2010 Toyota Tacoma Lighting Problems

THE YELLOW PART OF THE HEADLIGHT HAS MELTED CRACKING BOTH LENSES INSIDE , WAS TOLD THE RECALL WAS OVER AND I WAS TO LATE TO HAVE BOTH HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLIES REPLACED . I GOT NOTHING IN THE MAIL , NOTHING BY THE DEALER TO LET ME KNOW IF WAS A PROBLEM.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT NOTICED BUBBLES IN THE HEADLAMPS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO BRUNER AUTO GROUP (224 EARLY BLVD, EARLY, TX 76802) WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE HEADLAMPS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THERE WAS A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN AND AN EXTENDED WARRANTY FOR FIVE YEARS; HOWEVER, THE VEHICLE WAS ALREADY REPAIRED AND THE WARRANTY WAS EXPIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 56,965. ..UPDATED 08/22/17 *BF *CN1

TOOK VEHICLE TO TOYOTA DEALER ABOUT WARRANTY ENHANCEMENT NOTICE #ZTZ IN MARCH 2017 AND WAS TOLD IT WAS EXPIRED AND YET DID NOT OFFER TO REPLACE THE LIGHTS WHEN THERE WAS CLEAR EVIDENSE OF THE ENHANCEMENT NOTICE AND THAT HAS NEVER SET WELL WITH ME

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HEAD LIGHT ASSEMBLE WHICH INCLUDED THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS AND TURN SIGNAL HAD OVER HEATED CAUSING THE LIGHT HOUSING TO BECOME DISCOLORED AND THE BULB HAD SHATTERED. THE CONTACT INDICATED THAT THE FAILURE HAD OCCURRED ON BOTH THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDE LIGHTS AND HAD FAILED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE LOCAL DEALER TOYOTA OF BROOK HEAVEN LOCATED AT 890 BROOKWAY BLVD, BROOKHAVEN, MS 39601 MS. WHO REPAIRED THE FAILURE BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 110,000. *BF*JB

THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHT / FRONT TURN SIGNAL IS MELTED AND THE TURN SIGNALS ARE NOT VISIBLE WHEN ENGAGED. TOYOTA IS AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND HAD A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO REPAIR IT BUT THEY ARE TELLING ME I MISSED THAT POINT. THIS IS A VERY DANGERS DEFECT AND FEEL THEY SHOULD REMEDY THE PROBLEM.

2010 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE BURNING THE PLASTIC LENS. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED IT LOOKED AS IF, THE LENSES WERE STARTING TO MELT. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED A RECALL WAS ISSUED. HOWEVER, IN EXPIRED NOVEMBER 30, 2015. THE CONSUMER STATED HE NEVER RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE. *JB

I HAD BOTH OF MY HEADLAMPS REPLACED BY TOYOTA UNDER WARRANTY BECAUSE THEY WERE MELTING AT THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHT LENS. THE DRIVERS SIDE HEADLAMP IS MELTING AGAIN. I WAS TOLD BY TOYOTA THAT THE ONE YEAR WARRANTY GIVEN ON THE NEW HEADLAMPS WAS OVER AND THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE REPLACED AGAIN. I DO NOT THINK TOYOTA FIXED THE PROBLEM BUT JUST REPLACED THE DEFECTIVE HEADLAMPS WITH MORE DEFECTIVE HEADLAMPS TO BUY TIME UNTIL EVERYONE WAS OUT OF WARRANTY AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE LENS FOR THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS WAS MELTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 65,000.

THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS HAVE MELTED THE NEWER TYPE SERVICE BULLETIN REPLACED HEADLIGHT HOUSINGS. ALSO NOTICED IS HEAT DISCOLORATION OF THE WIRING CONNECTOR. *TR

"TAKATA RECALL" THE YELLOW PART OF THE HEADLIGHT HAS MELTED CRACKING BOTH LENSES INSIDE, WAS TOLD BY THE TOYOTA DEALERSHIP/CRBIN, KY THE RECALL WAS OVER AND I WAS TOO LATE TO HAVE BOTH HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLIES REPLACED. I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING IN THE MAIL ABOUT A RECALL, NOTHING FROM THE DEALER TO LET ME KNOW THERE WAS A RECALL ON THE LIGHTS. I BOUGHT THE TRUCK IN OHIO, BUT I LIVE IN KY

BURN OUT HEADLIGHTS. *TR

BOTH HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLIES ARE MELTING FROM INSIDE FROM THE DAYTIME RUNNING LAMP BULB HEAT. ALL COMPONENTS ARE STOCK AS-BUILT ITEMS, NO MODIFICATIONS OF ANY KIND. ATTEMPTING TO GET TOYOTA TO REPLACE ASSEMBLIES AT THIS TIME. VEHICLE IS A FEW MONTHS OUT OF WARRANTY TIME BUT WELL WITHIN MILES. THE HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLIES WILL EVENTUALLY MELT AWAY AND PERHAPS CATCH FIRE IF THIS IS NOT PROPERLY RECTIFIED. THERE IS SURELY A DESIGN FLAW IN THESE HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLIES. *TR

