Problems with 2001 Toyota Tundra STRUCTURE

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. while the vehicle was undergoing routine maintenance at an independent mechanic, the contact was informed that the frame was rusted. the contact stated that the brakes and power steering rack were rusted before and previously repaired. the contact called lia toyota of northampton (located at 280 king st, northampton, ma 01060, (413) 341-5299) and informed them of the failure. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the failure mileage was 135,000.

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. the contact received notification of nhtsa campaign number: 09v444000 (structure). the vehicle was taken to dunning toyota (877-356-9318, located at 3745 jackson rd, ann arbor, mi 48103) where it was stated that the vehicle was too dangerous to be repaired due to excessive corrosion. the manufacturer was made aware of the issue and stated that the dealer would not be forced to repair the vehicle if the vehicle were found to be unsafe to be repaired or driven. the vehicle was not repaired. the failure mileage was approximately 260,000.

Bought truck new in 8/2001. brought truck to dealer when it was recalled for rust in 2012 and was told rust wasn't bad enough to do anything. brought truck back to dealer multiple times after 2012 (last in 11/18) and was told everything was fine on each occasion. in 8/2019 i heard a squeak from undercarriage and when i looked, the spare tire crossmember was hanging down and the right side upper shock mount was completely rusted through and the top of the shock was rubbing against the bottom of the truck bed (top shock mount was completely rusted away). local service center told me to remove the shock and spare tire for safety. this rust is limited to the upper shock mount and the crossmember holding the spare tire. other crossmembers and frame rails are all stable with only the amount of surface rust expected on a 18 year old vehicle. i do not believe that the dealer did a thorough exam of the truck in 2012, 2018 or other visits i made when i prompted them to check the rust as it related to the recall. i was told that since the campaign for rust was over they couldn't do anything. based on the fact of only 2-3 areas of catastrophic rust on the frame and components while the rest of the frame and chassis is wearing appropriately i believe that this is a safety issue that should be re-instated - obvious factory defect - no corrosion inhibited applied. the vehicle is still mechanically perfect but the falling spare tire and broken suspension can cause an accident or injury that could be prevented with a recall. i believe that the toyota dealer did not do a thorough inspection. i also question why i have seen multiple instances of individuals with similar problems who were given anti-corrosion treatment or other efforts made to stop the rust from getting worse - but nothing was done by toyota to mitigate this problem before it got to this catastrophic level.

There was a safety recall issued for corrosion/rusted frames on 2000-2001 toyota tundras in what toyota defined as severe cold weather states. iowa was not included. why? we have a 2001 toyota tundra with only 120,000+miles on it that now has a rusted out whole the size of my fist in its frame. i do not have a photo to attach, but can get one if need be. we've talked to the dealer and toyota customer service, they won't do anything about it. toyota customer service looked up the vin and said it wasn't part of the recall. why? iowa is a cold weather state! this truck came thru princeton in. how come toyota gets to decide what states the recall applies to? according to the tundra recall blog, https://www.tundras.com/threads/2000-tundra-frame-replacement.7215/, they are still fixing trucks in new york as of 2018. doesn't iowa count? how many other trucks are out there on our highways with the same issue? *js *tt 'parts of this document have been redacted to protect personally identifiable information pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6).'*jb

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. upon inspection, it was discovered that the subframe sustained severe rusting and corrosion. the vehicle was taken to curry toyota (832 straits turnpike, watertown, ct) who confirmed that the vin was included in nhtsa campaign number: 09v444000 (structure). due to the severe rusting of the subframe, the recall remedy could not be performed. the manufacturer was notified and did not assist. the failure mileage was 102,000.

Vehicle frame has sufficient rust including holes in the frame. there were two recalls dealing with this rust issue, neither fixed the problem. this has been an on going issue for toyota including class action lawsuits - but those didn't include 2001 tundra. i have contacted the dealership where purchased new, the dealership that undercoated over top of the rust (second recall - had there been holes in the frame 10mm or large, they said they would have replaced the frame at that time. but they were not allowed to bead blast or wire brush which most likely were have products several hole greater then 10mm), and toyota headquarters. because the recalls were closed, they all said there is nothing they are willing to do. the vehicle is not safe to drive and frame replacement is estimated to be $15,000 which is more then the vehicle is worth. i also don't want to sell a vehicle that isn't safe to drive.

