Toyota Tacoma Complaints (1996)

253 consumer complaints on file.

#10556622December 19, 2013
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS:UNDERBODY SHIELDS, SUSPENSION
I PURCHASED A ONE OWNER 96 TACOMA 4WD TRUCK LAST MONTH THE OWNER SAID THE TRUCK HAD COMPLETED A FRAME RECALL FOR CORROSION IN NOV OF 2011. AFTER PURCHASING THE TRUCK I HAD THE TRUCK MAINTENANCES AT MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER. THE DEALER SAID THE FRAME HAS A LARGE HOLE IN IT AND IT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE FRAME HAD BEEN TREATED PER THE RECALL. NOW I AM STUCK WITH A TRUCK THAT IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE DUE TO A SHODDY RECALL JOB BY TOYOTA. I TRIED TO RECTIFY THE ISSUE WITH TMMI HEADQUARTERS BUT THEY SAID AFTER 15 YEARS THEIR FRAMES ARE NOT GUARANTEED. CONSIDERING IT HAS BEEN LESS THAN 2 YEARS SINCE THE TRUCK HAD BEEN TREATED I THINK THEY OWE IT TO EITHER REPLACE THE FRAME OR PURCHASE THE TRUCK PER THEIR AGREEMENT. IN MY OPINION JUST SPRAYING THE TRUCK WITH UNDERCOATING INADEQUATELY WAS JUST COVERING UP THE REAL PROBLEM WHICH IS THE POOR QUALITY FRAMES. *TR
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10538291September 1, 2013
SEAT BELTS
DRIVER SIDE AND MIDDLE FRONT SEAT BELTS WILL NOT LATCH. I PULLED APART THE MIDDLE LATCH AND IT SEEMS THE PLASTIC HAS ERODED TO FAILURE. *JS
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10536695August 22, 2013
STRUCTURE:BODY, STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS:UNDERBODY SHIELDS
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT NOTICED CRACKS NEAR THE FRONT AREA OF THE SUB FRAME. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER AND AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, BOTH OF WHICH DETECTED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY RUSTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNAVAILABLE. UPDATED 10/24/13*CN
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10522356June 26, 2013
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS:UNDERBODY SHIELDS
1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO SEVERE CORROSION AND RUST ON THE VEHICLE REAR PASSENGER SIDE FRAME. *SMD TOYOTA INFORMED THE CONSUMER THE 15 YEAR WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED, AND THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO TO HELP.
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10509202April 22, 2013
STRUCTURE:BODY
THE MAIN BODY FRAME ON MY OTHERWISE VERY NICE TOYOTA TACOMA JUST BROKE COMPLETELY IN TWO WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET. AFTER INVESTIGATING HOW THIS COULD HAPPEN, I LEARNED THAT TOYOTA ADMITTED THAT THEY MANUFACTURED AND SOLD UNSAFE TOYOTA'S DURING THE MID-90S. THEY CLAIM TO HAVE FIXED THIS BY OFFERING OWNERS OF THESE DEFECTIVE VEHICLES A BUY-BACK OPTION OF 150% VALUE FOR 15-YEARS FROM THE DATE THE VEHICLE FIRST SOLD. MY COMPLAINT IS THAT TOYOTA NEVER ATTEMPTED TO NOTIFY ME THAT I HAD PURCHASED AN UNSAFE VEHICLE AND I HAD NO IDEA THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THIS TRUCK UNTIL THE MAIN FRAME BROKE. I HAD JUST INVESTED $1,000 THE SAME WEEK IN A NEW CLUTCH AND OTHER NEEDED REPAIRS AND WHEN I NOTIFIED TOYOTA THEY TOLD ME THAT I WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY REPAIRS BECAUSE THE 15-YEARS ALREADY PASSED. SINCE TOYOTA ALREADY ADMITTED WITH A BUY-BACK PROGRAM THAT THESE TRUCKS WERE FAULTY AND BUILT WITH A LOW QUALITY METAL, HOW CAN THEY NOT BE RESPONSIBLE WHEN THE VEHICLE PREMATURELY FAILS? WAS MY TRUCK TO SUDDENLY BECOME SAFE AT 15-YEARS OLD? I UNDERSTAND THAT NO MANUFACTURER WARRANTIES THEIR VEHICLES FOREVER, BUT SINCE TOYOTA ADMITTED THAT THEY SOLD US JUNK, AND THE FACT THAT THEY MADE NO ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT ME AS AN OWNER OF ONE OF THESE PIECES OF JUNK, AND THAT THE VEHICLE'S MAIN FRAME SNAPS WHEN THE VEHICLE IS IN OTHERWISE GREAT CONDITION, TOYOTA SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE AND CONTINUE TO BUY-BACK EVERY VEHICLE THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE FAULTY MANUFACTURING. WHEN I CALLED TOYOTA, THEY TREATED ME LIKE DIRT AND EVEN REFUSED TO HAVE SOMEONE REVIEW MY CASE AND GIVE ME A CALL BACK. *TR
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10477254September 27, 2012
STRUCTURE:BODY
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE STARTED TO VIBRATED. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT AFTER INSPECTING THE VEHICLE HE NOTICED THAT THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE OF THE FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR INSPECTION OR REPAIR. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE WHO DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 200,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 296,000.
