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, Apr 17, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME, SPARE TIRE CARRIER AND OIL PAN SHIELD WERE COMPLETELY CORRODED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT HE WAS WAITING FOR THE PARTS TO BECOME AVAILABLE FOR THE RECALL REPAIR UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V542000 (TIRES). THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 214,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 218,000. UPDATED 6/10/14*CN
Structure, Mar 19, 2014
TOYOTA HAS BLATANTLY STATED THEY PUT FAULTY FRAMES ON THEIR 2003 TACOMAS AND AS A RESULT OF THIS, THE FRAMES WOULD RUST BECAUSE OF COATING NOT BEING PUT ON PROPERLY. TOYOTA EVEN WON A LAWSUIT FROM THE COMPANY WHO MADE THE FRAMES. NOW, TOYOTA DOES NOT WANT TO MAKE GOOD ON THE RUSTED FRAMES ON THESE TACOMAS. OUR FRAME MAY NOT PASS INSPECTION DUE TO THE RUST AND IF IN THE EVENT, THIS FRAME CAUSES HARM TO MY FAMILY, A LAWSUIT WILL BE FILED BY ME AGAINST TOYOTA. AFTER MANY CONTACTS VIA EMAIL AND PHONE, TOYOTA STATES THAT WE DID NOT CONTACT THEM IN THE TIME FRAME THEY GAVE REGARDING THE FRAME PROBLEM. WELL, YOU ONLY CONTACT A COMPANY ABOUT SOMETHING WHEN THE PROBLEM IS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION AND IN OUR CASE, WAS TOO LATE. THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A TIME FRAME PUT ON THIS AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RECALL DONE ON ALL THESE FRAMES. WHEN A PERSON DIES FROM THESE RUSTED FRAMES BREAKING IN HALF WHILE DRIVING, THEN MAYBE SOMEONE WILL DO SOMETHING. *TR
Structure, Mar 18, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS ADVISED THAT THE UNDER CARRIAGE WAS EXTREMELY RUSTED. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 180,000.
Suspension, Structure, Feb 26, 2014
FRAME RUSTED/ CRACKED WOULD NOT PASS STATE INSPECTION. TRUCK WAS TAKEN TO TOYOTA DURING THE FIRST RECALL AND I WAS TOLD IT PASSED. DID NOT GO BACK FOR SUBSEQUENT RECALLS TO HAVE THE FRAME SPRAYED. CALLED TOYOTA WHEN THE TRUCK FAILED INSPECTION AND WAS TOLD THAT BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE THE FRAME SPRAYED THERE WAS NOTHING THEY WOULD DO FOR ME. THE EXHAUST SYSTEM OUTLASTED THE FRAME. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. *TR
Structure, Feb 15, 2014
I NOTICED THE REAR SKID PLATE IS HANGING ON BY ONLY ONE SIDE ABOUT TO FALL OFF DUE TO RUST ON HARDWARE/PLATE WHEN DRIVING IN THE HIGHWAY PLATE WOBBLES UP AND DOWN. IT SEEMS LIKE IT WILL FALL WHILE DRIVING AND CAUSE A POSSIBLE ACCIDENT, OR INJURY. *TR
Structure, Dec 9, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR SERVICE UNDER A NHTSA CAMPAIGN I.D. 12V542000 (TIRES) HOWEVER, THE DEALER COULD NOT REMEDY THE RECALL DUE TO EXCESSIVE RUST ON THE FRAME. THE DEALER ADVISED THAT THERE WAS A PREVIOUS RECALL FOR AN UNDERCOATING SPRAY TO PREVENT FRAME RUST. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE RECEIVED THE TREATMENT BUT IT STILL DID NOT PREVENT THE FRAME RUST, WHICH THE DEALER STATED WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 106,000.