I have only owned this vehicle for 6 months. on 8/18/18 the control arm on the passenger side fell off, i had the truck towed by aaa to a local repair shop. after examining the vehicle, the mechanic stated that the driver side control arm was also ready to fall off but the bigger problem is that the frame is rotted, holes everywhere and the vehicle is not safe to drive. i inquired at lynch toyota about a remedy through the frame recall and they informed me that there was a prevention spray done in 2014 at westbrook toyota - which makes this worse, because there shouldn't be any rot/corrosion if the spray was effective. i called toyota corporate to ask about a remedy and they refused, stating that a guarantee of the spray was only for 12 months after the (ineffective) spray was applied and after that the customer is on their own. i did not own the vehicle at the time so i don't know if problems were noticed within 12 months after the spray, but clearly the spray didn't work since 4 years later the frame is rotted to the point of being unsafe.

My 2001 toyota tundda was part of the frame service campaign. upon receiving notice i immediately scheduled an inspection and my frame was coated in the protective coating supplied by toyota at the toyota dealer i purchased the truck from. in the years to come that coating would fall off and my truck frame would continue to rust. in august of 2018 i took it to my local toyota dealer for inspection who said a hole has rusted in the frame near the gas tank. they also informed me that toyota will not do anything to correct her problem since the program had expired. i received this same information from the dealer i bought it from and toyota corporate. in addition to the hole in the frame both power steering lines rusted through and so did the power steering rack. toyota's attempt at fixing the problem failed and now i'm stuck with a truck that has a compromised frame. i do not feel safe putting myself or my family in this vehicle as it won't be as strong in the event of a crash and keeping the vehicle will only result in further deterioration of the frame. toyota needs to make this right and either buy the truck back or fix the frame and they need to do this for al affected vehicles.

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. while checking underneath the vehicle, the contact noticed severe rust where the leaf spring shackles were located near the fuel tank. the contact drove the vehicle to tansky motors toyota in logan, ohio and was advised not to haul anything on the vehicle because the frame could fracture. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was not notified of the failure. the contact stated that the manufacturer sent a notification to have the vehicle evaluated at don woods toyota in athens, ohio. the don woods dealer determined that the frame was ok. the vin was invalid. the approximate failure mileage was 177,000. ...updated 10/19/17 *bf the consumer stated the dealer rust proofed the vehicle. updated 10/26/2017*js

Lower drivers side ball joint popped out going down hyway. tire ended up collapsing in on drivers fender door and broke cv shaft and twisted a arms. very dangerous. no prior sign of clunking or popping.

I was driving in a toyota tundra 2001 with my pregnant wife and two goats in the bed, when i drove over a small bump by a little bridge when i heard a noise and lost control off the truck almost hitting a tree. i was within a half mile from my home so when i got home i inspected the truck to find out the lower control arm broke off . if you drive the truck now it will pull the truck hard to the left and it feels like its about to fall apart. toyota also had a so called recall on the frames but, even still the frame is in terrible condition and they refuse to help . im most pissed because this happened while my wife was in the truck and we already lost one child together.

2001 toyota tundra. consumer writes in regards to excessive corrosion of the frame and suspension components. *ld *js

Ntsb: 2001 toyota tundra pickup has rusting on the under part of the vehicle. *bf the consumer bought the vehicle used and was unaware there was a recall for the underbody rusting. the consumer was informed the recall had expired. the consumer felt the manufacturer should honor the recall. *js

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. while having the vehicle inspected for a mandatory annual state inspection, the vehicle failed due to corrosion of the subframe. the vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where it was diagnosed that the corrosion would have to be welded. the vehicle was repaired. the vehicle was previously serviced per nhtsa campaign number: 09v444000 (structure), but the remedy failed to repair the vehicle. the contact mentioned that the corrosion protection compound was not an adequate preventive measure. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the approximate failure mileage was 118,000.