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10467322July 19, 2012
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS:UNDERBODY SHIELDS
1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. ATTORNEY WRITES ON BEHALF OF CLIENT IN REGARDS TO A RUST CORROSION PERFORATION PROBLEM *TGW THE CONSUMER NEVER RECEIVED A NOTICE STATING THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER LEARNED ABOUT THE PROBLEM IN NOVEMBER 2001, AND HAD THE VEHICLE INSPECTED, WHERE IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT RUST WAS PRESENT. *JB THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED AND THE CORROSION PROBLEM WAS FOUND IN NOVEMBER 2011, WELL BEFORE THE CUTOFF DATE. UPDATED 08/28/12 UPDATED 10/15/12
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10457756May 8, 2012
STRUCTURE:BODY
I HAVE A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA THAT WAS PART OF A RECALL FOR A FAULTY FRAME. I RECEIVED TWO LETTERS INFORMING ME OF THIS PROGRAM. THE FIRST ONE WAS IN 2009, AND THE SECOND IN 2010. I BROUGHT MY TRUCK IN FOR ITS FREE CHECK FOR FRAME CORROSION. THERE WAS A GRAVEYARD OF TRUCKS LIKE MINE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY COULD HAVE FIT ANOTHER UNSAFE TRUCK IN THE LOT, THEY COULDN'T CRUSH THEM FAST ENOUGH. I WENT ON MY OWN AND UNFORTUNATELY I FEAR AS A WOMAN I WAS TREATED DIFFERENTLY. I WATCHED THE MECHANIC BANG MY FRAME OVER AND OVER, ENOUGH TO PUT IT OUT OF ALIGNMENT. MY NAME WAS CALLED AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT MY TRUCK PASSED THE TEST. RECOMMENDED ME TO FIX A BUNCH OF THINGS, SO AFTER WAITING ALL DAY FOR THEM TO REPAIR MY TRUCK AND SPEND 2000 DOLLARS THAT I DIDN'T HAVE, I WAS SENT ON MY WAY. MY TRUCK DID NOT FEEL SAFE TO DRIVE. LUCKILY I LIVE ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD WHERE THE HIGHEST SPEED LIMIT IS 45 MPH. THIS WAS AT FALMOUTH TOYOTA, AFTER THE SECOND NOTICE I WENT TO HYANNIS TOYOTA. THEY FAILED ME, SAID THERE WAS NO REPLACING THE FRAME, NO UNDER CARRIAGE TREATMENT, MY TRUCK WAS DEEMED UNSAFE TO DRIVE. I SIGNED A CONTRACT STATING THAT I WAS TO RECEIVE 150% MINT CONDITION BLUE BOOK VALUE OF MY TRUCK. I WAS LOOKING AT 9000.00, 10,000 DOLLARS OR MAYBE MORE IF I PUT THE MONEY AS A DOWNPAYMENT ON A NEW TOYOTA. I LOVE MY TRUCK, BUT I HAVE NEVER FELT SAFE IN IT. I WAS READY TO GOTO SALES AND FIND A NEW TRUCK. I HAD TO WAIT FOR A PHONE CALL FROM CECH, YOU KNOW THE BIG GUY,TOYOTA USA. AND AFTER THAT HAND OVER MY TITLE AND START THE TRANSACTION. I WENT BACK A LITTLE OVER A WEEK LATER TO DROP OFF MY TITLE AND GET THE RENTAL CAR THEY PROMISED ME. THEN THE DOOR SLAMMED IN MY FACE. I AM THE THIRD OWNER OF THIS VEHICLE. THE FIRST OWNER BOUGHT THE TRUCK IN 1995, JUST BEFORE THE NEW YEAR. NOW I AM LEFT WITH AN UNSAFE TRUCK THAT I CANT INSPECT, SELL OR DRIVE. $300.00 IS ALL THEY ARE OFFERING ME NOW. *TR
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10453217March 27, 2012
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS:UNDERBODY SHIELDS
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR AN UNKNOWN FRAME CORROSION RECALL. THE DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE DEALER ALSO STATED THAT THE FRAME COULD NOT BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 103,000. UPDATED 05/21/12 *BF UPDATED 06/04/12
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10447418February 10, 2012
STRUCTURE:BODY
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS SEVERE FRAME RUST NEAR THE REAR WHEELS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER, WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRAME WAS FINE. THE FAILURE PROGRESSED OVER THE FOLLOWING TWO YEARS AND HOLES BEGAN TO FORM IN THE FRAME. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED AND OFFERED TO ASSIST WITH SPRAYING A COATING OVER THE RUST TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE. THE CONTACT DENIED ASSISTANCE AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 140,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 150,000.
