Frame rust recall

Sure, because steel normally eats itself

 

I wish that was the case. Looks like they're sending my Tacoma back to me as a deathtrap because Im not agreeing to extra costs. I'm documenting at tacomaproblems.com (or toyotaframerecall.com)

Long and short of it - I dropped the truck off for the recall and got a call from the dealership a week later saying they couldn't proceed with the frame swap because more parts were needed to be replaced. I wouldn't agree to any additional charges. This is where I find myself.

 

Not that I know of. The original is more than likely in my truck. In the dealership. I havent been able to get them to send a copy.

 

No actually the oxygen and moisture is what eats the steel.

Rust is another name for iron oxide, which occurs when iron or an alloy that contains iron, like steel, is exposed to oxygen and moisture for a long period of time. Over time, the oxygen combines with the metal at an atomic level, forming a new compound called an oxide and weakening the bonds of the metal itself.

Once the paint is applied and dry that should be good. They used poor quality steel when the frames were made and then skimped on the paint.

 

I didn't read the entire thread, but what parts are they saying that they need to replace that are unsafe? Sounds like a crap deal from your service provider.

 

had to take my snow tires off, it's been that long. digging around in the wheel wells noticed a bunch of missing clips. not a biggie. but the passenger brake line by the bolt looks to have been nicked up during the process. also found a couple of random screw bolts and a black disc. rear passenger door mechanism is goofed up too (seat belt recall). guessing i will be working remote from the dealer waiting room tomorrow.

also got a new battery since the old one wouldn't hold a charge... it's would have been 10 years at teh end of the month. they also resurfaced the rotors and drums from it sitting so long and getting rust on them, and they cleaned the throttle body. Looks like they detailed it as well.

did have 1/4 tank of old gas and not a full tank thankfully. topped that off right away.

also looked at some of their internal paperwork and they had a carfax report. don't know if that is standard, or because my rear fenders and bumper are beat up from minor love taps

now that is rust free, gonna toss on a hitch.

nice to be able to drive my own vehicle again. weird going back to the stick after driving auto's for 8+ months.

 

Possibly because I have an understanding of the chemistry behind rust and am proactive in dealing with it. My truck is going into its 6th massively oversalted north-eastern winter, and despite being HEAVILY used during the winter months, hasn't a spot of rust anywhere on its frame or body.

How do I do it then?

Every second year add a coat of asphalt where accessible.
EVERY year hose it down with chainsaw bar oil, including *inside* the front section of the frame where it is fully boxed.
Block off the front cab mounts that funnel salt spray off the front wheels to the inside of the boxed section of the frame.

Like it or not, it really *is not* a deficiency in the vehicle or its manufacturer that is responsible for rust. It is YOUR GOVERNMENT that is covering everything with hostile chemicals rather than allowing people to apply a more intelligent approach to driving on ice and snow, like studs and chains.

And whether you believe it or not, ALL vehicles rust when exposed to this kind of attack without proper maintenance.

Chrysler:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/investiga...ysler-To-Concede-Rust-Problems-241535881.html

Ford:
http://www.autonews.com/article/201...35000-vehicles-for-rusting-frame-parts-faulty

etc.

 

That was sarcasm if you didn't pick up on it. You are correct about rust, but a lot of these frames rust from the INSIDE out.

That's great and all about your rustproofing practices. "Not a deficiency in the vehicle" Hmmm. You are right, Toyota just decided to be nice and buy back people's vehicles for shits and giggles, and continued to manufacture the same frames for two generations of trucks because there was nothing wrong with them. Then, in the 3rd gen, they "reinforced" them, because there was nothing wrong. I do agree with you about the chemicals, but my question still would be, why aren't ALL vehicles driven in those conditions recalled?

 

That isn't necessarily how it works. It can be argued that MANY things are safety issues, but the problem with most of them, is that the responsibility lies with the owner to make sure that they are performing proper maintenance on it.

For example, brakes are definitely a safety part, yet they wear out after a certain amount of use, and they can rust to the point of being ineffective even if not worn out. It is expected that the vehicle owner will be proactive and monitor the state of the brakes, and repair/replace brake components as it becomes necessary. Similarly, rust is an environmental problem rather that an engineering fault, hence the life of the vehicle is tied to how proactive the owner is in mitigating rust problems through preventative maintenance.

The reason why the ignition problem bit GM in the butt is that it isn't a maintenance problem that led to their failures, but rather a design flaw. They could fail equally when they are brand new as ten years old.

There are two very important things for you to think about with respect to your new truck;
1) The frames used to be manufactured by Dana. They are not any more. That part of their business was sold to a Mexican company called Metalsa. There are differences in the manufacturing process and the coatings used as of, I think, some time in 2009. It is no coincidence that the rust through mitigation is restricted to UP TO 2008.
2) You can be proactive in managing your vehicle's frame, and if you do it right, I *promise* you that it can easily last multiple decades.

