2003 tacoma frame recall

Curious about this. I suppose this frame rust affects earlier trucks as well. I didn't inspect my recently purchased 1998 Ext Cab. It has lived its life in CA and AZ only. I would hope that would make big difference.

 

You may be OK in the region. The '95.5-'00 15 yr extended warranty expired some time ago now. I owned 2 from that time period which were bought back by Toyota under the frame warranty because no frames were available (there were a very limited number of frame replacements for those years). My '01 got a new frame, but the '03 is hanging tough, despite looking like you could push your finger through the frame.

 

Been up in Colorado for a vacation this past week. Manitou Springs just west of Colorado Springs. Dry air. No bugs. While I was there, I noticed several Tacomas and Tundras. Very little rust from what I could tell (didn't exactly want to crawl under a stranger's truck). Thought I would share that. Mostly 2nd and 3rd generations. I saw an older Ford Ranger and looked at other vehicles. Very little rust on the Colorado license plate vehicles.

On a whim, I called the Toyota Customer Service, not expecting much. My truck is 18 years old, well past the 15 year extended frame warranty. I pointed out that I kept an eye on my frame and only ever noticed normal frame rust which I would take care of every few years. I pointed out that I never knew about the "inside-out" issue and never took a hammer to the frame; that the notice I received in 2008 (or was it 2009) didn't say anything about the inside rusting. I also mentioned that this truck has been registered in Nebraska for its lifetime, and hence wasn't eligible for the rust preventative coating (or whatever it was) offered by Toyota for trucks in the Northern states. This past year it rotted through. Mostly I was looking for guidance for a cost effective way to fix this truck. The rep got pretty defensive with me stating that it is past warranty and that I should take it to a dealership for their opinion, but that now that I know how bad the problem is, that they can no longer be liable if I choose to keep driving the truck. I guess it was the way she said it. I was hoping that they would say a professional welder, or collision center, or body shop, etc..... would be the best way to go. Dealership is a joke. They won't patch it because of liability. They could only offer to replace the frame (if they could even find one) and how much does that cost????? I'll find someone to weld reinforcement bracing on there (unless someone has a better idea? I'm all ears.).

I was thinking about getting a late 2nd generation taco, but I understand that they have the same problem. Too bad. I really did/do love these Tacomas.

 

Colorado doesn't touch the ocean for beaches and isn't in the salt belt so a car that lived it's life out there is usually fine. California can have some rust issues if the vehicle went on the beach a lot as well as any coastal area. The worst states are the salt belt with a ton of salt on the roads in the winter of course. I have a 96 4Runner parts truck and it only spent about a year in Michigan when it was purchased. Which was enough to begin the slow death of the frame since it wasn't undercoated.

 

I've been reading various "rust" threads for two days now. I guess what irks me the most is that it is an "extended warranty" and not a full blown "recall". I think we all agree it should be considered a safety issue. When something is under "warranty", we tend to keep using it until it breaks. With a "recall", we tend to get those taken care of even if our device under recall is still functioning normally. Our frames are going bad, but not "breaking" during the warranty period. Yet, this rust problem extends to the tire carrier, and that is a "recall". Not all of us are automobile mechanics and know enough to check the frame in detail. I have never actually seen a broken frame on a vehicle from normal use. In the 70s, 80s and 90s, (yes I'm that old) vehicles only lasted to 100K and the frame outlived the rest of the vehicle. The reverse seems to be happening now. They say you should expect 200K out of any new vehicle nowadays. On the other hand, I imagine I could walk through any salvage yard and see numerous vehicles 30+ years with solid frames with no more than surface rust. But it is the "extended warranty" vs "recall" that troubles me. I think Toyota took the fast/cheapest way out in order to avoid a recall. I could be wrong. Usually am. (-;

 

You a Somewhat justified in your thinking.Butyou dont see ANY other manufactuer replacing frames.

 

Interesting. I agree that in my younger days, 100K was about the limit for an auto. Never heard of a frame rusting out until I owned a Tacoma (I'm on my 4th one - rust gut the first three). That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just not to me or the people I know.

