Automotive News, Media & Press - Tundras are rotting away too

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/19294258/detail.html

Uh-oh

It is Toyota. That is what you should expect.

First the Tacoma's, now the Tundra's?

Wonder how long it will take for Toyota to recall these, if they weren't included in the original recall.

And yet my '94 Chevy Blazer hasn't rusted to dust yet...

"But GM is soo much worser"

In 5....4....3....2....

Toyotas in general rott like nothing else, up here in NY (salt capital of the world) they rott faster than anything else. Trucks less than 5 years old are rotton, people don't care, "no problem it's a great truck".....assclowns

Glad I live in TX :)

And there is already the beginnings of a resolution;

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2009/04/27/toyota-tundra-frame-rust/

It is important to understand that “manufacturing defect” is a generic term that globally defines an issue’s root cause, whether it is design, assembly, process, or manufacturing….Toyota’s Customer First approach dictates that using the information obtained from the Tacoma, we pro-actively investigate other vehicles of similar design and production elements. In doing so, our investigations have indicated that there are a small number of complaints for a similar condition on 2000 and 2001 Tundras. We are currently investigating each incident.



Here's an excerpt from that webpage

Recommendation: If you own a 2000 or 2001 Tundra or 2001 Sequoia, and you live in the northeastern portion of the USA or anywhere in Canada, and/or if your local government uses salt to melt road ice, you’re advised to make an appointment at your local Toyota dealer for a frame inspection. Your local dealership may or may not be aware of this issue yet (it’s still very new), but it’s important to get your vehicle checked out immediately.

Not only is there a potential safety issue, but it’s also the best way to make certain that Toyota is made aware of the full scope of this problem (if it is indeed a problem). It’s also important to have the dealership provide you with documentation that the frame inspection occurred and the paperwork must contain notes abut the condition of the frame. If your 00′ or 01′ Tundra or 01′ Sequoia have this issue (and the vast majority will NOT have this problem), the sooner you can get it documented the better.

The Good News: Toyota stepped up and took responsibility on the Tacoma, going so far as to offer to buy back the trucks for full retail value. If there is indeed an issue, we’re confident Toyota will do the right thing.



I have a feeling they will probably do the same thing with the Tundra/Sequoia. And before anybody starts bitching about "import defense," I'm just throwing something out from a different viewpoint.

If they are fixing their mistake, then I have nothing but praise for them. After 8 years, I fully expected Toyota to turn a blind eye. It doesn't say much for reliability, but it does say a ton for customer service.

I don't think the upstate is a fair place either. Shit my 89 RS went up there with no rust no rust, and if there was it wasn't visible. I left college 4 years later with holes in my floor pans, wheel wells, and trunk deck, and there things weren't like pin holes...they were "holy shit I can put my fist through some of these things". I know for a fact every car up there is beat the hell from good old upstate winters.

Wow glad i live in California! But seriously, the first gen Tundra is the ugliest truck on the road. I was ok with them until my friends parents bought one and the interior looked like an expedition interpretation. I generally rule out Toyota altogether becuase IMO they have the worst interiors in the industry. I dont knw why people pick on GM for their interiors but doent even mention Toyota. The second generation Tundra is gorgeous, i think they really got it right! I havnt seen the interiors yet though.

I don't think the upstate is a fair place either. Shit my 89 RS went up there with no rust no rust, and if there was it wasn't visible. I left college 4 years later with holes in my floor pans, wheel wells, and trunk deck, and there things weren't like pin holes...they were "holy shit I can put my fist through some of these things". I know for a fact every car up there is beat the hell from good old upstate winters.

It's one thing for body panels to rust, but for frame rails to rust through and you can poke a screwdriver through them is another. Thats a very serious safety hazard. My truck spent its whole life in wisconsin before I bought it... all it has is surface rust on the frame.

Glad I live in TX :)

2nd :)

Damn my dad has one.

How long til we start seeing these as Tundras:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Jkingson/cid__0308081101.jpg

Wow glad i live in California! But seriously, the first gen Tundra is the ugliest truck on the road. I was ok with them until my friends parents bought one and the interior looked like an expedition interpretation. I generally rule out Toyota altogether becuase IMO they have the worst interiors in the industry. I dont knw why people pick on GM for their interiors but doent even mention Toyota. The second generation Tundra is gorgeous, i think they really got it right! I havnt seen the interiors yet though.

Ugliest truck on the road?
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c112/cbonds14/S5030085.jpg

Ugliest truck on the road?


IMO yes, buts thats mine and yours can be different. Some look good but i hate 99% of the ones i see.

How long til we start seeing these as Tundras:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Jkingson/cid__0308081101.jpg

Probably not at all if they are buying them back at full value if your truck has the problem. Don't you read?

Ugliest truck on the road?
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c112/cbonds14/S5030085.jpg

Not a fan of them. Never have been really.

LOL

How can anyone justify a piece of shit product that falls apart because they are given a replacement and friendly customer service?

