Frame rusted through club

Cynical? perhaps... because I do recognize the futility in trying to cling too long to vehicles ALLOWED to have self-obsolescent design characteristics. But I'm not so cynical as to maintain it is purposefully DESIGNED for it. Long story... good for another thread.

Spending huge amounts of time and money on maintaining vehicles in the state one wishes is a time-honored hobby; indeed it's at the core of being an enthusiast. Don't take offense where none is meant.. perhaps you're being a bit thin skinned?

But please, do look at what you're saying! Taking Toyota's admission of the earlier problems and apply that to the Gen2 Tacoma, with manufacture starting 5 years after the end of the problem period, is prima facie illogical without supporting the implication that Toyota identified a problem, admitted it, assumed the liability for it and yet didn't fix it even 10 years after the problem period!

Logic like this merely supports my assertion that too many of the gen2 complainers just want to get the same treatment as the gen1's. Namely, 1.5x bluebook after 4 or 5 years at the time they're ready to dump it anyway. Even if that's not your motive, just look at the comments made by hangers-on in this discussion thread and you get the idea!

At any rate go ahead and file complaint. If the numbers and facts bear you out then I'm sure Toyota will extend warranty for us too... they certainly have established a history of doing so. But I seriously doubt it will happen since there are no reports of a 2005 or 2006 folding in half or even rust penetration! That is certainly long enough to be able to say there is a true problem!

 

Wow man that is crazy, I have to go run out and look at my truck now, because I do actually live at the Jersey shore.

Ha ha that is some funny shit!

 

my 07 has multiple spots of rust on the frame as well.

I bought it new off the lot with the life-time rust-proofing optional package.

So far Toyota has done nothing but "document" the rust. Its been a few months so I might make yet another appointment at a different dealership and look at the fine print. Because of my rust-proofing package, i'm not sure if Toyota will stick the rust on them of chalk it up as defect.

I've looked at a co-workers 06 with the same rust-proofing and he has no rust and he's been parking in the same lot a full year longer than I have...so I know something is wrong.

 

And how it might relate to corrosion formation...

 

Pretty much sums it up

 

Yes I do.

In the 2009 model Toyota made some improvements to the frame. For your convenience I'll post it here. Enjoy.

Some of the frame structures on the ’09 Toyota Tacoma have been changed to meet MDB* tests for rear collision safety regulations.

• The cross sections of the upper and lower reinforcements on the kick-up portion of the rear side rail have been formed into a C-shape that prevents deformation of the rear kick-up portion, thus helping prevent deformation of the fuel tank and cabin during a rear collision.

• A closed section structure is used for the No. 6 cross member, which prevents deformation of the crossmember, thus helping prevent forward displacement of the fuel tank during a rear collision. (B-B crosssection)

• Stoppers have been added to the upper surface of the sides rail of the long wheelbase on Double Cab to reduce the relative displacement between the vehicle body and the frame, thus helping prevent deformation of the fuel tank.

* : Moving Deformation Barrier

We're discussing a defective frame coating. You're making the claim that it's by design? Get real!

We're not talking about buffing and waxing and upgrading here we're discussing a defect in said product.

No. Just I'm just being real and calling you out.

We are not in a court of law. The fact remains that 2005+ frames are indeed rotting, some quite severely. And there is plenty of evidence for those that want to see it. Do you own searching, I'm not going to do it for you.

Why do you have contempt for people who express concern over this issue? People are upset with their defective product, you imply a self-seeking-selfish motive and when I don't think there is one. By Toyota's own admission frames should not deteriorate so quickly.

Thank you for weighing in with your expert opinion.

 

Crom, thanks for the description and diagram, that helps! Good info to know! Nice to hear they went a step ahead to protect the gas tank and cabin even more in a collision.

 

Aahhh... but you see, I am not the expert here... you are the only one assuming that mantel! You allege facts where none exist.

Show me the 2005 with frame perforation.

You are talking 'defective coating', not me. Yes, I say rusting is allowed by design, because designs exist that almost perfectly preclude it. Stainless steel, for instance, as they do with bus frames.

Come with some facts beyond anecdotal, until then all it's doing is pandering to people's fears with muck-raking. Case in point: how do the design changes relate to rust formation? do you not see that bringing that up just prejudices the discussion unless it has something to do with it?

To you this seems personal, you're trying to drag this into a name-calling and I don't want any part of that so this is my last... especially since it's pretty much circular now.

 

Well said Crom

 

You're welcome. Glad to share.

Don't worry we know. You're presumably a lawyer or paralegal who likes to argue. We got that. Thanks.

Thanks.

 

For the 1st generation tacoma you are correct. For the tundra you are not correct. I have already posted where Toyota said it was not a Dana issue. So the frame supplier is not the cause of the Tundra issues.

Here is the same link from before in the thread. http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2009/11/20/toyota-tundra-frame-rust-dana/

 

(Your linky no worky)

Okay so the Tundra frames were not a Dana issue but the Tacomas were. I just confused when I saw the quote in post 316.
http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/2n...frame-rusted-through-club-16.html#post3428456

 

Don't ever say that to a guy....

 

No , I still don't get the idea of what you are trying to say .

I don't want Toyota to buy back my truck , I want it to last for a while

 

Crom you're comparing apples to oranges. This thread is about 2005-2011 tacomas. There WAS a major design flaw with the 1st gens. After 2-3 years the frame would rust THROUGh and structurally FAIL. In other words the truck's frame would litterally rust so bad it would fold in half. And this wasn't happening to just 1 or 2 trucks this was happening to hundreds.

The sad fact is there is no real way to stop rust short of making the frames out of stainless steel. What ever you paint on your frame can be chipped by a rock from the rock, and bam now it is exposed to the elements and will spread. Hence why you must regularly inspect and maintain your frame, more often if you're in the salt belt or by the beach. Oh and the reason no car manufacturers use stainless is because it would add 800-1000 lbs to the truck and increase the cost of a 30,000 dollar truck to 40-45,000.

 

Here is where your logic is invalid. Lots of dealerships will give 1.5 blue book value to make a sale; depending on the value of the car, year, etc. Much like those deals they run where even if you pull it on the lot we promise 2k for the clunker. To the dealership it's all just how they account in the final sale. Plus a 10 year old car with a known rust issue's book value will be below what it would be without the rust issue, so you are really only getting the market depreciation value for a known defect.

Second from many on this forum, who had the 1st generation and merely traded up for a second generation, that's pretty good return on the buy back. Now if the second generation is proven to have the same issues, we'll see how many trade up for the new improved third generation.

 

The idea of what I'm trying to say about 'buy-back' is summed up by looking back at post #278.

How long is 'last a while'? what is your standard? Toyota's standard is (if I'm correct... if not correct me) 10 years without penetration. That was what you paid for, not that there won't be rust. No one makes that promise to my knowledge.

Are there any reported cases of 2005 Tacoma frames not just rusty but with penetration? or anything else that affects integrity? I'm not saying there are none because I could rust out anybody's frame in less than a month in a salt spray environmental test rig, but if there are it's small enough numbers that (apparently) no one here knows of one since I've asked before.

A big difference with the 1st gens is those in rust-belt regions were rusting out in 5 years and less and in large numbers. The problem's bad enough that Toyota has been (lately at least) pre-emptively buying back trucks that don't show rust but that are in range. If there's no cases of even 6yo gen2's rusting out I just don't see anything remotely similar here.

But OK, like a lot of people you probably want more than 10 years: how much? Let's put something in perspective: how much are you willing to pay extra to make sure it last 30 years? 20 years? 15yrs?

What if I told you I (and the vast majority of the truck-buying public, just to make it clear) don't want to pay one dime more to make my frame last beyond 10-15 years? Why? because the rest of the friggin' truck won't last any longer, that's why!

 

OK

I'm not talking about any buy back .

My last vehicle was a 1990 Ford Ranger that I had for 14 years , the owner before me had it for 4 .

18 years into it , that frame had less rust on it than my 2 1/2 year old Tacoma .

Same location , same maintenance .

Spin that however you wish , I'm done arguing with you .

 

My last vehicle was a '94 Isuzu Rodeo, traded in 2006. 13 winters, the first 10 in the desert southwest where I never saw any rust to matter, but the last 3 in the NE. In those three winters the rust that accumulated was incredible; paint on the spare tire carrier was chipping off from it and the hood was starting. Sections of frame, axle, suspension and skid plates were fully involved in rust.

All it needs are a few nicks from rock strikes in the protective coating and some salty roads, then watch it run. It only needed three years in Pennsylvania salted roads cause 10 years barreling up and down NM forest roads had rock-blasted the frame so it was ripe for it. That's my experience.

I thought I said it earlier... it's not my intent to cast you in that same lot looking for a buy-back sorry if it appeared so. I just wanted to point out how some are steered that direction in all this hysteria. But even so it would be curious to know what you think would be acceptable solution to your rusting problem.

If you and others are just venting, then understand my experience: I dumped the Rodeo not for the rust, but the electrical problems: starter, harnesses and switches, alternator, power steering. Powertrain was solid, I was prapared to drive it till the frame collapsed from the rust which would be at least 18 years IME. I would far prefer manufacturers make the accessories as solid as the powertrain... I do have a lot of difficulty seeing a big problem with rust alone as a limiter for vehicle life since those are the reasons I've dumped every other vehicle I've ever owned.

In other words to make it really simple: so what if it's a friggin' rust bucket because $28k or not, by then it's a POS anyway.