2004 Toyota Tacoma
Problems, recalls and owner-reported issues
Structure is the leading concern among 414 owner complaints filed for this model year. This is the 6th highest complaint count among 26 Tacoma model years with reports.
Of the 2004 reports, 27 involved a crash and 3 involved a fire. 23 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
Seat belts, frontMay 5, 2004
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 209, 'SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES.' THE DRIVER'S SIDE SEAT BELT HAS INCORRECT MARKINGS.
THIS DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD.
DEALERS HAVE REPLACED THE SEAT BELTS. NO VEHICLES WERE SOLD TO CONSUMERS.
Campaign 04V214000 on NHTSA.gov
Representative owner complaints: structure
203 reports, newest first. Show all
Suspension, Structure, Jun 6, 2014
I PURCHASE MY TOYOTA TACOMA USED IN JAN. 2013. I NOTICED LAST MONTH THAT THE FRAME WAS GETTING HOLES IN IT. THE INFORMATION I LOOKED UP SAID THAT TOYOTA DID A RECALL ON THIS PARTICULAR TRUCK. I WAS TOLD BY TOYOTA THAT IT IS NOW TOO LATE TO GET IT TAKEN CARE OF. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE RECALL OR AN ARBITRARY ENDING DATE. CAN YOU HELP ME GET TOYOTA TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM. THE TRUCK IS NOW WORTH NOTHING WITH THE FRAME AS IT IS. [XXX]. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THIS MATTER. THIS IS THE CASE # THAT TOYOTA HAS ASSIGNED TO MY SITUATION: #[XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
Suspension, Structure, May 29, 2014
I GOT A LETTER FROM TOYOTA MOTORS STATING THAT CERTAIN MODEL YEARS OF TACOMAS HAD RUST DAMAGE TO THE FRAME AND I WAS INFORMED TO BRING IT TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY WOULD PERFORM A RUST TEST ON IT. MINE IS A 2004. THEY SAID THE REST WASN'T BAD ENOUGH TO REPLACE THE TRUCK,OF COURSE AND KEPT IT TO SPRAY ON A RUST PREVENTATIVE ON THE FRAME. WITHIN ONE YEAR THE COATING THEY APPLIED BEGAN TO FALL OFF PEEL OFF AND OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WORK LIKE PLANNED. MY SISTER HAD A 98 TACOMA WITH THE SAME ISSUE AND YOU COULD PUT YOUR FINGER THROUGH THE FRAME. THEY BOUGHT HER TRUCK BACK AT THE CORPORATE OFFICE AT 150% OF BLUEBOOK VALUE. THAT'S WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NOW ALSO. I'VE PAID 20K$ FOR THE VEHICLE BRAND NEW AND A MAJOR REASON WAS EVERYONE LIKES THE TACOMA AND ITS FAIRLY EASY OR LETS SAY WAS EASY TO RESALE BEFORE ALL THE PROBLEMS THEY ARE HAVING. NOW I'VE GOTTEN ANOTHER LETTER SAYING THERE IS MORE THAN ONE RECALL AND NOW HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE SPARE TIRE HOLDER PLATE POSSIBLY RUSTING AND FALLING OFF. ITS PRETTY OBVIOUS TO ME AND ALL THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE HAD THE PROBLEMS, THAT TOYOTA MUST BE FORCED INTO ACTUALLY REPLACING THE VEHICLE OR PAY THE 150% BOOK VALUE WITHOUT ARGUMENT. IS ANYONE GOING TO MAKE THIS RIGHT? I HAVE HAD 2 MECHANICS TELL ME THE TRUCK IS UNSAFE AND NOT ROAD WORTHY. LUCKILY I HAVE A COMPANY VEHICLE OTHERWISE I WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGED. THE BUMPER ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT IS TOTALLY RUSTED OUT AND I DON'T WANNA HEAR LIP SERVICE SAYING ITS DUE TO SALT OR SOMETHING I JUST WANT A BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PRODUCT. I HAVEN'T DRIVEN THE TRUCK BUT 10 TIMES SINCE GETTING THE COATING APPLIED AND THE SAD THING IS I LOVE THE TRUCK AND CANT DRIVE IT. PLEASE HELP US. *TR
Structure, May 23, 2014
TL-THE CONTACT OWNS 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED T WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED THE SUBFRAME WAS FOUND SEVERELY CORRODED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WERE 108,000. RK
Structure, Tires, Wheels, May 16, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 12V542000 (TIRES). THE DEALER ADVISED THAT CONTACT THAT THE REPAIR COULD NOT BE PERFORMED DUE TO EXTENSIVE RUSTING OF THE WHEELS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 44,000. UPDATED 08/11/14*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED THE FRAME WAS RUSTED. UPDATED 8/13/2014 *JS
