAME WAS FRACTURED. THE VEHICLE WAS DECLARED UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE EXTENDED SERVICE WARRANTY EXPIRED AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 160,000. UPDATED 4/29/14*CN *TR THE CONSUMER STATED DECLINED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE BUT WILL HOWEVER REPLACE THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER DUE TO CORROSION BUT NOT THE FRAME. *TR
Air bags, Feb 27, 2014, crash
ON 5/7/13 MY TOYOTA TACOMA AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY, WAS INJURED, AND WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCIDENT. UN-INSURED DRIVER, 2008 TOYOTA SCION, WAS CAUSE OF ACCIDENT, AND SCION'S AIRBAG WORKED. 2008 TOYOTA SCION WAS RECEIVED BY MF AUTO ON 4/4/13, PURCHASED BY YUKA OKUNA, INSURED BY GEICO ON APRIL 9, 2013 & RE-INSURED ON APRIL 10, 2013 W/ALL STATE INSURANCE (POLICY 4/10 TO 10/10?), AND POLICE REPORT STATED AMANDA LONGLEY OWNED CAR & INSURED BY SAFE AUTO. YET INSURANCE COMPANIES CLAIM IT IS 'PHANTOM OR GHOST DRIVER' AND NOT INSURED AT ALL- NOT LAWFUL IN STATE OF INDIANA AS PROOF OF INSURANCE IS REQUIRED? IT APPEARS BMV RECORDS MAYBE ALTERED AFTER POLICE REPORT- POLICE VERIFIED INFORMATION AT SCENE OF ACCIDENT? ADDITIONALLY, NOTICED POLICE REPORT STATED "SAFETY EQUIPMENT EFFECTIVE" WAS NOTED "YES" FOR SCION & TACOMA BUT MY TOYOTA TACOMA AIRBAG DID NOT WORK PROPERLY- PERCEIVED UNSAFE PRODUCT. LASTLY, TACOMA TOYOTA WAS IN A SEPARATE ACCIDENT IN 2004, NOT MY FAULT (REAR ENDED AT AROUND 35-40 MPH), AND AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY- CAUSED A LOT OF DAMAGES AND INJURY. TOYOTA FAILED TO PROVIDE A SAFE PRODUCT AND IS A CAUSE OF LOSS IN MANY WAYS- TOO MANY LOSSES TO DETAIL. TOYOTA WAS INFORMED IN WRITING BUT FAILED TO ADDRESS PRODUCT SAFETY CONCERNS ADEQUATELY AND APPEARED MORE CONCERNED ABOUT BRAND REPUTATION THAN SAFETY OF PEOPLE? (SEE PHI MATRIX FOR SOME REASONS- LINKED TO STOCK PRICES/BRAND/ DESIGN /BEAUTY ANALYTICS).
Structure, Feb 10, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS CRACKED. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, WHO STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS CRACKED ON BOTH SIDES NEAR THE SHACKLES. THE FRAME WAS WELDED BUT THE PROBLEM RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE INCIDENT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000.
Structure, Jan 28, 2014
THE FRAME ON THE VEHICLE IS RUSTING. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT TACOMA'S HAD RUSTY FRAME ISSUES UNTIL AFTER I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE. I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS FRAME WILL CAUSE UNSAFE DRIVING CONDITIONS IF SOMETHING GIVES OUT WHILE DRIVING. I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE RESALE VALUE OF A YEAR CLASS OF VEHICLES THAT ARE KNOWN TO HAVE RUSTY FRAMES. *TR
Seats, Dec 9, 2013
THE FOAM IN THE HEADREST OF BOTH THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER SEATS HAS DETERIORATED TO THE POINT THAT THE METAL BAR UNDERNEATH IS EXPOSED. NEITHER SEATS HAVE HAD SEAT COVERS, THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN IN ANY WRECKS, AND THE HEADRESTS HAVE BEEN USED NORMALLY. I HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR A FIX TO THIS PROBLEM AND THIS LOOKS TO BE COMMON FOR THIS GENERATION OF TOYOTA TRUCKS. THIS SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE FOR A VEHICLE OF THIS AGE AND IS A VERY DANGEROUS PROBLEM FOR SUCH AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF SAFETY EQUIPMENT. *TR
Structure, Nov 10, 2013
I WOULD LIKE KNOW TOYOTA DOES NOT HONOR RECALLS ON THIS TRUCK BECAUSE IT IS AN R TITLE THAT HAD FRONT END DAMAGE. IT WILL NOT HONOR ANY CORROSION RECALLS (IE.SPARE TIRE LIFE PLATE, EXCESSIVE REAR FRAME CORROSION) HOWEVER I STILL RECEIVE EVERY RECALL NOTIFICATION ON THIS VEHICLE FROM DIRECTLY FROM TOYOTA MOTORS. *TR
Structure, Nov 8, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUBFRAME WAS FOUND TO BE CORRODED WITH HOLES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE SUBFRAME WAS NOT REPLACED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 95,000.
