2007 Toyota Tacoma Structure

2007 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO LIFT SPRING SAFETY RECALL. *LD THE CONSUMER STATED THE DEALER SOLD THE VEHICLE WITH A RECALL THAT WAS EXPIRED AND HAD NOT BEEN SERVICED. THE VEHICLE DID EXPERIENCE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. *JS

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE UNDERCARRIAGE OF THE VEHICLE WAS COMPLETELY RUSTED. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO RILEY TOYOTA (2105 CHRISTY DR, JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65101, 573-893-3100) FOR AN OIL CHANGE AND THE MECHANIC NOTICED THAT THE BOTTOM FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT DUE TO THE VEHICLE BEING MANUFACTURED IN CANADA, A SPECIAL COATING WAS NOT APPLIED TO THE FRAME AND CAUSED THE CORROSION. THE MANUFACTURER OFFERED NO FURTHER ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 204,900.

I RECENTLY PURCHASED A 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE FRAME RUST RECALL. MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP INFORMED ME THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE CURRENTLY RUST PERFORATIONS IN THE FRAME (MANY FRAMES WERE REPLACED BY TOYOTA AT NO COST DURING THE ORIGINAL RECALL) THAT BECAUSE TOYOTA INSPECTED THE FRAME (WITH A PREVIOUS OWNER IN 2016) AND DID NOT FIND ANY ISSUES LARGE ENOUGH AT THAT TIME TO CAUSE THE ENTIRE FRAME TO BE REPLACED, THAT THEIR "CRC" UNDERCOATING THEY APPLIED WAS ALL THAT WAS NECESSARY. LESS THAN 3 YEARS LATER (MAYBE SOONER, BUT I JUST GOT THE VEHICLE) THE FRAME HAS HOLES IN IT AND TOYOTA IS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BUT OFFER A FULL OUT OF POCKET $10,000-$15,000 FRAME REPLACEMENT. THERE MUST BE THOUSANDS OF THESE VEHICLES FROM THE ORIGINAL RECALL THAT WERE ONLY SPRAYED AND NOT REPLACED THAT ARE NOW UNSAFE TO DRIVE WITH ABSOLUTELY NO RECOURSE FOR NEW (AKA UNAWARE) OWNERS BECAUSE NO WARRANTY OF THE SPRAY WHATSOEVER EXISTS. UNDERCOATING IN NO WAY PREVENTS RUST FROM CONTINUING TO ROT AWAY AND MAKE HOLES IN FRAMES - ALL TOYOTAS THAT WERE ONLY SPRAYED BUT DID NOT HAVE ENTIRE FRAME REPLACEMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO GET NEW INSPECTIONS BY TOYOTA AND REVISIT THE NEED FOR FRAME REPLACEMENTS.

WE TOOK OUR TOYOTA TACOMA 07 WITH 62,402 MILEAGE FOR STATE INSPECTION ON 7/24/2019. SIGNIFICANT RUST PERFORATION WAS FOUND ON THE FRAME CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO FAIL INSPECTION, AND THE MECHANIC ADVISED THAT IT IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. WE LEARNED ABOUT TOYOTA'S WARRANTY EXTENSION PROGRAM FOR RUST PERFORATION FROM THEIR CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FOR 2005'2010 TACOMA VEHICLES, BUT OUR 07 TACOMA'S EXTENSION EXPIRED ON 5/26/2019. WE CALLED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND WERE TOLD THAT TOYOTA WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO HELP IN OUR SITUATION, EVEN THOUGH THE PROBLEM EXISTED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND WE ONLY LEARNED OF THE PROBLEM AND THE PROGRAM AT THIS POINT BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF OUR STATE INSPECTION.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ROOF OF THE VEHICLE WAS COLLECTING RUST. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE RUST HAD PARTIALLY EATEN THROUGH THE ROOF. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO CHATTAM TOYOTA (7 PARK OF COMMERCE WAY, SAVANNAH, GA 31405, (912) 386-4040) WHERE THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT REPAIR, WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE ROOF, THE PAINT ON THE HOOD AT THE CONTACT'S EXPENSE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND REFERRED THE CONTACT TO NHTSA. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 90,000. *BF*JB