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10442976January 4, 2012
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS:UNDERBODY SHIELDS
1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO FRAME RUST CORROSION *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED HE RECEIVED A LETTER IN THE MAIL REGARDING FRAME RUST. THE CONSUMER MADE AN APPOINTMENT TO HAVE THE VEHICLE INSPECTED. THE CONSUMER STATED IT APPEARED THE DEALER NEVER PERFORMED ANY INSPECTION IN REGARDS TO THE FRAME OF HIS TRUCK. THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONSUMER THAT EVERYTHING LOOKED GOOD AND THERE WERE NO MAJOR PROBLEMS AND THE BODY SHOP WOULD TREAT THE FRAME, BY TREATING ANY BAD SECTIONS, THEN UNDER COAT AND CONDITION THE FRAME. TWO DAYS LATER, THE CONSUMER RECEIVED A CALL STATING THE BODY SHOP FOUND A FEW MAJOR PROBLEMS, AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO CONTINUE AND TOYOTA WOULD COME AND TALK TO THE CONSUMER ABOUT A BUY BACK AS THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE CONSUMER STATED IN TWO DAYS, THE VEHICLE WENT FROM BEING OK TO UNSAFE TO DRIVE. *JB
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10434795November 7, 2011
STRUCTURE:BODY
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS FRAME DAMAGE IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE. THE DEALER MADE THE CONTACT AWARE OF A POSSIBLE SILENT RECALL, BUT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 203,000.
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10433930November 2, 2011
SUSPENSION
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER: 96V129000 (SUSPENSION:FRONT). THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR REPAIRS AND THE DEALER CONFIRMED THAT THE FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND THEY ADVISED THAT THE RECALL WAS EXPIRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 114,869 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 114,879.
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10426793September 22, 2011
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS:UNDERBODY SHIELDS
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS FRACTURED UNDER THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE FRACTURE BEGAN FORM THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE TO THE REAR OF THE PASSENGER SIDE. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND THE FAILURE WAS CONFIRMED BUT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 176,000. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THAT RUST HAD PERFORATED THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE IN SEVERAL PLACES AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. UPDATED 03/14/12
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10426608September 21, 2011
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS:UNDERBODY SHIELDS
THERE IS AN ACTUAL HOLE RUSTED THROUGH THE STRUCTURAL FRAME OF THE TRUCK. IN DECEMBER OF 2010, WHILE INSIDE OF THE 15 YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD, TOYOTA CLAIMED THERE WAS NO RUST ON THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE OTHER THAN "SURFACE RUST." IN SEPTEMBER OF 2011, AFTER THE 15 YEAR WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED, TOYOTA CLAIMED THERE WAS RUST, CORROSION, AND AN ACTUAL HOLE IN THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. TOYOTA IS CLAIMING TO HAVE ISSUED A VOLUNTARY RECALL FOR THEIR RUSTED FRAMES, BUT IS PASSING THE FRAMES UNTIL THEY ARE JUST OUTSIDE OF THEIR 15 YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD AND THEN FAILING THEM. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR HAVING STEEL RUST COMPLETELY THROUGH ON THE FRAME OF A VEHICLE THAT HAS BEEN CARED FOR AND MAINTAINED. IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD, AND IT IS AMAZING TO THINK THAT THESE VEHICLES COULD BREAK IN HALF WHILE ON THE HIGHWAY AT HIGH SPEED. TOYOTA NEEDS TO STEP UP AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR SUBCONTRACTERS CUTTING CORNERS DURING THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THEIR SELF-IMPOSED PROGRAMS ARE NOT EXTENSIVE ENOUGH, FEDERAL PENALTIES NEED TO BE ENACTED. THANK YOU. *TR
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10425941September 18, 2011
SEAT BELTS
FRONT SIDE DIVER SEATBELT NO LONGER RETRACTS & GETS HUNG IN DOOR. TOYOTA STATES NO LONGER COVERED. *TT
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10424178September 7, 2011
SUSPENSION:FRONT
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT AFTER RECEIVING NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN I.D. NUMBER: 96V129000 (SUSPENSION:FRONT), THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER HOWEVER, THE DEALER REFUSED REPAIRS DUE TO THE VEHICLE AGE. THE CONTACT DID NOT CALL THE MANUFACTURER. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 154,000.
