Reports submitted to NHTSA by owners and drivers, shown in full
Data refreshed
Our database holds 17 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 1992 Toyota Toyota Truck. Each one is a report filed by an owner or driver and published by NHTSA without most of them being verified. A complaint is not a confirmed defect, not a recall and not a manufacturer bulletin. Narratives are shown exactly as filed.
Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.
Showing 1–17 of 17
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1992 TOYOTA SHORT WB DELUXE PICKUP TRUCK. THE ENTIRE FRAME WAS CORRODED AND COVERED WITH RUST. WHILE PERFORMING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ON THE VEHICLE THE MECHANIC INFORMED HIM THAT THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY COVERED WITH RUST. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THERE WERE NO RECALLS AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000.
1)TRUCK MOSTLY GARAGED AND KEPT IN EXCELLENT REPAIR. 2)RUST HOLES IN FRAME. 3)DEALER REFUSES TO REPAIR THE DEFECT. *TR
1992 TOYOTA TRUCK STEERING ROD WAS RECALLED ABOUT 2 YEARS AGO EVERY TIME MY SON ASK TO GET IT FIXED THEY TELL HIM THEY WILL CALL HIM WHEN THEY GET THE PART. THIS HAS GONE ON FOR 2 YEARS HOW CAN WE GET IT FIXED. *TR
I HAVE A '92 TOYOTA 5 SPEED PICK-UP TRUCK AND FOR THE LAST 2 - 3 MONTHS IT HAS BEEN GETTING HARDER AND HARDER TO SHIFT GEARS. I FINALLY HAD IT LOOKED AT BY A MECHANIC (NOW THAT THE TRUCK IS JUST ABOUT UN-DRIVABLE) AND WAS TOLD THE MOUNTING BRACKET FOR THE CLUTCH AND BRAKE PEDALS IS CRACKED. THE CRACK ALLOWS THE BRACKET TO MOVE WHEN THE CLUTCH PEDAL IS DEPRESSED CAUSING THE CLUTCH TO NOT COMPLETELY DIS-ENGAGE MAKING IT VERY HARD IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO SHIFT GEARS (OR GET IT OUT OF GEAR). I'VE SEARCHED THE INTERNET AND TALKED TO MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER AND FOUND THAT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM AND THAT TOYOTA MAKES A NEW "UPGRADED" VERSION OF THIS BRACKET FOR REPLACEMENT. HOWEVER, UNFORTUNATELY THE PRICE TAG ON THIS BRACKET FOR MY PARTICULAR TRUCK IS AROUND $197 FOR THE PART ALONE. I HAVE READ MANY STORIES NOW OF PEOPLE NEARLY REAR-ENDING OTHER VEHICLES OR BEING STRANDED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD UPON THIS PARTS FAILURE AND I AM GLAD THAT HASN'T HAPPENED TO ME. BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE AND COULD VERY POSSIBLY CAUSE A COLLISION. ALSO, I THINK ITS RIDICULOUS IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT I SHOULD HAVE TO FORK OUT THE MONEY TO REPLACE A PART THAT HAS A VERY KNOWN DEFECT AND IS COMMON FOR THIS VEHICLE MAKE FROM THE LATE '80S TO LATE '90S. SOMEBODY REALLY NEEDS TO HAVE A LOOK AT THIS. SOMEONE COULD GET HURT AND ITS UNFAIR TO PASS THE BUCK ONTO THE CONSUMER TO REPLACE SOMETHING THAT IS KNOWN TO BE FAULTY IN THE FIRST PLACE AND/OR COULD VERY WELL ENDANGER THEIR LIVES. *TR
1992 TOYOTA TACOMA FRONT RIGHT TIRE BLEW OUT AND STRUCK ANOTHER VEHICLE WHILE TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY. *NJ (OHIO TRAFFIC CRASH REPORT # 10-0481-91) *JB UPDATED02/24/10 *BF
THE LAST TIME I HAD MY 1992 TOYOTA TRUCK DLX LUBED AND OIL CHANGED, THE AUTOMOBILE MECHANIC SAID MY FRAME WAS RUSTING IN TWO UNDER THE PASSENGER SIDE OF MY PICKUP TRUCK. HE SAID IT COULD BE TOO DANGEROUS TO DRIVE THE TRUCK WITH THE FRAME RUSTING AWAY LIKE THIS. HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT TOYOTA MFG WAS RECALLING CERTAIN TRUCKS FOR THIS REASON. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF I CAN GET MY TRUCK INCLUDED IN THIS RECALL? *TR
BOUGHT PROCOMP TIRES 33X12.50X15 AND HAVE ABOUT 25000 MILES ON THEM. DROVE ON THE FREEWAY GOING 60 MPH WHEN THE REAR PASSENGER TIRE TREAD SEPARATED AND BLEW UP ON THE FREEWAY. *NM
1992 4WD TOYOTA RECALL WAS NOT COMPLETELY DONE, TIE RODS FROZE. *TS THE CONSUMER RECEIVED RECALL NOTICE 05V389000 AND DROPPED HER VEHICLE OFF AT THE DEALER TO BE REPAIRED. THE NEXT DAY THE CONSUMER WAS CONTACTED BY THE SERVICE WRITER STATING THAT THE REPLACEMENT PART HAD BEEN INSTALLED AND THAT AN ALIGNMENT WOULD BE PERFORMED AS PART OF THE RECALL BUT THAT IT COULD NOT BE DONE BECAUSE THE TIE RODS WERE FROZEN ON BOTH SIDES. THESE RODS WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED AT THE CONSUMER 'S EXPENSE. THE SERVICE WRITER ALSO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD BE OUT OF ALIGNMENT IF THESE REPAIRS WERE NOT MADE. THE CONSUMER EXPLAINED THAT THE VEHICLE WASN'T OUT OF ALIGNMENT PRIOR TO REPAIR AND REQUESTED THAT THE OLD PART BE REINSTALLED ON THE VEHICLE. WHEN SHE PICK THE CAR UP FROM THE DEALER SHE NOTICED THAT IT NOW WAS PULLING TO THE LEFT AND THAT THE STEERING WHEEL WAS OFF CENTER TO THE LEFT. *NM
THE DRIVERSIDE SEAT BELT WILL NO LONGER RETRACT. THIS HAS RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO THE BELT ASSEMBLY FROM GETTING CAUGHT IN CLOSING DOORS. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS IS NOT A WARRENTY REPAIR
BOTH DRIVERS SIDE AND PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELTS DO NOT RETRACT SUFFICIENTLY LEAVING THE SEAT BELTS VERY LOOSE AND WITHOUT PRETENSION. MANY TIMES THEY DO NOT RETRACT WHEN EXITING THE VEHICLE AND HANG LOOSE OR HAVE TO BE HELPED TO RETRACT. THEY HAVE BEEN THIS WAY SINCE I HAVE OWNED THE VEHICLE AND ARE STOCK AND HAVE NOT BEEN TAMPERED WITH.