Should this have been a recall? I'm not so sure it qualifies. There are a whole slew of regulations behind recalls. I would have liked to have seen Toyota unconditionally warranty the frames (for all owners without regard to location) for longer than 15 years. (2nd gens only got a 12 year warranty, and that was after a class action lawsuit.) My truck will be 15 yrs old in November, and it's far from done, even though the frame may be toast in another year. Toyota certainly limited its liability by requiring cold climate owners to have their vehicles undercoated before some deadline back in 2011-12. Many did not own their trucks then, and because some prior owner didn't take the time to fulfill the warranty requirements, they were left with an unwarranted vehicle no longer safe to drive. That's what I find to be the hardest to accept. My truck was undercoated by the prior owner when it was registered in the state of Maine, and maybe that helped it last this long, which may also take it out of warranty. But many were not, and those owners where on the hook for repairs, or worst yet, junked their vehicle.

I'm fine with the extended warranty concept for this problem, just without restrictions and the current time limit.

 

I agree with you. I have never heard of any mfr extending a frame warranty for 15 years. But, is that because other mfrs' frames never had a rust-through problem and never even had to deal with the issue or is it because other mfrs' vehicles didn't live long enough for the frames to become an issue. I don't know. I've read that some see older mfrs' vehicles with no frame problems. I've also read that some Jeeps and Pathfinders had issues, but I do not know if any legal activity was taken on that. It would be interesting to hear others' opinions on this.[edit] I do see a lot of old Honda Civics/Accords on the road. They're older than 20 years and still going strong. Bodys' are rusting, but they run on a solid frame (I think).

My own thought is this: I always said if my Tacoma dropped dead tomorrow, I'd be okay with it. I got my money's worth out of it. I just didn't think it would be the frame. For me, the two parts hardest to deal with are replacing an engine, and replacing the frame; expensive parts and labor. I can fix/replace just about anything else and keep the vehicle running. I guess that's why I find the frame rust issue disappointing. I just never knew I had to monitor it that closely and have never heard of a frame rotting like that. But that's my fault. Lack of knowledge.
[2nd edit] I also think that if the bodies on these Tacomas didn't look so great after 15+ years, the whole frame rust issue wouldn't exist. We look at our trucks, see how great they look, and want to keep them. If our trucks were all rusted out after 15+ years like most vehicles, we probably wouldn't say "boo" about the frame rust issue.

 

How true. I was just admiring the profile of my truck yesterday. It just has a look that for me does not grow old, not to mention there is no body rust (just some small dents and scratches - it is a work truck after all).

 

Hmm Interesting, Just bought a 2003 Dbl Cab, 4x4. Its in reasonably Great shape other than surface rust on wheel wells, i did slide under and checked frame, it was intact. Have to take a look again at the leaf spring hanger area. Manufature is 10/2002. I guess its a closed case for Toyota. It was checked by Toyota 2 years ago and passed i was told by P.O

 

Though its an Old thread, its worth a discussion as long tacos are surviving Think about 1st,2nd gen 4runners which are quite old and still see them around, they didnt have any real frame issues. I have owned ford f150 as well. I did consider their frames to be a overkill seeing how solid the box frame was. Thats why NO one had to complain. Tacos from 1st gen to 2nd gen had a sub-standard inferior/poorly treated frames from Dana holding that caused this whole issue. Why would Toyota volunteer and spend few millions if they are not at fault. Toyota did the right thing by backing up their fault, its simple. I guess 15 years is a reasonable solution to consumers.

 

I posted the pics in post #99 back in July 2018. I'm still driving on that frame. I called body shops, collision centers, even the local tech college to see if some welding class would like a project to work on. I can't get anyone to work on it. I bought the Safe-T cap part I need (with shackle mount). When the weather warms up I'm going to try and 'bolt' the thing on see how it holds. Maybe then I can find an independent welder to weld it since it is already in place. Been looking at ZR2s and new Tacomas. But I'm sure there is a thread here somewhere for that discussion. (-: