2001 TOYOTA TACOMA Complaints

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE HAVING A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE PERFORMED, THE TECHNICIAN NOTIFIED HER THAT THE SUB FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS DEEMED UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 200,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE HAVING MAINTENANCE PERFORMED, THE TECHNICIAN NOTICED THAT THE PASSENGER'S SIDE SUB FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 167,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE'S FRAME FRACTURED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE FRAMED NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, HE NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS TILTED CAUSING THE TIRES TO WEAR OUT PREMATURELY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE SPRING SHACKLE FRACTURED DUE TO THE FRAME BEING COMPLETELY CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 135,000.

WE RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE ON THE VEHICLE FOR THE FRAME RUSTING TO QUICKLY. THE COMPANY'S RECALL NOTICE STATED WE COULD TAKE IT TO THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP FOR THE FRAME TO BE SPRAYED WITH AN UNDERCOAT. WHEN WE TOOK IT TO A DEALERSHIP, WE WERE TOLD WE HAD "MISSED THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE IT SPRAY COATED." WE MISSED IT BY ONE WEEK. TWO DEALERSHIPS WERE NOT WILLING TO SPRAY THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. WHEN WE RECEIVED THE RECALL NOTICE, THERE WAS NO NOTIFICATION WE HAD UNTIL A CERTAIN DATE TO GET THIS DONE. MANY PEOPLE LEAD BUSY LIVES, WORKING. WE MISSED IT BY ONE WEEK. I HAVE WRITTEN TO THE TOYOTA CO. IN MA. AND I HAVEN'T HEARD BACK AT ALL. NOW I HAVE A VEHICLE I CAN NOT DRIVE, INSPECT, OR REGISTER, DUE TO THE POOR QUALITY WHEN IT WAS MANUFACTURED. NOW THE CO. ISN'T WILLING TO STAND BEHIND ITS PRODUCT. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUB FRAME WAS PERFORATED DUE TO RUST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A PRIVATE MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 102,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 111,000.

AFTER BEING DRIVEN ON THE HIGHWAY APPROXIMATELY 60 MILES, THE 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA TRUCK WAS BEING BACKED INTO THE DRIVEWAY WHEN STEERING SUDDENLY LOCKED. UPON INSPECTION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER WHEEL WAS NO LONGER ATTACHED TO THE CAR. THE LOWER BALL JOINT HAD FAILED. I DETERMINED THAT TOYOTA ISSUED A RECALL FOR MY VEHICLE MODEL AND YEAR (NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 05V225000) FOR THIS ISSUE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONSEQUENCE: THE LOWER BALL JOINT MAY SEPARATE FROM THE KNUCKLE CAUSING LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL AND A CRASH COULD OCCUR. IT SEEMS THAT OUR VEHICLE EXPERIENCED THIS ISSUE FOR WHICH VEHICLES WERE RECALLED BY TOYOTA. HOWEVER, WHEN I CALLED TOYOTA, I WAS TOLD THAT OUR VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL AND THAT TOYOTA WAS NOT WILLING TO DO ANYTHING. WE HAD TO SPEND THE MONEY AND TIME TO FIX THE FAILED BALL JOINT AND ARE CONSIDERING REPLACING THE DRIVER SIDE BALL JOINT PROPHYLACTICALLY AS WE NO LONGER TRUST THE WHEELS TO REMAIN ON OUR TRUCK. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A WHEEL COME OFF A CAR. IF THE WHEEL HAD DISENGAGED FROM OUR CAR 2 MINUTES PRIOR, WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS MOVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, THE CONSEQUENCES COULD HAVE BEEN SEVERE. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT TOYOTA IS NOT INCLUDING OUR CAR IN THE RECALL - EVEN THOUGH THE EXACT SAME ISSUE FOR WHICH THE RECALL WAS ISSUED (FOR OUR VEHICLE MODEL AND YEAR) OCCURRED ON OUR CAR. IF THE ACCIDENT HAD HAPPENED AT HIGH SPEEDS, SOMEONE WOULD HAVE DIED AND A LAWYER WOULD BE CONTACTING TOYOTA AND NHTSA. PERHAPS THE RECALL NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED! *TR