I contacted toyota about rusting of my 2001 tundra with 137000 miles on it. there are holes that you can put your thumb through in the frame. toyota said there was a limited recall and it has expired. why is this not a safety recall? is there any recourse here?

Summary: purchased 2001 toyota tundra in april 2015 from faulkner buick gmc of west chester pa.april 2015 the dealer passed inspection while active recalls on frame corrosion were not complete,corroded frame present.per current inspection fail-3-2016-this should never have been passed in 2015 by dealer. faulkner buick gmc of west chester pa, 705 autopark blvd,west chester, pa 19382 1.the prior used car dealer passed inspection 2015,should have failed for rotted frame (legal issue);2.prior owner,used car dealer-ignored all past/current frame recalls;3.purchased truck 4-2015;4.fail inspection-rotted frame 3-2016;5. tricounty toyota,limerick, pa,3/15/16 - they told my son its not rotted enough, drive a few months and see if its worse (even though there is an active recall now.;6.went to conicelli toyota - conshohocken,pa march17, 2016 - very helpful in testing the corrosion, they agree its rotted thru, no way to fix other than complete replacement of frame, several tests and pics given to toyota "field rep." one month later determines that toyota will not fix entire frame, only the small portion currently under the active recall (however, the dealer says they cant fix nor pass inspection because the rest of frame is still rotted - catch 22). toyota now refuses to fix the entire frame - even though through prior recalls they should have done anyway. they cannot fix the portion of frame under current recall due to remaining corrosion. i have passes onto corporate toyota case#1604132198, however attempts to discuss were dismissed. desired outcome:1.since toyota should be obligated to fix current frame part, i demand that they should have to fix the remaining frame as they originally claimed the entire frame to be defective.2.used car dealer faulkner of west chester pa should be held accountable for passing state inspection w/ recalls outstanding,unsafe sold to my son.

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. the contact stated that the frame was rusted out without warning. the dealer repaired the vehicle four years ago and stated that nothing could be done for the recent failure. the manufacturer stated that the frame was already sprayed, so nothing could be done. the vehicle was not repaired. the failure mileage was 170,000.

In 2010 toyota had a recall on the frame and spare tire holder resulting in the spare tire coming off and causing accidents. i was notified by mail to get the frame/cross member checked by the closest dealer possible. so i set up an appointment with johnson city toyota in tennessee and when the part would arrive they would call me. i never got the phone call so after two months of waiting i called the dealership and they had told me the recall has expired and i'm out of luck. i had bought the 2001 tundra in july 11, 2011 so i really didn't have much time from the get go and wasn't told about the recall when i bought the truck from an individual seller,"might fault" for not going over the whole thing anyway, but my problem is that the frame and the spare tire holder is an accident waiting to happen. so i had called corporate in 2012, and today with a very disappointing answer twice that the recall is no longer available and that they can not help me. my case number with toyota corporate is 1601253399 from today but i do not have the case number from the 2012 call. also i have a friend that has a 2002 tacoma that was also recalled for the same reason and his frame had gotten replaced in july 2013 at jim barkley toyota in asheville,north carolina which goes completely against what i'm being told. i hope that this is the info that you need but please contact me if pictures are needed or with any details. i hope your the right people that can help me, if not can you send me to the right direction. i have no where to turn and my hand are tied, but thank you very much for your time *tr

There was a recall on 2000- 2003 tundra frames & brake lines i contacted toyota that frame was rusted & unsafe . toyota first asked if i wanted a buy back or a replacement on frame of truck . i asked for further details on both , they take all my information & opened a case with # [xxx] they informed me a case manager would be in contact with me . within 72 hours i was contacted by case manager [xxx] captain who informed me that the frame was treated with corrosion resistant compound & there was nothing else toyota would do for me . i don't understand how they can say they treated the frame & its rotted out ! there is no rust on any of the body parts of this truck . now i have a truck with a good body , motor , & trans that is not safe to drive cause the frame is rotted out . i did forget to ask toyota if they would reimburse me for the brake lines i paid to have replaced even though they were on recall also . i hope with the help of nhtsa that toyota will have to honor the recall on my truck . thank you for your help in this matter . sincerely [xxx]email [xxx] ph # [xxx] information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6). *tr

Truck has rusted holes in frame. reported to toyota, was told it was looked previously, no longer under recall. found out later was denied frame replacement to previous owner while still under recall.

