Underbody Shield problems of the 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.

2001 Toyota Tundra. Consumer writes in regards to vehicle frame rust recall. 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.

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.

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.

2001 Toyota Tundra. Consumer states crc application has proven to be a completely inadequate solution to the long-standing frame and cross member rust problem the consumer stated only one of the gas tank straps were replaced, contrary to the promised replacement of both in the recall notice. The compound was applied over the existing rusty surface, although he was assured that the areas to be treated would be cleaned of rust before applying the compound. A Toyota rep also told the consumer the spare tire carrier assembly would be replaced, but not only wasn't it replaced, but what was left of the assembly, was a small rusted, broken fragment and no spare tire. The mechanic informed the consumer, the frame was unsound and advised against using the hitch for any kind of towing.

My brakes line rusted off. I got it replaced. If I didn't notice it I could have gotten into a major accident with no brakes. My frame on the pickup is rusting and I am concerned that it will become another safety issue. I have owned Toyotas all my life and now worried to drive them due to rusty frames.

The contact owns 2001 Toyota Tundra. The contact received notification of NHTSA recall campaign id number: 09v444000 (structure: frame and members: under-body shields) on April 10, 2010. The dealer inspected the frame and advised that the frame exhibited slight corrosion and would not need to be serviced under the recall at that time. The manufacturer advised they would contact the dealer to determine why recall repairs were not made to the vehicle. The contact never received a response. The vehicle was not repaired and the contact stated the recall was not being handled within a reasonable time. The failure mileage was 49,717 and the current mileage was 52,447.

The contact owns a 2001 Toyota Tundra. The contact stated that while driving at about 55 mph, the spare tire fell off the vehicle due to corrosion on the frame. The contact called the manufacturer and referenced recall 09v444000 (structure: frame and members: underbody shields) for which he never received a recall notice. The manufacturer gave him a case number and advised him that someone would get back in touch with him in reference to the failure. The current and failure mileages were approximately 100,000.

On 3/15/10 my vehicle was inspected by Toyota as part of the recall addressing the frame rusting. The dealership said nothing needed to be done. On may 4, 2012 the dealership stated the frame needed a coating applied to inhibit the frame from rusting. The dealership applied the frame coating. On December 23, 2013 my inspection mechanic informed me that the frame was rusting. I returned the vehicle to the Toyota dealership and they confirmed the frame was rusting but nothing could be done since the recall had expired. My issue is they should still be obligated to fix the frame since it was never addressed properly in 2012. They should have replaced the frame as was the protocol in most cases. In my case they elected to apply a coating over the rust which prevented nothing. The dealership and Toyota claim since the recall has ended there is nothing they can do for me. Again my issue is the recall was never addressed the first time by team Toyota of glen mills.

I own a 2001 Tundra. I just learned of 4 recalls: nhsta #09e025000, 09v444000, 06e026000, and 06e065000. We received no notification from the companies required to do so. The truck is registered. We purchased the truck new and have been the only owners. We have not changed address since the purchase. I believe the failure to be notified was deliberate to avoid the cost of compliance with the recall. I have been unable to get any of the 4 companies involved to respond to phone messages.

The contact owns a 2001 Toyota Tundra. The contact received a recall notification under the NHTSA campaign id number 09v444000 (structure: frame and members: underbody shields). The vehicle was taken to an authorized dealer on February 23, 2010 for service repair. However, the technician informed that the specific part for the remedy repair was unavailable, and would not be available until two weeks. The authorized dealer was notified on a separate occasion in which the part remained unavailable. The contact continued to wait for the part and it had been over a period of three months. He had not experienced failure regarding the recall defect at the time of the complaint. The current mileage was 91,420. The VIN was unavailable.

The contact owns 2001 Toyota Tundra. While driving approximately 10 to 15 mph over a bump in the road pieces of his frame fell off of the vehicle. He did not take the vehicle to the dealer. He received a NHTSA recall notice, campaign id 09v444000, structure frame and members, underbody shields the second week of June 2010; however, his vehicle was in the dealers possession for approximately three weeks. The dealer had to order a frame for the truck. The contact was unable to provide a VIN. The approximate failure mileage was 158,000 and the current mileage was 160,000.

2001 Toyota Tundra brake failure resulting in single vehicle accident running off the road into ditch and had to be towed. Inspection photos available demonstrate brake line corrosion along with chassis and frame rust through. Updated 03/29/10 pictures received 10/05/10.

I have a 2001 Toyota Tundra. I brought this vehicle in for rhode island state inspection and it failed due to frame rust. The spare tire separated and the frame that holds the tire broke and is being held together with a strap. There are places in the frame that have rusted through completely. Both the dealership and the corporate offices have not been of any assistance. Updated 03/25/10 the consumer sent in pictures. Updated 07/14/10. 8jb.

2001 Toyota Tundra. Consumer writes regarding rusted frame the consumer stated he only discovered the frame rust when the rear leaf spring broke unexpectedly while driving in August 2009.

The contact owns a 2001 Toyota Tundra. The contact stated that he noticed rust on the frame of the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to an authorized dealership where pictures were taken and sent to a representative; the representative stated that the rust was not serious enough to act upon. Most recently, the spare tire fell off the rear of the vehicle. . The contact called the manufacturer who stated that someone would give him a call back. The vehicle had not been repaired. The current mileage was approximately 112,000. The failure mileage was approximately 60,000. Updated 01/04/lj updated 01/10/11.

Due to premature corrosion (vehicle 4 years old) parking brake failed to function, failed nys inspection, was repaired (03/14/2005). Due to premature corrosion, spring broke, was repaired (01/02/2008). Power steering rack rotted, had to be replaced. Approx mileage 150,000. Front suspension links rotted out. Called Toyota (04/15/2009) voiced our concern for rotting frame, no recall at that time. They issued a complaint #. Took vehicle to dealer for inspection for three recalls, a0f, b0d, 90m on 05/02/2012. Inspection not properly done, chunks of rust still can be flaked off, possible holes behind, but they sprayed crc over top of the loose scaling, covering over the problems. We had no choice in what they were doing with our property. We took it in for an inspection. After said inspection, if it would not get a new frame, we would have opted to take it home, removed all loose scaling prior to the crc being applied. We were not given any options, our vehicle was already on the way to their collision shop for the work. This would have accomplished two things; the dealership would know without a doubt that there were no holes and the crc would stick directly to the frame minimizing future corrosion (that is the objective of the recall afterall) I called Toyota corporate and voiced my concern with a spray covering over the problem, and the truck not being safe. My case is still pending, but based on the initial call back from the case manager, it is not looking like there will be a resolution in our favor, we will see. My concern is, how many of these Toyota dealers are not thoroughly inspecting these trucks, spraying over the problems and putting these vehicles back on the roads. How safe is that?.

2001 Toyota Tundra rust recall. The consumer stated a few weeks ago he had a flat tire and discovered a substantial amount of rust on the frame. The consumer learned of a recall, however the recall didn't cover Toyota Tundra's that were originally sold or registered in the state he lives in.