Structure, May 14, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR AN UNRELATED REPAIR WHEN THEY NOTICED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME WAS COVERED WITH RUST. THERE WAS A VOLUNTARY RECALL ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER HOWEVER, THE RECALL HAD EXPIRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 78,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
Structure, May 7, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING ON UNEVEN PAVEMENT, A LOUD BANGING NOISE WAS HEARD FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT ALSO INDICATED THAT WHEN MAKING TURNS, THE VEHICLE WOULD BECOME UNSTABLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE REAR SUB FRAME WAS CORRODED AND RUSTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 162,000. UPDATED 7/7/14*CN UPDATED 07/11/2014 *JS
Suspension, Structure, Other or unspecified, May 7, 2014
FRAME IS PERFORATED DUE TO RUST JUST IN FRONT OF REAR AXLE ON BOTH SIDES OF VEHICLE. ABOUT A 1.5" X 6" HOLE ON DRIVER'S SIDE WITH A FRACTURE OF ABOUT 12" GOING TOWARD REAR AXLE. PASSENGER SIDE HAS A FRACTURE ABOUT 18" LONG IN SAME AREA. REAR SUSPENSION MOUNTS AND SPRINGS ARE COMPROMISED. TOYOTA HAD A PROGRAM TO DEAL WITH ISSUE BUT DEADLINE HAD PASSED BY THE TIME I PURCHASED VEHICLE. DEALER TOLD ME TOYOTA HAD CHECKED OUT FRAME ISSUE AND IT PASSED. ACCORDING TO TOYOTA I WAS MISINFORMED. TOYOTA WILL NOT FIX WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY A MANUFACTURING DEFECT THAT I NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH PROPERLY. BODY AND BED ARE RUST FREE AND IN EXCELLENT CONDITION. I PAID 11,700 FOR THE TRUCK WITH 88,000 MI., HAVE OWNED IT FOR ONE YEAR AND PUT APPROX. 9,000 MILES ON IT. IT IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES TOTALED. *TR
Structure, Apr 14, 2014
ATTEMPTED TO TRADE VEHICLE IN. INSPECTION BY DEALER REPORTED HOLE IN FRAME. DEALER REFUSED TO TAKE MY TRUCK. ESTIMATED COST TO REPLACE FRAME AT $9,000-$10,000. *JS
Structure, Apr 2, 2014
I PURCHASED MY 2004 TACOMA AS THE SECOND OWNER. THE VEHICLE HAD THE FRAME REPLACED. UPON MY INITIAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE, EVERYTHING UNDERNEATH LOOKED FINE ASIDE FROM WHAT I CONSIDERED NORMAL RUST ON OTHER PARTS SUCH AS THE SKID PLATES. TODAY WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD, THE GAS TANK FELL OUT OF THE BOTTOM, RAN INTO AND DRIVE-SHAFT, AND CAME 3 INCHES FROM SCRAPING ACROSS THE PAVEMENT. A LINE SPLIT ON THE TOP OF MY TANK, LEAKING GAS ALL OVER. I'VE CONTACTED TOYOTA, AND THEY SET ME UP WITH A CASE NUMBER, INFORMING ME THAT SOMEONE WILL BE IN TOUCH TOMORROW TO DISCUSS FURTHER. *TR
Steering, Suspension, Structure, Feb 26, 2014
I HAVE A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA PICKUP TRUCK. THIS HAS HAD A VERY BAD FOR A YEAR. THE OTHER DAY THE MOUNT FOR THE RIGHT REAR BROKE AND THE FRONT END OF THE REAR SPRING WAS RUSTED AWAY FROM THE FRAME. THIS IS THE SAME PROBLEM MY 1996 TOYOTA PICKUP HAD. THAT ONE THE BOUGHT BACK AND I NOW HAVE THIS ONE. THE REST OF THE TRUCK IS PRETTY GOOD. THE RACK AND PINION STEERING ALSO RUSTED AWAY AND STARTED TO LEAK FLUID. THIS LEAK WAS UNDER THE RIGHT MOUNT OF THE RACK. THIS WAS ALSO FIXED BY ME. THIS IS MY WORK TRUCK AND PERSONAL WAY OF GETTING AROUND. THESE ARE BOTH VERY SERIOUS SAFETY PROBLEMS !!! I CONTACTED THE CEO OF TOYOTA, TOYOTA SALES IN CALIFORINA AND GIRARD TOYOTA. THEY SAID I SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS AND I DID NOT GET ANY NOTICES !!! THEY ARE PUTTING TONS OF FRAMES ON FOR OTHER PEOPLES BUT I HAVE BEEN SINGLED OUT SOME HOW AND I CANNOT GET ONE. THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 20 YEARS !!! THIS WITH OUT QUESTION SHOULD BE A RECALL AND ALL ITEMS CONCERNED SHOULD BE REPLACED FREE OF CHARGE. PLEASE HELP WITH THIS SERIOUS PROBLEM. THANK YOU. *TR
Structure, Feb 19, 2014
2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO FRAME RUST RECALL. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE RECALL, WHEN HE PURCHASED THE VEHICLE. AN INSPECTION REVEALED, SEVERE RUST ON THE BOTTOM PASSENGER AND DRIVER SIDE FRAME RAIL. ALSO, HOLES WERE FOUND IN THE FRAME. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED, THE RECALL HAD EXPIRED.
