1995 Toyota Tacoma Structure

THE FRAME IS RUSTING AWAY

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A SPECIAL SERVICE CAMPAIGN REGARDING THE STRUCTURE RUST. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE RECALL WAS EXPIRED. THE RECALL DETAILS WERE UNKNOWN. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. UPDATED 01/10/2017*CT CONSUMER STATED FRAME DETERIORATION AND IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. UPDATED 6/26/18*JB

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY RUSTED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 60,000. UPDATED 11/21/14*CN UPDATED 8/13/2015 *JS

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR AN UNRELATED REPAIR WHEN THEY NOTICED THAT THE FRONT AND REAR FRAME WAS COMPLETELY CORRODED DUE TO MASSIVE RUST. THE MECHANIC INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE DAMAGES WERE SEVERE AND BEYOND REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 180,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING INSPECTED, THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED AND CONTAINED A LARGE HOLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING AND THEY STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TOO OLD FOR REPAIR. THE CONTACT WAS AWARE OF SOME RUST ON THE VEHICLE FOUR YEARS AGO; HOWEVER, THE DEALER STATED THAT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH RUST TO BE REPAIRED ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURER'S RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 135,000.

1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE FRAME RUST. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE HE TOOK THE VEHICLE IN FOR THE RUST PERFORATION RECALL IN 2008. HE WAS INFORMED OTHER THAN SURFACE RUST, IT WAS NOT BAD ENOUGH TO REPLACE, AS NO HOLES OR SOFT SPOTS WERE FOUND. ALTHOUGH, HE DID NOT TAKE THE VEHICLE BACK FOR A RE-INSPECTION, HE WAS INFORMED BY A TOYOTA REPRESENTATIVES THAT THE TRUCK WOULD NOT FAIL ANOTHER INSPECTION AND THE FRAME WAS NOT BAD ENOUGH TO WARRANT A REPLACEMENT. IN 2011, THE FRAME CRACKED AND IT WAS WELDED TOGETHER. IN AUGUST 2013, THE FRAME SPLIT IN HALF AGAIN. THE CONSUMER RETURNED TO THE DEALER, WHERE THEY INFORMED HIM, HAD HE PURCHASED THE VEHICLE THERE, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HELP HIM.

IN JUNE 2011 I HAD MY 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA INSPECTED. I SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THAT THE FRAME BE CHECKED. THE TRUCK PASSED INSPECTION AND THE INVOICE, WHICH I HAVE, STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS GOOD. AT THAT TIME MY TRUCK HAD 166,874 MILES ON IT. ON AUGUST 3, 2013, 2 YEARS LATER, I TOOK MY TOYOTA TACOMA TO THE SAME TOYOTA DEALER WHO INSPECTED IT IN 2011. THE TRUCK DID NOT PASS INSPECTION, AND THE INVOICE, WHICH I ALSO HAVE, STATES: "THE FRAME HAS A HOLE IN IT - LOCATED PASSENGER REAR NEAR SPRING PURCH. HOLE. CUSTOMER HAS 30 DAYS FROM TODAY TO HAVE REPAIRS DONE". THE MILEAGE ON THE TRUCK IS 173,527. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT IN 2 YEARS, WITH ONLY 6,653 ADDITIONAL MILES ON IT, THAT THE FRAME HAD RUSTED TO THAT EXTENT. I TOOK THE TRUCK FOR A 2ND OPINION. NOT ONLY DID THE FRAME HAVE A HOLE IN IT, THERE WERE SEVERAL RUST SPOTS TOYOTA DID NOT REPORT, IN ADDITION, THE PART THAT HELD ON THE TRAILER HITCH IS SO RUSTED THEY SUGGESTED NOT TO USE IT ANY MORE. I CAN'T EVEN USE MY TRUCK ANY MORE! I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND GOT A CASE NUMBER. I GOT AN EMAIL FROM A CASE MANAGER WITH A NUMBER TO CALL. I CALLED JUST TO HAVE THEM TELL ME THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO FOR ME. I UNDERSTAND THE RECALL ENDED AT THE END OF DECEMBER, BUT I FIGURED AFTER THE REPORT I WAS GIVEN IN 2011, "THE FRAME IS GOOD", THAT I HAD NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. NOW, MY TRUCK SITS IN MY DRIVEWAY. IT IS A PILE OF JUNK AND TOYOTA'S MISSION STATEMENT: "TO ATTRACT AND ATTAIN CUSTOMERS WITH HIGH VALUED PRODUCT AND SERVICES AND THE MOST SATISFYING OWNERSHIP EXPERIENCE IN AMERICA" NEEDS TO BE RE-WRITTEN! THANK YOU TOYOTA FOR YOUR REPUTABLE SERVICE AND MY EXTREME LACK OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION! *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE HEARD A KNOCKING FROM UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A BRAKE SPECIALIST FOR INSPECTION AND THE FAILURE WAS LOCATED AT THE FRONT FRAME, WHICH WAS CORRODED. THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED BY THE SPECIALIST THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 174,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE HAVING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE PERFORMED ON THE VEHICLE, HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY CORRODED. THE DEALER ALSO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY RECALLS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 130,000.

