NHTSA Complaint #10748396 — 2001 TOYOTA TUNDRA

THE TOYOTA SAFETY RECALL WORK DONE IN 2012 TO TREATED MY VEHICLES FRAME TO PREVENT RUST PERFORATION HAS FAILED. DURING NH STATE INSPECTION AREAS WHERE THE FRAME HAD RUSTED THROUGH WERE IDENTIFIED. THESE AREAS HAD BEEN TREATED UNDER TOYOTA'S GUIDANCE AND AT THEIR EXPENSE. DUE TO FRAME RUST PERFORATION, AND RUST ISSUES IDENTIFIED BELOW MY VEHICLE WOULD NOT PASS INSPECTION. TOYOTA OF PORTSMOUTH, WHERE THE INITIAL RECALL WORK WAS INITIATED, AND TOYOTA MOTOR SALES HAVE BOTH DENIED TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION. MANY OTHER 2001 TOYOTA TUNDRA OWNERS WERE PROVIDED COMPLETE FRAME REPLACEMENTS. I WAS PROVIDED WITH A RUST TREATMENT THAT HAS FAILED TO CORRECT THIS SAFETY ISSUE. THE STATE INSPECTION WAS REQUESTED BY ME PRIOR TO SPENDING $2,776 (AND UP TO $5,000 OR MORE IF INTERNAL PARTS WERE DAMAGED) TO REPLACE A RUSTED THROUGH AND LEAKING REAR DIFFERENTIAL CASE THAT COULD HAVE SEIZED UP AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS IF I HAD NOT NOTICED THE LEAK. THIS INSPECTION ALSO IDENTIFIED FOR THE SECOND TIME A RUSTED THROUGH AND LEAKING EXHAUST MANIFOLDS (THE LEFT MANIFOLD WAS "STARTING" TO LEAK ON 09/16/2014 WHEN THE TRUCK LAST PASSED INSPECTION. I HEARD THE TICKING SOUND, CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS LEAK, SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS UNDER WARRANTY AND TOLD IT WAS NORMAL. THE BODY AND BED OF MY TRUCK WAS DETERMINED BY A LOCAL BODY SHOP TO BE IN GOOD CONDITION WITH MINIMAL RUST. THIS WAS DETERMINED BY VISUAL INSPECTION AND THE CONDITION OF THE LOWER PORTIONS OF THE DOORS WHICH ARE FREQUENTLY A TROUBLE SPOT IN STATES WHERE ROAD SALT IS USED AND THE FIRST LOCATIONS WHERE RUST (BODY ROT) APPEARS. TOYOTA HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE CORROSION PROTECTION ON THE FRAME AND REAR DIFFERENTIAL OF MY TRUCK AND CREATED SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUES. THE FRAME RUST TREATMENT TOYOTA USED ON MY TRUCK DID NOT WORK. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY HAVE DECLINED TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION. THEY HAVE REPLACED MANY FRAMES FOR OTHERS.