Structure, Jan 27, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO VERIFIED THAT THE FRAME WAS PERFORATED DUE TO CORROSION ON THE RIGHT AND LEFT SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 130,000.
Structure, Jan 17, 2014
I WAS DRIVING ALONG AND HIT A POTHOLE. THE TRUCK MADE A VERY LOUD METALLIC CRUNCHING SOUND UNDER THE CAB BEHIND ME. AFTER THAT, WHEN I HIT A BUMP, A SIMILAR LOUD METALLIC CRUNCHING SOUND OCCURS. I WENT TO MY MECHANIC, AND HE SAID THAT A BODY-FRAME MOUNT HAD RUSTED THROUGH, AND THAT THERE WAS ALSO EXCESSIVE RUST IN MANY OTHER PLACES. I HAD EARLIER REPLACED A SHIELD OVER THE GAS TANK THAT HAD COMPLETELY RUSTED AWAY AND WAS BANGING AGAINST THE DRIVE SHAFT. I CHECKED WITH TOYOTA ON MY MECHANIC'S ADVICE, AND THERE WAS A SAFETY RECALL ON MY TRUCK FOR EXACTLY THIS PROBLEM (EXCESSIVE FRAME RUST), BUT IT HAD EXPIRED IN DECEMBER OF 1012. MY MECHANIC SAYS THAT MY TRUCK MAY BE UNSAFE TO DRIVE. I BOUGHT THE TRUCK IN JULY, 2012 FROM A SUBARU DEALER, RUGE'S IN RHINEBECK, NY. I WAS NOT TOLD ABOUT THE RUST CONDITION, OR ABOUT A RECALL. I NEVER RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATION FROM TOYOTA ABOUT THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IF ANY OPTIONS I HAVE HERE. *TR
Structure, Dec 13, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE WHEN SHE WAS ADVISED THAT THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE DEALER INFORMED HER THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN A MANUFACTURER'S RECALL HOWEVER, THE RECALL HAD EXPIRED. THE DEALER STATED THEY COULD NOT REPAIR THE PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 96,500.