ON DECEMBER 23, 2010 DURING A CONVERSATION WITH A CO-WORKER I LEARNED THAT TOYOTA HAD BEEN REPAIRING OR BUYING BACK 1995-2004 TACOMAS DUE TO A SAFETY ISSUE BASED ON EXCESSIVE FRAME RUST TO THE POINT OF FAILURE DUE TO A MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT. ON DECEMBER,24, 2010 I CONTACTED MY TOYOTA DEALER, AND THEY ADVISED THAT THERE WAS A PROGRAM IN PLACE, AND THEY ADVISED ME TO BRING THE TRUCK IN ON DECEMBER 28TH FOR AN INSPECTION. ON DECEMBER 28TH, 2010 I BROUGHT MY TRUCK TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY ADVISED THAT MY TRUCK FAILED THE INSPECTION OF THE FRAME AND THAT THEY WERE CONDEMNING MY TRUCK BECAUSE THE FRAME WAS UNSAFE DUE TO A MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT. THEY PROVIDED ME WITH A LOANER CAR AND STATED TOYOTA WOULD CONTACT ME AND ARRANGE FOR A BUYBACK AMOUNT. ON JANUARY 3RD I WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED TOYOTA WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING FOR ME BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL OWNER PURCHASED THE VEHICLE IN APRIL OF 1995 AND THEY WOULD ONLY HONOR THE BUYBACK UNTIL THAT DATE IN 2010. THE DEALERSHIP STILL HAS MY TRUCK AS I WAS TOLD IT WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE, AND TOYOTA IS REFUSING TO DO ANYTHING TO CORRECT THEIR MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT IN THE FRAME. FURTHER MORE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE INSPECTION (HITTING THE FRAME WITH A HAMMER) WHICH WAS AUTHORIZED BY TOYOTA, THERE IS PROBABLY FURTHER DAMAGE TO THE FRAME THEN WHEN I BROUGHT IT IN. WITH ADMITTING THAT THEIR DEFECT CAUSES A SAFETY ISSUE, I FEEL TOYOTA SHOULD BE FORCED TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM OR BUY BACK MY VEHICLE. THEIR STANCE ON THE INITIAL INSERVICE DATE SHOULD NOT APPLY TO ME AS I AM NOT THE ORIGINAL OWNER, AND I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED BY TOYOTA ABOUT THIS SAFETY ISSUE AT ANY TIME AND HAVE BEEN THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THIS VEHICLE SINCE 2006. *TR

MY 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA WAS SERVICED AT COLONIAL TOYOTA IN MILFORD, CT IN MARCH OF 2009. DURING THAT SERVICE, THE DEALER INFORMED ME THAT MY TRUCK QUALIFIED FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE FRAME RUST CORROSION PERFORATION WARRANTY. THEY PERFORMED AN INSPECTION AND STATED THAT THE FRAME PASSED. APPROXIMATELY 1 MONTH AGO I RECEIVED MY FIRST OFFICIAL LETTER FROM TOYOTA MOTOR SALES INDICATING THAT MY 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA HAS QUALIFIED FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE FRAME RUST CORROSION PERFORATION WARRANTY FOR A PERIOD OF 15 YEARS FROM THE VEHICLE'S IN SERVICE DATE. I PRESENTED THE TRUCK TO TOYOTA OF MIDDLETOWN, CT ON 11/20/10 AND WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE FRAME FAILED INSPECTION DUE TO AN EXTREMELY LARGE HOLE. I WAS TOLD THAT DUE TO THE THICKNESS OF THE FRAME AND LARGE DIAMETER OF THE HOLE, IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN OVER A YEAR TO DEVELOP. AS A RESULT, TOYOTA OF MIDDLETOWN STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS 'UNSAFE TO DRIVE'. I WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE NO LONGER QUALIFIED FOR THE WARRANTY EXTENSION AS THE IN SERVICE DATE WAS 10/2/1995. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE HOLE IN THE FRAME WAS OVERLOOKED IN MARCH OF 2009. I AM THE SECOND OWNER OF THE VEHICLE AND WAS NOT AWARE OF THE SPECIFIC IN SERVICE DATE. I AM NOW IN A VERY DIFFICULT POSITION AS TOYOTA MOTOR SALES HAS DEEMED THE TRUCK 'UNSAFE TO DRIVE' DUE TO 'INADEQUATE CORROSION-RESISTANT PROTECTION' APPLIED BY TOYOTA. AS MY PRIMARY VEHICLE, I WILL NOT PUT MY FAMILY OR OTHER DRIVERS AT RISK AND CANNOT SELL THIS TRUCK KNOWING THAT IT UNSAFE TO DRIVE. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THE REAR OF THE FRAME WAS RUSTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND THEY INFORMED HIM THERE WAS NO RUST ON THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY ASSISTANCE STATING THERE WAS NO RUST ON THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 191,000. UPDATED 08/19/10*BF THE CONSUMER STATED THE FRAME RUSTED THE REAR SPRING HANGERS AND CAUSED THE REAR OF THE TRUCK TO MOVE AND HIT A FIRE HYDRANT. UPDATED 09/28/10

