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
414 reports, newest first.
Fuel/propulsion system, Dec 13, 2012
I BROUGHT MY TRUCK TO A TOYOTA DEALER TO LOCATE AN EMISSIONS SYSTEM LEAK. TWO OTHER MECHANICS HAD SPENT HOURS TRYING TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM AND WERE UNABLE TO FIND THE LEAK. THE TOYOTA TECH FOUND THE LEAK IN LESS THAN 20 MINUTES. THAT WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE HE HAD DEALT WITH THIS PROBLEM BEFORE. THE LEAK TURNED OUT TO BE CORROSION IN THE FUEL TANK, WHERE THE FILLER NECK MEETS THE TANK. I WOULD NOT EXPECT A RUSTED GAS TANK IN AN 8 YEAR OLD TRUCK. THE REPAIR ESTIMATE WAS OVER $1400, THE PART ALONE WAS $750. THIS IS A TRUCK THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN RECALLED FOR A RUSTED FRAME (WHICH TOYOTA REPLACED AT NO COST TO ME) AND IS SHOWING CORROSION IN THE REAR BUMPER AND TAILGATE. I SUSPECT TOYOTA SAVED MONEY BY BUILDING THE TRUCK WITH INFERIOR MATERIALS. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, A LEAKING FUEL TANK IS A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE, NOT COMMON IN A VEHICLE THIS RECENT. *TR
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
Vehicle speed control, Sep 27, 2012
WITH STEADY PRESSURE ON THE GAS PEDAL, THE VEHICLE INTERMITTENTLY HICCUPS (AS IF FOOT WAS TAKEN OFF THE PEDAL) AND VEHICLE CHANGES SPEED AND THEN SURGES BACK TO ACCELERATE. I BELIEVE IT TO BE THE THROTTLE BY WIRE THROTTLE BODIES WHICH WAS PLACED IN THE TACOMA MODEL FOR 2003-2004 AND THEN LATER REVISED IN 2005-PRESENT. *TR
Suspension, Sep 27, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED WAS AT A COMPLETE STOP AND WHEN THE BRAKE WAS RELEASED, THE CONTACT HEARD A THUMPING SOUND AND NOTICED THAT THE DRIVER SIDE FRONT TIRE WAS BENT ABNORMALLY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL MECHANIC WHO INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND LOCATED THE FAILURE AT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE UPPER CONTROL ARM, IN WHICH THE BOLT FAILED DUE TO DIRT AND DUST PENETRATION. AS A RESULT, THE BOLT WAS SEPARATE FROM THE FRAME. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 32,752.
Vehicle speed control, Aug 2, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH THE VEHICLE LOST THE ABILITY TO ACCELERATE. THE FAILURE HAD RECURRED NUMEROUS TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR A DIAGNOSIS, BUT THEY STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT RECREATE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO ANOTHER DEALER, WHO INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THEY KNEW IT WAS A THROTTLE BODY FAILURE BUT THEY WERE UNABLE TO GET THE FAILURE CODES TO APPEAR ON THEIR COMPUTER TO VALIDATE THEIR SUSPICIONS. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 147,000.
Vehicle speed control, May 17, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNED A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE ENGAGING THE BRAKE PEDAL, THE VEHICLE UNEXPECTEDLY ACCELERATED. THE CONTACT APPLIED EXTREME PRESSURE ON THE BRAKE PEDAL IN AN ATTEMPT TO STOP THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE UNTIL CRASHING INTO A BRICK BUILDING. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED MAJOR INJURIES TO HER HEAD AND NECK. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED AND A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED AND THE FAILURE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED.THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 164,000.
Fuel system, Gasoline, Apr 18, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA SR5. THE CONTACT STATED THAT FUEL FUMES WERE EMITTED INTO THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THERE WAS A HOLE IN THE FUEL TANK. AS A RESULT, THE FUEL TANK AND SENDING UNIT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE, BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 111,000.