Suspension, Structure, Nov 22, 2013
I BROUGHT MY 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA IN TO TOYOTA OF NASHUA NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR CONCERNS ABOUT MY FRAME. THEY TOLD ME THE FRAME IS SO BADLY ROTTED IT IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. THEY TOLD ME THEY COULD NOT DO ANYTHING UNDER WARRANTY DUE TO THE FACT THAT I DID NOT HAVE THE FRAME UNDERCOATED BY TOYOTA. THE FRAME UNDERCOATING RECALL ENDED 10/11. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS RECALL. I HAVE CONTACTED TOYOTA CORPORATE IN TORRANCE CALIFORNIA. I WAS TOLD THEY COULD NOT HELP ME AND ANY FURTHER ESCALATION OF THE MATTER WOULD NEED TO BE "OUTSIDE" OF TOYOTA. THE TRUCK IS NINE YEARS OLD WITH 75K MILES ON IT WITH A VALUE OF ABOUT 8,000 WITH A GOOD FRAME. IT IS WORTHLESS IN THE CURRENT CONDITION AND CANNOT BE DRIVEN. THANK YOU [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
Structure, Nov 21, 2013
I OWN A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA AND HAVE REGULARLY SERVICED AND MAINTAINED MY TRUCK, WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN STORED IN MY GARAGE. ON NOVEMBER 6TH, I WENT TO HAVE MY YEARLY VEHICLE INSPECTION AND WAS TOLD THAT THE TRUCK FAILED BECAUSE OF RUST IN THE FRAME NEAR THE GAS TANK. JOHN, THE GARAGE OWNER, TOLD ME ABOUT THE TOYOTA RECALL FOR THE FRAMES, AND SAID HE BELIEVED MY TRUCK WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. I THEN CALLED THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP WHERE I BOUGHT MY TRUCK, WOBURN FOREIGN MOTORS IN WOBURN, MA, AND THEY WERE UNSURE ABOUT THE RECALL PROCEDURE BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE RECALL HAD EXPIRED. THE SERVICE MANAGER GAVE ME THE VIN NUMBER AND CONFIRMED THAT THE TRUCK WAS ON THE RECALL LIST. SHE GAVE ME THE PHONE NUMBER TO CALL TOYOTA CORPORATE. WHEN I SPOKE WITH THEM, THEY TOLD ME THAT THE RECALL HAD EXPIRED IN 2011, AND THEY ASSIGNED A CASE MANAGER, [XXX], WHO WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD OVER-RULE THE EXPIRED RECALL. HE CALLED ME A DAY LATER, AND SAID TOYOTA WOULD NOT TAKE CARE OF IT BECAUSE THEY HAD SENT ME A LETTER NOTIFYING ME THAT I WAS TO TAKE IT IN SO THEY COULD DO UNDERCOATING. I TOLD [XXX] I NEVER RECEIVED THE NOTICE IN THE MAIL. SINCE MY PROFESSION WAS PHARMACY, I AM VERY DETAIL-ORIENTED, KNOWING THE IMPORTANCE OF RECORDING WHEN WE DISPENSE PRESCRIPTIONS TO CUSTOMERS. I BELIEVE THAT TOYOTA IS AT FAULT FOR THIS PROBLEM, AND THEY SHOULD STAND BY THEIR PRODUCT AND RESOLVE IT. I RECENTLY RECEIVED ANOTHER RECALL NOTICE ON NOVEMBER 14TH, 2013, FOR A SPARE TIRE MOUNT UNDER THE TRUCK THAT MAY RUST AND MAKE THE TIRE FALL. TOYOTA ASKED ME TO BRING IN THE TRUCK FOR REPAIR TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE, BUT NOT THE FRAME. WITHOUT A REPLACEMENT FRAME, I AM UNABLE TO DRIVE THE TRUCK BECAUSE IT IS DANGEROUS AND CANNOT PASS INSPECTION. HAVING ALWAYS MAINTAINED MY VEHICLE, THE TRUCK ENGINE AND CABIN ARE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION. I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY HELP YOU COULD PROVIDE. THANK YOU. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
Service brakes, Hydraulic, Structure, Sep 30, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED HE WAS DRIVING 20 MPH AND COMPLETING A RIGHT TURN WHEN HE APPLIED THE BRAKES, BUT THE BRAKE PEDAL ABNORMALLY WENT DOWN TO THE FLOORBOARD. THE VEHICLE DID NOT RESPOND. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, WHO ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT TWO BRAKES LINES WERE FRACTURED AND WOULD NEED REPLACING. THE MECHANIC THEN ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WAS A MANUFACTURER'S RECALL FOR FRAME CORROSION, AND REFERRED THE CONTACT TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER HOWEVER, THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM FRAME CORROSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 80,000. UPDATED 12/4/13*CN