THE VEHICLE WAS STATIONARY AND WAS NOT IN A WRECK. I RECENTLY HAD MY TRUCK WORKED ON AND THE MECHANIC TOLD ME THE FRAME HAD ABOUT A TWO FOOT SPOT THAT WAS RUSTED THROUGH THE FRAME. AFTER LEARNING THIS, I DID SOME RESEARCH AND FOUND OUT THERE WAS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT THAT WAS SETTLED WITH TOYOTA FOR THE 2005-2010 YEAR MODEL TACOMA BECAUSE OF FRAME CORROSION. I CONTACTED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT I NEVER GOT A RECALL NOTIFICATION IN THE MAIL. THEY BASICALLY TOLD ME THEY WOULD NO LONGER REPLACE THE FRAMES FREE OF CHARGE BECAUSE I WAS TWO MONTHS PAST THE DEADLINE. I WILL MOST LIKELY BE FILING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THEM IF THEY CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO REPLACE MY FRAME. THE VEHICLE IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE AND HAD I KNOWN ABOUT THIS, I WOULD HAVE TAKEN CARE OF IT SOONER. THEY CLAIM THEY SENT A RECALL NOTIFICATION, HOWEVER I NEVER RECEIVED IT. I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT THAT TOYOTA IS REFUSING TO FIX A PROBLEM THEY KNEW ABOUT AND WAS RECALLED ON THE VEHICLE THEY BUILT. MY FAMILY HAS RIDDEN IN THE VEHICLE AND HAVE BEEN PUT AT RISK OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY BECAUSE THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE. NOW I BASICALLY HAVE A WORTHLESS UNSAFE TRUCK THAT WILL COST TOO MUCH TO REPAIR. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO FORCE TOYOTA TO REPLACE THE FRAME ON MY TRUCK? TOYOTA GAVE ME CASE #[XXX]. THE CONVERSATION WAS RECORDED AND BURNED TO A CD, WHICH I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION. IF NECESSARY, I CAN MAIL IT TO SOMEONE. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TT

RECALL ON FRAME FROM TOYOTA .TOYOTA HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING TO HELP FIX THIS PROBLEM REPORTED AND WAS INSPECTED JAN.2018 BY SPARKS TOYOTA .

I EXPERIENCED A BAD SMELL IN THE CABIN, PARTICULARLY WHEN FIRST SWITCHING ON THE IGNITION, WHICH CAUSES THE CABIN AIR FAN TO START RUNNING. I CHECKED THE CABIN AIR FILTER. THERE WERE RAT FECES IN THE PLEATS OF THE FILTER, A SMELL OF RAT URINE, AND THERE WAS FOAM MATERIAL FROM THE INSIDE OF THE CAR. PRESUMABLY THE RATS HAD BEEN CHEWING IT TO MAKE A NEST. THEY HAD ALSO BEEN CHEWING ON THE FILTER MATERIAL. THE LOCAL TOYOTA REPRESENTATIVE SAID TOYOTA USA WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO HELP ME. I REMOVED THE COWL AT THE BASE OF THE WINDSHIELD. THE CABIN AIR INTAKE IS OPEN TO THE SPACE UNDER THE COWL. I FOUND THAT THAT THE TOP OF THE COWL IS DRAINED BY HOLES WHERE THE WINDSHIELD WIPER DRIVE SHAFTS GO THROUGH THE COWL. THE WATER COLLECTS IN THE SPACE UNDER THE COWL, WHICH IN TURN IS DRAINED THROUGH LARGE DRAIN HOLES AT BOTH ENDS, DOWN INTO THE FENDERS ABOVE THE WHEEL WELLS, AND TO THE GROUND. I THINK THE RATS WERE GETTING UNDER THE COWL AND INTO THE CABIN AIR INTAKE THROUGH ONE OR MORE OF THESE HOLES. I CLEANED THE BLOWER FAN ASSEMBLY, THE CABIN AIR INTAKE, AND THE INSIDE OF THE COWL, AND REPLACED THE CABIN AIR FILTER. I MADE SCREENS FROM INCH MESH TO KEEP THE RATS OUT OF THE SPACE UNDER THE COWL. I INSTALLED THEM ON BOTH SIDES. I ALSO MADE AND INSTALLED A SCREEN OVER THE CABIN AIR INTAKE TO KEEP RATS OUT IF THEY SOMEHOW GET AROUND THE SIDE SCREENS. I HAVE HAD NO MORE PROBLEMS SO FAR. SINCE RATS CARRY DISEASE, I CONSIDER THIS A SERIOUS HEALTH ISSUE FOR ALL THE OTHER OWNERS OF THESE VEHICLES. I AM FORWARDING THIS INFORMATION IN THE HOPE THAT YOU CAN PRESSURE TOYOTA USA TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND CORRECT THIS ISSUE FOR ALL OWNERS.