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. while driving at an unknown speed, an abnormal banging noise emitted from the rear of the vehicle. after inspecting the vehicle, the contact noticed that the rear cross member was completely corroded and the rear shock was fractured. the contact mentioned that the vehicle was previously serviced under an unknown manufacturer customer satisfaction campaign in which the vehicle was treated for rust. the vehicle was not taken to the dealer. the manufacturer was made aware of the failure. the vehicle was not repaired. the failure mileage was 164,000.

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.

The frame on my 2001 toyota tundra was coated with a corrosive resistant compound [crc] per bill kidd toyota dealer in 2012 due to "safety recall bod & 90m & service campaign aof." in 2015, priority toyota [va] stated my frame had rust perforations & needed a full frame replacement. priority told me to contact toyota headquarters asap to explain the dangerousness of the vehicle's compromised structure. my case manager at headquarters, autumn, & another representative [erica] informed me that toyota won't offer an out of warranty assistance nor a "good will gesture." both explained that headquarters has approved frame replacements after the service campaign's expiration based on the following: repair costs [i was told repairs on my tundra were considered 'extensive,'] age/mileage, customer loyalty and service records. i was denied a full frame replacement; however, i'm in contact with another toy consumer who experienced a similar issue with a 2001 tundra with approx the same mileage who had the frame replaced this year. when i shared these concerns with headquarter's supervisor, jessie haywood, he stated: "the crc has not been effective and something should be done about it" as he is aware of hundreds of tundra, sequoia, and tacoma customers who have experienced rust perforation on the frames despite the crc application. mr. haywood recommended that i contact the nhtsa re my safety concerns as well as my report that toyota has offered "secret warranties" to some consumers but not others. he reported "this is illegal" & "toyota would be fined millions of dollars if this is the case." there are hundreds of toyota owners driving vehicles with unsafe frames due to "severe corrosion" as described by toyota itself. during inspections, these vehicles have snapped on the lift.the consumers need your assistance as do the innocent bystanders who share the same roadways.

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.

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. the contact stated that the secondary hood release-lever fractured due to corrosion, which made it difficult to open the hood. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the contact was advised that the part needed was discontinued. the vehicle was not repaired. the failure mileage was 102,000.

Purchased 2001 toyota tundra in april 2015 from faulkner buick gmc of west chester pa.april 2015 the dealer passed inspection while active recalls on frame corrosion were not complete,corroded frame present.per current inspection fail-3-2016-this should never have been passed in 2015 by dealer. faulkner buick gmc of west chester pa, 705 autopark blvd,west chester, pa 19382 1.the prior used car dealer passed inspection 2015,should have failed for rotted frame (legal issue);2.prior owner,used car dealer-ignored all past/current frame recalls;3.purchased truck 4-2015;4.fail inspection-rotted frame 3-2016;5. tricounty toyota,limerick, pa,3/15/16 - they told my son its not rotted enough, drive a few months and see if its worse (even though there is an active recall now.;6.went to conicelli toyota - conshohocken,pa march17, 2016 - very helpful in testing the corrosion, they agree its rotted thru, no way to fix other than complete replacement of frame, several tests and pics given to toyota "field rep." one month later determines that toyota will not fix entire frame, only the small portion currently under the active recall (however, the dealer says they cant fix nor pass inspection because the rest of frame is still rotted - catch 22). toyota now refuses to fix the entire frame - even though through prior recalls they should have done anyway. they cannot fix the portion of frame under current recall due to remaining corrosion. i have passes onto corporate toyota case#1604132198, however attempts to discuss were dismissed. desired outcome:1.since toyota should be obligated to fix current frame part, i demand that they should have to fix the remaining frame as they originally claimed the entire frame to be defective.2.used car dealer faulkner of west chester pa should be held accountable for passing state inspection w/ recalls outstanding,unsafe sold to my son.