It's like GM mentality from the 1980s. It's 2009.

Seems that would give a good reason to buy their product to me. GM won't touch my roof bubbling issue even if I bring it to them with the TSB report.

So yeah a replacement car and friendly customer service probably does go along way specially now a days.

The point was that you'd be getting the same piece of shit product. It is a vicious circle of crappy product still!

Yes, but Toyota seems to learn from mistakes and adapt better than GM. Both C5s and C6s had problems with the targa tops flying off.

Figured you'd be here defending them.

How many times have those tops flying off been as a result of the users not latching properly or being kept in adjustment? And a targa top coming off isn't as bad as the frame of your vehicle disintegrating.

"But GM is soo much worser"

In 5....4....3....2....

Predictable.

Yes, but Toyota seems to learn from mistakes and adapt better than GM.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!

It's taken nearly 30 years of selling in this country for Toyota to come to the realization that recalls are not only for American vehicles. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have for years sucked it up and bit the bullet on huge recalls while Toyota (and Honda, for that matter) have swept all their issues under the rug. The American media hasn't helped in the slightest either by burying all japanese manufacturer's issues in the bottom corner of page A11 while domestic automakers get front page 36pt font coverage.

Just for the record the new Tundra is a total interior rip off of the F150. Can't haul worth a crap either my dad has one. Wishes his 97 GMC back every day. That and it has never gotten better than 12 mpg ever. Cheapest quality interior I have ever seen.

toyota is shit. It's rediculess people buy those things. Some of them run a long time if u put heads, transmissions and frames under them.

When I was truck shopping this past Feb, the Toyota dealer by my house had a brand new 2007 model year Tundra on their show room floor. By late January I was having trouble finding a left over 2008 model year GMC/Chevy truck.

Figured you'd be here defending them.



And before anybody starts bitching about "import defense," I'm just throwing something out from a different viewpoint.
;)
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!

It's taken nearly 30 years of selling in this country for Toyota to come to the realization that recalls are not only for American vehicles. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have for years sucked it up and bit the bullet on huge recalls while Toyota (and Honda, for that matter) have swept all their issues under the rug. The American media hasn't helped in the slightest either by burying all japanese manufacturer's issues in the bottom corner of page A11 while domestic automakers get front page 36pt font coverage.

Toyota has had their problems, sure. But then they fix them. I had a '98 Mustang GT with the same intake manifold as the '96 SOHC 4.6s had when they started spontaneously cracking. I think close to 1 million cars were TSB'd, but what do you know; my car's VIN indicated that it was made too late to qualify for a new manifold. And I am pretty sure that it took GM quite a while to ditch Optispark. I'm not trying to say Toyota is God (far from it), but they do tend to have a more sensitive ear on public opinion/perception/wants than GM.

;)


Toyota has had their problems, sure. But then they fix them. I had a '98 Mustang GT with the same intake manifold as the '96 SOHC 4.6s had when they started spontaneously cracking. I think close to 1 million cars were TSB'd, but what do you know; my car's VIN indicated that it was made too late to qualify for a new manifold. And I am pretty sure that it took GM quite a while to ditch Optispark. I'm not trying to say Toyota is God (far from it), but they do tend to have a more sensitive ear on public opinion/perception/wants than GM.

You're going to point out two examples (which weren't actually even recalls) in response to Toyota's 20+ years of ignoring problems?

Reason I ask is because the number of vehicles recalled by domestic manufacturers in that time approaches the 100 million mark. Toyota and Honda both number 0 in that column. I don't see it.

The fact that Optispark wasn't ever recalled is amusing, and I said that the intake manifold was TSB'd. Not recalled.

How long til we start seeing these as Tundras:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c124/Jkingson/cid__0308081101.jpg

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate when that happens. :(

The fact that Optispark wasn't ever recalled is amusing, and I said that the intake manifold was TSB'd. Not recalled.

Optispark was a dumb design, yes, but it didn't warrant a recall.

If it did, why hadn't honda recalled all those v6 accords with the transmissions that blow up left and right?

They extended the powertrain warranty to 100k miles on those cars. My sister's '99 3.2TL had the transmission replaced 100% free @ 98k miles. So they might not have done a complete recall, but they did atleast address the issue.

They extended the powertrain warranty to 100k miles on those cars. My sister's '99 3.2TL had the transmission replaced 100% free @ 98k miles. So they might not have done a complete recall, but they did atleast address the issue.
Shouldn't have to be replacing a transmission at 98,000 miles. Especially on stock power.

The fact that Optispark wasn't ever recalled is amusing, and I said that the intake manifold was TSB'd. Not recalled.

wow the optispark:eyes: wow you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't you?

i still find it amusing when people bitch about the optispark going out when their 15 year old 130,000 mile waterpump takes a dump, or the general consensus by many people that a cap and rotor should last the lifetime of the car.

its a distributor is a wear item! its a damn good thing the distributor isn't in the customary location at the back of the block under the cowl then you'd see some bitching going on about how gm would produce a car that you have to pull the motor to replace the distributor... and still it couldn't be considered a recall

The fact that Optispark wasn't ever recalled is amusing, and I said that the intake manifold was TSB'd. Not recalled.