Vehicle speed control, Apr 18, 2012
WHILE DRIVING THE ENGINE SPEED DROPPED AND THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL STOPPED RESPONDING. AFTER TOWING THE TRUCK HOME I READ THE SCAN CODES AND THERE WERE MANY THAT RELATED TO THE THROTTLE BODY SENSORS. IN ORDER TO DEBUG THE SYSTEM I CLEARED THE PROBLEM. WITH THE KEY ON AND THE ENGINE NOT RUNNING I TESTED THE DRIVE-BY-WIRE SYSTEM MANUALLY. IT RESPONDED CORRECTLY AND SHOWED NO PROBLEMS. NO MORE CODES WERE THROWN. I STARTED THE TRUCK AND PUT IT IN GEAR AND ENGINE WENT TO FULL THROTTLE IMMEDIATELY. I TURNED THE TRUCK OFF QUICKLY AND RECHECKED THE DRIVE BY WIRE SERVO SYSTEM. IT STILL WORKED CORRECTLY WITH NO CODES THROWN. I AM AN ENGINEER AND HAVE WORKED A GREAT DEAL WITH SERVO SYSTEMS INCLUDING WRITING A BOOK ON THE HOW TO TROUBLESHOOT THESE SYSTEMS. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THE DESIGNERS DID NOT BUILD ANY REDUNDANCY INTO THE FEEDBACK AND CONTROL DEVICES. THIS DEVICE IS CONSIDERED A MAJOR RISK IN A FAILURE MODE ANALYSIS. IF I DID THAT TYPE OF WORK IN MY POSITION I WOULD BE FIRED AND HAVE AND UNENDING LIST OF LAWSUITS BROUGHT AGAINST ME. THIS TRUCK HAS BEEN INCREDIBLE IN TERMS OF RELIABILITY HOWEVER I AM VERY SURPRISED THAT A COMPANY AS LARGE AS TOYOTA WOULD LEAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO CHANCE. THIS DEVICE CAN EASILY FAIL IN A WAY THAT WOULD CAUSE A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION. I WAS LUCKY TO HAVE IT FAIL AT LOW THROTTLE AND NOT FULL THROTTLE AS IT DID WHEN I TESTED IT AT HOME. THIS IS A DEFINITE SAFETY ISSUE AND TOYOTA NEEDS TO ADDRESS IT. I CALLED TOYOTA AND THEY "COULDN'T HELP" ME. IT COST $1200 TO REPAIR. IT'S NOT THE MONEY, IT'S THE RISK THAT THIS FAILURE IMPOSES. THE TRUCK NOW BELONGS TO MY 16 YEAR-OLD SON AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HIS SAFETY. I ALSO HAVE A VIDEO THAT SHOWS THE METHODS I USED TO TEST THE SYSTEM AND THE FAILURE HAPPENING RIGHT IN MY DRIVEWAY!...UPDATED 05/15/12 * BF *JS
Steering, Suspension, Wheels, Mar 15, 2012
ON JANUARY 19, 2011 AT APPROXIMATELY 7:15 AM, I WAS DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH ON A DIRT ROAD, CAME AROUND AN APPROXIMATE 90 DEGREE RIGHT HAND TURN HEADING DOWN HILL, SLID ON MUD OR ICE AND HIT A RUT. AFTER ALL WHEELS HAD PASSED THROUGH THE RUT THE VEHICLE DROVE UP AND OVER A SMALL RISE (BUMP) IN THE ROAD. AFTER COMING OVER THE RISE, THE RIGHT FRONT OF THE VEHICLE DOVE INTO THE DIRT AND THE TRUCK CAME TO AN ABRUPT STOP. I TURNED OFF THE TRUCK AND GOT OUT OF THE VEHICLE TO INSPECT THE FRONT END. THE RIGHT FRONT BALL JOINT HAD COMPLETELY SEPARATED FROM ... ??? ... WHAT EVER IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ATTACHED TO. THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL WAS PERPENDICULAR TO THE WHEEL WELL WITH THE INSIDE LEANING TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. I HAVE SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VEHICLE TAKEN MOMENTS AFTER THE EQUIPMENT FAILURE. I'M GLAD THIS HAPPENED WHERE IT DID BECAUSE ONLY A FEW MILES FURTHER INTO MY TRIP TO WORK, I WOULD HAVE BEEN TRAVELING 75 MPH ON THE INTERSTATE. AMEN! I HAD NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTIFICATION FROM TOYOTA CONCERNING RECALL NO. 50J. I ONLY ACCIDENTALLY CAME ACROSS THE INFORMATION WHILE SURFING THE WEB WITHIN THE PAST WEEK. *TR
Suspension, Feb 1, 2012
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 13 MPH, THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE WHEEL DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE WHEEL DETACHED DUE TO A FRACTURE AT THE BALL JOINT. AN AUTHORIZED DEALER HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE, BUT FAILED TO OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL ASSOCIATED WITH NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 05V225000 (SUSPENSION:FRONT:CONTROL ARM:LOWER BALL JOINT). NO REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 153,000.
