Not me. I buy new and keep them forever. That way I know their maintenance history.
But I’d guess that most of us take far better care of our cars than the average person.
1 Like
That didn’t help me to get a free frame for my 02 Toyota Tundra since I washed the undercarriage regularly in the winter unlike most folks who didn’t and got a free frame replacement out of the deal. Strange how that works.
Washing one’s undercarriage has long been controversial. Many like myself believe it forces water into cavities where it shouldn’t be that cannot vent and dry. It isn’t my intent to revive an old debate, but I felt the point needed to be made.
Nevertheless, people who did not wash their undercarriages also suffered frame rot on these vehicles. I suspect a supplier that provided bad steel, but we’ll never know. That knowledge will never leave Toyota’s four walls.
I very much credit Toyota with doing this recall. Replacing the frame is a major process, and I’ve never heard of another manufacturer that has assumed such a huge responsibility voluntarily.
All steel rusts. Poor surface preparation is usually why paint peels, and that leads to rusting.
Dana Corp is off the hook for the frame & its coating they provided…
I blame bad steel since even the T-100 (can’t comment on earlier Toyota trucks), they appear to suffer from intergranular corrosion upon close inspection of mine and other vehicles.
We, yes, there are some buy “new and keep forever” folks here too. I have 2 of those completely depreciated cars in my driveway, too. Both still look nice and drive great.
OP makes sense to me. Around the 15 year mark it becomes more a hobby to see if you can keep it running than a practical thing for a person to do. But it’s a fun hobby, if you like that kind of thing. And you do save some $$ on new car payments that you can apply to taking your spouse etc out to dinner once in a while at a nice restaurant, when otherwise you couldn’t.
Hmmm, I remain unconvinced that it is not the steel involved. Notice they said that Dana was not responsible for the steel or the coating. They didn’t say it wasn’t the steel or coating, only that Dana was not responsible. So then what pray tell could it be? I would conclude the steel and/or coating was specified by Toyota and they got what they asked for. Man I’m tired of having to analyze every word to detect deflection. Again not as an engineer or Toyota owner.
3 Likes
I’m guessing whomever supplied the steel to Dana. They didn’t mine the iron ore and create the raw material to form the frame. The way it just sheers off has me personally convinced it’s an impurity in the steel along with an inaccurate mix of the alloys to create it causing the corrosion.
I think the Tundra frame problem is a result of the complications involved with the industry change to hydro-formed boxed frames. Boxed frame channels can be stronger than the traditional C-channel frame with less metal used. Soft steel with less alloys are easier to hydro-form but less rust resistant. Coating the inside of the frame to prevent rust and water collecting inside the frames are other problems.
How would washing the undercarriage lead to more water in more places than driving through a downpour?
Because forcing water upwards under pressure is very, very different from incidental splashing.
Maybe you don’t get torrential downpours where you live like we do here in Florida, because I wouldn’t call driving through several inches of water “incidental.” You seem to be describing the effects of driving through a slow trickle or a mist.
Even if you drive through a deep puddle at high speed, the water splashed up by your tires is no comparison to a water jet purposely aimed upward at the undercarriage at the car wash.
Besides, while you do get torrential downpours in FL, they don’t coat the roads in salt to melt snow. We don’t get too many downpours in winter. However, having salt slush on the undercarriage and then going through the car wash, forcing brine solution deep into the frame pockets is a bit different than a bath in brine-less water…
It’s all speculation anyway as I doubt anyone has definitive proof. Personally, I think it’s worse to drive through salt slush and park in a garage where it can thaw out and bask in the brine solution than to go through a car wash every week…but we all have our opinions 
I’m not talking about driving through a puddle. I’m talking about driving through what looks like a wall of water, so much water that, unless you have Rain-X on your windshield, your windshield wipers can’t keep up, so much rain that you’re literally driving through several inches of water constantly, and will hydroplane if you don’t slow down, but you can’t pull over for fear of being hit by someone who can’t see.
I feel like I’m beating a dead horse on this issue, but I also feel like people are underestimating the kind of rain we get in Florida almost every afternoon during monsoon season. There is a reason I think it is comparable to (or worse than) running a garden sprinkler under the car, and I think some of you might not be imagining the kind of rain I’m talking about.
Anyway, I’ve said my peace on this issue. I probably should have described in more detail the kind of rain storm I had in mind in my first comment on this issue.
3 Likes
OK fine, you’re parting the great lakes with your car.
But it’s not heavily salted water so it’s not the same situation at all.
Yes, I’ve driven in torrential downpours in Florida. And, while I wasn’t driving, in Southeast Asia.
And if you think we never get torrential downpours in the Northeast, you really need to get out more.
Whitey, I’m not going to try to teach you hydrodynamics here on the website. Suffice to say we disagree on this issue. Let’s let it go at that and not beat it to death.
TSM, I sent you a message in error and the site would not let me send an apology because “the body was too similar to my last message”.
“According to Lyons, 1995-2004 Tacoma pickups and 2000-01 Tundras shared the same frame supplier: Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation. In investigating the Tacoma’s rust complaints, Toyota discovered that Dana hadn’t properly prepped Tacoma frames to resist corrosion”
That looks convincing to me.
1 Like
Not that it really matters anymore but why then would Toyota say that Dana was not at fault? Something smells. If it was a prep problem, Dana would be at fault. If it was a specification problem, Toyota would be at fault. If it was a material problem with the steel, either Toyota or the steel supplier would be at fault depending upon the specs. Or Toyota was just not being truthful or maybe Dana knows something that Toyota doesn’t want known.