The problem is not as big as the internet makes it out to be for one, there were failures granted, but most of the guys on the internet blow it out of proportion like every LT1 can't make it 10 feet or survive a puddle of water with out loosing an opti. My stocker lasted 10 years, the a/c delco replacement worked great some 6 years later when the car was pulled apart for h/c. Poor maintenance attributes to a good majority of opti failures due to the design flaw of it being under the wp that and people tend to throw optis at cars and not try and figure out whats wrong with them. Put it this way, think how many LT1 Caprices were put in to police and taxi cab fleets, not uncommon to see a 9C1 Caprice with 200K mile with the stock optis on them still.

Shouldn't have to be replacing a transmission at 98,000 miles. Especially on stock power.
It was a design flaw, and it was free. The transmission on mid-late 90s Tauruses is much worse, Grand Prix transmissions are just as bad from what I hear, and the transmission in my mom's old '94 Vette went out at 114k miles. According to the mechanic, that was "about right."
The problem is not as big as the internet makes it out to be for one, there were failures granted, but most of the guys on the internet blow it out of proportion like every LT1 can't make it 10 feet or survive a puddle of water with out loosing an opti. My stocker lasted 10 years, the a/c delco replacement worked great some 6 years later when the car was pulled apart for h/c. Poor maintenance attributes to a good majority of opti failures due to the design flaw of it being under the wp that and people tend to throw optis at cars and not try and figure out whats wrong with them. Put it this way, think how many LT1 Caprices were put in to police and taxi cab fleets, not uncommon to see a 9C1 Caprice with 200K mile with the stock optis on them still.

See above reference to a '94 Corvette... it's not something I read about on the internet, it happened.

It was a design flaw, and it was free. The transmission on mid-late 90s Tauruses is much worse, Grand Prix transmissions are just as bad from what I hear, and the transmission in my mom's old '94 Vette went out at 114k miles. According to the mechanic, that was "about right."


See above reference to a '94 Corvette... it's not something I read about on the internet, it happened.

FYI I had a 94 Taurus SHO with the automatic I beat on that car hard all the time and was still on the stock transmission at 160K miles :)

FYI I had a 94 Taurus SHO with the automatic I beat on that car hard all the time and was still on the stock transmission at 160K miles :)

The SHO didn't run the same trans as a regular Taurus I'm pretty sure.

The point was that you'd be getting the same piece of shit product. It is a vicious circle of crappy product still!

Well with that logic, my next GM will have the same shitty roof and hood bubbles and GM won't do a damn thing about them.

Sooo if that's the case, Toyota who would be giving a new car for this rust problem works out to be a better deal in the long run?

Tundra frames were made locally and I made the airbag.

I know a lot of people that personally worked on the frame line... no wonder they all got laid off.

Tundra frames were made locally and I made the airbag.

I know a lot of people that personally worked on the frame line... no wonder they all got laid off.

:jest:
Ouch...that's gotta sting! :jest:

Well with that logic, my next GM will have the same shitty roof and hood bubbles and GM won't do a damn thing about them.

Sooo if that's the case, Toyota who would be giving a new car for this rust problem works out to be a better deal in the long run?

From what I understand they don't give you a new car they buy it back from you at full price...that way you can go and buy whatever you want.

:D And here I thought that my 72 Beetle was bad

You're correct they buy it back at full value you bought it at. So you get (just numbers) $27,000 back 8 years later to put down on whatever you want. Nice deal.
When did a big 3 do that?

Shouldn't have to be replacing a transmission at 98,000 miles. Especially on stock power.

My mom's 2007 Accord got a new tranny at 19,519 miles. Sure it was covered under warranty, but that doesn't really help out Honda's image when this kind of work is needed at less than 20k miles!

My dad had a Suburban and needed a new rear with less then 30,000 on it. Everyone has, "My XXXX had this happen to there XXXX with XXXX miles on it." those types of arguements are useless. "And everyone has, well my friends car lasted xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

Face it there are flaws with every car/car company out there, that's why they give warranties in the first place. The difference with this than any other problem talked about in this thread are, they found a problem in cars 8 years old, well out of warranty and they are giving you full value for it, if it is found your truck has this problem.

So even if they have the worst cars in the world, people will look at this and it will hit home. "Hey they are standing behind their fuck ups good for them. My Honda/chevy/ford/dodge dealer/company didn't when my XXXX went out, maybe I'll look at them next time I need a new car"

Image is everything specially now a days when everyone is hurting, if they have the shittest things out there but they own up to it, and fix it, well that looks alot better then a millon cars that are shit.