Air bags, Jan 26, 2012, crash
I WAS DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY AND A CAR WAS IN A ACCIDENT, THE VEHICLE WAS ON ITS SIDE. THE OWNERS OF THE CAR HAD GOT OUT TO SAFETY, BUT HAD TO LEAVE IT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. IT WAS A BLACK OR VERY DARK COLORED. WITH IN THIS TIME OF MY PASSENGER AND MYSELF IN MY 2004 TOYOTA TRUCK HAD COME UPON IT TO FAST TO STOP. IT WAS A SPLIT DECISION AND REFLEX TO SLAM ON MY BRAKES. OTHER CARS WHERE AROUND AND I HAD NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO HIT HEAD ON. I WAS DOING ABOUT 65 MILES AN HOUR AND SLAMMING ON MY BRAKES DID LITTLE TO AVOID OR LESSON MY REDUCTION OF SPEED. THANK GOD MY PASSENGER AND I HAD ON OUR SAFETY BELTS. MY TRUCK COMES WITH AIR BAGS AND WAS LISTED AS A GOOD PRODUCTION OF VEHICLES WITH SAFE AND QUALITY PROTECTION IN AN ACCIDENT. I LOVE MY TRUCK. I WAS NOT PROTECTED AS LED TO BELIEVE. MY AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. MY TRUCK IS BEYOND QUESTIONABLE OF MY IMPACT THEY SHOULD HAVE DEPLOYED. I BARELY HAVE A FRONT PORTION OF A BUMPER. ENGINE WAS SMASHED INTO MY CAB PRACTICALLY. FENDERS CAVED IN. TOTALED.... I NEED HELP UNDERSTANDING THIS. I NEED TO BE INSURED THAT TOYOTA WOULD NOT LET THIS BE OVERLOOKED. IM ASKING FOR THIS AND MAYBE OTHER SAFETY ISSUES TO BE HANDLED AND TAKEN INTO TO SERIOUS CONCERN. IT MIGHT BE WITH THIS MODEL TRUCK ONLY. *TR
Service brakes, Hydraulic, Power train, Oct 30, 2011
AFTER DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MILES IN A HEAVY, WET SNOW, SHIFTER ON AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION COULD NOT BE MOVED PAST REVERSE INTO PARK. PARKING BRAKE COULD NOT BE PULLED. BLOCKAGE OF BOTH COMPONENTS FELT QUITE SOLID. BECAUSE VEHICLE COULD NOT BE PUT INTO PARK, IGNITION COULD NOT BE TURNED OFF AND KEY REMOVED. VEHICLE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEFT ON A SLOPE WITHOUT A CHOCK BLOCK. AFTER SNOW FELL OUT/MELTED ALL SYSTEMS RETURNED TO NORMAL OPERATION. *TR
Suspension, Other or unspecified, Mar 28, 2011
UPON INSPECTION FROM TOYOTA ,FROM THE DEALER BERT WOLFE TOYOTA IN CHARLESTON, WV, THE FRAME ON MY TACOMA WAS FAILED. THE RESULT WAS PERFORATIONS FROM RUST. I HAD PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A LETTER STATING THE THERE WAS A RECALL ON MY TRUCK. THE LETTER STATED THAT IT NECESSARY TO BE INSPECTED FOR FRAME CORROSION, AND THAT THREE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES WOULD ARISE: 1) UPON THE PASSING OF THE CORROSION TEST AN ANTI-CORROSION TREATMENT WOULD BE APPLIED AND A REPLACEMENT VEHICLE WOULD BE EXTENDED UNTIL THE TREATMENT WAS COMPLETE. 2) UPON THE FAILURE OF THE TEST (MEANING THE FRAME HAD CORROSION) THE FRAME WOULD BE REPLACED, AND A REPLACEMENT VEHICLE WOULD BE RENDERED. 3) UPON FAILURE OF THE TEST TOYOTA MAY REPURCHASE MY VEHICLE AT A PRICE OF 150% OF THE KELLY BLUE BOOK VALUE. NONE OF THESE OUTCOMES WERE INSTITUTED UPON FAILURE OF MY FRAME CORROSION TEST. BERT WOLFE TOYOTA FAILED THE FRAME, STATED THEY WOULD REPLACE THE FRAME , BUT IT WOULD TAKE SIX MONTHS. THEY PLACED ME BACK IN MY TRUCK WHICH FAILED THE TEST, WITHOUT A TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT. MY COMPLAINT IS THAT A) MY TRUCK WILL NEVER BE THE EQUIVALENT, ALL OF THE PARTS THAT WILL BE TAKEN OFF AND/OR REPLACED AND THEN REINSTALLED ON THE NEW FRAME, CAUSES FOR SAFETY CONCERNS. THERE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT SOMETHING WILL BE OVERLOOKED IN THE PROCESS OF REINSTALLATION. B) THAT THE PARTS THAT CONNECT TO THE FRAME OR LOCATED IN IT'S VICINITY WILL CORRODE EVENTUALLY CAUSING SAFETY CONCERNS. C) MY VEHICLE FAILED A TEST IN WHICH THE FRAME IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE, AND I WAS SENT OFF IN THAT SAME VEHICLE WITHOUT A PROVISIONAL REPLACEMENT.