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. the contact stated that the rear driver side subframe perforated due to excessive corrosion. in 2012, the vehicle was repaired under nhtsa campaign number: 09v444000 (suspension); however, the failure recurred. the remedy consisted of spraying a corrosion protector onto the entire frame, which failed to prevent the subframe corrosion. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the approximate failure mileage was 370,000.

I purchased the vehicle in october 2014 and was informed about a frame corrosion issue causing failures and failure to pass vt state inspections by a family friend in january. i contacted toyota and provided [xxx], the customer service representative with all vin information. he looked up service records and informed me that the vehicle had a corrosion application applied in 2010 under the previous owner and there was nothing further required. under the recall action that was all required based i my vin number. i did ask if it had issues discovered what was i to do, [xxx] told me to contact toyota again if that occurred. i took the vehicle to be inspected on 27 march, 2015 at groton garage, in groton vt and the owner [xxx]. contacted me to inform me that it could not be inspected due to multiple frame corrosion issues that are failures. he also knew of the recall issue for frame corrosion and failure and told me to contact toyota again. on 30 march i spoke with [xxx] who took the information update the data under case # 1503303884 and told me a specialist dealing with this high profile issue would contact me within 1 business day. i was contacted the next day by thorn who pulled up my information and informed me that toyota had completed the frame application in 2010 and that is all that is required by toyota to be completed by recall action b0d. i informed him that the vehicle could not be inspected after just purchasing due to the frame being corroded and he stated toyota recall action was not responsible for this issue with my vehicle. i disagree and currently own a 2013 rav and would never had purchased a tundra if i would have known about this frame issue. as a recent retired active duty member, i feel that customer service and taking care of known issue is the responsibility of toyota not those who purchased the vehicles unknowingly. information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6). *tr

You might be curious to know that the frame recall that toyota had and that ended in 2012 is recurring on the toyotas again. i had mine checked in 2012 and was told it was fine but they were going to under coat it in order to prevent it from happening in the future. i went to have it inspected last week for them to tell me that the frame is soft and rusted through with a hole, in the exact spot the recall was referring to. i brought it to the toyota dealership who did the under coating to begin with just for them to confirm that the hole was there, the rust was occurring but the recall had ended in 2012 and they can no longer help us. in turn they told us to contact toyota corporation, which we did, and they told us they can not help us either because the recall had ended. the representative on the phone agreed with us but said the corporation wouldn't allow him to do anything. so, end result is we are stuck with a truck that had a frame "fixed" but is now doing the same thing it did before but the toyota dealership won't honor it, nor will the corporation. i should add when i contacted the dealership in regards to this one of the first things the technician said to me was that i wasn't the first one to come back with a rusted frame. very shady and unreliable. i would hope that toyota would honor their recalls that were previously fixed but apparently that's not the case. *tr

Spare tire holder rusted & spare tire flew off into traffic. this is a safety issue. *tr

Tl*the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. the contact stated that the vehicle was serviced under nhtsa campaign number: 09v444000 (structure) and the dealer sprayed the cross member with a corrosion protection compound. the contact stated that while driving at 5 mph, the spare tire detached from the vehicle. the vehicle was taken back to the dealer where they refused to repair the vehicle under the recall. the vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where it was repaired. the details of the repairs were unavailable. the failure mileage was 180,000.

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. the contact stated that the frame was corroded and caused the protective coating to chip off. the contact mentioned that the vehicle was repaired under nhtsa campaign number: 09v444000 (structure). however, the failure recurred. the vehicle was not taken to the dealer. the manufacturer was made aware of the failure. the failure mileage was 122,000. updated 01/07/14*lj the consumer stted the vehicle was taken to a mechanic hwo advised the failure was due to rust jacking. the machanic suggested the vehicle be taken to the dealer. the dealer stated there were no rust holes. updated 6/8/2015 *js

I purchased a 2001 toyota tundra extended cab pick up truck new in feb. 2001. the vehicle was serviced at a toyota dealership for years. on dec. 11, 2011 i received a recall notice from toyota (ssc 90m) regarding severe corrosion of the rear cross-member. on feb. 18, 2012 the truck was serviced at koons toyota in westminster, md. at that time an inspection was completed and the paper work i was given indicated the following; "inspect, remove rust & clean frame, no rust ex spec, apply crc. the truck was back at the same dealership in 2013 for a routine oil change and no mention of rust was made by the service department. in oct. 2014 the vehicle was serviced at a certified automobile repair station. at this time i was informed the mechanic that my frame was badly rusted. i have contacted toyota and they will only say the "campaign" on my vehicle is over. although i realize recall ssc 90m ended in 2012 i believe that my frame was rusted in feb. 2012 when the vehicle was at a toyota dealership and should have been fixed at that time. i base this on the opinion of 2 certified auto mechanics and 1 certified auto body repairman. all 3 inspected my vehicle and our of the opinion that the amount of rust on the frame could not have occurred from 2012 to 2014. they advise the frame would have had to have been rusting in feb. 2012, before the recall ended. *tr

My power steering blew out. it began squealing very loudly and losing fluid rapidly. i have had this truck 7-8 years and never had an issue with the steering. today, a mechanic tells me it's rusted out and i need a new power steering rack, pressure line and bushings. this problem is very similar (identical...) to issues i've read before concerning the tundra and the recall of the rusted frame. on 1/4/2013 @ 158,495 miles, i had rohrich toyota address the recall for the frame rust corrosion. the current power steering issue may very well be related to the rust issue that lead to the 2012 recall. *tr

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. the contact stated that in january 2012 the vehicle was taken to the dealer to be inspected for frame corrosion. after inspecting the vehicle the mechanic determined that the frame did not need to be repaired or replaced and sprayed the frame with an anti corrosion substance crc. in october 2014 the vehicle failed an inspection due to a perforated sub frame caused by corrosion. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the vin number was not available. the failure mileage was 187,000.

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. while the vehicle was being serviced at an independent repair facility, the mechanic noticed that the entire frame was severely corroded. the manufacturer was made aware of the failure and declined to provide a remedy. the vehicle was not repaired. the failure mileage was 105,000.

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. the contact observed that the front passenger side frame was deteriorated and rusted out a two inch circumference hole. the vehicle was serviced per nhtsa campaign number: 12v345000 (structure:body), but the remedy failed to repair the vehicle. instead of the frame being replaced, the contact stated that it was sprayed previously with a compound. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the failure mileage was 113,000.

2001 toyota tundra. consumer writes in regards to vehicle frame rust recall. *smd the consumer stated the vehicle was known for having defective steel used for the frames that was prone to premature rust. the consumer took the vehicle to the dealer and they kept the vehicle for a week, during which they had a secondary contractor apply a rust proofing material to the frame. when the vehicle was returned to the consumer, he was informed he would never have to worry about the frame rusting again. recently, he had the tire replaced and while on the hoist, he realized there was rust appearing in spots everywhere on the frame, including where the metal straps were holding the gas tank to the frame. he immediately took the vehicle back to the dealer, where they inspected it and took many photos. the service manager informed the consumer the truck frame definitely needed to re-done, but it wasn't his decision. a toyota representative informed consumer, they were no longer participating in the recall, as it had ended. the consumer tried to explain, the previous repair, made the problem worse instead of better. *jb

I took my car back to titus will toyota in tacoma, wa. there is a recall for frame damage. they told me my vehicle did not have the problem. i then took it to my local mechanic a few weeks later for other work. he informed me that my skid plate was loose and could not be re-connected because the holes for the screws in the frame are rusted out. this is what the recall is about. so the dealer tried to not do the recall because it is expensive. meanwhile my truck needs the frame replaced as the recall specified. my truck lived in duluth mn, for 12 years. *tr

2001 toyota tundra. consumer writes in regards to broken cross member. *ld the consumer stated the spare tire mount fell off,the rear shock top failed and the crossmember failure caused the brake line to fail. updated 11/08/2017*js