Gm could learn a thing or two from that play book and fix my damn roof and my damn hood, but no they won't they blame it on me, for not taking proper car of it. You can walk in with a TSB and they say it's fake and where did I get it because they don't have. They should say "Hey It looks like you're car is well maintaned and yeah we get alot of these so we'll fix it for free or you'll have to pay 100 buck decutable. But no....saddly they don't.

The SHO didn't run the same trans as a regular Taurus I'm pretty sure.

They are nearly identical. AX4S, the standard taurus in 94 at least had A4OD I believe. I've owned 3 tauri all well over 100K miles, my last SHO which was a 98 the transmission let loose at 170K miles.

The SHO didn't run the same trans as a regular Taurus I'm pretty sure.

My 93 taurus had 150k when I got rid of the car, and the powertrain was still original and still good.

Tauruses were still widely known for having weak transmissions. There are always exceptions.

Tauruses were still widely known for having weak transmissions. There are always exceptions.

Yes i've heard some of that... but having owned 3 thats quite a lot of exceptions for one person :)

My mom's 2007 Accord got a new tranny at 19,519 miles. Sure it was covered under warranty, but that doesn't really help out Honda's image when this kind of work is needed at less than 20k miles!

Mt brother broke 2 in under 50k. He still thought it was a good car.

My co worker just bought a new accord and the abs have cooked twice! Bad abs module. I thought honda was supposed to be wonderful. Thought they didn't have lems like that kuz its honda. Covered of course, but what happens when his warranty runs up and he is stuck with the bill. Props for Toyota, but a "truck" shouldn't be rotting like that and the fact that is is now more than just one platform from that company should tell you something.

There are GM chassis still around from 50 years ago and haven't rusted through...

But there are brand new camaros crapping out.
http://jalopnik.com/5232715/first-camaro-crap+out-comes-40-miles-from-dealership

So one has a frayed wire ground out. One. Too early to say Camaros.

Hey I totally agree. It's just funny to see everyone jump on the "Oh they suck" bandwagon all the time when GM has the same problems. They're cars, they will have problems It call comes down to how they fix it and deal with it.

There are GM chassis still around from 50 years ago and haven't rusted through...

And I've seen GM Chassis that are 4 years old that are broken in two already from rust. It's not the car, it's what you do with it and how you treat it.

+1 for what PapaPork said!
:thumb:

Hey I totally agree. It's just funny to see everyone jump on the "Oh they suck" bandwagon all the time when GM has the same problems. They're cars, they will have problems It call comes down to how they fix it and deal with it.

Yeah true... though I still hate "yotas and duhs" :jest:

They are nearly identical. AX4S, the standard taurus in 94 at least had A4OD I believe. I've owned 3 tauri all well over 100K miles, my last SHO which was a 98 the transmission let loose at 170K miles.

My 93 taurus had 150k when I got rid of the car, and the powertrain was still original and still good.

I wasn't entirely sure, thanks for clearing that up for me. I have no experience with the SHO or the regular Taurus.

^^^ No problem, i'm not saying they are bulletproof or anything, but they seemed to take quite a bit of abuse and I was surprised they held.

Hey I totally agree. It's just funny to see everyone jump on the "Oh they suck" bandwagon all the time when GM has the same problems. They're cars, they will have problems It call comes down to how they fix it and deal with it.

But there is a distinction here. The problem comes when the general public perceives certain brands as being "perfect" as is the case with Toyota and Honda...yet these ridiculous issues pop up in their cars. These are the kinds of problems that GM and Ford had in the 90's, when they built their bad reputations. You don't hear about this stuff from new GM and Ford vehicles...but now we ARE hearing about this stuff with new Toyotas and Hondas.

So I guess my point is that GM and Ford now have to live with a bad reputation that they built in previous decades - for 20 years or so they built low quality vehicles. That reputation is proving very hard to shake. Despite the fact that they are now building vehicles as nice, and nicer in many cases, than Toyota and Honda, the public still doesn't see it. But on the flipside, despite the fact that Toyota and Honda have swept problems under the rug and treated customers like lower lifeforms in previous decades, their 20 years of BS is instantly forgiven simple because they've learned to own up within the past 4 years or so.

Again, double standard.

And I've seen GM Chassis that are 4 years old that are broken in two already from rust. It's not the car, it's what you do with it and how you treat it.

+1 for what PapaPork said!
:thumb:

What model and where? The closest I could think of was the mid-size from the 70s- early 80s where the very rear of the frame would rot, and that was after 12-15 years of use.

And I've seen GM Chassis that are 4 years old that are broken in two already from rust. It's not the car, it's what you do with it and how you treat it.

+1 for what PapaPork said!
:thumb:

You should be able to cover the entire frame in wet salt and let it sit outside in the rain and it definitely should not rust that fast.

Basically, in the worst possible environment, with the worst possible owner, it should last longer than that.

Obviously the amount of care an owner puts into their vehicle would affect how long it takes the frame to rust...but it's not THAT BIG of a factor...not like it is with the drivetrain.

