2003 Toyota Tundra

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE14-016 in June 2014 based on six inflator rupture incidents involving consumer owned vehicles produced by five vehicle manufacturers.All six vehicles were operated in Florida or Puerto Rico at the time of the rupture and for the majority of their service life, and were equipped with inflators produced by Takata, a tier-one supplier of automotive air bag systems.During the course of PE14-016, ODI determined that five additional vehicle manufacturers used inflators of a similar design and vintage also supplied by Takata. No evidence of field failures was found in vehicles produced by these five additional manufacturers.Nonetheless, at ODI's insistence, all 10 vehicle manufacturers initiated a regional recall within approximately two weeks of the opening of the investigation.The regions recalled initially included Florida, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, areas with high absolute humidity and climatic conditions believed to be a significant factor in the inflator ruptures.As part of the recall actions, inflators removed from remedied vehicles are to be returned to Takata for testing.Takata's initial test results on passenger inflators from remedied vehicles indicated a much higher than anticipated rupture frequency for inflators returned from Florida.Accordingly ODI requested all 10 manufacturers expand the regional recalls for passenger inflators to include other geographic areas where high absolute humidity conditions exist, including the Gulf States and other coastal areas.Takata's testing of the passenger inflators to date continues to indicate this geographic area as having the highest risk, with no ruptures occurring from inflators returned from outside the expanded recall regions.During PE14-016 four additional passenger inflator field events occurred, all in vehicles from the same expanded geographic region.Also during PE14-016 four additional driver inflator field events occurred including two in vehicles from regions not known for high absolute humidity, specifically California and North Carolina.Accordingly, ODI requested all five of the affected vehicle manufacturers currently using the subject Takata driver inflators expand to nationwide recalls.Significantly, neither of the affected vehicle manufacturers or Takata provided any explanation to account for these two driver air bag inflator ruptures outside the area of high absolute humidity.Takata testing of returned driver inflators indicates a lower rupture frequency as compared to passenger inflator testing.All test ruptures reported by Takata to date have occurred on inflators returned from high absolute humidity areas.The investigation now includes all manufacturers and vehicles known to be affected at this time.ODI's investigation will focus on, among other things, root cause analysis, other potential defect consequences, identification of affected vehicles scope, and adequacy of the remedy.The five ODI reports cited above can be reviewed online at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification numbers: 10537899, 10568848, 10585224, 10605877, 10651492

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE14-016 in June 2014 based on six inflator rupture incidents involving consumer owned vehicles produced by five vehicle manufacturers.All six vehicles were operated in Florida or Puerto Rico at the time of the rupture and for the majority of their service life, and were equipped with inflators produced by Takata, a tier-one supplier of automotive air bag systems.During the course of PE14-016, ODI determined that five additional vehicle manufacturers used inflators of a similar design and vintage also supplied by Takata. No evidence of field failures was found in vehicles produced by these five additional manufacturers.Nonetheless, at ODI's insistence, all 10 vehicle manufacturers initiated a regional recall within approximately two weeks of the opening of the investigation.The regions recalled initially included Florida, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, areas with consistently high absolute humidity and climatic conditions believed to be a significant factor in the inflator ruptures.As part of the recall actions, inflators removed from remedied vehicles are to be returned to Takata for testing.Takata's initial test results on passenger inflators from remedied vehicles indicated a much higher than anticipated rupture frequency for inflators returned from Florida.Accordingly, ODI requested all 10 manufacturers expand the regional recalls for passenger inflators to include other geographic areas where high absolute humidity conditions exist, including the Gulf States and other coastal areas.Takata's testing of the passenger inflators to date continues to indicate this geographic area as having the highest risk, with no ruptures occurring from inflators returned from outside the expanded recall regions.During PE14-016, four additional passenger inflator field events occurred, all in vehicles from the same expanded geographic region.Also during PE14-016, four additional driver inflator field events occurred including two in vehicles from regions not known for high absolute humidity, specifically California and North Carolina.Accordingly, ODI requested all five of the affected vehicle manufacturers currently using the subject Takata driver inflators expand to nationwide recalls.Significantly, neither of the affected vehicle manufacturers or Takata provided any explanation to account for these two driver air bag inflator ruptures outside the area of high absolute humidity.Takata testing of returned driver inflators indicates a lower rupture frequency as compared to passenger inflator testing.All test ruptures reported by Takata to date have occurred on inflators returned from high absolute humidity areas.The PE is now closed/upgraded to an Engineering Evaluation (EA15-001) to include all manufacturersand vehicles known to be affected at this time.ODI's EA investigation will focus on, among other things, root cause analysis, other potential defect consequences, identification of affected vehicles scope, and adequacy of the remedy.The recalls related to this PE are: 14V343, 14V344, 14V348, 14V351, 14V353, 14V655, 14V700, 14V701, 14V752, 14V763, 14V770, 14V773, 14V787, 14V802 and 14V817.The number of vehicles affected are an estimate since some vehicles may have both the driver and passenger side inflators recalled. The five ODI reports cited above can be reviewed online at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following identification numbers: 10537899, 10568848, 10585224, 10605877, 10651492

THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED BASED ON 20 REPORTS OF MODEL YEAR (MY) 2000 AND 2001 VEHICLES EXPERIENCING SEVERE CORROSION OF THE FRAME, RESULTING IN EITHER UNDER-BODY MOUNTED SPARE TIRE SEPARATION OR REAR BRAKE FAILURE.THE FAILURE REPORT COUNTS SHOWN ABOVE ARE FOR MY 2000 AND 2001 VEHICLES ONLY.BY LETTER OF NOVEMBER 16, 2009 TOYOTA HAS NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT IT WILL CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL (09V-444) OF APPROXIMATELY 110,000 MODEL YEAR (MY) 2000 THROUGH 2003 TUNDRA VEHICLES.THE AFFECTED RECALLED VEHICLES WERE SOLD OR ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATES OF CT, DE, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VA, VT, WI, WV.TOYOTA ALLEGES HIGH AMOUNTS OF ROAD SALTS ARE USED IN THESE AREAS AND EXCESSIVE CORROSION OF THE REAR CROSS-MEMBER (TO WHICH THE SPARE TIRE IS MOUNTED) CAN OCCUR AND CAUSE THE SPARE TIRE TO SEPARATE FROM THE VEHICLE AND CAN ALSO LEAD TO REAR BRAKE FAILURE.TOYOTA STATED: TOYOTA HAS TENTATIVELY CONCLUDED THAT THE ROOT CAUSE IS A COMBINATION OF FACTORS, INCLUDING USAGE IN AREAS WHERE ROAD SALT IS APPLIED, INADEQUATE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE (I.E., NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE OWNER'S MANUAL), THE DESIGN OF THE REAR CROSS-MEMBER, AND MANUFACTURING ISSUES.THE DESIGN OF THE REAR CROSS-MEMBER IS SUCH THAT IT IS OPEN ON THE TOP SIDE AND SUSCEPTIBLE TO ACCUMULATION OF DIRT, WATER AND ROAD SALT.MANUFACTURING ISSUES OF THE REAR CROSS-MEMBER RELATED TO THE COATING PROCESS ALSO AFFECT ITS CORROSION RESISTANCE.TOYOTA ALSO STATES THAT OWNERS OF MY 2000 THROUGH 2003 VEHICLES IN STATES NOT COVERED BY THE RECALL WILL BE NOTIFIED ON HOW TO OBTAIN THE SAME INSPECTION AND REPAIR AS THE RECALLED VEHICLES, FREE OF CHARGE.FURTHER TOYOTA STATES: PLEASE NOTE THAT WHILE TOYOTA HAS NOT DETERMINED A DEFECT EXISTS IN 2004 THROUGH 2006 MY TUNDRA VEHICLES, TOYOTA PLANS ON INITIATING A FIELD ACTION IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO PREVENT FUTURE CORROSION ON THOSE VEHICLES ORIGINALLY SOLD OR CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE AFFECTED REGION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.BY LETTER OF JANUARY 8, 2010 TOYOTA HAS NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT IT AMENDED ITS DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT FOR SAFETY RECALL 09V-444 TO INCLUDE THE FUEL TANK MOUNTING SYSTEM (I.E., FUEL TANK SUPPORT STRAPS AND FUEL TANK MOUNTING CROSS-MEMBERS) IN THE SAFETY RECALL.TOYOTA STATES: TOYOTA HAS NOT DECIDED THAT THE FUEL TANK MOUNTING SYSTEM IN THOSE VEHICLES CONTAINS A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY LAW.RATHER, TOYOTA IS TAKING THIS ACTION AT ODI'S REQUEST AND TO AVOID FUTURE DISAGREEMENT WITH ODI WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE.MY 2007 AND NEWER TUNDRA VEHICLES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN ANY OF TOYOTA'S ACTIONS AS THE REAR CROSS-MEMBER IN THOSE VEHICLES HAVE BEEN REDESIGNED SO THAT IT IS OPEN ON THE BOTTOM.THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY TOYOTA ARE SUFFICIENT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THIS INVESTIGATION.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

NHTSA Campaign 09V444000 for 2000-2003 Toyota Tundra to address severe corrosion on the rear frame cross-member section or rear brake lining proportion valve. Vehicle was apparently treated with CRC in 2010, but vehicle continued to rust severely in the specified recall zone, even after Toyota Safety Recall 90M had been completed on the vehicle. The CRC applied to the rear frame cross-member of the frame as specified did not inhibit further corrosion of the rear frame cross member, if anything it accelerated the corrosion. Thousands of 2000-2003 Toyota Tundras titled in the specified severe cold weather states still remain in use, and pose a threat to the overall safety of drivers. The Toyota 90M Safety recall did not adequately inhibit the corrosion of the rear frame section, rendering the vehicle unserviceable & unable to align, and leaving gas tanks, rear suspension, rear drive train, and spare tire parts susceptible to falling off of the vehicle and causing an accident- posing a risk of severe injury/death to road users. I am asking that the NHTSA please look into reissuing the NHTSA Campaign 09V444000 to have all 2000-2003 Toyota Tundras still registered for road use in severe cold weather states be inspected by a certified Toyota dealership for repairs, frame replacement, or vehicle buybacks to prevent unnecessary accidents due to a manufacturer defect that was never rectified properly.