1995 TOYOTA TACOMA WITH A RUSTED FRAME. *KB THE CONSUMER STATED THE GAS TANK HAD TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE IT RUSTED OUT AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM. *JB

I HAVE A 1995 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE FRAME IS RUSTING AND THE CAB MOUNTS ARE COMPLETELY RUSTED OFF. THE OTHER MOUNTS ARE ALSO ABOUT GONE. THE MAIN FRAME IS ON ITS WAY. I'M NOTICING RUST FLAKES FALLING OFF UNDER THE TRUCK. I TOOK IT IN TO THE DEALER UNDER THE BUY BACK PROGRAM AND WAS TOLD THAT THE MAIN FRAME IS NOT BAD ENOUGH FOR THE BUY BACK. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE TRUCK AWAY. 1 WEEK LATER THE CAB MOUNTS RUSTED OFF AND THE CAB FELL TO THE FRAME. *TR

I HAVE THE FRAME RECALL ON 1995 TACOMA I RECEIVED A LETTER LAST SUMMER 2008 I WENT TO IRA TOYOTA IN DANVERS MA, THEY PAST MY TRUCK FOR FRAME INSPECTION SO I WENT ON MY WAY THINKING I AM IN A SAFE TRUCK. MY FRIEND ALSO HAD 2000 TACOMA THEY ALSO PASSED HIS TRUCK LAST SUMMER. THE BEGINNING OF FEB 2009 HE WAS CHANGING HIS LEFT REAR TIRE AND SAW RUST ON THE FRAME WERE LEAF SPRIG IS MOUNTED AND PUSHED HIS FINGER THREW HE INFORMED ME SO WHEN I CAME HOME FROM WORK I TOOK A HAMMER AND SCREWDRIVER TO AREA OF THE FRAME DOWN THE SIDE SEEM OK WITH GOOD SOLID SOUND OF STRONG METAL THEN I CHECKED WERE THE LEAF SPRING ARE MOUNTED SCREWDRIVER WENT THREW LIKE BUTTER I TOOK IT BACK TO THE DEALER AGAIN THEY PASSED IT SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG I KNOW METAL THESE ARE RUSTING FROM INSIDE OUT I BELIEVE ALL 1995 2000 TACOMA'S ARE JUNK I HOPE YOU CAN HELP ME TOYOTA IS NOT HELPING AT ALL. *TR

I PURCHASED A TOYOTA TACOMA FROM A DEALER ON 9-17-2002. THE TRUCK WAS A SALVAGE VEHICLE WHICH WAS RECONSTRUCTED BY THE DEALER. I PAID $8,650.80 FOR THE VEHICLE. IT HAD IT HAD 87,631 MILES WHEN I PURCHASED IT. I WENT TO THE LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER (KINDERHOOK TOYOTA) ON 4/28/08 TO GET NEW SHOCKS PUT ON THE FRONT. I HAVE BEEN DRIVING THE VEHICLE FOR 6 YEARS AND IT NOW HAS 129,119 MILES ON IT. THEY TOLD ME THE VEHICLE HAD A DEFECTIVE FRAME AND WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND THAT TOYOTA WOULD GIVE ME A CHECK FOR THE BOOK VALUE OF THE VEHICLE PLUS 50%. I GOT A CALL FROM TOYOTA ON 5/10/2008 TELLING ME THEY WOULD NOT GIVE ME ANYTHING FOR THE TRUCK BECAUSE IT WAS REGISTERED AS A SALVAGE VEHICLE. I WOULD NEVER HAVE BOUGHT THIS TRUCK IN THE FIRST PLACE IN 2002 HAD I KNOW IT WAS DEFECTIVE. THERE WAS NO INTENT ON MY PART TO DEFRAUD ANYONE. I FEEL I SHOULD BE COMPENSATED FOR BUYING A DEFECTIVE VEHICLE, IT WAS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT PERIOD. NOW I HAVE A TRUCK I CAN NOT DRIVE. I FELL AS THOUGH I SHOULD BE COMPENSATED BY TOYOTA. *TR

THE METAL UNDER MY 95 TOYOTA TACOMA IS CRUMBLING AWAY. *TR

THE SPRING LEAF SLID INTO THE TIRE AND BUSTED THE TIRE, CONSUMER LOSS CONTROL.