You keep saying 'news' these trucks they are 'recalling' are 8 years old. They're not new by any means. If 8 years old is new to you, my NEW 6 year old camaro has roof bubbles and a HUGE bubble under the hood.

And General public think they are perfect? I think this board proves that not everyone thinks they are perfect.

I for one have seen many silent recalls and buy backs by Japanese OEMs. It's hush hush and everything to do with "saving face". I recall a 100% buyback initiated by Nissan on the 89-90 mini van because eventual fire. If you owned one long enough, it would catch fire. We still had a few of them parked out back in the mid 90's and sarcastically reffered to them as the "match box". You never heard about them in the media or the leaky injectors that followed on other models. The media typically will only jump on Our American manufacturers as in the case of the faked fire by Dateline NBC in the case of the Model rocket engine in the Chevy truck fuel tank fiasco.

I think many people and the media assume just because its a Foreign vehicle it must be good and feel inclined not to criticize them! Some sort of hero worship over German Engineering or neat Asian vehicles. Heaven forbid, the Japanese would never sell us a bad or under-developed vehicle.

What model and where? The closest I could think of was the mid-size from the 70s- early 80s where the very rear of the frame would rot, and that was after 12-15 years of use.

Up in Dutch Harbor and Kodiak Alaska. The combination of the elements, driving style and roads make swiss cheese of most all cars regardless of make, GM or not. I'm not crucifying GM or Yota or any car manufacturer for making poor vehicles, I'm simply pointing out that cars and trucks are just steel and they all can be made to rust.
Saying XXXXXXX car lasted for XX years tells me more about the owner than it does the car. Most cars can live for 50 years if taken care of.

You should be able to cover the entire frame in wet salt and let it sit outside in the rain and it definitely should not rust that fast.

Ok, then shower it with rocks and pebbles and throw salt on the frame then freeze the frame and pelt it with hail. Then bend the frame back and forth repeatedly and expose it to 100mph winds and flying debris...see what I'm saying? That is a bad example of the durability of a truck frame.
This article is about trucks and their frames. The frame on my truck has the wax protective coating that your speaking of but loose gravel and road debris has stripped certain areas of the frame already. My truck rarely goes offroad and sticks to paved roads %98 of the time and is only 4 years old.

Basically, in the worst possible environment, with the worst possible owner, it should last longer than that.

Obviously the amount of care an owner puts into their vehicle would affect how long it takes the frame to rust...but it's not THAT BIG of a factor...not like it is with the drivetrain.

I agree, but for those people who don't live in an urban environment it does become a greater concern. I think what makes Dutch harbor and Kodiak so bad is a combination of the freezing temperatures, violent unsheltered sea storms, salted roads, unpaved/loose gravel/deteriorating roads, salt sea air and most importantly the MUD!! The mud contains ALOT of salt in it and for some odd reason it doesn't wash off very easily.

And General public think they are perfect? I think this board proves that not everyone thinks they are perfect.

This board is far from the general public. If the site did represent the general public, GM would be producing nothing but LS V8's.

hahahah that is true.....I'll conceed to that.

This board is far from the general public. If the site did represent the general public, GM would be producing nothing but LS V8's.

I'll drink to that:chug:, an LS3 in every model, and the same thing should apply to Mustangs and Imports. They all get LS engines!

some of you guys need to come to gripes with the Fact that EVERY vehicle manufacturer has issues. from Lamborghini to Fiat to Mercedes. what makes Toyota what it has become today is how they go about these problems and how they treat the customer. most of you commenting are just on the "hate everything unless its american" bandwagon.
here's a tid bit of info...the frames on these earlier trucks (tundra, sequoia, tacomas) were made by Dana. why isnt the company that made the frames in the first place being included in such conversation?? the Fact that Toyota stepped up and is offering retail value for your truck if the frame is rotted should tell you what type of company you're dealing with. they could've of easily told customers to go pound sand on your 9 year old truck which you drive in Boston where it snows 25% of the year. but they didnt do that.
i own 2 Pontiacs...a hardtop formula and a ws.6...both of which have bubbles in the roof. i took the ws.6 in to get looked at 4 years ago and was pretty much told to go fuck myself cause they werent fixing shit. a 5 year old car with barely 20k miles at the time, they wouldnt even offer to pay for half. thats rediculous.
im also glad to see that atleast some people (popapork and a few others) that understand fully whats happening. +1 for what you guys have been saying and i agree with you.

here's a tid bit of info...the frames on these earlier trucks (tundra, sequoia, tacomas) were made by Dana. why isnt the company that made the frames in the first place being included in such conversation?? the Fact that Toyota stepped up and is offering retail value for your truck if the frame is rotted should tell you what type of company you're dealing with. they could've of easily told customers to go pound sand on your 9 year old truck which you drive in Boston where it snows 25% of the year. but they didnt do that.

