2013 Toyota Tacoma

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect.  During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications.  The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU.  In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment.  FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle.  Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW.  These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes.  An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time.   In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU.  This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners.  Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation.  The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage.  There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation.  The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU.  If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC.  Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC.  All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled.  In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024.  With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

2013 Toyota Tacoma rear leaf spring is broken in half 3 leaf set up exactly like the recall up to 2011. Why didn’t the recall go up to 2013. Truck would bottom out easily for years on bumpy back roads

NHTSA ID

11738012

Incident

May 12, 2026

The contact owns a 2013 Toyota Tacoma. The contact stated that while closing the hood, the hood prop rod unexpectedly fell behind the latch, ceasing to securely latch the hood. While driving at 80 MPH, the hood suddenly opened and fractured the windshield. There was no injury sustained. The contact immediately pulled over to the side of the road, closed the hood, and continued driving. The dealer was contacted and informed of the failure. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The Insurance Provider was contacted and confirmed that the VIN was not under recall. The manufacturer was informed of the failure and referred the contact to the NHTSA Hotline to report the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 107,000.

NHTSA ID

11718482

Incident

Feb 14, 2026

Mileage

107,000 mi

I am filing this consumer complaint against Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Toyota Motor North America, Inc.) for unfair and deceptive business practices related to a known paint peeling defect on my 2013 Toyota Tacoma (VIN identified in form, paint code 040 Super White). The vehicle exhibits severe peeling on the passenger side rear door, engine compartment, and other areas due to primer adhesion failure from sunlight exposure—not accident damage—matching symptoms addressed in Toyota's Customer Support Program ZKG and related Technical Service Bulletins for 2009–2015 Tacoma models. Despite multiple contacts with Toyota's Customer Experience Center (1-800-331-4331), Stevens Creek Toyota dealership, and formal letters (dated October 5, 2025, and January 15, 2026), Toyota has failed to provide a remedy, acknowledgment, or inspection under applicable programs. Key interactions include: initial notice in April 2024; dealer inspection in July 2024 denying coverage; phone calls in September/October 2025 and January 2026 where representatives hung up without escalation or manager follow-up; and no response to mailed complaints. This has caused ongoing cosmetic damage, diminished resale value, rust risk, and significant frustration/time loss. The issue aligns with widespread complaints and the ongoing class action lawsuit [XXX] v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Case No. XXX, U.S. District Court, Central District of California), alleging Toyota's knowledge of defective clear coat finishes leading to premature peeling INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ID

11718354

Incident

Oct 5, 2025

Vehicle involved in a head on collision resulting in a total loss. Frontal airbags did not deploy. Occupant (driver) sustained bilateral wrist injuries requiring surgery.

NHTSA ID

11714837

Incident

Sep 22, 2025

whenever we need to use the horn there isnt one to use. we have changed the fuse more than once still nothing.

NHTSA ID

11711702

Incident

Feb 4, 2025

The power brake booster failed while driving with my [XXX] and [XXX] old. Fortunately I was in a school zone with no traffic. This particular part is known to fail with Toyota's (recalled on a few models). The vehicle is 13 so Toyota will not back their product. The dealer charged $3,000.00 for the repair. There were no warnings this was going to happen. The vehicle was bought brand new, and always well maintained. ALL work besides oil changes/new tires was completed at the dealership. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ID

11706368

Incident

Dec 5, 2025

The horn started malfunctioning recently at around 200k miles, sometimes working sometimes not (regardless of steering wheel positioning). As prior complaints have stated; the suspect was likely the clockspring, but all the steering wheel controls were functioning with no issues and no warning lights illuminated. Also, I've continously found myself in the 3rd gear multiple times after very lighy taps (mainly from a drink falling/bumping into it) as the cupholders in the front are very small and/or not stable for anything other than small disposable containers.