Structure, Nov 12, 2013
I HAVE A TOYOTA 2003 TACOMA THE FRAME IS GONE ROTTED SO UNSAFE WAS TOLD I SHOULD NOT HAVE IT ON THE ROAD!! I CANT AFFORD THE WELDING AND THE GUY SAID HE DOES NOT WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY IT COULD LAST 6 MONTHS OR MORE HE WOULD HAVE TO KEEP CHECKING IT! I TOOK IT TO SEVERAL TOYOTA DEALERS THEY SAID THEY COULD NOT EQUALLY SWAP ANY VEHICLE BUT YET TOLD ME IT IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE I CALLED CALIFORNIA MY CASE WAS DECLINED I HAD A MECHANIC SAY NOT TO DRIVE THIS ANYTIME THE FRAME WILL SPLIT IN HALF SO CLOSE TO IT I CAN'T WORK BECAUSE I NEED A TRUCK FOR MY JOB MY BOSS IS GIVING ME TIME BUT IS FED UP SO WHO KNOWS WILL I HAVE A JOB NEXT WEEK? I LOST SIDE JOB THAT WAS PAYING FOR MY TAXES DUE TO NO TRUCK.TOYOTAS HAVE HAS SO MANY ISSUES ON THIS THEY HAD THE BUY BACK PEOPLE WERE STILL GETTING MONEY THE YEARS THEY TOLD US WERE NOT MINE THE BUY BACK STOPPED IN 2011 WE KNOW SOMEONE GOT 17,0000 BACK ! ON HER OLD 99 HERS WAS NOTHING LIKE MINE!!!!! THERE WAS A RUST UNDERCOATING WE NEVER GOT THE LETTER !!!!!!!!!!!! AS A CHRISTIAN AFTER TELLING THEM THAT I NOW GOT A LETTER THAT SAYS THE SPARE TIRE LIFT PLATE YUP RUSTED BUT I CAN'T DRIVE IT TO THEM CANT USE THE SPARE TIRE RUSTED OUT RIM I AM READY TO HAVE A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING I WAS TURNED DOWN FROM MY CASE IN CALIFORNIA HEADQUARTERS CALLED AGAIN TODAY I WILL HEAR BACK IN A DAY NO ONE CAN BELIEVE THIS I AM READY TO CALL THE NEWS MY WIFE WAS SUPPOSED TO TODAY BUT HAD ME FILL THIS OUT WHY WHO KNOWS I THINK AT THIS POINT IT NEEDS TO GO PUBLIC MONDAY NIGHT ON FACEBOOK TOYOTA USA MY WIFE PUT UP A STORY AND PICS AS PEOPLE WROTE THEY KEPT REMOVING THE POST !!!!!! THEY DID NOT WANT THOSE PICS OUT THERE SAW A COMPLAINT ON A 2006 ABOUT THE SAME ISSUE WHAT HAPPENED TO TOYOTA? I REFUSE TO DRIVE A DEATHTRAP MY GRANDSON WENT WITH ME IN THAT TRUCK ON SATURDAYS .[XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
Structure, Tires, Nov 12, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THE FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE MECHANIC STATED THE FRAME WOULD HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 163,000. UPDATED 11/21/13*CN
Structure, Oct 17, 2013
MY 2003 TOYOTA WITH CURRENTLY 77,197 MILES WAS RECALLED MULTIPLE TIMES FOR FRAME INSPECTIONS FOR EXCESSIVE RUST AND CORROSION WITH THE FIRST TIME RESULTING IN TOYOTA APPLYING A CORROSION-RESISTANT TREATMENT BACK ON 6/25/2010. UNFORTUNATELY AFTER INSPECTING MY FRAME AND UNDERCARRIAGE RECENTLY I NOTICED THE CORROSION AND RUST GETTING WORSE. I HAD MY FRAME INSPECTED AT MY DEALERSHIP BACK IN JUNE OF 2013 WITH THE DEALER STATING THE FRAME WAS IN GOOD CONDITION. I CURRENTLY RESTRICT MY DRIVING TO AROUND TOWN BECAUSE I FEAR FOR MYSELF AND MY FAMILIES SAFETY. *TR
Structure, Aug 16, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED AND DROPPED FIVE INCHES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE THEY DEEMED THE VEHICLE UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 104,000.