Structure, Tires, Sep 26, 2013
VEHICLE FRAME RUSTED TO THE POINT WHERE IT WILL BE UNSAFE TO DRIVE SOON. VEHICLE IS FROM A "HEAVY ROAD SALT USE" STATE, BUT HAS HAD VERY LIMITED EXPOSURE TO SALT DURING THE WINTER MONTHS. MOST TIMES THE FRAME HAS BEEN RINSED WITH CLEAN WATER AFTER EXPOSURE TO SALT. TOYOTA'S VOLUNTARY REPAIR PERIOD HAS EXPIRED, YET THEY ACKNOWLEDGE A MANUFACTURING DEFECT. IN ADDITION THERE IS A RECALL FOR A SIMILAR ITEM RELATED TO THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER ON THE SAME VEHICLE. *JS
Suspension, Structure, Sep 19, 2013
FRAME RUSTED COMPLETELY UNSAFE TO DRIVE NEVER REC'D ANY NOTICE OF RUST PROBLEM. *TR
Structure, Tires, Wheels, Sep 16, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR AN UNRELATED REPAIR WHEN THEY NOTICED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY RUSTED AND CAUSED THE FUEL TANK TO BECOME SLIGHTLY DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE MECHANIC STRAPPED THE FUEL TANK BACK ONTO THE VEHICLE AS A TEMPORARY REMEDY. THERE WAS A VOLUNTARY RECALL ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER RELATED TO THE FRAME, HOWEVER THE RECALL HAD EXPIRED. THERE WAS ALSO A RECALL ASSOCIATED WITH NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 12V542000 (TIRES) BUT THE DEALER REFUSED TO HONOR THE RECALL BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED UNDER THE MANUFACTURER'S VOLUNTARY RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 104,000. THE CONSUMER STATED SHE WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF THE RECALL, INVOLVING FRAME RUST. UPDATED 01/08/14 INVOICE RECEIVED 01/28/14
Structure, Sep 2, 2013
I DON'T KNOW IF I AM IN THE RIGHT DEPT. BUT PLEASE GUIDE ME TO THE CORRECT DEPT. MY 2004 TACOMA TRUCK HAD A RECALL ON THE FRAME OF VEHICLE. IT IS RUSTING OR CORRODING AWAY. RECALL NOTICE WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY ME AS I HAVE HAD FINANCIAL PROBLEMS AND MOVED 3 TIMES. I ASKED TOYOTA IF THEY SENT NOTICE REGISTERED AND THEIR ANSWER IS NO. RECENTLY I HAVE PUT MY TRUCK FOR SALE AND ANYONE THAT LOOKED AT IT LOVED IT BUT ASKED ABOUT THE FRAME RECALL. I WAS DUMBFOUNDED AS THIS VEHICLE WAS GARAGE KEPT, NO BODY RUST, AND HAS 47,000 ORIG. MILES. I AM THE ORIGINAL OWNER. I HAVE SPOKEN TO TOYOTA DEALERS, TOYOTA CUSTOMER REPS. AND ALL SAY NOTHING CAN BE DONE AT THIS STAGE OF VEHICLE. HOW DO I NOW KNOWINGLY SELL THIS TRUCK TO ANYONE? WHAT IF THE NEW BUYER IS KILLED IN THIS VEHICLE BECAUSE OF A FRAME COLLAPSE WHILE DRIVING. WILL TOYOTA BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH? I HAVE FOUND A DEALER THAT IS REPLACING THESE FRAMES. WHY NOT MINE? *JS
Structure, Aug 26, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE INSPECTING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT NOTICED A HOLE IN THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 90,000.
Seat belts, Structure, Aug 8, 2013, crash
DECEMBER 26, 2013- GOING EAST ON WARNER RD. AT 45 MILES PER HOUR FROM KYRENE AND WARNER. MINIMAL TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD. AT WARNER AND BULLMOOSE A CAR DID NOT STOP AT THE STOP SIGN AT BULLMOOSE TO PULL OUT ONTO WARNER. I HIT THE CAMARO, T-BONED HIM. MY AIR BAGS DID NOT GO OFF, MY SEAT BELT TIGHTENED, THEN POPPED OFF OF ME AT SOME POINT DURING THE CRASH. I JUST KNOW THAT WHEN I STOPPED AND PULLED OVER MY SEAT BELT WAS OFF. THAT CONCERNED ME A LOT. THAT WAS THE FIRST THING I NOTICED WHEN I CAME TO A STOP! THE GENTLEMAN THAT I HIT SAID IT WAS HIS FAULT AND HE HAD A BROKEN RIB, BUT OTHER THAN THAT SAID HE WAS OKAY. I HURT AND WAS