OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by edyvw
Is that Expedition from time of rusted Toyota frames? So basically Expedition was able to get to mechanics shop bcs. well frame was still there.
Toyota was NOT the only auto manufacturer that purchased frames from Dana Corp, and the frames that Dana sold to Toyota were not the only frames that had issues. For the record, Ford & GM also purchased frames from Dana, and they also had rust issues as well as stress cracking issues with them. FYI, Ford was Dana's largest customer. The resulting lawsuits and settlements forced Dana out of the frame business.
As I understand it, the problem specific to Toyota frames manufactured by Dana was that, unknown to Toyota, Dana substituted a lower quality softer steel that was cheaper and easier to hydroform in a fully boxed frame design, but the lower quality steel was also much more prone to rust in salty climates. Also, the bare frames were not prepped properly before priming and painting. Toyota took partial responsibility for the problem because of the fact that the fully boxed frame design would allow debris to build-up inside the frame and hold moisture. The frames that Dana produced for the other manufacturers were not fully boxed and hydroformed at that time, so Dana used harder steel, but the harder steel that they used in these frames was subject to stress cranking and the frames breaking, which was (and is) a problem that Ford & GM trucks had with Dana frames manufactured during that time frame.
Like I said before, to Toyota's credit, they took care of their customers, and they rectified the problem. Toyota is a company that learns from their mistakes, and unlike many other auto manufacturers, doesn't repeat them. IMO Toyota buyers do not have to worry about this problem.
Since Ford is now using fully boxed hydroformed frames on its F150s and Expeditions, I expect to see this same problem appear on them at some point in the future.
Toyota had a class action lawsuit levied against them to get them to act, the same with the sludge issue. This was not them being proactive. You are peddling a seriously revisionist account of what transpired here, framing Toyota as this virtuous entity, when the reality is that, like with the sludge issue, that's far from the case:
Toyota agrees to settle US truck rust lawsuit for up to 3.4 billion
Quote
(Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) has agreed to a settlement of up to $3.4 billion for a federal class action brought by U.S. owners of pickup trucks and SUVs whose frames could rust through, plaintiffs lawyers have said in court papers.
The proposed settlement covers about 1.5 million Tacoma compact pickups, Tundra full-size pickups and Sequoia SUVs alleged to have received inadequate rust protection that could lead to corrosion serious enough to jeopardize their structural integrity, according to court papers.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in court papers supporting the settlement estimated the value of frame replacements at about $3.375 billion based on a cost of about $15,000 per vehicle and the inspections at about $90 million at $60 per vehicle.
Toyota admitted no liability or wrongdoing in the proposed settlement filed on Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin in Los Angeles.
Furthermore, the issue for Toyota extended far beyond fully-boxed hydroformed frames, this is a first gen Tacoma:
![[Linked Image from i.kinja-img.com]](https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/mwycfnxcvwxgzueaplne.png "[Linked Image from i.kinja-img.com]")
Ford wasn't having frames rotting out from underneath Expeditions while Tundras were being recalled for their frames disintegrating. We've owned two Expeditions in the rust belt, my parents are still rolling in a 2000. Ford also wasn't in a class-action lawsuit over a similar issue, which leads one to the conclusion that Ford must have had significantly better QC of the product Dana was providing them than Toyota, or there's more to the story than just the supplier.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Is that Expedition from time of rusted Toyota frames? So basically Expedition was able to get to mechanics shop bcs. well frame was still there.
Toyota was NOT the only auto manufacturer that purchased frames from Dana Corp, and the frames that Dana sold to Toyota were not the only frames that had issues. For the record, Ford & GM also purchased frames from Dana, and they also had rust issues as well as stress cracking issues with them. FYI, Ford was Dana's largest customer. The resulting lawsuits and settlements forced Dana out of the frame business.
As I understand it, the problem specific to Toyota frames manufactured by Dana was that, unknown to Toyota, Dana substituted a lower quality softer steel that was cheaper and easier to hydroform in a fully boxed frame design, but the lower quality steel was also much more prone to rust in salty climates. Also, the bare frames were not prepped properly before priming and painting. Toyota took partial responsibility for the problem because of the fact that the fully boxed frame design would allow debris to build-up inside the frame and hold moisture. The frames that Dana produced for the other manufacturers were not fully boxed and hydroformed at that time, so Dana used harder steel, but the harder steel that they used in these frames was subject to stress cranking and the frames breaking, which was (and is) a problem that Ford & GM trucks had with Dana frames manufactured during that time frame.
Like I said before, to Toyota's credit, they took care of their customers, and they rectified the problem. Toyota is a company that learns from their mistakes, and unlike many other auto manufacturers, doesn't repeat them. IMO Toyota buyers do not have to worry about this problem.
Since Ford is now using fully boxed hydroformed frames on its F150s and Expeditions, I expect to see this same problem appear on them at some point in the future.
Toyota had a class action lawsuit levied against them to get them to act, the same with the sludge issue. This was not them being proactive. You are peddling a seriously revisionist account of what transpired here, framing Toyota as this virtuous entity, when the reality is that, like with the sludge issue, that's far from the case:
Toyota agrees to settle US truck rust lawsuit for up to 3.4 billion
Quote
(Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) has agreed to a settlement of up to $3.4 billion for a federal class action brought by U.S. owners of pickup trucks and SUVs whose frames could rust through, plaintiffs lawyers have said in court papers.
The proposed settlement covers about 1.5 million Tacoma compact pickups, Tundra full-size pickups and Sequoia SUVs alleged to have received inadequate rust protection that could lead to corrosion serious enough to jeopardize their structural integrity, according to court papers.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in court papers supporting the settlement estimated the value of frame replacements at about $3.375 billion based on a cost of about $15,000 per vehicle and the inspections at about $90 million at $60 per vehicle.
Toyota admitted no liability or wrongdoing in the proposed settlement filed on Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin in Los Angeles.
Furthermore, the issue for Toyota extended far beyond fully-boxed hydroformed frames, this is a first gen Tacoma:
Ford wasn't having frames rotting out from underneath Expeditions while Tundras were being recalled for their frames disintegrating. We've owned two Expeditions in the rust belt, my parents are still rolling in a 2000. Ford also wasn't in a class-action lawsuit over a similar issue, which leads one to the conclusion that Ford must have had significantly better QC of the product Dana was providing them than Toyota, or there's more to the story than just the supplier.
