2003 TOYOTA TUNDRA Complaints

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TUNDRA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN FOR STATE INSPECTION AND THE CONTACT WAS TOLD THERE WAS SEVERE RUST ON THE FRAME. THE CONTACT REFERENCED NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER:09V444000(STRUCTURE: FRAME AND MEMBERS: UNDERBODY SHIELDS) AND SPOKE WITH THE MANUFACTURER BUT WAS TOLD THAT THE RECALL HAD EXPIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 47,000. UPDATED 08/28/12*LJ

RECEIVED THE RECALL NOTICE, BROUGHT VEHICLE TO LOCAL DEALER WHICH STATED THERE WAS NO CORROSION, DEALER DID NOT SPRAY UNDER CARRIAGE. FAMILY MEMBER ALSO OWNS THIS TRUCK AND STATED THAT HIS WAS SPRAYED AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY ERODED AND REPLACED. I WILL BE CALLING THE DEALER TOMORROW FOR REEVALUATION AS THE FUEL FILLER MAY BE ERODED OR CRACKED. *TR

CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ON. CODE RELATED TO EVAPORATION/FUEL SYSTEM. CHECKED THE FUEL CAP, APPEARS OK, RESET LIGHT AND RETURNED ON. WILL REPLACE FUEL CAP. POTENTIALLY FUEL FILLER PIPE AS MENTIONED FREQUENTLY ON HERE. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TUNDRA. THE CONTACT NOTICED A RUSTED HOLE IN THE REAR FRAME. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE FRAME WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE CONTACT REFERENCED NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 09V444000 (STRUCTURE: FRAME AND MEMBERS:UNDERBODY SHIELDS) BUT WAS ADVISED BY THE MANUFACTURER THAT THE LOCATION OF THE HOLE WAS NOT PART OF THE FRAME AND IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE RECALL. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY TREATED WITH A CORROSION COMPOUND UNDER THE RECALL CAMPAIGN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 115,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TUNDRA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME EXHIBITED RUST AND CORROSION, WHICH CAUSED EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL CASING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS. THERE WAS A RECALL ASSOCIATED WITH NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 09V444000 (STRUCTURE: FRAME AND MEMBERS: UNDERBODY SHIELDS). THE PART WAS ORDERED AND THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE WITHIN SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS. THE CONTACT EXPRESSED THAT THE RECALL REMEDY SHOULD INCLUDE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL CASING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 46,000.

TOYOTA HAD A RE-CALL FOR EXCESSIVE CORROSION ON THE 03 TUNDRA. I HAVE BEEN TAKING THE TRUCK IN FOR INSPECTIONS FOR 3 YEARS & WAS TOLD EVERYTHING WAS OK. THIS YEAR TOYOTA SAID THEY HAD AN OK TO UNDERCOAT THE FRAMES. WHILE MY TRUCK WAS IN FOR THE WORK IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE REAR DIFFERNTIAL HAD RUSTED THROUGH & WAS LEAKING OIL. EVEN THOUGH THIS COMPONENET IS ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE TRUCK JUST LIKE THE FRAME THAT WAS COVERED THE REPAIRS WERE NOT COVERED UNDER THE RECALL. IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE ISSUE WAS CAUSED BY CORROSION. TOTAL COST OF THE REPAIR WAS $2000 FOR THE REAR DIFFERNTIAL CASING TO BE REPLACED. WHY WAS THIS NOT COVERED UNDER THE RECALL IF THE COMPONENET IS PART OF THE UDERSIDE OF THE VEHICLE? *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 TOYOTA TUNDRA. THE CONTACT WAS DRIVING 35 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE CRASHED INTO TWO TREES AND THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED HEAD INJURIES AS A RESULT OF THE CRASH. THE POLICE WERE CONTACTED AND A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A PRIVATE MECHANIC AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 155,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS 2003 TOYOTA TUNDRA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE HAVING THE OIL CHANGED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE REAR END NEEDED TO BE REPLACED DUE TO CORROSION. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED, BUT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 92,375 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 92,575. UPDATED 03/05/12*LJ TOYOTA INFORMED THE CONSUMER, THE REAR FRAME WAS NOT COVERED UNDER CURRENT FRAME CORROSION RECALL. UPDATED 03/07/12

