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
Power train, Structure, Apr 29, 2013
MY 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA WAS RECALLED IN 2012. THE RECALL LETTER STATED THAT IN CERTAIN STATES WHERE ROAD SALT IS USED TO MANAGE WINTER DRIVING CONDITIONS, THE POTENTIAL EXISTED FOR PREMATURE RUST/CORROSION OF THE FRAME. I BROUGHT THE TRUCK IN TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE IT WAS THEN DETERMINED THAT THE FRAME SHOULD BE REPLACED. SIX MONTHS LATER I NOTICED THAT THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING WAS LEAKING. WHY DIDN'T THE RECALL COVER THESE COMPONENTS, WHICH ARE LOCATED IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME CORROSIVE CONDITIONS AS THE FRAME, LEAF SPRINGS, CONTROL ARMS, ETC., ALL OF WHICH WERE REPLACED? IF THE FLUID DRAINS FROM THE HOUSING AS A RESULT OF RUST/CORROSION, THE POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR THE DRIVETRAIN TO LOCK UP, ESPECIALLY AT HIGHER SPEEDS, RESULTING IN AN OBVIOUSLY DANGEROUS SITUATION. NO REAL OPTIONS EXIST TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE ASIDE FROM REPLACING THE DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING, A REPAIR THAT COSTS SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS. MY COMPLAINT IS THAT TOYOTA CHOSE NOT TO COVER THE REPLACEMENT OF ALL PARTS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO INSURE THE SAFE OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE IN LIGHT OF THE PREMATURE RUST/CORROSION ISSUE, NOR DID THEY RAISE THE ISSUE IN ANY WAY. I CANNOT IMAGINE HOW TOYOTA COULD BE UNAWARE OF THIS CONDITION. *TR
Suspension, Structure, Apr 28, 2013
EXCESSIVE RUST. RECALL TWICE.
Structure, Apr 25, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION AND THEY DETECTED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME EXHIBITED RUST. THERE WAS A VOLUNTARY RECALL ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER RELATED TO THE FRAME; HOWEVER, THE RECALL EXPIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 92,000.
Structure, Apr 24, 2013
I TOOK MY TRUCK IN FOR THE YEARLY INSPECTION AND IT FAILED FOR A HOLE IN THE FRAME. I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND WAS INFORMED THAT I MISSED A CUSTOMER CARE SERVICE TO INSPECT THE FRAME AND THERE WAS NOTHING THAT THEY WOULD DO FOR ME. I REPAIRED THE HOLE AND THE VEHICLES PASSED INSPECTION FOR THE FRAME THE PAST TWO YEARS.I WAS DRIVING TODAY AND FOUND THAT THE BED OF MY TRUCK CROOKED. I CHECKED THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FRAME TO FIND THAT IT IS COMPLETELY ROTTED AND THE TRUCK IS NOW UNSAFE TO DRIVE. WILL THIS FRAME RUST ISSUE EVER BECOME A RECALL? ITS A SHAME THAT A PERFECTLY GOOD RUNNING TRUCK IS NOW GARBAGE. *TR
Engine and engine cooling, Structure, Mar 19, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE RECEIVED A MANUFACTURER'S RECALL FOR THE FRAME. AFTER HAVING THE REPAIRS COMPLETED, HE NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS SEPARATING FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER FOR FURTHER INSPECTION. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND THEY OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 40,000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 70,000. *TR UPDATED 6/17/13 *CN THE CONSUMER STATED THE 02 SENSOR WAS REPLACED THREE TIMES, THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER WAS ALSO REPLACED THREE TIMES. THE SHROUD THAT COVERED THE GAS TANK, ROTTED AND FELL OF THE TRUCK, AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED SEVERAL TIMES. UPDATED 06/25/13
Structure, Mar 8, 2013