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10422415August 29, 2011
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THE DEALER CONFIRMED THAT THE FRAME WAS COVERED WITH RUST AND CORRODED DURING AN INSPECTION. THE DEALER WILL NOT REPAIR THE VEHICLE SINCE THE WARRANTY EXPIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 90,000. UPDATED 09/27/11 *BF UPDATED 10/11/11
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10416666August 2, 2011
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THEY WOULD BUY THE VEHICLE BACK BUT LATER RETRACTED THE OFFER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY A PRIVATE MECHANIC WHO INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT SHE WOULD NEED TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE FRAME. NO REPAIRS WERE PERFORMED. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 243,000. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 240,000.
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0
#10415284July 26, 2011
STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS
I OWN A 1996 TOYOTA TACOMA. I RECEIVED A "LIMITED SERVICE CAMPAIGN" LETTER IN THE MAIL ON JULY 18TH 2011. THE NOTICE STATED THAT TACOMA MODEL YEARS 1996-2000 NEED TO BE INSPECTED FOR FRAME RUST AND POSSIBLE PERFORATION. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE FRAMES IN A NUMBER OF THESE VEHICLES MAY NOT HAVE CORROSION-RESISTANT PROTECTION SUFFICIENT FOR AREA WITH HIGH ROAD SALT USE. THIS CONDITION IS UN-RELATED TO NORMAL SURFACE RUST COMMONLY FOUND ON METALLIC SURFACES AFTER YEARS OF USE. I LIVE IN NORTHERN ILLINOIS AND WITH MY VIN, MY TRUCK CERTAINLY FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY. THE NOTICE, WHICH WAS MY FIRST AND ONLY ONE RECEIVED, CAME TO MY HOUSE 90 DAYS PAST THE 15 YEAR IN SERVICE DATE THAT TOYOTA EXTENDED THE CAMPAIGN FOR. AFTER SPEAKING WITH TOYOTA, I WAS ABLE TO HAVE MY TRUCK INSPECTED. THE FRAME HAS SEVERE RUST BUT SOMEHOW MANAGED TO "PASS" THE PERFORATION TEST. THE RESULTS OF THE TEST WERE IN MY OPINION MARGINAL AT BEST. I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO HAVE TOYOTA SEND A FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE TO MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP TO FURTHER INSPECT MY TRUCK FRAME. THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED AS OF YET (JULY 27TH,2011) AND TOYOTA SEEMS TO BE PLAYING A BACK AND FORTH GAME TO GET THIS DONE. CORPORATE TOYOTA IS WELL AWARE OF THIS FRAME CORROSION ISSUE BUT IS FAILING MISERABLY BY NOT STANDING BEHIND THE PROBLEM. DURING THIS CAMPAIGN, TOYOTA HAS REPLACED NUMEROUS FRAMES AND HAS "RE-PURCHASED" MANY TRUCKS FROM CONSUMERS IN THE AFFECTED STATES. ONCE MY TRUCK WAS DEEMED "PAST 15 YEARS FROM IN SERVICE DATE", THEY ARE TURNING THEIR BACKS ON THIS ISSUE. AS STATED BEFORE, MY NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED UNTIL JULY 18TH 2011, PUTTING THE TRUCK LITERALLY 90 DAYS PAST. I STARTED TRYING TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE WITH TOYOTA JULY 19TH 2011. I WILL NO LONGER ALLOW MY FAMILY TO RIDE IN THIS VEHICLE AS I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE THAT THE FRAME WILL HOLD UP. I'M FILING THIS COMPLAINT TO MAKE SURE TOYOTA DOES WHAT IS RIGHT IN THIS CASE AND STAND BEHIND THEIR PRODUCT AS THEY SO OFTEN PROMOTE IN THEIR ADDS. THANK YOU. *TR
Crash:
No
Fire:
No
Injuries:
0
Deaths:
0

← Back to Toyota Tacoma