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.
Steering, Mar 10, 2011
LOOSE STEERING ON 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA 4X4. ISOLATED LOOSENESS TO UPPER STEERING SHAFT SPLINE CONNECTION. TACK WELDED SPLINE TO FIX PLAY IN STEERING SHAFT. MY STEERING HAD GOTTEN PROGRESSIVELY WORSE SO AFTER A LOT OF EXAMINATION I FOUND WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE PROBLEM. I WOULD LIKE TOYOTA TO COME OUT WITH A REDESIGNED STEERING COLUMN. I HAVE TAKEN VEHICLE TO THE DEALER ABOUT THIS WITH NO RESOLUTION FROM THEM. *TR
Suspension, Mar 9, 2011
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 15 MPH IN A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY WHEN THE BALL JOINT FRACTURED IN HALF AND THE FRONT PASSENGER WHEEL COMPLETELY FRACTURED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED THEN TO A LOCAL REPAIR FACILITY WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE BALL JOINT WAS DEFECTIVE AND WOULD NEED REPLACING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED BUT OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 110,000.
Vehicle speed control, Feb 28, 2011
TL- THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH THE CONTACT APPLIED PRESSURE TO THE BRAKE PEDAL AND THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED. THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO A METAL POLE AND CAME TO A STOP. THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE FRONT END OF THE VEHICLE. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND A COMPLAINT WAS FILED. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THEY WOULD HAVE AN INSPECTOR INSPECT THE VEHICLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 78,100. DS
Seat belts, Feb 14, 2011
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DRIVER SIDE SEAT BELT WAS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO LATCH THE BELT. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WERE NO WARRANTIES ON THE VEHICLE AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE CONTACT DID NOT INFORM THE MANUFACTURER AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 22,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.
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
Suspension, Dec 8, 2010, crash
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE DRIVING 5 MPH AND MAKING A RIGHT TURN THE CONTACT HEARD A GROANING NOISE IN THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE WHEEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE TECHNICIANS STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE BUT THE WHEEL BEARING ON THE VEHICLE WAS TIGHTENED. AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 65 MPH WHEN THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE TIRE CAME OFF OF THE VEHICLE. THE WHEEL ASSEMBLY BROKE AS WELL. THERE WERE NO INJURIES REPORTED. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 24,000. UPDATED 2/23/11 *CN THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE COASTED TO A STOP ON THE SHOULDER OF THE HIGHWAY. UPDATED 02/28/11
Suspension, Oct 26, 2010
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT WAS TRAVELING 55 MPH WHEN THE FRONT PASSENGER WHEEL CAME OFF. RIGHT BEFORE THE WHEEL CAME OFF, THE VEHICLE STARTED PULLING TO THE RIGHT. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A MECHANIC WHO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED FAILURE IN THE LOWER BALL JOINT. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH THE MANUFACTURER AND WAS TOLD THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL CAMPAIGN 05V225000, SUSPENSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 385000.
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.