GM does the same thing with frame issues...they have forever. In fact, they do it for major drivetrain issues too. I would be very surprised if Ford doesn't do it too. You just never hear about it because it's incredibly rare. BUT TOYOTAS ARE TEH BETTAR!!11!1!

i own 2 Pontiacs...a hardtop formula and a ws.6...both of which have bubbles in the roof. i took the ws.6 in to get looked at 4 years ago and was pretty much told to go fuck myself cause they werent fixing shit. a 5 year old car with barely 20k miles at the time, they wouldnt even offer to pay for half. thats rediculous.

Try to get Toyota to do ANYTHING about any kind of paint issues on their vehicles...defect or otherwise. I know first hand you are going to get nowhere.

When it comes to frame and body defects, it shouldn't be "commendable" that Toyota is replacing these vehicles or offering refunds...it should be EXPECTED. When it comes to paint and drivetrain, well that's a different story altogether. But what you get out of GM for paint is more than you are going to get out of Toyota...i'll tell you that much (again from personal experience).

And I've seen GM Chassis that are 4 years old that are broken in two already from rust. It's not the car, it's what you do with it and how you treat it.

+1 for what PapaPork said!
:thumb:

You never let me get away with anything do you? :nod:

GM does the same thing with frame issues...they have forever. In fact, they do it for major drivetrain issues too. I would be very surprised if Ford doesn't do it too. You just never hear about it because it's incredibly rare. BUT TOYOTAS ARE TEH BETTAR!!11!1!



Try to get Toyota to do ANYTHING about any kind of paint issues on their vehicles...defect or otherwise. I know first hand you are going to get nowhere.

When it comes to frame and body defects, it shouldn't be "commendable" that Toyota is replacing these vehicles or offering refunds...it should be EXPECTED. When it comes to paint and drivetrain, well that's a different story altogether. But what you get out of GM for paint is more than you are going to get out of Toyota...i'll tell you that much (again from personal experience).
well i can tell you otherwise sir....as an Assistant service Manager for a Toyota dealer ive covered planty of paint issues that indeed was a defect. if you got denied for any reason than you should look into the dealer you took it to....they control alot of what gets back to toyota and what doesnt.

GM has replaced Frames on vehicles??when?? and if so, than why deny me a simple paint repair that would have cost about $800 to repair???

ive seen plenty of these "bash Toyota" threads and you allways seem to lead the pack on why you hate Toyota etc. Fact of the matter remains, Toyota has a good reputation for a reason. and there's allways people out there that no matter how far backwards you bend, you cant make happy...period.

You never let me get away with anything do you? :nod:

:emb:...:angel:

Thanks you TNT, I thought for the longest time I was nutz. It's glad to seem some people can get through the, "Oh if it comes from other seas it's bad, if it's made in the states it's great." mentality.

I'm not saying the US doesn't have great shit, because they do, so before you guys try to twist my words, don't try, the US can make good/great things/cars. But the fact of the matter is the past 10 years, shit we'll say 5 the imports have been above the curve and it's find if 99.9% of the people on this board think they are shit.....the population, the people buying cars think other wise, and thats all that matters.

And this post is about frames and Toyota stepping up and taking care of it. We ALLL know GM doesn't do shit about a paint issue (there are threads all over this site about it) Show me one article where GM on their own, said "Hey your cars are fucked, our bad or not, bring it back and we'll fix it or give you the cash you paid for it 8 years ago." I dare ya....double dog dare ya.

well i can tell you otherwise sir....as an Assistant service Manager for a Toyota dealer ive covered planty of paint issues that indeed was a defect. if you got denied for any reason than you should look into the dealer you took it to....they control alot of what gets back to toyota and what doesnt.

But then the same can go for GM dealers...perhaps you just have to find the right one...i.e. one with a generous service manager just like yourself.

GM has replaced Frames on vehicles??when?? and if so, than why deny me a simple paint repair that would have cost about $800 to repair???

Not replaced frames. They've replaced vehicles because of frame issues. Again, it depends on the dealer it seems, but I know of two examples in my time. But again, where is your mention of the past 20 years where Toyota not only didn't do anything about major problems like this, but went so far as to deny the problem and try to cover it up?

ive seen plenty of these "bash Toyota" threads and you allways seem to lead the pack on why you hate Toyota etc. Fact of the matter remains, Toyota has a good reputation for a reason. and there's allways people out there that no matter how far backwards you bend, you cant make happy...period.

Apparently you don't pay much attention to what I actually say then. I don't "bash toyota" If you read what I have to say, you'll notice I never say anything to the tune of "Toyota sucks". I definitely dislike Toyotas...they are uninspired plain blahmobiles that I wouldn't be caught dead in. However, as a company, I have very little issue with Toyota. They have done what they needed to do to remain successful in a changing economy. While I don't agree with their product planning, I do have respect for the way they run their business. What I do have issue with is the free pass that they get whenever stuff like this comes up. If the subject of this thread were GM, all we'd be seeing is posts to the tune of "typical GM crap" or "no surprise another GM vehicle falling apart". Now it happens to Toyota and the excusers are out in force.

