2019 Toyota Tacoma
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Toyota › Tacoma › 2019
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2019 Toyota Tacoma. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
4 recalls name the 2019 Toyota Tacoma. Newest first.
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing (Toyota) is recalling certain 2018-2019 4Runner, 2019-2020 Avalon, 2019 Corolla Hatchback, 2017-2019 Highlander, 2018-2020 Camry, 2020 Corolla, 2018-2019 Land Cruiser, 2017-2020 Tacoma, 2019-2020 RAV4, 2019-2020 Sequoia, 2017-2020 Sienna, 2019-2020 Tundra, 2018-2020 Lexus ES350, 2017 Lexus GS200t, 2017-2019 Lexus…
If the fuel pump fails, the engine can stall while driving, increasing the risk of a crash.
Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the fuel pump assembly with an improved one, free of charge. Owners of specific models were notified that remedy parts were available starting January 21, 2021. Owners of other models will be notified as remedy parts become available. Remedy parts should be available for all affected vehicles by late March 2021. Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-888-270-9371 or Lexus customer service at 1-800-255-3987. Note: This recall is an expansion of recall 20V-012. Toyota's number for this recall is 20TA02. Lexus' number for this recall is 20LA01.
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing (Toyota) recalled certain 2018-2019 4Runner, Highlander, Camry, Land Cruiser, Sequoia, Sienna, Tacoma and Tundra, and Lexus RC 300, RC 350, GS 350, GX 460, IS 300, LC 500, LS 500, LX 570, RX 350L, and 2019 Toyota Avalon and Corolla, and certain Lexus NX 300, and ES 350 vehicles on January 13, 2020. On March 4…
If the fuel pump fails, the engine can stall while driving, increasing the risk of a crash.
Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the fuel pump, free of charge. The recall began May 4, 2020. Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-888-270-9371 or Lexus customer service at 1-800-255-3987. Toyota's numbers for this recall are 20TB02 and 20TA02 for Toyota vehicles and 20LB01 and 20LA01 for Lexus vehicles.
Gulf States Toyota (GST) is recalling certain 2019 C-HR, 4Runner, Avalon, Avalon Hybrid, Camry, Camry Hybrid, Highlander, Land Cruiser, Prius, RAV4, Sequoia, Tacoma, Sienna, Tundra and Yaris vehicles. The text on the load capacity label may become illegible. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety…
If the driver cannot read the label, they may unknowingly overload the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
GST will notify owners, and dealers will provide corrected load carrying capacity modification labels, free of charge. The recall began May 24, 2019. Owners may contact GST customer service at 1-800-444-1074. GST's number for this recall is 19R1.
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing (Toyota) is recalling certain 2018-2019 Toyota Tacoma vehicles. Improper machining of the brake master cylinder may result in internal damage of one of the seals, affecting brake performance.
Reduced brake performance can lengthen the distance needed to stop the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the brake master cylinder, free of charge. The recall began January 28, 2019. Owners may contact Toyota customer service at 1-888-270-9371. Toyota's numbers for this recall are J16/J06.
Engine failure can be catastrophic on I-70. Engine hesitation. Check engine light came on. Code read P11ED - Cylinder 2 Air Fuel Ratio Imbalance (Port). Shop states the cylinder valve is worn. Mileage 190,000 Note - this was "repaired" by Toyota in July 2025. In 2025, P11ED code was read. Cylinder 2 was running rich. Fuel injector was replaced. This made it worse. Caused P219D code. Truck was sent to machine shop to repair cylinder heads, spark plugs were replaced. Mileage 150,000
I wrecked my truck in a snowstorm, and the front airbags did not deploy. The crash had me and 2 others in my vehicle. I have permanent injuries
The brakes failed, out of nowhere, no codes and no warning. The vehicle was taken to lithia Toyota of [XXX] on XXX for inspection and they say they couldn’t recreate the issue. 5 days later the vehicle was taken to Grants Pass Toyota and they have isolated the issue to be a faulty master cylinder. My safety and everyone on the road was at risk because one dealership failed to correctly inspect and diagnose the issue, all documentation is available. The issue was reproduced by Grants pass Toyota in less than 5 minutes of arrival to their service department. The master cylinder for like vehicles were recalled and mine was manufactured within 4 months of those models that fell into the J16/J06 recall. The exact symptoms that my vehicle experienced. However, my vin was not included in that recall. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
The contact owns a 2019 Toyota Tacoma. The contact stated that while the vehicle was parked, the vehicle shuddered, stalled, and there was an abnormal sound coming from the vehicle. The contact turned off and restarted the vehicle, and the vehicle returned to normal operation. The failure occurred on several occasions. The check engine and the active traction control warning lights were illuminated, with several other unknown warning lights illuminated. The vehicle was taken to a dealer to be diagnosed; however, the dealer stated that the cause of the failure was unknown. The vehicle was not repaired. The vehicle was taken back to the residence, and the contact used a diagnostic tool to retrieve DTC: P0087 (Fuel Rail/System Pressure was too Low). The vehicle was not repaired. The vehicle was taken back to the dealer, where it was determined that the octane fuel or spark plugs might need to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact researched and was made aware of an unknown recall; however, the VIN was not under recall. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 40,000.