TRANSMISSION SHIFTER JUMPS OUT OF GEAR, DEALER CLAIMED IT WAS DUE TO A WORN PLASTIC BUSHING AT THE END OF THE SHIFTER, DEALER REPRESENTATIVES MR. WAKI AND MR. ILASTRON CLAIMED IT WAS NOT PART OF THE TRANSMISSION .
TOYOTA HAS THEIR OWN "INITIATIVE" (V06) TO REPLACE DEFECTIVE HEAD GASKETS ON A LINE OF ENGINES THAT INCLUDES MY OWN. I NEVER RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE DEFECT OR INITIATIVE TO REPLACE THE DEFECTIVE PARTS, PROBABLY DUE TO MY CHANGE OF ADDRESS. MY HEAD GASKET FAILED CAUSING A SERVICE APPOINTMENT AT THE CARL HOGAN DEALERSHIP IN COLUMBUS, MS, WHEREUPON I WAS INFORMED OF THE V06 INITIATIVE. HOWEVER, TOYOTA IS REFUSING RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE FAILURE OF THE GASKET, THEY ARE LIMITING THEIR LIABILITY TO REPLACEMENT OF THE HEAD GASKETS ONLY. I FEEL FEDERAL ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO FORCE TOYOTA TO ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR COLLATERAL DAMAGE CAUSED AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF THEIR DEFECTIVE COMPONENTS.
SEATBELTS ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURE GUIDELINES WERE NOT DEFECTIVE. SEATBELT SYSTEM, SHOULDER HARNESS USED, ALLOWED THE DRIVER TO SUSTAIN FACIAL INJURIES TO THE BRIDGE OF NOSE AND OCCIPATAL AREAS. THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT SYSTEM ,SHOULDER HARNESS USED AS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURE DIRECTIONS: ALLOWED A CHILD OF ABOUT 55-60 POUNDS TO BE PROJECTED FORWARD OUT OF THE SHOULDER HARNESS BUT NOT THE LAP BELT . THE CHILD WAS IN THE UPRIGHT POSITION AS STATED ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURE DIRECTIONS WITH THE SHOULDER BELT COMING OVER HER SHOULDER AS PICTURED AND NOT IN HER FACE. THE CHILD 'S HEAD HIT THE WINDSHIELD AS EVIDENCED BY A "SPIDER CRACK" AND FACE/MOUTH HIT THE DASH BOARD. THE INJURY TO HER HEAD WAS ON THE TOP OF HER SCALP ABOUT 2 INCHES FROM FRONT HAIR LINE. SHE ALSO SUSTAINED LACERATIONS TO HER CHIN. AT THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT EMT PERSONEL AND POLICE ORIGINALLY STATED SHE HAD THE SHOULDER BELT ON UNDER HER ARM, HAVING THE SHOULDER BELT ON WRONG . UPON CONSULT WITH CHILD'S PEDIATRICIAN , SHE DID INFACT COME OUT OF THE SHOULDER HARNESS DUE TO THE FORCE OF THE ACCIDENT BY EVIDENCE THAT SHE HAD NO RIB INJURIES AT ALL BUT HAD A SIGNIFICANT BRUISE ON HER RIGHT FRONT HIP WITH "LAP BELT BURNS" THE SEATBELT SYSTEM STILL BUCKLED . THE ACCIDENT OCCURED AT A SPEED OF ABOUT 5M/HR THE VEHICLE SLIDDING ON A SNOWY DAY ATTEMPTING TO STOP.
SEAT BELT BUCKLES UNFASTEN WHEN TAPPED FROM BEHIND.
BRAKES ROTORS FAILED TWICE. BRAKES ARE NOT ADEQUATE ENOUGH TO STOP TRUCK WHEN CARRYING A LOAD.
ELECTRICAL CABLE BURNED. *SD
EXHAUST MANIFOLD HAS DEVELOPED A LEAK. PLEASE DESCRIBE DETAILS. *AK
Higher-selling and older vehicles accumulate more reports. Counts are not failure rates and are not directly comparable between vehicles that sold in very different numbers.
Data on this page last refreshed .