HI, I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN FOR MY VEHICLE AS I LOVE MY TACOMA AND HOW IT DRIVES AND WORKS FOR ME IN MY DAILY LIFE. AS I HAD TOOK MY VEHICLE IN FOR A RECALL ON MY SPARE TIRE CABLE, THE TECHNICIAN AND SERVICE MAN HAD TOLD ME THAT IN MY FRAME OF MY VEHICLE THERE IS A LARGE RUSTED OUT HOLE. SINCE THEN, I REALLY HAVEN'T FELT SAFE DRIVING MY VEHICLE ANYWHERE AS I'M AFRAID THAT MY FRAME WILL BREAK AND CAUSE A REALLY BAD ACCIDENT. I'VE ALSO HAVE HAD IN THE PAST WHERE MY DAD'S VEHICLE (1998 TOYOTA TACOMA) WAS RECALLED FOR THE SAME EXACT THING (FRAME ISSUE). AS FOR MY VEHICLE, I AM THE SECOND OWNER AND MY BROTHER WAS THE FIRST. THIS VEHICLE HAS BEEN HERE IN THE MINNESOTA WEATHER ALL ITS LIFE TIME. PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, IF NOT, I WILL PUSH THIS FORWARD WHERE I WILL GET SOME ATTENTION TO MY VEHICLE, MY SAFETY, AND OTHERS. AND PLUS, I WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE THIS INTO A LEGAL MATTER AS I LOVE MY TOYOTA. *TR

I BOUGHT THIS VEHICLE USED IN 2011 AND WAS NOTIFIED OF A RECALL FOR FRAME RUST. BY THE TIME I GOT AROUND TO SCHEDULING AN APPT, I WAS INFORMED THE RECALL HAD ENDED. NOW, HOWEVER, THE FRAME IS SEVERELY CORRODED AND IS STARTING TO GIVE WAY AT THE REAR SHACKLE. I FEEL THIS VEHICLE HAS BECOME A SERIOUS HAZARD TO DRIVE DUE TO THE FRAME BUCKLING. IF THE RECALL WAS PUT INTO EFFECT, TOYOTA IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, AND NOW IT HAS BECOME A SERIOUS LIABILITY AND SAFETY ISSUE. I WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS VEHICLE REPAIRED TO THE POINT OF MAKING IT SAFE, BUT FEEL THAT I WAS NOT GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS DONE UNDER THE LIMITED TIME LEFT ON THE RECALL WHEN I BOUGHT IT. THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS ISSUE WITH THE FRAME CONSTRUCTION IS EVIDENT BY THE FACT THAT THE BODY HAS ALMOST NO CORROSION PRESENT. THERE APPEARS TO BE A MANUFACTURING ISSUE WITH THE HEAVY FRAME STEEL THAT SHOULD NOT BE CORRODING LIKE THIS. THERE IS CURRENTLY ALSO AN ACTIVE RECALL FOR THE REAR TIRE CARRIER - WHICH IS RELATED TO THE SAME ISSUE. AGAIN, THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY AND LIABILITY ISSUE THAT I THINK TOYOTA IS OBLIGATED TO ADDRESS BEFORE SOMEONE IS HURT OR KILLED BY THIS PROBLEM. CONTACTING TOYOTA DOES NO GOOD, AS THEY REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THE PROBLEM. THEY SAY THIS WAS NOT A RECALL BUT A WARRANTY EXTENSION THAT HAS NOW RUN OUT. HOWEVER, THERE IS A SEVERE DEFECT PRESENT IN THE FRAME THAT THEY ACKNOWLEDGED AND NOW REFUSE TO STAND BEHIND EVEN THOUGH IT IS A DANGEROUS LIABILITY FOR ANY VEHICLES ON THE ROAD. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUBFRAME WAS PERFORATED DUE TO RUST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 154,000.