Steering, Nov 2, 2013
SEVERE SHIMMY WHEN DRIVING, AND SWAYING TO EITHER SIDE. I THEN TOOK THE TRUCK TO TOYOTA WHERE THEY FOUND OUT THAT THE ENTIRE STEERING CONTROL SYSTEM IS CORRODED TO THE POINT THAT THE VEHICLE CAN LOOSE CONTROL AT ANY TIME. I WILL BE FORCED TO CHANGE THE YOKE AND EVENTUALLY THE RACK AND PINION. *TR
Structure, Sep 25, 2013
WE PURCHASED A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA NEW IN LATE 2000. MY HUSBAND RECENTLY REALIZED THE FRAME IS ALMOST RUSTED THROUGH ON THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE NEAR THE GAS TANK. NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT ISN'T SAFE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE UNTIL/IF IT CAN BE FIXED. WE HAVE VIEWED AND READ UP ON NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER TACOMA OWNERS AND HAVE SEEN SOME RECALLS OR NOTIFICATIONS TO SELECT TACOMA OWNERS BUT NOT IN THE STATE WE RESIDE IN-MO. WE RAN INTO A SIMILAR ISSUE WITH ANOTHER NON-TOYOTA VEHICLE WHICH ONLY COVERED HOT-WEATHER STATES. WE LIVE IN MISSOURI....WE HAVE EXPERIENCED EXTREME HEAT AND COLD DURING THE LAST FEW YEARS. IT'S UNREASONABLE TO ME THAT THE AUTO DEALERS CAN EXCLUDE CERTAIN STATES WHEN IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY CUSTOMERS IN THOSE EXCLUDED STATES COULD EXPERIENCE THE SAME ISSUE. IF IT'S DETERMINED TO BE THE SAME ISSUE OWNERS IN OTHER STATES ARE FACING, WHY NOT AGREE TO COVER THE REPAIR??? WE PLAN TO DO SOME INVESTIGATING AND CALLING OF OUR OWN TO SEE IF TOYOTA IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE REPAIR OR AT LEAST OFFER US A REASONABLE BUY BACK OPTION. WE ARE TOYOTA OWNERS AND PLAN TO STAY THAT WAY DEPENDING ON HOW THIS ALL TURNS OUT. WE'VE ALWAYS URGED OTHERS TO BUY TOYOTA VEHICLES DUE TO THEIR LONGEVITY AND RELIABILITY....I HOPE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE PROVEN WRONG ON THIS ONE. *JS
Structure, Sep 22, 2013
I PURCHASED A USED 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA AND WITHIN 6 MONTHS NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTING THROUGH. I LEARNED IN 2013 THAT THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THE FRAME. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THAT THEY WOULD REPLACE THE FRAME. A FEW DAYS LATER, I WAS INFORMED THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE DOING THIS BECAUSE I HAD NOT TAKEN THE VEHICLE IN FOR RUST PROTECTION. I CALLED TOYOTA DIRECTLY AND WAS INFORMED THAT I SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED FOUR NOTICES PERTAINING TO THIS RECALL, HOWEVER TOYOTA DID NOT HAVE THE CORRECT NAME IN THEIR DATABASE, AND THUS I DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICES. IF I HAD RECEIVED THEM AND TAKEN THE VEHICLE FOR THE TREATMENT, THE FRAME WOULD HAVE BEEN WARRANTED FOR FIFTEEN YEARS. THE VEHICLE WAS TRANSFERRED INTO MY NAME IMMEDIATELY AFTER PURCHASE, AND MY NAME SHOULD HAVE APPEARED IN TOYOTA'S DATABASE. THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE, AND I FEEL TOYOTA SHOULD EITHER REPLACE THE FRAME OR BUY THE VEHICLE BACK FROM ME, AS IT HAS FROM OTHER OWNERS.
