NHTSA Complaint #10819053 — 2001 TOYOTA TUNDRA

ADDENDUM TO REFERENCE NUMBER 10785255 ON 1/7/16, CHRIS ADAMOS [OPERATIONS MANAGER] CALLED FROM TOYOTA HEADQUARTERS DUE TO MY ONGOING CONCERNS OFT RUST PERFORATION COMPROMISING MY FRAME, MAKING IT UNSAFE. I EXPLAINED THAT I AM CONCERNED THAT 1) THE CRC INTERVENTION [PROPOSED BY TOYOTA] DID NOT REMEDY A PROBLEM [THAT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED BY TOYOTA], 2) THUS THE PROBLEM REMAINS UNRESOLVED, AND 3) SAFETY ISSUES CONTINUE TO EXIST AND THAT THE FRAME IS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN IT HAD BEEN WHEN INSPECTED IN 2012. CHRIS STATED, 'THE CRC WAS NOT MEANT TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM, IT WAS MEANT TO MITIGATE THE PROBLEM.' HE EXPLAINED THAT, WHEN THE 2012 RECALL INSPECTIONS OCCURRED, 'IF A FRAME WAS PERFORATED, IT WAS REPLACED. IF THERE WAS NO PERFORATION, THE CRC WOULD BE APPLIED AND THAT MAY HELP FOR 6 MONTHS, A YEAR, OR 3 YEARS IN YOUR CASE, BUT IT WAS APPLIED WITH THE THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD EVENTUALLY FAIL.' I EXPLAINED THAT WAS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CRC'S ROLE WHEN THE DEALER DISCUSSED THE PLAN IN 2012. I HAD BEEN MADE TO BELIEVE THAT THE CRC WAS TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER CORROSION WHICH WOULD COMPROMISE THE FRAME'S INTEGRITY. I EXPLAINED THAT HAD I KNOWN THE CRC WAS ONLY 'BAND-AIDING' THE PROBLEM, I WOULD HAVE SOLD THE TRUCK IN 2012. NOW, THE VEHICLE CANNOT PASS AN INSPECTION WHICH IS NEEDED TO BE SOLD, NOR WOULD I WANT TO SELL THE VEHICLE TO OTHERS BECAUSE IT IS UNSAFE. CHRIS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT OWNERS WHO RECEIVED FRAME REPLACEMENTS HAD THE PROBLEM RESOLVED. HE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED TOYOTA WAS AWARE THAT THE CRC INTERVENTION WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE FOR THE FRAMES THAT PASSED THE INITIAL 2012 INSPECTION. THEY KNEW THOSE FRAMES WOULD FAIL, THUS THOSE OWNERS SAFETY ISSUES WERE NOT RESOLVED, BUT SIMPLY POSTPONED UNTIL THE CAMPAIGN EXPIRED, LEAVING THESE CUSTOMERS WITH NO ALTERNATIVES.