3 YEARS AGO TOYOTA SENT US A NOTICED AND CALLED .. ASKING US TO HAVE OUR FRAME INSPECTED DUE TO FRAME FAILURES AND RUST. WE COMPLIED AND HAD THE UNDERCOATING AND FRAME INSPECTED FOR 3 YEARS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WOULD PROTECT US IF FUTURE FRAME PROBLEMS WERE IDENTIFIED. THIS YEAR 2012 WE WERE TOLD WE DIDN'T NEED TO HAVE THE FRAME INSPECTED, HOWEVER WHEN WE WERE REPLACING THE BRAKES WE NOTICED SIGNIFICANT RUST ON THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. WE IMMEDIATELY CALLED OUR DEALER FOR A FRAME INSPECTION AND WAS TOLD THE FRAME HAD FAILED AND THAT WE SHOULDN'T DRIVE THE VEHICLE. FOR SAFETY REASONS. I CALLED THE TOYOTA HOTLINE AND RECEIVED A CLAIM NUMBER WAS TOLD WE WERE ELIGIBLE FOR THE A FRAME REPLACEMENT BECAUSE WE HAD RECEIVED THE UNDERCOATING . THEY SET UP AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE TOYOTA REP TO INSPECT THE VEHICLE TODAY MARCH 8TH.. THE REP NEVER SHOWED UP. WE WEREN'T PROVIDED WITH A RENTAL VEHICLE AND THUS HAVING TROUBLE MEETING OUR WORK COMMITMENTS.. AND THEY EXPECT US TO PUT OUR CHILDREN BACK IN A VEHICLE WHICH WE WERE TOLD IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE, I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MANY OTHER TOYOTA DRIVERS ARE DRIVING UNSAFE VEHICLES. *TR
Structure, Mar 1, 2013
ACCORDING TO RECORDS, [XXX], TOYOTA EXTENDED THE CORROSION-RESISTANT TREATMENT (CRT) BEYOND 2010.THE DOCUMENT READS ADDITIONAL 15 YEARS. CURRENTLY I VISITED A TOYATO DEALER AND THEY CLAIMED TOYOTA ENDED THE AGGREEMENT DEC. 2012. NO NOTICE WAS RECIEVED OF CHANGE. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
Structure, Feb 19, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE HEARD AN ABNORMAL NOISE FROM UNDER THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY ADVISED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED AND THE CAB MOUNTS WERE CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED BUT PROVIDED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 78,255.
Suspension, Power train, Structure, Jan 31, 2013
FRAME: I HAD MY TACOMA IN FOR WORK (THE CLUTCH WOULD NOT RETURN FULLY TO THE UP POSITION) AND THE DEALER (TJ TOYOTA, POTSDAM, NY) SAID THERE WERE HOLES IN THE FRAME. THERE WAS ONE ON THE LEFT SIDE NEAR THERE SWAY BAR AND TWO ON THE RIGHT SIDE JUST IN FRONT OF THE PASSENGER DOOR. THE DEALER CALLED TOYOTA AND TOYOTA SAID THE PROGRAM FOR UNDERCOATING THE FRAME ENDED IN DECEMBER AND THEY WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING. I BOUGHT THIS TRUCK IN JANUARY 2011 FROM THE DEALER (TJ TOYOTA, POTSDAM NY) AND THEY DID NOT UNDERCOAT THE FRAME BEFORE THEY SOLD THE TRUCK TO ME (WITH 77,500 MI). I AM CURRENTLY FIGHTING WITH TOYOTA AND BECAUSE MY TRUCK CANT PASS INSPECTION (WHICH EXPIRES TODAY) I CAN NOT LEGALLY DRIVE MY TRUCK TO WORK AND THERE FOR CANT WORK BECAUSE I AM A MECHANIC AND WORK OUT OF MY TRUCK. *TR
Structure, Jan 30, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS RUST ON THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY CONFIRMED THAT THE VEHICLE EXHIBITED A RUST ISSUE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED BUT DID NOT PROVIDE ANY ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 45,000.
Structure, Jan 27, 2013
NHTSA:ACTION # 10027968 SERVICE BULLETIN #251424 REPORT DATE NOV.25,2008 - NHTSA # 10030357 [LSC]90D 2001-2004 TACOMA FRAME CORROSION - PREVENTATIVE COMPOUND] I PURCHASED A 04 TACOMA FROM PRESTIGE TOYOTA,KINGSTON,NY ON 10/27/10.I ASKED THE SERVICE MANAGER ABOUT LSC 90D HE STATED THAT THEY DID THE INSPECTION, BUT NOT THE COMPOUND ON 10/16/10.WHAT THE LSC 90D STATES IS THE FRAME IS TO BE INSPECTED AND ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OP. CODES 8630JM OR 8630JN CORROSION-PREVENTATIVE COMPOUND APPLIED. THIS WOULD EXTEND THE WARRANTY ON THE FRAME FOR 15 YEARS. THIS VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED 1/3/13 . IT FAILED STATE INSPECTION,I'M FURIOUS. WHEN I CONTACTED DEALER AND TOYOTA "THEY STATED THEY COULD NOT DO ANYTHING". THAT THE PROGRAM ENDED 12/31/12. LISTED IN LSC 90D STATES THAT" TOYOTA HAS RECEIVED REPORTS THAT A SMALL NUMBER 146,228 OF 2001-2004 TACOMA'S OPERATED IN SEVERE COLD CLIMATE AREAS. 20 STATES LISTED WITH HIGH ROAD SALT USE EXHIBITED EXCESSIVE RUST CORROSION TO THE FRAME,CAUSING PERFORATION OF THE METAL". WELL IF YOUR FRAME IS PERFORATED . WOULDN'T THIS BE A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE!!!! I NEVER RECEIVED ANY OF THE COVER LETTERS. I HAD THE VEHICLE IN FOR SERVICE ON 8/30/11 @ PRESTIGE TOYOTA AGAIN WHY WASN'T THE INSPECTION DONE AND CORROSION-RESISTANT COMPOUND APPLIED. WHEN LSC 90D WAS PASSED ON 4/1/2011. MY FAMILY AND I WHERE SUBJECTED TO FRAME FAILURE WHICH COULD HAVE RESULTED IN DEATH. I USED TO USE THIS TRUCK FOR BUSINESS,NOW WHAT DO I USE IT FOR SCRAP METAL? HOW DO I SERVICE MY CUSTOMERS AND PICKUP MATERIAL WITH OUT THIS TRUCK.WHICH I"M PAYING FOR UNTIL 11/14. PLEASE REPORT TO CONSUMER AFFAIRS ALSO AND BBB. I BELIEVE THE FRAME ON YOUR VEHICLE IS THE MAJOR STRUCTURE OF YOUR VEHICLE WHICH EVERY THING IS ATTACHED TO. THIS VEHICLE WAS BOUGHT NEW IN GLENS FALLS,NY. SO IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN NY ONE OF THE 20 STATES LISTED ON LSC 90D SERVICE BULLETIN. TOYOTA RECEIVED 25 MILLION FROM DANA CORP. *TR