Structure, Jul 22, 2013
I OWN A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE ENTIRE FRAME, FRONT BUMPER, AND UNDERCARRIAGE IS COMPLETELY RUSTED FROM THE FRONT BUMPER TO THE REAR. IN SEPTEMBER OF 2010 , THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE DEALER CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS SURFACE RUST ON THE VEHICLE. AS A REPAIR, THE DEALER APPLIED AN ANTI-RUST COATING ONTO THE FRAME TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE (COSMETIC COVER UP). I WAS TOLD BY MY MECHANIC WHEN I WENT TO GET A RECENT OIL CHANGE ON 07/25/13 THE REPAIR DID NOT PREVENT THE FRAME FROM BECOMING COMPLETELY RUSTED AND HE STATED THAT IT WAS NOT SAFE BECAUSE EVEN THE SEAMS WERE SHOEING SIGNS OF POSSIBLE FAILURE. BROUGHT VEHICLE BACK TO DEALERSHIP AND AFTER INSPECTION WAS TOLD THAT FRAME IS SAFE BY TOYOTA STANDARDS THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE ORIGINAL MILEAGE WHEN BROUGHT IN FOR INITIAL RECALL WAS 24794, BUT AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE IS 29,820
Suspension, Structure, Jul 17, 2013
A TOYOTA TACOMA PICKUP WAS TAKEN TO MY MECHANIC FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND FRAME RUST WAS NOTED. I CALLED TOYOTA AND TOOK THE CAR TO A LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP. THEY REPLIED THEY COULD DO NOTHING AS THE COST OF REPAIRING THE FRAME WAS NOT WORTH THE VALUE OF THE CAR. THEY INSTRUCTED ME TO CALL TOYOTA DIRECTLY AND HAVE BEEN TOLD I AM ON MY OWN. THERE ARE 96,000 MILES ON THE CAR AND THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME RUST WAS NOTED. WE NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTIFICATIONS THAT THERE WERE PROBLEMS AS I AM NOT THE ORIGINAL OWNER. I AM STUCK WITH A VALUELESS CAR WITH NO HELP FROM THE PARENT COMPANY. *TR
Structure, Tires, Jul 11, 2013
THIS IS A FOLLOW FROM A RECENT CALL WITH THE TOYOTA CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE CENTER (MAY 2, 2013). I CALLED TO GET A STATUS UPDATE ON THE CLAIM REFERENCED IN CASE # [XXX] AND WAS INFORMED THE CLAIM WAS DENIED BECAUSE THE INVOICE FROM THE DEALER STATED THE SPARE TIRE WAS STOLEN. I NEVER RECEIVED NOTIFICATION THAT THE CLAIM WAS DENIED ALTHOUGH THE CUSTOMER SERVICE AGENT SUGGESTED A LETTER HAS BEEN MAILED. I WAS INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEAL AND GET THE ?STOLEN? COMMENTS REMOVED FROM THE INVOICE. THE ORIGINAL INVOICE SUGGESTED THE SPARE TIRE WAS STOLEN BECAUSE THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND PARTS PERSON AT THE DEALER SUGGESTED THE CABLE WOULD NOT BREAK AND THE CONCLUSION WAS THE CABLE MUST HAVE BEEN CUT AND THE TIRE STOLEN. THIS WAS IN AUGUST OF 2012 PRIOR TO THE RECALL NOTIFICATION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THE TIRE WAS STOLEN. I RETURNED TO THE DEALER AND ATTACHED IS AN UPDATED INVOICE WITH ?STOLEN? REMOVED. TO SAY I AM FRUSTRATED BY THE RESPONSE FROM TOYOTA IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT. THE FACTS ARE THE SPARE TIRE AND ASSEMBLY WERE MISSING. THE DEALER CONCLUDED THEY MUST HAVE BEEN STOLEN AND WROTE THAT ON THE ORIGINAL INVOICE. IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE RECALL THAT THE CABLE BROKE AND THE TIRE AND ASSEMBLY WERE LOST AS A RESULT OF THE THIS MALFUNCTION. AGAIN DENIED. *TR
Structure, Jul 3, 2013
DURING A RECENT SAFETY INSPECTION SEVERE FRAME CORROSION WAS FOUND. THE GARAGE SAID THAT TOYOTA HAD A FRAME RECALL. WHEN I SPOKE WITH TOYOTA AMERICA THEY SAID IT HAD EXPIRED BECAUSE I HAD NOT ANSWERED THE RECALL NOTICES. WICH INEVER RECIEVED. I EXPLAINED THAT I WAS THE ORIGINAL OWNER AT THE SAME ADRESS AS THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE. THEY REVIEWED IT AGAIN AND THE NEXT DAY SAID THEY SENT THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION 5 TIMES. BUT COULD NOT TELL TO WHAT ADDRESS THEY WERE SENT .THE FINAL ANSWER WAS I WAS NO LONGER COVERED. *TR