CORROSION ISSUES WITH TOYOTA. HAD MY VEHICLE CHASSIS INSPECTED PER A NOTIFICATION RECEIVED IN 2016. DEALER INDICATED "NOMINAL". I VIEWED MY CHASSIS SOON THEREAFTER AND NOTICED METAL SEPARATION. I REPORTED THIS TO TOYOTA.COM AND RECEIVED NOTHING. I NOW HAVE A PIECE OF METAL WHOSE WELD BROKE DUE TO CORROSION. I WAS GIVEN AN UPDATED LETTER BY MY LOCAL INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. I NEVER RECEIVED THIS AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY TREATMENT TO MY CHASSIS. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE, PARTICULARLY SINCE WELDS ARE BREAKING DUE TO CORROSION. THIS HAS BEEN ONGOING SINCE JULY 2016. PICTURES WERE TAKEN IN 2016, WITHIN 3-4 WEEKS OF THE ALLEGED DEALER INSPECTION.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD A HOLE IN THE FRAME. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND INSTRUCTED THE DEALER TO PROVIDE THE CONTACT WITH A LOANER VEHICLE. THE FAILURE WAS INVESTIGATED AND THE DEALER WAS WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE MANUFACTURER. IN 2014, THE DEALER SPRAYED THE FRAME DUE TO CORROSION. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 101,000.

FRAME WAS INSPECTED AND IT IS RUSTING,

THE PAINT IS DEFECTIVE AND PEELING OFF VEHICLE IN MORE THAN ONE LOCATION.

FRAME RUST. MY VEHICLE EXHIBITED PERFORATED RUST ON THE STRUCTURAL PARTS OF THE FRAME. I TOOK THE TRUCK TO TOYOTA ON 29 FEBRUARY 2016 FOR REPAIR UNDER THEIR SERVICE CAMPAIGN THAT WAS NOT TO END UNTIL 31 MARCH 2016. THE TECHNICIANS COULD NOT FIND THE HOLES OF RUST UNTIL I SHOWED THEM AND THEN I WAS INFORMED THAT TOYOTA WOULD NO LONGER REMEDY THE ROTTING FRAME BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY COATED BY TOYOTA WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS OWNED BY A DIFFERENT OWNER. I POINTED OUT TO THEM THAT THE REMEDY THAT TOYOTA HAD EMPLOYED WAS OBVIOUSLY INEFFECTIVE AND SINCE THE SERVICE CAMPAIGN WAS STILL IN FORCE, A PROPER REMEDY SHOULD BE EMPLOYED. THE DEALERSHIP REFUSED AND REFERRED ME TO TOYOTA NATIONAL FOR USA. THEY ALSO REFUSED TO ASSIST AND SENT A LETTER TO ME TO THAT EFFECT. TOYOTA LAUNCHED THIS SERVICE CAMPAIGN BUT ARE NOT ENSURING THAT THEIR REPAIRS ARE EFFECTIVELY FIXING THE ISSUE WHICH INVOLVES THE UNDERMINING OF THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THEIR VEHICLE FRAMES. IT IS UNACCEPTABLE THAT THE FRAME RECALL IS NOT WORKING AND THAT TOYOTA IS NOT WILLING TO STAND BEHIND THEIR PRODUCT, LEAVING THE CUSTOMER WITH AN UNSAFE VEHICLE DUE TO THE COMPROMISED STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE FRAME ITSELF.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA. AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD SEVERE CORROSION AND THE CHASSIS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS INVALID. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 90,000.