Structure, Jan 23, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME FAILED AND DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE DUE TO RUST AND CORROSION. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED WHO OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 136,000.
Structure, Jan 14, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BOTTOM OF THE FRAME BECAME PERFORATED DUE TO SEVERE RUST. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A MECHANIC AND WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE SERVICE CAMPAIGN ENDED 12-12-12 AND OFFERED NO FURTHER ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 112,000.
Service brakes, Hydraulic, Structure, Dec 6, 2012
2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO BRAKE LINE RUPTURE. *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED THE DEALER WOULD NOT REPLACE THE BRAKE LINE UNDER WARRANTY, BECAUSE THE FRAME CAUSED THE BRAKE LINE TO RUPTURE. TOYOTA INFORMED THE CONSUMER, A RECALL WAS ISSUED IN 2010, WHERE THE FRAME WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SPRAYED AND TREATED. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THE EXTENDED WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED. *JB
Structure, Nov 17, 2012
I JUST TRADED MY HARLEY DAVIDSON E-GLIDE FOR A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. UNFORTUNATELY I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE FRAME ISSUES! THE FRAME AND EVERYTHING IS RUSTED BEYOND REPAIR. I CALLED MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER AND THEY SAID THAT THE RECALL FOR THE FRAME ISSUES WAS OVER. IN MY OPINION TOYOTA SHOULD HONOR THE RECALL AS LONG AS THEIR PRODUCT IS OUT TO THE PUBLIC! I LOVE THE TRUCK BUT JUST DON'T WANT TO DRIVE BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY ISSUES OF HOW BAD THE FRAME AND ALL COMPONENTS ARE! I WOULD APPRECIATE ALL THE HELP I CAN GET. *TR
Structure, Oct 12, 2012
2004 TOYOTA TACOMA WITH 147,000 MILES FAILED STATE INSPECTION AND DEEMED UNSAFE TO DRIVE DUE TO RUSTED AND PERFORATED FRAME. THIS FRAME WAS ONE BOUGHT BY TOYOTA FROM THE DANA CORPORATION. TOYOTA WON A LAWSUIT OVER THIS POOR QUALITY FRAME, AND HAS BOUGHT BACK ALL '95-'99 TOYOTAS WITH THIS FRAME, AND REPLACED FRAMES ON '00-'04 TRUCKS. TOYOTA IS STATING THAT OUR TACOMA DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THE EXTENDED WARRANTY PUT OUT ON THESE AFFECTED FRAMES, AS IT WAS NOT UNDERCOATED AS PART OF THEIR PREVENTION PROGRAM. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED THAT THE UNDERCOATING WAS INEFFECTIVE, AND THE FRAMES CONTINUED TO RUST OUT AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. WE FEEL STRONGLY THAT TOYOTA SHOULD OFFER THE EXTENDED WARRANTY TO ALL TRUCKS AFFECTED BY THIS FAULTY CONSTRUCTED FRAME. TOYOTA IS REPORTING THAT THEY CAN DO NOTHING FURTHER TO HELP IN THIS CASE, DESPITE THAT IT IS AN OTHERWISE WELL EQUIPPED AND STRONGLY RUNNING TRUCK, WHICH HAS HAD ONGOING AND CONSISTENT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THEY ARE NOW INDICATING THAT A '04 TACOMA WITH 147,000 IS ONLY VALUED AT $500. *TR
Structure, Mar 11, 2011
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN HE ENTERED THE VEHICLE HE NOTICED THAT THE SEAT BELTS ON BOTH DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDE WERE WET. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED WHENEVER IT RAINED. THERE WAS NO WATER VISIBLE INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND THE WINDOWS WERE CLOSED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED HIM TO CONTACT TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 48,000.