NHTSA ID

11734951

Incident

Apr 10, 2026

Getting Airbag light on . Went to Modesto Toyota and they installed new clock spring strap in steering wheel. After installing the airbag light came back on . I again went back to dealer with same issue. They installed another clock spring in steering wheel. Drove about 1 mile , again airbag came on. Took it back to dealer a 3rd time same issue. They told me that the connector for the strap was too short. So now I am in limbo waiting for a replacement or something. Contacted dealer Modesto Toyota today 4/16/2026. No response as of yet. So I have still have the airbag light on.

NHTSA ID

11731670

Incident

Mar 4, 2026

NHTSA Campaign 09V444000 for 2000-2003 Toyota Tundra to address severe corrosion on the rear frame cross-member section or rear brake lining proportion valve. Vehicle was apparently treated with CRC in 2010, but vehicle continued to rust severely in the specified recall zone, even after Toyota Safety Recall 90M had been completed on the vehicle. The CRC applied to the rear frame cross-member of the frame as specified did not inhibit further corrosion of the rear frame cross member, if anything it accelerated the corrosion. Thousands of 2000-2003 Toyota Tundras titled in the specified severe cold weather states still remain in use, and pose a threat to the overall safety of drivers. The Toyota 90M Safety recall did not adequately inhibit the corrosion of the rear frame section, rendering the vehicle unserviceable & unable to align, and leaving gas tanks, rear suspension, rear drive train, and spare tire parts susceptible to falling off of the vehicle and causing an accident- posing a risk of severe injury/death to road users. I am asking that the NHTSA please look into reissuing the NHTSA Campaign 09V444000 to have all 2000-2003 Toyota Tundras still registered for road use in severe cold weather states be inspected by a certified Toyota dealership for repairs, frame replacement, or vehicle buybacks to prevent unnecessary accidents due to a manufacturer defect that was never rectified properly.

NHTSA ID

11730991

Incident

Apr 10, 2026

I own a 2003 Toyota Tundra (VIN: [XXX] ) that was subject to Toyota’s frame corrosion recall (Limited Service Campaign A0F). The vehicle was inspected by Toyota in January 2011 and confirmed to have no perforation. In March 2012, Toyota applied a corrosion-resistant compound as part of the recall remedy. Despite this, by May 2013, a structural component (spare tire carrier) failed due to severe rust and detached from the vehicle. This occurred shortly after Toyota performed the corrosion protection treatment. This raises concerns that the recall remedy was not effective in preventing continued structural deterioration. Frame corrosion can impact vehicle safety, especially if critical components weaken or detach. Toyota has declined any further review or assistance, stating the program has expired, despite evidence that the corrosion continued after their repair. I am submitting this complaint to request investigation into the long-term effectiveness of the corrosion protection remedy applied under this recall program. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ID

11728333

Incident

Mar 31, 2026

The frame was undercoated incorrectly and is actively falling apart. Super unsafe to drive. Very clearly was not undercoated correctly as there is areas in the frame that have no signs of undercoating. This is putting the driver of the vehicle at risk as well as the other drivers on the road. This is a huge recall that was issued for this model of year truck. Very common. The vehicle has not been inspected by the dealer as they refused to inspect it or even acknowledge the issue. There is no warning lamps on but it is visibly unsafe to drive

NHTSA ID

11721706

Incident

Mar 1, 2026

The frame was not professionally undercoated and is actively falling apart. Super unsafe to drive.

NHTSA ID

11721589

Incident

Mar 1, 2026

The frame is bad on driver and passenger side between the cab and bed. Auto body tech states there is no good metal to make the necessary repairs (welding new metal) to at this time. Inspection garage states it is a solid truck but will not pass inspection due to the frame’s condition. The vehicle has 106k miles on it with one surface area of rust. The vehicle has been well maintained and is mechanically in good condition. Toyota should have replaced the frames because they knew there was an issue. Can NHTSA help with a resolution?

NHTSA ID

11718123

Incident

Dec 15, 2025

There was a recall for the frame rusting out prematurely. Toyota had the recall until 2012. I did not own the truck then and it did not get fixed. Now I have a rusted out frame. Toyota is claiming they are not able to fix the frame due to it being 14 years later. They would however be able to keep the recall open if it is a safety recall. I don't know how a rusted out frame wouldn't be anything other than safety. The truck has less than 80,000 miles. What automobile should have a rusted out frame with less than 100,000 miles?!

NHTSA ID

11715509

Incident

Jan 26, 2026

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.