I PURCHASED A 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA FROM BERNARDI TOYOTA IN FRAMINGHAM, MA IN DECEMBER OF 2008. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC. ISSUED A SERVICE CAMPAIGN TO INSPECT AND REPAIR THE FRAMES OF 2007 TOYOTA TACOMAS DUE TO A MANUFACTURER DEFECT WHICH RESULTED IN CORROSION TO THE VEHICLES FRAME. I BROUGHT MY TOYOTA TACOMA IN FOR INSPECTION AT BERNARDI TOYOTA AND THE FRAME DID NOT HAVE A HOLE IN IT. THEREFORE, THE FRAME WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT, RATHER IT WAS ONLY ELIGIBLE TO BE SPRAYED WITH A COATING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO PREVENT CORROSION. IN MARCH OF 2016, I RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR A DEFECT IN THE MANUFACTURING OF THE VEHICLES LEAF SPRINGS (ALSO CORROSION RELATED). I BROUGHT THE VEHICLE IN FOR THE RECALL AND BERNARDI TOYOTA NOTICED A HOLE IN THE FRAME. BERNARDI CONTACTED TOYOTA CORPORATE TO REPLACE THE FRAME; HOWEVER, WAS REFUSED. I CONTACTED TOYOTA AS WELL AND THEY ALSO REFUSED TO REPLACE THE FRAME WITH A KNOWN MANUFACTURER DEFECT, DESPITE REPLACING FRAMES FOR OTHER CUSTOMERS. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE SPRAY APPLIED TO THE FRAME DID NOT WORK TO PREVENT FURTHER CORROSION. TOYOTA REPLACED THE FRAME ON TRUCKS WITH HOLES IN THE FRAME SIMILAR TO MINE, BUT REFUSES TO REPLACE THE FRAME ON MY TRUCK EVEN THOUGH THE PROBLEM IS DIRECTLY CORROSION RELATED AND THE SPRAY THEY APPLIED DID NOT PREVENT THE FRAME FROM RUSTING THROUGH. THIS IS A KNOWN DEFECT WHICH WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED BY TOYOTA. TOYOTA SHOULD PROVIDE ME WITH AN EQUAL REMEDY THAT THEY PROVIDED TO OTHER TOYOTA TACOMA OWNERS AND THAT IS A FRAME REPLACEMENT.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING SERVICED FOR A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RECALL, THE MECHANIC NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED AND CONTAINED HOLES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RECALL WAS EXPIRED AND COULD NOT BE USED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 68,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE INSPECTING UNDER THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT NOTICED SEVERE RUST ON THE FRAME. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO STATED THAT THEY WILL ORDER THE FRAME AND CONTACT THE OWNER TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE UNDER THE RECALL. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY THE SAME DEALER IN MARCH OF 2015 AND THE DIAGNOSIS WAS THAT THE FRAME WAS FINE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE INSPECTED A SECOND TIME. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 58,500. UPDATED 08/05/16*LJ *CN

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS AT THE DEALER FOR A ROUTINE REPAIR, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE REAR DRIVER SIDE CROSS MEMBER WAS CORRODED COMPLETELY DUE TO RUST. IN 2014, THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED UNDER A VOLUNTARY RECALL ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER, WHICH CONSISTED OF SPRAYING A CORROSION PROTECTION COMPOUND TO THE CROSS MEMBER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 69,184. ....UPDATED 07/05/16 *BF THE CONSUMER IS REQUESTING AN UPDATE. UPDATED 09/19/16. *JB *CN

INSPECTION NOTICED UNDERFRAME IS BADLY RUSTED (PENETRATION NOT SURFACE RUST) AND IS IN DANGER OF FAILING.

I PURCHASED A NEW 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA (VIN # [XXX]) FROM BOCH TOYOTA OF NORWOOD MA. IT CURRENTLY HAS 44,836 MILES ON THE ODOMETER. IN JULY 2014 TOYOTA HAS A SAFETY RECALL FOR CORROSION OF FRAMES ON VEHICLES LIKE MINE. AT THAT TIME THEY ONLY REMOVED LOOSE RUST AND APPLIED SOME KIND OF RUST PROOFING. ON MARCH 25, 2016 I TOOK MY TRUCK IN FOR ANOTHER RECALL. THIS RECALL IS FOR CORROSION OF LEAF SPRINGS.BOTH LEAF SPRINGS WERE REPLACED. THE MANAGER SAID THEY HAD FOUND CORROSION DAMAGE TO THE FRAME OF MY TRUCK, INCLUDING A RUST THROUGH OR CRACK IN AN AREA BELOW THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR. HE SAID THE FRAME SHOULD BE REPLACED AND I SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA, BECAUSE THEY HAVE REPLACED SUCH FRAMES UNDER THE TERMS OF THE FRAME CORROSION RECALL. I CONTACTED TOYOTA. MY CASE # IS [XXX]. TOYOTA SAID THE FRAME RECALL ENDED IN JULY OF 2014, AND SINCE THE DAMAGE WAS NOT NOTED UNTIL LATER, THEN IT WAS NOT COVERED. MY COMPLAINT IS: ?THIS PROBLEM IS NOT CAUSED BY NORMAL USE, BUT IS A SAFETY DEFECT, WHICH TOYOTA ACKNOWLEDGED WITH THEIR 2014 RECALL.. ?THE INSPECTION OF MY TRUCK FOR CORROSION AND FRAME DAMAGE IN JULY 2014 MISSED THE SEVERITY OF THE PROBLEM WITH MY TRUCK. ?THE APPLICATION OF RUST PROOFING WAS EITHER NOT PROPERLY DONE OR INADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THE DAMAGE, WHICH THE RECALL INTENDED TO ADDRESS. ?TOYOTA?S DEADLINE FOR HAVING THE FRAME REPLACEMENT WORK DONE UNDER THEIR RECALL IS MARCH 31ST 2016. I REPORTED MY FRAME DAMAGE AND REQUESTED REPLACEMENT PRIOR TO THAT DATE A TOYOTA REP SAID THAT, BECAUSE THEIR TECHNICIANS DID NOT NOTE THE SEVERITY OF MY FRAME DAMAGE IN 2014, A FRAME REPLACEMENT BY TOYOTA IS NOT COVERED NOW. THIS TRUCK HAS SEEN VERY LIGHT USE. THE CONDITION OF THIS FRAME IS A SAFETY DEFECT, WHICH TOYOTA HAS COVERED IN OTHER CASES.TOYOTA SHOULD COVER FRAME REPLACEMENT FOR MY TRUCK UNDER THE 2014 RECALL. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