NHTSA ID

11706361

Incident

Oct 1, 2025

Unknown, The Horn failed to work suddenly when driving. It only works when I turn the wheel then press which I've been told is a clock spring failure in steering wheel which can also affect air bag. Thank You

NHTSA ID

11689389

Incident

Dec 31, 1969

Some 2005 – 2026 Toyota vehicles that have undergone water intrusion may exhibit a condition in which a musty odor is present. Follow the procedures in this bulletin to remediate the odor and address this condition. The purpose of this Service Bulletin is to provide general guidelines and procedures for odor remediation. This Service Bulletin provides a guide on how to prepare and treat the interior of the vehicle for odor remediation. Refer to the applicable model and model year Repair Manual and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) website for the most up-to-date safety and precautionary guidelines.

Acid rain results from rainwater or other airborne moisture that become acidic due to industrial chemical impurities in the atmosphere. If these acidic compounds settle on an exposed vehicle, especially the horizontal areas such as the hood, roof, and decklid, significant damage to the painted surfaces can occur. Acid rain damage can typically be identified on vehicles by the presence of stains on the paint surface that resemble hard water spots. Unlike water spots however, acid rain damage cannot be removed by regular washing procedures. Also, because acid rain can etch and soften the paint, normal buffing or polishing repair procedures should not be attempted. This can cause further damage and result in visible depressions in the paint surface. The following are the three major categories of acid rain damage: •Minor damage: requires only buffing to repair. •Moderate damage: usually requires neutralizing, color sanding, and buffing. •Severe damage: extending beyond 1/2 mil of clearcoat on a pearl, metallic, or solid color, requires neutralization, sanding, and repainting. In cases where acid rain damage is minor, neutralization and buffing with a liquid-type paint finessing product may provide an adequate repair. Only specially formulated products outlined in this bulletin should be used for that purpose. Unfortunately, other than minor damage, there is no simple method of determining the actual extent (depth) of acid penetration other than color sanding a representative affected area until there is no visible etching or depressions, followed by measuring the amount of paint removed with either a magnetic or digital-type film thickness gauge. The procedures in this bulletin are intended for use by qualified body/paint technicians and should not be attempted by inexperienced personnel. It is the dealer’s responsibility to protect and maintain the quality of the vehicle’s paint finish after receipt at the dealership prior to the first sale. Perform frequent vehicle washing, as often as daily, during high heat and humidity periods to minimize the potential for paint damage due to acid rain exposure. This is especially important in geographical areas known for high frequency and concentration of acid rain and industrial fallout.

The condition known as acid rain is caused by airborne chemicals or particles in the atmosphere, which mix with rainwater, nighttime dew, or high humidity to form acidic compounds. If these contaminants settle and remain on a painted vehicle surface, especially the horizonal areas of the hood, roof, and decklid, significant damage can occur. This damage is the result of actual etching of the paint and appears as pitting or water spots. As acid rain droplets on the vehicle surface evaporate, the concentration strength of the acid increases, causing deeper and more rapid damage. This evaporation and corrosive action also occur more rapidly on dark colored cars as direct sun heat increases. It is the dealer’s responsibility to protect and maintain the quality of the vehicle’s paint finish after receipt at the dealership prior to the first sale. In areas known for high frequency and/or concentration of acid rain, frequent vehicle washing during high heat or humidity periods will minimize the potential for paint damage caused by acid rain. It is further recommended that either reverse osmosis or deionized water be used to prevent water spotting.

To prevent brake rotor rust from forming during transportation and storage, wheel film will be used instead of a cardboard type of anti-rust cover. The purpose of the wheel film is to shield the disc brake rotor from weather elements and initial rust before the vehicle is delivered to the customer. Consequently, the film should remain on the wheel for as long as possible.

Toyota vehicles are currently protected with RapgardTM protective film designed to protect the horizontal painted surfaces. This material protects from acid rain, environmental fallout, and rail contamination. Follow the Removal Procedure in this bulletin to remove the RapgardTM protective film within 90 days from initial application.

Vehicles may occasionally be subjected to contamination by airborne iron particles shed from railroad tracks, train wheels, exposure to heavy machinery facilities, grinding, welding, etc. This type of contamination can be identified by the presence of small, red or brown particles on the paint surface. These particles are often difficult to see on dark color paints but can be easily felt when brushing a hand across horizontal body surfaces such as the hood, roof, or deck lid. Follow the Repair Procedure in this bulletin to clean vehicles that may have been subjected to contamination by airborne iron particles such as rail dust during rail transportation or extended storage near industrial areas.