2009 TOYOTA TACOMA Complaints

FRONT LEFT AND RIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT LENS MELTED AND CRACKED. UNIT WAS INSPECTED BY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER AND DETERMINED TO REPLACE BOTH HEADLIGHTS UNDER WARRANTY DUE TO DEFECT LENS. APPROXIMATELY A YEAR LATER LENS MELTED AND CRACKED AGAIN. CALLED TOYOTA TO REPORT AND FIND OUT IF THERE IS A RECALLS FOR THIS ISSUE. TOYOTA REPRESENTATIVE INITIATED A REPORT AND INFORMED ME THAT THERE IS NOT A RECALLS FOR THIS ISSUE AT THAT TIME AND WILL NOT BE REPLACED DUE TO VEHICLE IS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. AT THIS TIME I AM NOT SURE AT WHAT POINT THIS LENS MELTING; DUE TO THE LIGHT BULB HEAT MAY CAUSE A FIRE AND I AM TAKING UNDER CONSIDERATION TO REMOVE THE SIGNAL LIGHT BULBS WHICH WILL MAKE SIGNAL LIGHTS NONOPERATIONAL. IT HAS TO BE A BAD MANUFACTURE HEADLIGHT DESIGN THAT IS CAUSING THAT AREA TO MELT AND AN INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE INITIATED FOR RECALL CONSIDERATION. YOUR RESPONSE WILL BE APPRECIATED. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2009 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS BECAME OVERHEATED AND FRACTURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS FOR THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED WHO STATED THAT THERE WAS NO DEFECT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 66,000.

THE RUBBER STRIP RUNNING FORE - AFT ON THE CAB OF THE TRUCK CAME OFF DURING DRIVING. THE RUBBER STRIP COULD HAVE LANDED ON THE WINDSHIELD OF A FELLOW MOTORIST AND CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. THIS COULD BE AN ANOMALY, HOWEVER, THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO MY SON'S TOYOTA 2005 FOUR RUNNER. I RECOMMEND AT LEAST A CURSORY INVESTIGATION. *TR

RUNNING LIGHTS HAVE MELTED, CRACKED AND HAVE BROWN COLOR ON PLASTIC. CONTACTED TOYOTA DEALER (SUN TOYOTA) AND THEY SAID IT'S NOT UNDER WARRANTY. CONTACTED TOYOTA CORP AND THEY SAID THAT THEY HAVEN'T HEARD OF THIS HAPPENING. I BELIEVE THERE IS A POTENTIAL OF A FIRE HAPPENING. *TR

THE HEADLAMP ASSEMBLY: RUNNING LIGHTS BUILD UP EXCESS HEAT AND BURNS/CRACKS THE LENS. THIS HAS OCCURRED ON BOTH PASSENGER AND DRIVERS SIDES. ON THE DRIVERS SIDE THE LENS HAS BROKEN AND FALLEN OUT OF PLACE. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2009 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS WERE MELTING THE HEADLIGHT LENSES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS AND THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE LENSES WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND OFFERED TO PAY FOR THE COST OF THE LENS BUT NOT FOR THE LABOR COSTS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 51,000.

DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE CAUSING MELTING AND CRACKING OF THE LENS COVERING FROM THE INSIDE. I TOOK MY VEHICLE TO A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP IN TAMPA, FLORIDA. VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED. I CALLED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE ON NOVEMBER 28, 2012 AND EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS A FIRE HAZARD AND REQUESTED IT BE REPAIRED. TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE CALLED ME BACK ON NOVEMBER 28, 2012 AND SAID THAT BECAUSE THE "ORIGINAL FACTORY WARRANTY" HAD EXPIRED SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO REMEDY OFFERED BY TOYOTA. THIS PROBLEM IS WELL DOCUMENTED ONLINE ON VARIOUS TACOMA / TOYOTA OWNERS' SITES. PERSONNEL AT THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THAT THE "REPLACEMENT PART" HAD BEEN RE-DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE THIS PROBLEM....SO TOYOTA IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. THE HEADLIGHT IS PROGRESSIVELY GETTING WORSE. IT SEEMS THAT THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS WERE NOT PROPERLY ENGINEERED IN THIS MODEL. BECAUSE OF THE DEFECT THERE IS A CLEAR CONSCIENCE THE MELTING LENSES CREATE AN OBVIOUS FIRE HAZARD. THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP WHERE I PURCHASED MY TACOMA IN THE TAMPA FLORIDA AREA ADVISED ME THAT TOYOTA HAS NO RECALL OF EXTENDED WARRANTY FOR THIS "KNOWN" PROBLEM. I WAS VERY DISMAYED TO HEAR THIS BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS CLEARLY PRESENTS A THREAT TO THE DRIVER. BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION I HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO ME. EITHER I REPLACE THE ENTIRE HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLY WITH THE TOYOTA FACTORY ASSEMBLY WHICH IS ALREADY KNOWN TO HAVE A DEFECT OR I FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DISABLE THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS TO CUT BACK ON THE HEAD THAT BUILDS UP WITH THEM CONSTANTLY BEING ON. I WOULD RATHER NOT DISABLE THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THEY DO PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT SAFETY VALUE. I AM NOT SURE WHAT I AM GOING TO DO AT THIS POINT BUT CLEARLY ACTION IS NEEDED. I WOULD LIKE TOYOTA TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND REPLACE THE DEFECTIVE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLIES. *TR

DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE CAUSING MELTING AND CRACKING OF THE LENS COVERING FROM THE INSIDE. I TOOK MY VEHICLE TO A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP IN SUPERIOR WI. VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED. THE SERVICE MANAGER CALLED TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES, ISSUER OF MY PLATINUM VEHICLE SERVICE AGREEMENT, AND THEN CALLED ME A FEW HOURS LATER TO SAY THAT MY CLAIM HAD BEEN DENIED BECAUSE "LAMPS" ARE NOT COVERED. I CALLED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE ON NOVEMBER 15, 2012 AND EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS A FIRE HAZARD AND REQUESTED IT BE REPAIRED. TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE CALLED ME BACK ON NOVEMBER 19, 2012 AND SAID THAT BECAUSE THE "ORIGINAL FACTORY WARRANTY" HAD EXPIRED SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO REMEDY OFFERED BY TOYOTA. THIS PROBLEM IS WELL DOCUMENTED ONLINE ON VARIOUS TACOMA / TOYOTA OWNERS' SITES. PERSONNEL AT THE DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THAT THE "REPLACEMENT PART" HAD BEEN RE-DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE THIS PROBLEM....SO TOYOTA IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2009 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS WOULD CAUSE THE HEADLIGHT LENS TO OVERHEAT, MELTING THE PLASTIC LENSES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO ADVISED THAT THERE WAS A BULLETIN FROM THE MANUFACTURER THAT STATED IF ANY HEADLIGHT WAS DEFECTIVE THEY HAVE TO REPLACE BOTH HEADLIGHTS. THE DEALER WILL REPAIR THE FAILURE OF THE PARTS FREE OF CHARGE, BUT THE CONTACT HAS TO PAY FOR THE LABOR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS AND OFFERED NO FURTHER ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 37,800.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2009 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE HEADLIGHT LENSES BECAME MELTED AND CRACKED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR INSPECTION BUT THEY ONLY TOOK PICTURES OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED WHO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OUT OF WARRANTY. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 37,383.