BRUISED ACROSS MY SHOULDER BLADE, AND CHEST. I HAD MY TOYOTA TACOMA TOWED TO POWER COLLISION CENTER THAT TOYOTA USES. I WENT INTO TO THEM AND TOLD THEM MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE SEAT BELT POPPING. THEY SAID THEY DID NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT, THAT MAYBE MY SWEATER WAS CAUGHT UP IN IT. FIRST OF ALL, I WAS NOT WEARING A SWEATER! AND I AM VERY STRICT ABOUT MY SEAT BELT AND OTHERS IN MY VEHICLE THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY SEAT BELTED! AT TIMES THE SEAT BELT DID NOT TIGHTEN WHEN I APPLIED THE BRAKES. I THINK JUST TO HUMOR ME THEY REPLACED THE DRIVER'S SEAT BELT. THEN HE SAID THEY GET WORN WITH BEING CONNECTED AND UNCONNECTED MANY TIMES. MY QUESTION IS WHY DO WE NOT KNOW THAT WE SHOULD REPLACE OUR SEAT BELTS, LIKE WE DO OUR TIRES. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT MY SEAT BELTS IN MY TOYOTA TACOMA. *TR
Structure, Aug 2, 2013
YESTERDAY, I WENT TO MY MECHANIC FOR AN INSPECTION ON MY 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. HE SAID IT WOULDN'T PASS BECAUSE HOLES WERE EVERYWHERE ALONG THE FRAME. I TOOK IT TO TOYOTA. THEY TOOK PICTURES AND DOCUMENTED THE FACT THAT MY CAR WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THEY SAID IT WASN'T THEIR PROBLEM, AND THAT I HAD BEEN GIVEN FOUR YEARS TO FIX IT. WHEN I LOOKED UP MY VIN NUMBER ONLINE, IT MENTIONED ONLY THE RECALL FOR THE SPARE TIRE (WHICH I HAD ALREADY TAKEN OFF THREE YEARS AGO). I CALLED TOYOTA CENTRAL, AND THEY SAID IT WASN'T THEIR PROBLEM. APPARENTLY, I HAD RECEIVED A FIRST CLASS LETTER BETWEEN NOVEMBER OF 2010 AND DECEMBER OF 2011 WHICH STATED THAT I NEEDED TO HAVE MY FRAME SPRAYED. THEY SAID THAT THE CUTOFF FOR THIS "REMEDY" WAS DECEMBER, 2012. WHEN I ASKED IF, HAD I HAD THE FRAME SPRAYED SIX MONTHS AGO, WOULD THIS ROT HAVE MIRACULOUSLY NOT APPEARED, THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T KNOW. THEY APOLOGIZED FOR THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT THEIR PROBLEM, AND THAT WAS THAT. I MAY HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER...I AM NOT SURE, AND CANNOT HONESTLY CLAIM I DIDN'T RECEIVE IT. WHAT I DO KNOW THAT I DO, THOUGH, IS REGULARLY CHECK ON LINE FOR RECALLS SO THAT I CAN MAKE SURE THAT I AM NOT MISSING ANYTHING. THE DEALER TOLD ME THAT THIS PARTICULAR RECALL WAS VOLUNTARY, AND THEREFORE IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN POSTED IN NORMAL CHANNELS. TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, THE DEALER SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT SOMEONE HAD COME IN THE PREVIOUS WEEK WITH THE SAME ISSUE AND IT WAS "TOO BAD". HE ALSO SAID THAT TOYOTA WOULD PROBABLY BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE WERE HAVING SUCH MAJOR SAFETY ISSUES. HE SAID THAT IF I WANTED TO HOLD ON TO THE TRUCK...MAYBE SOMETHING WOULD HAPPEN IN A YEAR. WHAT AM I GOING TO DO WITH A TRUCK I CAN'T DRIVE BECAUSE IT WON'T PASS INSPECTION AND HAS BEEN DEEMED UNSAFE? *TR
Structure, Jul 29, 2013
VEHICLE FRAME IS RUSTING, ROTTING, AND CRUMBLING FROM BENEATH THE TRUCK. I WAS UNAWARE OF THE CONDITION WHEN I WAS TOLD BY A MECHANIC DURING A PENNSYLVANIA STATE VEHICLE INSPECTION THAT THE FRAME WILL EVENTUALLY FAIL AND SPLIT APART AS I AM DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD. I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND THEY TOLD ME THAT I MISSED THE RECALL WINDOW WHICH WOULD HAVE EXTENDED THE WARRANTY ON THE FRAME. WHEN I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT I WAS NOT CONTACTED ABOUT SUCH AN IMPORTANT RECALL, AND IF I WERE I WOULD HAVE TO BE AN IDIOT NOT TO ACT ON IT, THEY REPLIED THAT THEIR RECORDS SHOW THAT A LETTER WAS SENT TO ME THEREFORE TOYOTA WILL NOT HONOR THE RECALL AND REPLACE MY CRUMBLING FRAME. *TR