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. while the vehicle was stationary, it became rusted and severely corroded. the vehicle was taken to tnc toyota of marietta, ohio where it was treated for rust and corrosion with a spray coating per a recall. the manufacturer was made aware of the issue. the failure mileage was unknown. updated 08/22/17*lj the consumer stated after the vehicle was repaired the corrosion worsened. the dealer stated since the consumer signed the completed repair order the would not be able to assist with the repair. updated 08/28/2017*js

On april 11 2013 i purchased a 2001 toyota tundra. months later while checking the tire pressures at a gas station, i was shocked to notice that there was a hole in the frame about two inches across. i called my nearest toyota dealer, woburn foreign motors, and spoke with nicole who ran the vin number and told me that jaffarian toyota in haverhill had inspected the truck on 20 april 2012. therefore, they would not look at my truck. next, i called jaffarian and explained that the frame looked to me as if it could snap in half, and that i could not see how that much rust could occur from when they inspected it. the service technician then said that if they had inspected and passed the truck then they would have applied a preservative undercoating to the frame. i pointed out there was no such paint or undercoating anywhere to be seen on the frame. he tried to get me back on the recall list, but found out that he could not. being my only vehicle for use to make a living, i continued to drive the truck until 11 april 2015, when the frame snapped in half as i was entering my driveway. i had been on interstate 95 at 65 mph only minutes earlier, when i expect the vehicle would have lost control and probably rolled over had the frame snapped then. if the vehicle was indeed inspected, then it seems evident that the inspector was negligent in his duties and passed the vehicle knowing that it had severe and dangerous corrosion to its chassis. under these circumstances, i have contacted toyota motor corporation and have asked them to cover the cost of towing my truck to a dealer, and repairing it to a safe, roadworthy condition under the terms of their original recall and they have refused. any help you can give to resolve this issue would be greatly appreciated. *tr

The 1st generation toyota tundra's are rust buckets. i own a 2001 toyota tundra w/ approx 101,000 miles. the vehicle was taken to the local authorized dealer for repairs under recall: 09v444000 (structure: frame and members:underbody shields). the vehicle is being repaired (frame is being replaced). but the dealer also informed me that the steering rack and hose connections are rotted out and in need of replacement -> $1300. additionally, the dealer informed me that the rear e-brake pivots are rusted/frozen and will also need replacing ->> $450. in a nutshell, the frame, the steering and the brakes are all rusted out - it appears that safety was an afterthought. i feel that toyota corporation is negligent and that consumers are left holding the bag for poorly engineered products that are prone to early rust-out. on-line forums are filled with threads from other owners experiencing similar issues. *tr

On 11//18/0/01irc'd a recall for excessive corrosion of the rear cross member. in 10/2012,i was informed that the truck frame passed inspection and was good.they did replace two gas tank straps and told me the undercoating that should be sprayed on it as part of the recall was not available.i never received any addition correspondence regarding the undercoating.on 12/23,14 i took my truck to tj toyota for a trailer light whip repair. at that time, the mechanic had me look at the frame rail.it is rusted so bad i could see right through the rail.the connection of this rail to the frame has excessive scaling.the truck was due for an inspection at the end of the month, and i was told they would not do an inspection.the mechanic continued to tell me he felt the truck was "junk" unsuitable for towing anything.i called 1-800-331-4331 at toyota and spoke with [xxx], [xxx] and [xxx]. [xxx] processed a conference call with herself, [xxx] at tj toyota and me. [xxx] told me to take the truck back to tj toyota to redo the frame inspection and if it failed, toyota would replace the frame. however, [xxx], from tj toyota stated it is not corroded on the frame but it is on the rail connecting to the frame. i asked what they would for me and he stated, spray it with undercoating. i asked what that would do for the truck and [xxx] stated nothing?. nnyroads are salted heavily.if this vehicle was never undercoated or protected for rust, the fact that the rails are rusted is due to not being prepared for driving in nnywinter.i find it difficult to believe that in 2012 my truck frame and under carriage was in as good a condition as the inspection dictated.if in two years a toyota truck frame goes from good to junk, there is a problem some place. i believe not undercoating the vehicle led to the rust problems and the result of the inspection in 2012 was incorrect. information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6). *tr