This video tells the whole story.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRfE_XAk2mE&feature=PlayList&p=B2A1C153D3E445AE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3



.

This video tells the whole story.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRfE_XAk2mE&feature=PlayList&p=B2A1C153D3E445AE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3



.

These Ford funded bed bounce/frame commercials will never die. I'll explain a few things about frame design that most people don't understand.

As most already know, the Tundra uses a triple tech frame with a boxed front section, a reinforced C mid section, and a standard C end section. The reinforced parts of the frame are 8mm thick (measured with a caliper), while the non-reinforced sections are 4mm thick.

Here is a video of Bruce Arnold, "The chassis systems engineering supervisor for the super duty program":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7VHLaBcM

Some quotes from the big man himself:
"All of the big trucks use an open frame configuration"
"When you go up in capacity it's actually more efficient from a weight and strength perspective to go open-C"

The point being, stiffness does not equal strength. Ford's silver creek video is testing stiffness, not strength. I wonder what a F250 would look like going through that same test??

I am not claiming the tundra frame to be anywhere near the capacity of a heavy duty, since it is a half ton/ 3/4 ton truck. But I doubt Toyota's engineers are sprinkling star-spangled powder on their coffee tables at break time.

The tundra frame was designed to flex, it was designed to do exactly what it's doing in that video. That video shows tests nothing except extreme frame flex under NVH conditions, it does not in any way, shape, or form test frame strength.

The ford doesn't "wet noodle" like the tundra because it's got a fully boxed frame (as do dodge and chevy) which is incredibly stiff. While a FBF may be stiffer then open-C design, it doesn't mean it's stronger.

The main advantage of open-C is under heavy loads the frame is allow to flex. The flex in the frame transfers stress over a very large area, whereas a stiff frame under heavy load will distribute stress over specific areas such as: shock mounts/welds, spring mounts/welds/bolts (maybe the reason ford has such large leafspring bolts??), crossmember welds, etc.

I can't say whether the frame from dodge, chevy, or ford is weaker or stronger then the tundra. I can say that the frame on the tundra is far from weak and performs excellent for what it's intended for (and it wasn't intended for that ridiculous silver creek).

God the world is full of morons! Nobody designs a frame to be less stiff. The ideal frame design would have infinite stiffness and all of your compliance would be in the suspension. This is the reason why manufacturers brag about who has the highest torsional and bending stiffness. They would never say they have the least stiffness in class!

God the world is full of morons! Nobody designs a frame to be less stiff. The ideal frame design would have infinite stiffness and all of your compliance would be in the suspension. This is the reason why manufacturers brag about who has the highest torsional and bending stiffness. They would never say they have the least stiffness in class!

What you fail to understand is, that the Tundra shares the same design as the Ford, Dodge and GM 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. Whereas the 1/2 Fords, Dodge etc....., have fully boxed frames. Can you explain to me why Ford doesn't offer a fully boxed frame for their 26k lb F450 Dually?

What you fail to understand is, that the Tundra shares the same design as the Ford, Dodge and GM 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. Whereas the 1/2 Fords, Dodge etc....., have fully boxed frames. Can you explain to me why Ford doesn't offer a fully boxed frame for their 26k lb F450 Dually?

because it would cost too much to do since they would have to add costs to a lot of the other components to handle the extra weight and stiffness that goes along with it. We all know how OEM's save pennies which = thousands of dollars when mass producing things.

These Ford funded bed bounce/frame commercials will never die. I'll explain a few things about frame design that most people don't understand.

As most already know, the Tundra uses a triple tech frame with a boxed front section, a reinforced C mid section, and a standard C end section. The reinforced parts of the frame are 8mm thick (measured with a caliper), while the non-reinforced sections are 4mm thick.

Here is a video of Bruce Arnold, "The chassis systems engineering supervisor for the super duty program":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7VHLaBcM

Some quotes from the big man himself:
"All of the big trucks use an open frame configuration"
"When you go up in capacity it's actually more efficient from a weight and strength perspective to go open-C"

The point being, stiffness does not equal strength. Ford's silver creek video is testing stiffness, not strength. I wonder what a F250 would look like going through that same test??

I am not claiming the tundra frame to be anywhere near the capacity of a heavy duty, since it is a half ton/ 3/4 ton truck. But I doubt Toyota's engineers are sprinkling star-spangled powder on their coffee tables at break time.

The tundra frame was designed to flex, it was designed to do exactly what it's doing in that video. That video shows tests nothing except extreme frame flex under NVH conditions, it does not in any way, shape, or form test frame strength.

The ford doesn't "wet noodle" like the tundra because it's got a fully boxed frame (as do dodge and chevy) which is incredibly stiff. While a FBF may be stiffer then open-C design, it doesn't mean it's stronger.