- block off the openings at the front cab mounts to keep salt water from shooting off the front wheels into the frame.
- check the frame carefully for rust in the fall season, if you find any, wire brush, epoxy, and several layers of paint.
- Every SECOND fall, a fresh coat of asphalt undercoating.
- EVERY fall (and if you really feel like going nuts, also mid winter) oil it (inside and out) with the heaviest waxiest oil you are able to spray. I use spring/summer chainsaw bar oil. I use the MISTING tube with this; http://www.eastwood.com/undercoating-gun-and2-hoses-bottle.html

 

Toyota didn't make any changes to the frames. Wait and see, you will see 2009+ trucks failing frame inspections, dude, and also why the 3rd gen has a "reinforced" frame that fits EXACTLY on the 2nd gen. You have a excuse for everything. One last question, and then I'm done. Do you think customers should have to "block off the opening at the cab mounts", "undercoat", "recoat every second fall", and "oil every spring/summer" just so a vehicle doesn't fall apart?

 

Thats what Toyota claims in the meantime there are more Toyota vehicles with problems than just Tacoma. Its full BS

 

I am going to play lawyer here and ask you this....
Which page in owner manual specifies maintenance on the frame?
What is interval and proper fluid per Toyota to be applied to frame ?

Simply if its not in Owner manual as maintenance item it will not stand in court. Thast why Toyota is not arguing that, what they arguing is that frame is only covered by 3 years/ 36000 miles warranty. And if you read warranty pamphlet its true frame is only covered by 3/ 36000 warranty.

 

You are trying to make assumptions about the motivations based on actions, not based on facts.
TOYOTA never actually decided to be nice. Toyota's objective was to mitigate a PR problem, AND was able to lay the blame on a 3rd party. Toyota didn't buy vehicles back with their own money -- they bought them back with DANA's money. Toyota is repairing vehicles with money that was awarded to them as the outcome of a legal battle with Dana.

As far as "reinforcing" the frame on the 2016 goes... there is really no indication of significant changes to the frame's structure. Not like there were in 2007 (because 05 and 06 engine support brackets were tearing through the frame) and 2009 (new manufacturer, massive redesign). There are some whispers about changes in metallurgy, yet to be proven, to a stronger steel. This typically means higher carbon content and though sortof true, can actually be a bad thing since flex to a high carbon steel will weaken it more than flex to a lower carbon steel. This kind of metallurgical change is typically for the purpose of reducing the volume of metal (read as: THINNER frames) in order to reduce manufacturing costs. It tends to be the marketing department that spins it as being stronger and better. I don't know about you, but I've NEVER heard of anyone breaking or bending a 2007+ frame as a result of anything besides a collision -- even among those that rusted through. So no, there wasn't a problem that was being fixed through structural frame changes in MY2016. And just to put the final nail into that theory, if you want to stop the steel from rusting, you don't reinforce it, you only need to apply a better coating to it. Maybe start off by galvanizing it, then dip it in a few vats of different kind of rust proofing paint, and top it off with a coat of wax. No matter how you look at it, NOTHING they changed in MY2016 was for the purpose of reducing frame rust.

 

Just to play lawyer back, environmental maintenance items are to be determined by need, not by schedule. Like some drivers can kill a set of brakes in 10,000 miles and others 100,000. Vehicle owners who drive in winter salt need to maintain their vehicle more against rust than those in a desert.

Do tell me where in the owners manual it specifies how many miles to drive between brake changes.

 

You are wrong, brake pads and rotors are wear item and not covered by any warranty, so are you saying frame is wear item too ?

 

They didn't just buy the steel from an American company, they outsourced the full frame manufacturing. That American company is Dana, known for things like axles. In 2010, the frame manufacturing part of Dana was transferred to Metalsa (Mexican). Metalsa continued manufacturing frames in the same facility as Dana initially, but eventually moved it to a plant in Mexico that is *much* closer to the Toyota factory in San Antonio where Tacoma assembly was moved after the collapse of NUMMI.

The deal with the coating, is that Dana tried to cut corners on frame manufacturing by not applying it. This is the reason why Toyota is able to buy back or repair vehicles with frame problems, since they aren't actually paying for it, at least not fully. A combination of settlement (judgment?) and insurance is covering it.

Now we can be fairly confident that Metalsa is NOT cutting that corner, since they saw first hand (and directly benefited from) that mistake made by Dana. What that means, is that there isn't going to be anyone to pick up the costs of frame replacements on 2009+.

 

It is if you throw salt at it.

 

Once again, Toyota being nice was sarcasm. Toyota's objective was simply to avoid lawsuits. You are partially right, even though dana took the brunt of the responsibility, Toyota absorbed some as well. After the costly buybacks, they didn't want to do that again, so they decided to replace the frames instead of buybacks. OF COURSE THERE WERE MINOR CHANGES MADE TO THE 2016, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO SHIT TO THE 2009+ TRUCKS. NOW THEY HAVE A FRAME THEY CAN REPLACE ON THE 2009+ WHEN THEY RUST OUT. How do you not put two and two together?

Brake components are consumables, a frame is not. Jeebus. I'm done.

 

Only according to you.
Look if Toyota could spin this and blame on maintenance they would have done it. The fact is you can not blame somebody for not performing maintenance if that maintenance is not listed in the contract. And Owner manual/ maintenance book plus Warranty notification is a contract. You are obligated to perform maintenance listed in owner manual (or maintenance book) and Toyota will hold their end of the bargain to replace things that break before warranty terms.
What we find out was that Toyota claims frame is 3/36 000 warranty only.

 

Close, but just to nitpick, its at a molecular level, not atomic. If it was atomic, then the irons and oxygens would be fusing into Darmstadtium.