2003 Toyota Tacoma
Problems, recalls and owner-reported issues
Structure is the leading concern among 371 owner complaints filed for this model year. This is the 8th highest complaint count among 26 Tacoma model years with reports.
Of the 2003 reports, 31 involved a crash and 1 involved a fire. 22 people were injured.
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
Representative owner complaints: structure
182 reports, newest first. Show all
Structure, Feb 16, 2018
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!
Structure, Dec 20, 2017
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.
Structure, Nov 17, 2017
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.
Structure, Other or unspecified, Oct 19, 2017
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!
Structure, Sep 5, 2017
DRIVING TRUCK, ONLY 86617 MILES, HEARD DRIVE TRAIN NOISE, PULLED OVER, NOTICED FRAME RUST THROUGH AND TRUCK BENDING DOWN IN MIDDLE BESIDE THE GAS TANK. FELT UNSAFE TO DRIVE, HAD VEHICLE TOWED TO TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. ARAPAHOE TOYOTA.
Structure, Aug 28, 2017
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED ON THE DRIVER SIDE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE LOCAL DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ISSUE, BUT DID NOT ASSIST. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 108,094.
Structure, Jul 27, 2017
FRAME OF VEHICLE HAS CORRODED AWAY CAUSING FUEL TANK TO FALL OFF. THIS HAPPENED AS I PULLED INTO PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT.
Suspension, Structure, May 23, 2017
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
Structure, May 15, 2017
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
Structure, May 9, 2017
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.
Structure, Other or unspecified, May 5, 2017
FRAME RAILS, LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE, EXHIBITING RUST THRU. SAFETY ISSUE; FRAME FAILURE IN FUTURE.(VERY NEAR).
Structure, Apr 24, 2017
2003 TACOMA. TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO BE SERVICED AND THE TECHNICIAN POINTED OUT THAT I HAVE EXTENSIVE FRAME CORROSION AND HOLES IN THE FRAME AND THAT THE CAR IS DANGEROUS AND WILL NOT PASS INSPECTION. CAR WAS STATIONARY. WTF?
Structure, Apr 17, 2017
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE WORKING UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 180,000.
Structure, Tires, Apr 12, 2017
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS EXTENSIVE PREMATURE RUST AND CORROSION ASSOCIATED WITH THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. A MECHANIC INDICATED THAT THE FRAME WOULD NEED TO BE WELDED AND THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE VIN WAS INCLUDED, BUT THE CONTACT WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V542000 (TIRES). THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 223,000.
Structure, Apr 5, 2017
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING REPAIRED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE SUBFRAME OF THE VEHICLE HAD SEVERAL CRACKS LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES AND THE REAR. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE SUBFRAME WAS TOO DAMAGED TO REPAIR AND WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 134,000.
Structure, Feb 14, 2017
EXTENSIVE FRAME RUST AND ROT HAS RENDERED THE VEHICLE UNSAFE TO OPERATE. VEHICLE HAS ONLY 90K MILES ON IT.
Steering, Suspension, Structure, Dec 13, 2016
THE FRAME ON MY 2003 TACOMA IS RUSTING BADLY! THE TRUCK ONLY HAS ABOUT 98K AND IM THE SECOND OWNER. I PURCHASED THE TRUCK ON 9/3/2011. THE TRUCK IN GETTING TO THE POINT OF BEING UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE MOUNTING POINTS FOR THE LEAF SPRINGS ARE ALMOST COMPLETELY RUSTED AWAY. I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY TYPE OF NOTIFICATION FROM TOYOTA REGARDING THE FRAME RECALL. I'VE HAD IT LOOKED AT BY MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER AND THEY ARE TELLING ME I DON'T QUALIFY FOR ASSISTANCE BECAUSE NO CORROSION TREATMENT HAS APPLIED. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED! IF I HAD BEEN, THEN THEY WOULD REPLACE THE FRAME FREE OF CHARGE. I'VE RECEIVED AT LEAST THREE LETTERS FROM TOYOTA FOR THE SPARE TIRE HOLDER RUST ISSUE, SO THEY DO KNOW I OWN THE TRUCK AND HOW TO CONTACT ME. I'VE LIVED AT THE SAME LOCATION FOR 14 YEARS! FROM WHAT I'VE READ, THE CORROSION TREATMENT THEY ALLEGEDLY OFFERED DIDN'T HELP ANYWAY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOME PEOPLE WERE NOTIFIED AND OTHER WERE NOT. THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE JUST LIKE ME DRIVING THESE UNSAFE TRUCKS. I HAVE TO WONDER HOW MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE CLUELESS ABOUT THE DANGER THEY ARE PUTTING THEM SELVES INTO, NOT TO MENTION THEIR FAMILIES. AT ANY MOMENT YOU COULD LOOSE TOTAL CONTROL...AFTER THE TRUCK COLLAPSE IN HALF AFTER YOU HIT A BUMP WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY. IM SURE IF SOMEONE LOOKED HARD ENOUGH THEY COULD FIND EXAMPLES OF THESE UNSAFE TACOMAS CAUSING SERIOUS AND POSSIBLY FATAL ACCIDENTS. THEY ALREADY KNOW ITS A PROBLEM. HOW ELSE COULD THEY HAVE WON A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE VENDER THAT SUPPLIED THEM WITH THESE FRAMES. THEY SUED, AND WON BECAUSE THESE FRAMES ARE DEFECTIVE. THAT SETTLEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONTINGENT UPON THE ONGOING INSPECTIONS AND REPAIRS FOR EVERYONE AFFECTED. *TR
Structure, Dec 8, 2016
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUBFRAME OF THE VEHICLE WAS FRACTURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE SUBFRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 110,000.
Structure, Nov 22, 2016
EMERGENCY BRAKES NEEDED REPLACEMENT WAS TOLD HOW UNDERSIDE OF TRUCK IS CORRODING RUSTING BADLY REMOVED MY SPARE TIRE IT WAS ALSO BADLY RUSTING . I AM THE ONLY OWNER OF VEHICLE , ALSO OWN HIGHLANDER AND CAMRY . BOTH NOT EVEN CLOSE TO LOOKING LIKE UNDER WHAT I HAVE WITH TRUCK ?
Suspension, Structure, Other or unspecified, Nov 12, 2016
FRAME RECALL FOR RUST TOYOTA DID UNDERCOAT THE FRAME AND IT DID NOT DRY FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW ALL THE UNDERCOAT IS FALLING OFF AND THE FRAME IS RUSTING WORSE THAN WHEN IT ORIGINALLY WAS WORKED ON I TOOK IT BACK AND WAS TOLD AS LONG AS THERE ARE NO HOLES THEY WILL NOT FIX THE RUSTPROOFING.
Structure, Nov 7, 2016
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT NOTICED CORROSION AROUND THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS INFORMED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 170,000.
Structure, Tires, Nov 1, 2016
I HAVE A TOYOTA TACOMA 2003 TOOK IT IN FOR A RECALL ON THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER LIFT PLATE. TOLD THEM I HEARD OF RECALL OR SAFETY ISSUE ON THE FRAME, THEY SAID IT EXPIRED. LEFT THE TRUCK TO DO RECALL I TOOK IT IN FOR. THEY CALLED SAID COULDN'T DO THE RECALL I BROUGHT IT IN FOR BECAUSE THE FRAME WAS SO BAD, AND THAT THEY COULDN'T BELIEVE I WAS STILL DRIVING THE TRUCK AND THAT IT REALLY IS A SAFETY HAZARD. I ASKED WHY THEY COULDN'T DO THE FRAME SINCE IT WAS RECALLED OR A SAFETY ISSUE, AGAIN THEY SAY IT WAS EXPIRED. I ASKED IF HE HAD KIDS, HE SAID YES. ASK HIM IF FORMULA WAS TAKEN OFF THE SHELVES BECAUSE OF RECALL, AND A MONTH LATER WAS PUT BACK ON BECAUSE THE RECALL EXPIRED WOULD YOU STILL BUY IT. HE SAID SORRY HE DOESN'T MAKE THE RULES. HOW DOES A RECALL EXPIRE AND IF IT WAS A FACTORY DEFECT OR JUST A BAD PRODUCT THAT TOYOTA USED, WHY AREN'T THEY HELD ACCOUNTABLE? WENT ON LINE AND READ A FORUM AND THERE IS EVEN A CLASS ACTION SUITE ON THIS PROBLEM. AND ALSO EVEN AS OF TODAY TOYOTA IS STILL PRODUCING TOYOTA TACOMA WITH BAD FRAMES. I HAVE 7 GRANDCHILDREN WHO I HELP TO TAKE PLACES, NOW THEY ARE STRANDED AND MYSELF, BECAUSE MY TRUCK IS STILL AT THE DEALERSHIPS, BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO FIX IT. PLEASE I'M ASKING TO HELP ME WITH THIS MATTER. DESPERATE IN PHILADELPHIA. UPDATED 01/11/2017*CT *TR
Structure, Other or unspecified, Oct 25, 2016
4 CYLINDER ENGINE NEVER DIT FRAME RECALL IT'S SO DANGEROUS USE TOYOTA TACOMA 2003 I DO HAVE 3 KIDS AND DEALERS NOT HELP
Air bags, Structure, Wheels, Sep 27, 2016, crash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 20 TO 25 MPH AND EXITING A RAMP, THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE SWAYED TO THE LEFT, THEN BACK TO THE RIGHT, AND TURNED 360 DEGREES. THE BACK END OF THE VEHICLE BOBBLED, FLIPPED OVER, CRASHED INTO TREES, AND LANDED ON THE DRIVER SIDE. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED AND INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED THAT REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. THE REAR DRIVER SIDE TIRE WAS FLAT. THE TIRE WAS REPLACED AND THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN HOME AND PARKED. THE VIN WAS INVALID. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 158,000.
Structure, Aug 8, 2016
TOYOTA ISSUED AN EXTENDED WARRANTY ON THE FRAMES OF THIS VEHICLE DUE TO THEM ADMITTING THAT THEY USED SUBSTANDARD METAL TO BUILD THE FRAME, THEREFORE, RESULTING IN ACCELERATED RUST AND CORROSION. I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED THAT THIS WAS AN ISSUE, AND HAPPENED TO FIND OUT FROM A FRIEND THAT TOYOTA EXTENDED THE WARRANTY BECAUSE OF THIS. I TOOK THIS FRAME IN FOR AN EVALUATION ON 8/3/16 AND IT FAILED THE INSPECTION. THIS VEHICLE ONLY HAS 40,000 MILES ON IT AND IS IN GREAT CONDITION OTHER THAN THE FRAME, WHICH WAS TOYOTA'S FAULT AND THEY NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AT TOYOTA OF MELBOURNE IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA, TOLD ME THAT THEY WOULD INSTALL A NEW FRAME, BUT I WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FOR ANY PARTS THAT MAY BE NEEDED TO DO THE INSTALLATION WHICH WILL BE AROUND $2,500. I THINK THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE A RECALL BECAUSE TOYOTA HAS KNOWN ABOUT THIS SINCE 2008, BOUGHT BACK OVER 800,000 OF THESE TRUCKS, AND NEVER NOTIFIED ME THAT I NEED TO GET THIS FRAME INSPECTED. I CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY THAT MUCH MONEY FOR A REPAIR, SO I WILL BE DRIVING AROUND WITH AN UNSAFE VEHICLE, BECAUSE TOYOTA REFUSES TO MAKE THIS A RECALL. THIS IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, AND TOYOTA IS PUTTING THE SAFETY OF DRIVERS AT RISK BY FORCING THEM TO PAY MORE THAN THE VEHICLE IS WORTH FOR THE REPAIR. IN TODAY'S ECONOMY, NO ONE WHO IS DRIVING A 2003 VEHICLE CAN AFFORD A $2,500 REPAIR ON AN EXTENDED WARRANTY ISSUE! PLEAS WORK TO FORCE TOYOTA TO MAKE THIS A RECALL SO THAT NO DEATHS OCCUR WHEN THESE ROTTED FRAMES FALL OFF OF THESE TRUCKS WHILE THEY ARE BEING DRIVEN!