Structure, Equipment, Jan 9, 2011
THERE WAS NOTHING THAT LED UP TO THIS EVENT. I WAS JUST DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AND THE BRACKET THAT ATTACHES THE FRONT AXEL OF MY TRUCK TO THE FRAME JUST SNAPPED OFF. THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW VEHICLE AND HAS NOT SEEN TOO ROUGH A ROAD! IT IS QUITE PAMPERED AND WELL MAINTAINED. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A DEFECT DUE TO THE MANY COMPLAINTS OF THE EXACT THING HAPPENING. I SEARCHED ONLINE AND DISCOVERED THAT I AM NOT ALONE IN THIS EVENT AS IT SEEMS TO BE IT OCCURS QUITE FREQUENTLY TO (FROM WHAT I HEAR), 2 WHEEL DRIVE TOYOTA TACOMA'S, THAT HAVE INSTALLED A LIFT. I CANNOT IMAGINE HOW MANY LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST LET ALONE HOW MANY ACCIDENTS AND INJURIES THIS HAS RESULTED IN AS YOU LOOSE COMPLETE CONTROL OF WHERE THE VEHICLE GOES. AND IN SOME INSTANCES IT ALSO SEVERS THE BRAKE LINE LEAVING THE VEHICLE OUT OF CONTROL WITH NO BRAKES. I IMAGINE THAT MOST CRASHES ARE NOT BLAMED ON THIS DUE TO THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCING A LARGE ACCIDENT WITH IMPACT TO THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. AND THE BRACKET THAT HOLDS THE FRONT AXEL TO FRAME IS MANGLED. THEREFORE, LEAVING ONE TO BELIEVE THAT THE ACCIDENT CAUSED THE DAMAGE. WHEN THE FACT IS THAT THE DAMAGE OR DEFECT IF YOU WILL IS WHAT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT WHICH IN TURN DAMAGED THE VEHICLE, DRIVER, PASSENGER(S). NOT TO MENTION THAT ACCIDENTS OFTEN INVOLVE OTHER VEHICLES AS WELL. IT SEEMS TO BE MORE PREVALENT ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE SO THAT USUALLY MEANS THAT THE VEHICLE TRAVELS INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC! IE: HEAD ON COLLISIONS! HOW MANY SURVIVE A HEADON COLLISION IN A LIGHT DUTY TRUCK? FEW I WOULD IMAGINE. WELL IT ALMOST BECAME A REALITY FOR ME AS WELL AS MY PASSENGER. WE WERE JUST LUCKY THAT WE LIVE WHERE WE DO AND THERE WAS LIGHT TRAFFIC COMING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. I HAVE HEARD THAT THIS HAPPENED TO SEVERAL OTHERS IN THE AREA AND TOYOTA TELLS THEM TO GO TO "ROCKY'S OFFROAD", TO GET IT FIXED. NO OFFER OF EXPLANATION OR REASON WHY BUT THAT IT SEEMS TO HAPPEN ALOT?! DOESN'T THAT SCREAM "MANUFACTURER DEFECT!" IT'S A *TR
Structure, Oct 20, 2010
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT HAD A REPAIR FOR A RECALL ON THE FRAME PERFORMED (RECALL INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE IN NHTSA DATABASE). THE DEALER UNDERCOATED THE FRAME WHICH TURNED INTO AN OIL BASE THAT DRIPPED IN THE CONTACT'S GARAGE AND DAMAGED IT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER WHO ADVISED HER TO CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED AGAIN. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 81,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 90,000.
