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.

- Huntigdon Valley, PA, USA

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"

- Warwick, RI, USA

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.

- Sutton, MA, USA

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).

- Columbia, NJ, USA

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.

- Gilbertsville, PA, USA

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.

- Gilbertsville, PA, USA

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.

- Quinwood, WV, USA

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

- Greeneville, TN, USA

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.

- Millers, MD, USA

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.

- Millers, MD, USA

The contact owns a 2001 Toyota Tundra. The contact stated that the frame was completely corroded. The contact mentioned that the vehicle was previously repaired under NHTSA campaign number: 09V444000 (structure). The vehicle was taken to the dealer. The technician stated that the vehicle was unsafe to drive and diagnosed that the frame needed to be replaced. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and refused to provide any assistance or approve the frame replacement. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was 170,000. Updated 02/10/16...updated 02/19/16 consumer took the vehicle to dealer (4/19/12) updated 05/18/18

- Manchester, MD, USA

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.

- Spruce Pine, NC, USA

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.

- Blairstown, NJ, USA

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).

- Orange, VT, USA

Spare tire holder rusted & spare tire flew off into traffic. This is a safety issue.

- Wilkes Barre, PA, USA

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.

- Wilkes Barre, PA, USA

You might be curious to know that the frame recall that Toyota had and that ended in 2012 is recurring on the Toyota 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.

- Montville, ME, USA

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).

- Norwood, NY, USA

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.

- Manchester, MD, USA

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.

- Coventry, RI, USA