Structure, Jul 2, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME, FRONT BUMPER, AND UNDERCARRIAGE WERE COMPLETELY RUSTED FROM THE FRONT BUMPER TO THE REAR. TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE FAILURE, THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE DEALER CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS SURFACE RUST ON THE VEHICLE. AS A REPAIR, THE DEALER APPLIED AN ANTI-RUST COATING ONTO THE FRAME TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE. THE REPAIR DID NOT PREVENT THE FRAME FROM BECOMING COMPLETELY RUSTED. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH THE MANUFACTURER AND WAS TOLD THAT THE FRAME WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN, BUT THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 100,000. *TR
Structure, Jun 27, 2013
WHEN I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER TO ADDRESS A RECALL RELATED TO THE SPARE TIRE SUPPORT, THEY TOLD ME THE VEHICLE FRAME WAS NOT SAFE AND THEY WOULD NOT WORK ON THE VEHICLE. THERE ARE NUMEROUS PERFORATIONS IN THE FRAME DUE TO EXCESSIVE RUST. I ADDRESSED WITH TOYOTA CORPORATE AND THE FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE VALIDATED THE PROBLEM AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM ON THESE VEHICLES BUT THAT TOYOTA AND "THE GOVERNMENT" DID NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO PUT A RECALL ON THE PROBLEM. MEANWHILE, THEY WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND INDICATED IT IS THE CUSTOMER.S RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPAIR. THE TRUCK (NORMAL BLUE BOOK VALUE APPROX $7-8K) IS NOW UNSAFE TO DRIVE DUE TO A FAULTY FRAME. *TR
Structure, May 9, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME RUSTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER ISSUED A VOLUNTARY RECALL RELATED TO THE STRUCTURE; HOWEVER, THE RECALL EXPIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 96,000. UPDATED 6/17/13 *CN
Structure, May 3, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUB FRAME WAS RUSTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION AND THEY STATED THAT THE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 60,000.
Structure, Fuel/propulsion system, Mar 23, 2013
MY TRUCK WAS PART OF THE FRAME RECALL AND I HAD THE FRAME REPLACED IN 2010, SINCE THEN I HAVE HAD TO PAY TO REPLACE OTHER RUSTED PARTS THAT WERE NOT "PART OF THE RECALL". FIRST THE SPARE TIRE MOUNT RUSTED OFF AND THE TIRE FELL OUT FROM UNDER THE TRUCK WHILE DRIVING. NEXT THE ENTIRE EXHAUST NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AS IT TOO HAD RUSTED OUT. LAST YEAR TO PASS INSPECTION I NEEDED TO PAY $1600.00 FOR A CATALYTIC CONVERTER. THIS YEAR I CANNOT PASS INSPECTION AS THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS ON AND DESPITE 2 ATTEMPTS TO FIND THE PROBLEM (AND $200.00 LATER) THE LIGHT REMAINS ON. THE SUSPICION IS THE GAS TANK IS RUSTED "AT THE TOP" AND WILL COST ME $1800.00 TO REPLACE. I JUST RECEIVED A "PRELIMINARY" RECALL FOR THE SPARE TIRE MOUNT, I IMAGINE I WILL RECEIVE A RECALL NOTICE IN A FEW YEARS FOR THE GAS TANK AS WELL. RIDICULOUS THAT ONLY SOME PARTS WERE RECALLED...AND RIDICULOUS THAT I HAVE TO PAY TO REPLACE THE OTHERS... NOT TO MENTION THE INCONVENIENCE. *TR
Structure, Mar 21, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC AND THE CONTACT WAS MADE AWARE THAT THE UNDER CARRIAGE WAS EXTREMELY RUSTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE RECALL EXPIRED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER INFORMED HER THAT THE LETTER WAS SENT TO THE WRONG MAILING ADDRESS AND HAD BECOME EXPIRED. THE MANUFACTURER REFUSED TO COVER THE RECALL REPAIR EXPENSE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 150,000. *TR
Structure, Feb 5, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE HAVING THE VEHICLE INSPECTED, THE MECHANIC STATED THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY RUSTED AND WAS PERFORATED. THE MECHANIC ADVISED THAT THE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 96,000.