THE DRIVING LIGHTS ON MY 2010 TOYOTA TACOMA HAVE BURNT BOTH HEADLIGHT LENS AND CRACKED ONE. THE SERVICE MANAGER IMMEDIATELY COMMENTED ALOUD THAT THIS WAS A DESIGN ISSUE AND THE DEALERSHIP HAD SEEN THIS PROBLEM IN OTHER LIKE VEHICLES. A CALL TO TOYOTA RECEIVED A RAPID NO! TO ASSUMING ANY RESPONSIBILITY. TOYOTA REFUSED TO REPLACE THE HEADLIGHT LENS DUE TO THE VEHICLE BEING OUT OF WARRANTY DUE TO MILEAGE. ON NOVEMBER 09, 2013, THE TOYOTA REP OFFERED TO REPLACE ONE LAMP ASSEMBLY BUT THE OWNER HAD TO PURCHASE THE SECOND ONE AND ASSUME ALL LABOR COSTS. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS A MANUFACTURER'S DESIGN DEFECT. IT IS UNKNOWN IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED DURING WARRANTY OR AT WHAT POINT AFTERWARDS. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN REGULARLY SERVICED AT THE DEALERSHIP AS PER OWNER'S MANUAL YET NO TECHNICIAN REPORTED THE BURNT AND CRACKED LENS PROBLEM. IT WAS THE OWNER WHO FIRST NOTICED THE PROBLEM APRIL 29, 2013, TWO DAYS AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED AT THE DEALERSHIP. HOWEVER THAT SAME WEEK, THE OWNER WAS DIAGNOSED WITH AGGRESSIVE CANCER AND AN IMMEDIATE TREATMENT PLAN PREVENTED THE OWNER FROM PURSUING THE LENS ISSUE. *TR

BOTH DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHT LENSES ARE MELTED FROM THE BULBS. THE DRL ARE ON WHENEVER THE TRUCK IS BEING DRIVEN.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE NOTICED A SMELL EMANATING FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, HE NOTICED THAT THE BASE OF THE HEADLIGHT BULBS HAD MELTED AS WELL AS THE SOCKET. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE WIRING HARNESS WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED BUT OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 45,000....UPDATED 07-10-13 *BF THE CONSUMER STATED THE PROBLEM WAS NOT THE HEADLIGHT BULBS, BUT WITH THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS. THEY WERE LOCATED IN THE IN HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLY. THE AND BASE OF THE BULBS AND SOCKETS HAD MELTED. THE HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLY WAS CRACKED FROM THE HEAT. TOYOTA HELPED PAY FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLY. ONE WEEK LATER, THE PROBLEM RETURNED. UPDATED 07/18/13

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BULBS FOR THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS BECAME OVERHEATED AND BURNED THROUGH THE PLASTIC SHIELDING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THE TECHNICIAN CONFIRMED THE FAILURE AND STATED THAT THE LIGHT ASSEMBLY WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 43,000. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE PARKED, HE NOTICED THAT THEDAY IME RUNNING LIGHTS WERE BURNING THROUGH THE LENS. AS A RESULT, THE LENSES WERE CRACKING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR A DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT BOTH HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLIES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY RECALLS. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 98,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 101,000. UPDATED 2/4/13 *CN THE CONSUMER STATED THE LENS HAD HEAT DAMAGETO BULB BASE AND THE SOCKET IT PLUGS INTO. THE DEALER ONCE REFUSED TO REPAIR DUE MILEAGE. THE DEALER WAS THIS WAS A PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER ASSISTED WITH REPAIRS. UPDATED 02/13/2013 *JS

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2010 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT BOTH DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS WOULD OVERHEAT AND CRACK OR DISCOLOR THE LENS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE TECHNICIAN ADVISED THAT THE LENS WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 70,000.

AS I WAS DOING MY MONTHLY INSPECTION ON MY TRUCK, I NOTICED THAT MY DAY-TIME RUNNING LIGHTS WAS STARTING TO MELT DUE TO GETTING OVERHEATED WHILE DRIVING. *TR

THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS GOT SO HOT THAT THE LENSES MELTED AND CRACKED AND THE LIGHT BULB SOCKETS ARE BURNED. THE LENSES ARE NOT CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING THE HEAT GENERATED BY THE BULBS. WITHER THE LENS PLASTIC IS NOT IN FEDERAL LAW COMPLIANCE, THE BULBS ARE TOO HOT OR THE BULBS ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE PLASTIC LENSES. WHATEVER IT IS, THERE WILL EVENTUALLY BE A FIRE. *TR