Suspension, Power train, Service brakes, Sep 12, 2013
WHILE DRIVING HEARD A SKIDDING SOUND, LOOK UNDER TRUCK LOST TRD PLATES, ROTTED BECAME LOSE AND FELL. UNDER CARRIAGE CORRODED. *TR
Structure, Aug 22, 2013
BOUGHT MY TOYOTA TACOMA ABOUT A YEAR AN A HALF AGO. ITS A 2001 V6 EXTRA CAB 4X4. BROUGHT IT TO THE TOYOTA DEAL ON RT 37 EAST IN TOMS RIVER N.J AND ASK THEM TO INSPECT THE FRAME. THEY SAID IT WAS IN GOOD CONDITION. JUST THE OTHER DAY I BROUGHT IT IN TO A GARAGE IN TOWN FOR AN OIL CHANGE AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON. COME TO FIND OUT THE FUEL TANK IS RUSTING AND HAS A HOLE IN IT. ALSO THE FRAME IS SEVERALLY RUSTED, THE CROSS BAR THAT HOLDS THE FUEL TANK IS CRUMBLING ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE FRAME. THIS WHOLE RUSTING FRAME ISSUE NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED NOT ONLY IS MY FAMILY AND MY LIFE IN DANGER BUT SO ARE THE OTHER DRIVERS AROUND ME. *TR
Service brakes, Hydraulic, Structure, Aug 21, 2013, crash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE BRAKES WOULD NOT RESPOND CAUSING HIM TO CRASH INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE PASSENGER IN THE SECOND VEHICLE SUSTAINED NECK AND BACK INJURIES ALTHOUGH THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE BRAKES HAD FAILED BECAUSE THE STRUT AND SHOCK HAD DISMOUNTED FROM THE VEHICLE DUE TO SEVERE RUST ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE UNDER CARRIAGE. THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN A MANUFACTURER'S RECALL WHERE THE UNDER CARRIAGE WAS TREATED WITH A ANTI-CORROSION COATING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THE RECALL HAD EXPIRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 61,000. *TR
Structure, Aug 4, 2013
THE TACOMA FRAME RUST ON MY TRUCK IS BEYOND REPAIR. I AM PUTTING MYSELF AND MY FAMILY IN DANGER EVERY TIME I DRIVE IT. I CALLED TOYOTA CORPORATE OFFICE AND THEY BASICALLY TOLD ME THEY CANNOT NOT DO ANYTHING FOR ME. TOYOTA HOWEVER GAVE ME A CASE NUMBER [XXX] THAT WAS ABOUT A YEAR AGO. THE TELEPHONE NUMBERS FOR THAT IS 8003314331. FOUR MONTHS AGO I BROUGHT THE TACOMA FOR A TIRE CARRIAGE RECALL AT OUR LOCAL DEALER WHICH IT WAS ABOUT TO FALL OFF. THEY TOOK SOME PICTURES OF THE ROTTED FRAME AND SENT THEM TO TOYOTA CORPORATE OFFICE. AGAIN THE LONG ANTICIPATED WAIT. I KNOW I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO IS LEFT OUT. I CANNOT SELL THIS VEHICLE BECAUSE IT IS DANGEROUS. PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS MATTER FOR THE MANY CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE THE 2001 -2004 TOYOTA FRAME ROTTED AND WAS LEFT OUT. THANK YOU. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
Seat belts, Jul 11, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE THREAD OF THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE SEAT BELT WAS WEARING EXCESSIVELY AND UNRAVELING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE SEAT BELT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000. *TR