The main advantage of open-C is under heavy loads the frame is allow to flex. The flex in the frame transfers stress over a very large area, whereas a stiff frame under heavy load will distribute stress over specific areas such as: shock mounts/welds, spring mounts/welds/bolts (maybe the reason ford has such large leafspring bolts??), crossmember welds, etc.

I can't say whether the frame from dodge, chevy, or ford is weaker or stronger then the tundra. I can say that the frame on the tundra is far from weak and performs excellent for what it's intended for (and it wasn't intended for that ridiculous silver creek).

Wow...that's one impressive pile of bullshit right there.

What you saw in the video was not simply flexing. It was what is referred to as resonance, in this case caused by an under-engineered frame.

I'm not going to try to deny that Ford's full of shit in that video, as i've already gone to great lengths to prove that they are. However, the Toyota performs very poorly in that test, and you'd be a moron to try to claim that they WANTED that result.

Stiffness does not equal strength, this is true, they are two very different measures. However it seems that you have neglected concession to the fact that frame stiffness is far more important than frame strength in a pickup. This does make Ford's measures very valid in this case, even if their conclusions are a bit skewed.

What you fail to understand is, that the Tundra shares the same design as the Ford, Dodge and GM 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. Whereas the 1/2 Fords, Dodge etc....., have fully boxed frames. Can you explain to me why Ford doesn't offer a fully boxed frame for their 26k lb F450 Dually?

Just as ZV8 noted above...it's very simple...COST.

But then the same can go for GM dealers...perhaps you just have to find the right one...i.e. one with a generous service manager just like yourself.



Not replaced frames. They've replaced vehicles because of frame issues. Again, it depends on the dealer it seems, but I know of two examples in my time. But again, where is your mention of the past 20 years where Toyota not only didn't do anything about major problems like this, but went so far as to deny the problem and try to cover it up?



Apparently you don't pay much attention to what I actually say then. I don't "bash toyota" If you read what I have to say, you'll notice I never say anything to the tune of "Toyota sucks". I definitely dislike Toyotas...they are uninspired plain blahmobiles that I wouldn't be caught dead in. However, as a company, I have very little issue with Toyota. They have done what they needed to do to remain successful in a changing economy. While I don't agree with their product planning, I do have respect for the way they run their business. What I do have issue with is the free pass that they get whenever stuff like this comes up. If the subject of this thread were GM, all we'd be seeing is posts to the tune of "typical GM crap" or "no surprise another GM vehicle falling apart". Now it happens to Toyota and the excusers are out in force.

have you even been in a new Venza or Highlander?? if so you think thats a Blahmobile?? than your expectations are nothing short of a mercedes benz my friend.

have you even been in a new Venza or Highlander?? if so you think thats a Blahmobile?? than your expectations are nothing short of a mercedes benz my friend.

A Venza? Are you serious?

It's clear that you and I differ greatly on what's "interesting" or "exciting" in automotive styling.

For instance, in my opinion, exciting or interestingly styled cars - Just about every Cadillac currently built, all of pontiac's line excluding G5, G3, and Vibe (yes I do think the Torrent looks good), Corvette, Camaro, Mustang, Challenger and Charger, all BMWs, all Infinitis, most Acuras, 370Z, S2000...etc. There are of course plenty more, but I can't think of a single Toyota to add to that list...and i'm seriously trying. Maybe the Lexus IS.

But it doesn't end there either...when you take the whole car into account, my list gets alot smaller. The car has to have a great drivetrain and at least a decent interior. That's yet another area where Toyotas fail for me, because despite being of high quality, i'm put to sleep when I sit in just about any Toyota.

Incidentally, i'm not a fan of Mercedes Benz. I find them to be largely uninspiring also. I suppose it's mostly because of the drivetrains...they don't do well in the quality area, and unless you go with AMG cars, they've got no standout performance compared to other class offerings.

What you fail to understand is, that the Tundra shares the same design as the Ford, Dodge and GM 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. Whereas the 1/2 Fords, Dodge etc....., have fully boxed frames. Can you explain to me why Ford doesn't offer a fully boxed frame for their 26k lb F450 Dually?

I don't fail to understand anything. I worked as a Test Engineer for Nissan and GM for a decade. Ideally, we would design all truck frames fully boxed if weight, cost, design and other considerations were not imposed on us.

i've said my peace...no sense on continuing this never ending debate...you win.

Don't fret it guys ... 25psi ... is a domestic hating troll ... on our forum here.

Don't take my word for it ... check some of his post from other previous threads.

He will almost always advocate for any non-domestic or import.

If an import is better ... fair enough ... but in this day and age I don't see that being the case anymore ... Most imports have become grossly overrated and overpriced.


To keep this on topic ... Regardless of what 25psi says ... it's only his misguided opinion. The Ford frame and body is far superior to that of the Tundra.









.

Let me add this 25 psi ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx3QGObyj2U


Toyota ... stronger frame ... okie dokie ... :eyes:


Enjoy your Toyota... :lol:



.