RUST PERFORATION ON FRAME. WAS NOT NOTIFIED THAT THIS WAS AN ISSUE BY MANUFACTURER. FIRST INSPECTED BY DEALER 4/15/15 AND WAS MISSED. INSPECTED BY ANOTHER DEALER DEALER 1/31/16 AND FOUND LARGE PERFORATIONS IN FRAME MEASURING 4". WAS INFORMED BY DEALER THI WAS A KNOWN ISSUE AND WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF FREE OF CHARGE. MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF ISSUE AND DECLINED FRAME REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUBFRAME WAS RUSTED AND CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE PART FOR THE REPAIR WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND ADVISED THE CONTACT TO RETURN WITH THE VEHICLE WHEN THE PART BECAME AVAILABLE. IN ADDITION, THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT ANOTHER UNKNOWN REPAIR WAS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE RECALL REMEDY FOR THE SUBFRAME. THE CONTACT WAS CONCERNED FOR HIS SAFETY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 180,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.

2007 TACOMA WELL MAINTAINED AND GARAGE KEPT IS SHOWING SIGNS OF EXCESSIVE RUST ON FRAME AND AND INSIDE FRAME RAILS. TOYOTA HAS A CAMPAIGN OUT AT THIS TIME TO COVER EXCESSIVE FRAME RUST ON TACOMA'S IN THE FOLLOWING STATES. CT DE IL IN KY MA MD ME MI MN NH NJ NY OH PA RI VA VT WI WV, & D.C. I LIVE IN IOWA WHICH ALSO USES SALT ON ROADS IN THE WINTER AND ONLY LIVE 35 MILES FROM THE MINNESOTA BORDER, SO WHY IS MY TRUCK NOT COVERED IN THIS SALT BELT CAMPAIGN? I CHECKED ON LINE AND THERE ARE MANY COMPLAINTS OF FRAME RUST ON 1996-2009 TACOMA'S BEING DEEMED UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND WITH FRAMES FAILING AFTER AS LITTLE AS 6 YEARS. *JS

REGARDING THE FRAME RUST ISSUE WITH THE TACOMA, I AM CONCERNED THAT MY TRUCK WILL BE UNSAFE TO DRIVE. AN INSPECTION OF MY FRAME HAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED BECAUSE IOWA IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE "COLD WEATHER STATE" LIST IN THE SERVICE BULLETIN. I AM GUESSING THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN HERE IN WINTER. IS IT WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS SOLD, VIN NUMBER, OR DID TOYOTA JUST LIMIT THE STATES IT WOULD COVER. MY ISSUE IS IF MY TRUCK HAS A RUST ISSUE IT SHOULD BE COVERED FOR THE SAFETY CONCERN. RUST DOES NOT STOP AT THE ILLINOIS\IOWA STATE LINE. HOPE TO AT LEAST GET AN ANSWER FROM TOYOTA THAT MY TRUCK IS A SAFETY CONCERN OR NOT. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE OF ANY INFO. YOU CAN PROVIDE. *TR

NO ACCIDENT INVOLVED BUT THERE IS EXCESSIVE RUST AT PRESENT AND WAS AN EXTREME AMOUNT BACK IN NOVEMBER 2008. LOOKING AT THE LEAF SPRINGS; GROUNDING SCREWS SECURING THE WIRING; JUST THE COMPLETE TRUCK IS TERRIBLY RUSTED AND WITH A FEELING OF A POSSIBLE ROAD ISSUE. I FEEL THAT IT IS UNSAFE. *TR