NHTSA Complaint #11315663 — 2006 TOYOTA TACOMA

MY 2006 TOYOTA TACOMA WAS RECALLED DUE TO TOYOTA'S FRAME RUST AND CORROSION ISSUE. AFTER NOTIFICATION, JULY 2015, I BROUGHT MY CAR TO TOYOTA OF WALLINGFORD (DEALER) AS INSTRUCTED IN THE RECALL NOTICE FOR A FRAME INSPECTION. THE DEALER INSPECTED THE TRUCK FRAME AND SAID IT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A NEW FRAME AS THE FRAME PASSED THEIR INSPECTION. I DISPUTED THIS BECAUSE I WAS ABLE TO PUSH MY FINGER THROUGH PARTS OF THE FRAME. THEY INSISTED THAT THE INTEGRITY WAS SOUND. THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO SPRAY THE CAR WITH A CORROSION RESISTANT COVERING (CRC). AFTER SOME DEBATE I TOOK THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND AUTHORIZED THE WORK. THE CRC WAS A THICK BLACK GEL THAT COVERED THE FRAME, SO RUST, ROT AND DETERIORATION WAS COMPLETELY HIDDEN. IN RETROSPECT, I BELIEVE THEY INTENTIONALLY COVERED THE RUST SO ISSUES COULD NOT BE DETECTED AND RE-INSPECTION DID NOT OCCUR. RECENTLY I HAD TO REPLACE THE TIRES ON THE TRUCK. WHEN THE TIRE DEALER PUT THE TRUCK ON THE LIFT HE NOTICED THE FRAME WAS BOWING AND LARGE PIECES OF THE FRAME WERE MISSING. THE CRC WAS STILL COVERING THE RUST BUT LARGE HOLES IN THE FRAME WERE DETECTED. THE TIRE SPECIALIST WOULD NOT WORK ON THE TRUCK DUE TO THE UNSTABLE FRAME, SO I QUICKLY CALLED THE TOYOTA DEALER TO RE-INSPECT THE FRAME. THEY CONCLUDED THAT THE FRAME WAS ROTTED AND NEED TO BE REPLACED, BUT INFORMED ME THAT THE DEADLINE UNDER THE RECALL HAD JUST PASSED ON 1/31/19. THEY WOULD NOT COVER ANY REPAIRS ALTHOUGH I FOLLOWED EVERY STEP AND ENDURED EVERY INCONVENIENCE FOR A ROT ISSUE THAT THEY WERE ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE FOR. UNSATISFIED WITH THE DEALER'S RESPONSE, I CONTACTED TOYOTA DIRECTLY AND THEY REAFFIRMED THAT THEY WOULD NOT COVER THE FRAME. TOYOTA DID NOT RESOLVE ALL ISSUES RELATED TO THEIR FAULTY FRAMES. THEY BRILLIANTLY CAME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT HID THE RUST AND ROT AND SAVED THE COMPANY MILLIONS BY MASKING THE ISSUE AND NOT REPLACING THE BAD FRAMES.