Structure, Aug 27, 2010
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF A MANUFACTURER'S RECALL PERTAINING TO POSSIBLE FRAME CORROSION. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION AND TO HAVE RUST INHIBITOR SPRAYED ON THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER DID NOT LOCATE A CORROSION FAILURE IN THE FRAME AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT SERVICED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED TO TAKE THE VEHICLE TO A DIFFERENT DEALER FOR REPAIRS. THE SECOND DEALER DISCOVERED HOLES AND CORROSION ON THE FRAME. THE DEALER DEEMED THE VEHICLE AS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND ADVISED THAT THE FRAME WOULD NEED REPLACING. THE DEALER WOULD HAVE TO REBUILD THE ENTIRE TRUCK. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE NO LONGER WANTED OWNERSHIP OF THE TRUCK AND BELIEVED THAT THE MANUFACTURER SHOULD TAKE THE LIABILITY FOR THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 47,500.
Structure, Feb 24, 2010
INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA [XXX] RUSTED REAR STEP BUMPER,RUSTED INSIDE OUT,NO FAULT OF OWNER TOYOTA REFUSES TO REPLACE THE BUMPER TO DATE 02/2010 FRAME IS SLOWLY RUSTING OUT ALSO/INSPECTED BY DEALER/OK FOR NOW! *TR
Structure, Oct 26, 2009
I OWN A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA 4WD. I PURCHASE IT NEW. THE FRAME IS ROTTING OUT TERRIBLY AND THE MUFFLER SYSTEM HAS TO BE REPLACED DUE TO EXCESSIVE CORROSION AND ROT FLAKING OFF OF THE MUFFLER SYSTEM. I AM AFRAID TO DRIVE THE TACOMA ON THE HIGHWAY DUE TO SAFETY ISSUES. I LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS AND I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT TOYOTA MAY RECALL THIS YEAR AND MODEL FOR FRAME ROT. I AM FACING A $500+ BILL TO REPLACE THE MUFFLER SYSTEM. PLEASE ADVISE. *TR
Structure, Apr 6, 2009
WE OWN A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. AFTER RECEIVING A LETTER FROM TOYOTA ABOUT FRAME RUST, WE TOOK OUR VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR THE REQUESTED INSPECTION. THE DEALER TOLD US THAT THE FRAME HAS SOFT SPOTS AND THAT TOYOTA RECOMMENDED REPLACING THE FRAME. WE ARE SERIOUSLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THIS VEHICLE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN COMPROMISED. HOWEVER, WE QUESTION THIS KIND OF INVASIVE REPAIR. WE WANT TOYOTA TO BUY THE TRUCK BACK GIVEN THE NATURE OF THIS SAFETY DEFECT. TOYOTA HAS A DEFINED HISTORY OF DEFECTIVE FRAMES IN THE TACOMA: THEY BOUGHT BACK MANY 1995-2000 TACOMAS FOR THE SAME REASON. SINCE THE 2001-2004 TACOMAS ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME DEFECT -- A VERY SERIOUS ONE -- TOYOTA NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND PROPERLY COMPENSATE OWNERS LIKE US BY BUYING THEM BACK. WE REQUEST THAT THE NHTSA DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO REQUIRE TOYOTA TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS MATTER BY RECALLING ALL AFFECTED TACOMAS SO THESE VEHICLES CAN BE TAKEN OFF THE ROAD BEFORE INJURY AND DEATH RESULTS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS VERY SERIOUS MATTER. *TR PETER SPANGENBERG
Structure, Jun 25, 2008
I HAVE A RUST PROBLEM IN THE BED OF MY 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA AND I HAVE A 5 YEAR WARRANTY AGAINST MANUFACTURE DEFECTS THAT TOYOTA WILL NOT HONOR AND THIS IS CLEARLY A DEFECT. *TR
Structure, Jan 2, 2007
HEAVY SNOWS IN COLORADO DURING DECEMBER,2006 FORCED MANY VEHICLE DRIVERS TO DRIVE IN UNUSUALLY HEAVY DRIFTS. THE REAR SKID PLATE ON NEWER TOYOTA TACOMA 4X4 TRUCKS CAN BEND AND PEEL AWAY FROM THE FRAME WHEN THE VEHICLE IS DRIVEN IN DEEP DRIFTS IN REVERSE. WHEN THE VEHICLE IS THEN DRIVEN FORWARD, THE BENT SKID PLATE ACTS AS A BAFFLE AGAINST SNOW, CAUSING THE TRUCK TO SWERVE AND BECOME DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER AND CONTROL. THE SKID PLATE IS POORLY DESIGNED FOR DEEP SNOW DRIVING. IT IS HELD ONTO THE FRAME BY TWO SMALL BOLTS IN THE FRONT AND BY NOTHING IN THE REAR. THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE REMOVED THE BENT SKID PLATE AND HAS INFORMED TOYOTA. THE PART IS AVAILABLE. *JB