I RECEIVED THE SSC 90M - TUNDRA VEHICLES SEVERE CORROSION OF THE REAR CROSS MEMBER PHASE 2 - CRC APPLICATION. MY TRUCK HAS A TONNEAU COVER AND A BED RUG INSTALLED. WHEN I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP TO SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT THEY INFORMED ME THAT THE BED OF THE TRUCK WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO COMPLETE THE REPAIRS. I TOLD THEM THAT I DID NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO REMOVE THE TONNEAU COVER AND THE BED RUG. THEY SAID THAT THEY COULD NOT PERFORM THE REPAIR WITHOUT THESE ITEMS REMOVED AND THAT THEY WOULD NOT REMOVE THEM FOR ME. I THEN CONTACTED TOYOTA CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE CENTER AT 800-331-4331, EXTENSION [XXX] AND DISCUSSED THE SITUATION WITH [XXX]. SHE CLAIMED THAT THE RECALL LETTER STATES THAT THE TRUCK MUST BE PRESENTED IN "FACTORY CONDITION" (I GUESS THAT MEANS NO BED RUG OR TONNEAU COVER). I REREAD THE LETTER AND THAT IS NOT STATED ANYWHERE IN THE LETTER. I CALLED HER BACK AND SHE WAS UNABLE TO ASSIST ME NOR WOULD SHE ELEVATE MY ISSUE TO THE MANAGEMENT LEVEL. THIS RECALL WORK MUST BE DONE, AND AGAIN, I HAVE NO MEANS TO REMOVE THESE ITEMS. I'M SURE THAT I'M NOT THE ONLY TUNDRA OWNER EXPERIENCING THIS ISSUE. THIS TRUCK WILL BE UNSAFE TO DRIVE IF THE RECALL WORK IS NOT DONE. PLEASE HELP. THANK YOU. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).*TR

I BOUGHT MY TUNDRA NEW IN 2003..I BOUGHT IT TO CARRY THE MAIL AS I WAS INFORMED THAT IT WOULD LAST LONGER AND HOLD UP BETTER THAN OTHER MAKES..I HAD TO REPLACE THE FRONT BRAKE PADS THE FIRST TIME AT ABOUT 15,000 MILES BUT WAS NOT TO CONCERNED AS I USE THEM MORE HEAVILY THAN MOST DRIVERS..THE NEXT TIME WAS ABOUT 12,000 MILES AND THIS TIME IT WAS SHUTTERING VERY BAD AND I REPLACED THE ROTORS ALONG WITH NEW PADS..THIS HAS BEEN AN ON GOING PROBLEM OF REPLACEMENT OF PARTS TO ELEVATE THE SEVERE SHUTTERING EACH TIME THINKING I HAD IT FIXED..TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME I FIND OUT THAT THIS IS NOT ONLY PROBLEM THAT TOYOTA KNEW ABOUT BUT POSSIBLY HAVE TRIED TO COVER BECAUSE THE REAL FIX IS VERY COSTLY ($2000)..THEY ISSUED A TBS (BR004-02) ALONG WITH 6 OR 7 OTHER TSB'S ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH BRAKES FROM YEAR MODEL 2000-2005..I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND THEY TOLD ME THAT IF I WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE VEHICLE TO A DEALER BEFORE MY 36,0000 WARRANTY EXPIRED IT COULD HAVE BEEN FIXED..HAD I KNOWN ABOUT THE SERVICE BULLETIN I WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT TO THE DEALER..SINCE THE BRAKE PARTS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE 36,000 MILE WARRANTY I DID NOT TAKE IT TO THE DEALER AS THE FIRST PAD REPLACEMENT SEEMED TO FIX THE PROBLEM..I WAS INFORMED THAT MAYBE IF ENOUGH PEOPLE FILED A COMPLAINT HERE THAT TOYOTA WOULD BE FORCED TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT THEY NEW ABOUT BUT DID NOT INFORM OWNERS ABOUT TO HAVE REPAIRED.. *TR