This is a follow-up with regards to reference number 10479431. i inspected the frame of my vehicle on aug. 15 and discovered a significant amount of the corrosion resistant compound (crc) had been removed, i spoke to toyota corporate on august 19 and they informed me they will not do anything to remedy the failure of the product and its application and that i should expect the crc to fall off the frame. however, the warranty for the work that was performed would be applicable for 12 months. in addition, i raised my concerns in oct. 2012 regarding the effectiveness of the proposed solution to the frame rust and i was assured the crc application would resolve the issues with frame rust. unfortunately the crc has failed significantly after two applications which will ultimately lead to frame failure without any type of remediation. to clarify, when i originally raised my concerns with the proposed solution of the crc application toyota assured me the solution would be an effective process. however, toyota has now stated the application will fall off the frame and they will not warranty the work performed even though i have written documentation stating otherwise. *tr

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. the contact stated that the vehicle was taken to the dealer for repairs under nhtsa campaign id number: 09v444000 (structure: frame and members: under body shields). the contact was advised that the vehicle would have a compound placed on the vehicle instead of replacing the frame. the dealer stated that the frame should be replaced but the manufacturer determined that the frame would only be replaced if there were holes in the frame, regardless of whether or not there was visible structural damage. the contact stated that the dealer removed the cab and sprayed a compound solution on the points of the frame that they could reach. the contact stated that the compound was washed away once it rained. the failure and the current mileages were 57,000. ..updated 11/14/12 *bf updated 11/16/2012*js

Originally brought the 2001 tundra in for frame recall, suspecting it needed to be replaced under the toyota recall coverage to toyota of scranton. the dealership service department insisted the frame had passed inspection and was safe, and sprayed a corrosive resistant compound on the frame. i took their word that the compound would prevent/resist against further corrosion and that the truck was safe. a little over a year (and less than 3000 miles) later i could see the frame had actually gotten worse and that the spare tire was beginning to get loose on the cross member. we took the truck back to toyota of scranton where they did another inspection. this time, they determined that the frame was perferated and therefore failed their frame inspection. we took our truck back and they put in the order for a new frame which they would install in about two weeks, once it arrived. the following week, we got a call from the dealership, telling us that toyota had denied the dealership's claim to provide us a new frame, based on the fact that the truck had already come in to be inspected the first time, when they sprayed the compound. this leads me to one of two conclusions: either a) the spray-on compound is completely ineffective and did nothing to protect my truck's defective frame against corrosion, or b) the initial inspection on my truck which found it to be acceptable was in error, missing the perforation spots that were caught the second time around. in either case, i am concerned about my truck's safety and that it has passed through toyota's inspection without correction to the known safety issue, due to a technicality based on a faulty policy. *tr

The vehicle was recalled for corrosion ,frame .cross member and gas tank straps were replaced in august 2012 03/16/2014 the gas tank leaked approx. 15 gallons of gas in my attached garage the gas tank was perforated in three spot underneath the new tank straps this vehicle has 85000 miles on it and i believe this issue could have been resolved without endangering people in this manner. also now the rear differential housing is corroded so bad it is leaking gear oil in several places and i am afraid of catastrophic failure. *tr

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. the contact received notification of nhtsa campaign number: 09v444000 (structure) and took the vehicle to the dealer for recall service. months later, the vehicle began to exhibit signs of rusting. the contact had not encountered any issues prior to having the recall service performed. the manufacturer was contacted. the failure mileage was 180,968.

Tl* the contact owns a 2001 toyota tundra. the contact stated that the vehicle was serviced under nhtsa campaign id number: 09v444000 (structure) however, since the repair the contact had noticed parts of the frame laying in his driveway. the vehicle was inspected by an independent mechanic, who advised that there was an issue with rust and the recall repair had not been performed correctly. the vehicle was not further repaired. the manufacturer was not contacted. the failure mileage was 130,470. *tr udpated 05/01/14