Structure, Jan 18, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY RUSTED, EXHIBITING AA LARGE HOLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE THEY ADVISED HIM THAT THE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 80,000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 84,000. ...UPDATED 06-19-13 *BF
Structure, Dec 27, 2012
MY 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA WITH 105K MILES WAS FOUND DURING AN INSPECTION TO HAVE A RUSTED FRAME TOYOTA HAS ADMITTED TO THE DEFECT AND REFUSES TO CORRECT I OWN AND BOUGHT NEW A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA FROM ROCKINGHAM TOYOTA IN SALEM, NH. I WAS JUST INFORMED BY MY MECHANIC ON 12/5/2012 THAT MY TRUCK WOULD NOT PASS MASS STATE INSPECTION DUE TO A TROUBLE CODE (CHECK ENGINE LIGHT) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THAT MY FRAME WAS COMPLETELY RUSTED THROUGH AND THAT MY TOYOTA TRUCK WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. I PERSONALLY VERIFIED THIS BY CRAWLING UNDER MY TOYOTA TRUCK AND POKING MY FINGERS THROUGH THE FRAME. MY TOYOTA TACOMA IS READY TO FOLD IN HALF DUE TO THE EXTENT OF FRAME RUST. AFTER CONTACTING TOYOTA IN CALIFORNIA (PHONE 800 331 4331) AND DISCUSSING THE SAFETY ISSUE WITH THE ASSIGNED CASE MANAGER [XXX], I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT COULD BE DONE TO RECTIFY THIS UNSAFE CONDITION. I ALSO CONTACTED ROCKINGHAM TOYOTA IN SALEM, NH. AND THEY WOULD TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS UNSAFE CONDITION. THEY MENTIONED THAT THE SAFETY RECALL "PROGRAM" HAD EXPIRED. TOYOTA CORPORATE CLAIMS THAT I RECEIVED SEVEN RECALL NOTICES REGARDING RUSTED FRAME ISSUES. I NEVER RECEIVED ANY RECALL OR NOTICE FROM TOYOTA REGARDING THE FRAME ISSUE. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
Suspension, Power train, Structure, Dec 27, 2012
TOYOTA HAS RECALLED MY TRUCK DUE TO A RUSTED OUT FRAME. THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP HAS ELECTED TO REPLACE MY FRAME WITH A NEW FRAME. THIS LARGE PROCEDURE HAS LEFT ME INSECURE ABOUT THE OUTCOME. THIS TRUCK IS NOW 10 YEARS OLD AND AS SOON AS THE START WRENCHING ON ALL THE SYSTEM COMPONENTS TO DISASSEMBLE AND RE ASSEMBLE MY TRUCK I AM AFRAID THAT THEY SHORTEN THE LIFE OF EXISTING COMPONENTS DUE TO ADDED WEAR AND TEAR. THE DEALER WILL NEED TO REMOVE AND REINSTALL BRAKE LINES AND GAS LINES THAT HAVE BEEN SET IN PLACE AND HAVE EXTENSIVE CORROSION THIS WILL LEAD TO PREMATURE FAILURE AND UNSAFE OPERATION. MOST MECHANIC KNOW THAT A RUSTED AND SET BOLT THAT HAS NOT BEEN MOVED FOR 10 YEARS HAS A 50% CHANCE OF REMOVAL. IN ORDER TO REMOVE SUCH A "STUCK" BOLT THEY WILL NEED TO APPLY HEAT AND IMPACT AND MAY WEAKEN THE EXISTING PARTS, STEEL, AND BOLTS TO LOWER LEVELS OUT OF TOLERANCE THAT THE VEHICLE AS DESIGNED ORIGINALLY. ADDITIONALLY, THIS SERVICE IS COMPLETED IN A LOCATION WITH OUT THE CONTROLS, QUALITY ASSURANCE AND TESTING THAT IS IN PLACE IN A FACTORY WHERE NEW VEHICLES ARE BUILT. THERE IS UNCERTAINTY THAT THIS VEHICLE WILL BE ASSEMBLED, TESTED, AND INSPECTED ACCORDING THE MANUFACTURER'S GUIDELINES FOR A FACTORY PRODUCED VEHICLE. THIS LEADS TO UNCERTAINTY THAT THE VEHICLE WILL NOT OPERATE WITHIN THE INTENDED MANUFACTURES GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY, ROLL OVER PROTECTION, AND CRASH PERFORMANCE. I PROPOSE THAT A TOTAL FRAME RECALL AND REPLACEMENT (OR ANY LARGE INTEGRAL PART THAT WILL IMPACTED THE VEHICLE OPERATION) ON ANY VEHICLE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTY DESCRIBED. *TR THE CONSUMER STATED THERE APPEARED TO BE AN OIL LEAK COMING FROM THE FRONT DIFFERENTIAL BOOT THAT WAS NOT APPARENT PRIOR TO THE FRAME REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE.
Structure, Dec 6, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY RUSTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED IN 2010 FOR THE SAME FAILURE WHERE THE DEALER APPLIED A SOLUTION TO THE FRAME TO PREVENT IT FROM RUSTING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 140,000. UPDATED 07/02/13*LJ UPDATED 12/24/13*CN