My car had a lamp seal replaced (00948-CHMSL Center High-Mounted Stop Lamp Seal) in 01/2020. When it rains, water is getting into my car. I can't determine if the same seal or a new seal is failing to keep the water out. This is creating a higher probability of generating a mold issue in my car.
Brake Master cylinder. The brakes lose all pressure and do not stop the truck all of a sudden. This is an open recall on many of these trucks but apparently my specific truck isn’t included in this. Because it just happened we are looking for the parts to fix this. Although it’s to the tune of over $1,000. There are no warnings, no lights nothing. Just went to pull out of my driveway and have no brakes. Although the pads are brand new and professionally installed.
The contact owns a 2019 Toyota Tacoma. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, there was an abnormal sound coming from the A/C, and the cool air setting was inoperative. No warning lights were illuminated. A vehicle was taken to a dealer to be diagnosed; however, the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The dealer stated that there was UV dye at the evaporator core and that refrigerant was leaking. The vehicle was taken back to the residence. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 76,000.
Brake master cylinder failed on 2019 Toyota Tacoma. Vehicle had ~40000 miles at time of failure summer of 2025. Out of pocket expense was over $2000.00.
Brake pedal started sinking to the floor. Inspected and no fluid leaks present. If brake pedal is pumped, it will build pressure. Then the check brake system light comes on. That is a sign of brake master cylinder failure.
Lower driver door locking bracket corrosion. Beyond surface corrosion. Been monitoring. Passenger side bracket is free of corrosion. Base of corroded bracket has heavy rust. Appears this part was not plated or treated for rustproofing. Appears this locking bracket might fail over time. See attached photos. Passenger side (no corrosion) is last photo.
On 2 seperate occassions I had a wheel on my 2019 Toyota Tacoma come off while driving. Both after Toyota signed off on work orders and bill of sales showing they accessed the wheels. On 4/11/26 the front left drivers side fell off. Upon picking it up after repairs on April 28, May 6th the left rear wheel fell off while driving again. My safety could have been fatal but luckily no injuries for me and a passanger occurred. Toyota used a Certified Toyota body shop to do the repairs on the first incident not sure who worked on the 2nd as I have not yet been notified the truck is ready. The manufacturer has done all the inspecting no other parties have been involved. No warning. Right before each incident the truck would shake then skid along the floor causing sparks.
Brake fluid is leaking down the brake pedal and onto the driver's side floormat. Car has less than 60,000 miles and is 7 years old.
low pressure fuel pump in fuel tank failed. This part was already repaired from previous recall and failed again. Error code P0087. Vehicle shuttered and stopped in traffic. Broken bits of fuel pump were left in gas tank.
the left side inner and outer tie rods pulled apart at threads at jam nut. The threads approx 2 to three inches of threads were 100% rotted. The jam nut showed no sign of being loose. It did not UNTHREAD. No noise or any indication ever of an issue. It happened at 5:15 am. It was dark. I was at best going 1 mph in reverse. If this had happened at road speeds the outcome could have been fatal for someone. For sure a lot of damage. I did not take a picture my bad. I did ask for the parts back but am 99%sure the part I got was not mine.it had a weld on it likely to move vehicle. The inner tie rod Was cut and looking like new, not a part exposed to the elements for 65k miles. I visually compared to other side. I will dissect it when I go to my friends shop. I could be wrong but doubtful. Call if questions. I had an extended warranty so they covered under that or a warranty/campaign? I was a NIASE AND NOW called ASE certified mechanic specializing in front end repair so…I would not knowingly drive cars that have a safety issue that could kill me or anyone. Safety first.
My 2019 Toyota Tacoma (Super White) is experiencing paint chipping and delamination across multiple body panels. Toyota has acknowledged this defect in limited repair programs, but my vehicle is affected beyond the covered areas. Paint loss exposes underlying primer/metal and may lead to corrosion over time. This appears widespread among similar model-year Tacomas.
The contact owns a 2019 Toyota Tacoma. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, there was an abnormal clattering sound coming from the engine, with a misfire coming from the engine. The check engine warning light was illuminated. The vehicle was restarted; however, the failure reoccurred. The vehicle was taken to several mechanics, where it was diagnosed and determined that the fuel injector in cylinder #3 had failed and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The vehicle was then taken to the dealer, where it was diagnosed with engine failure. The contact was informed that the engine needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 89,000.
The engine in my 2019 Toyota Tacoma TRD Off Road suffered internal damage that appears linked to Toyota’s low-pressure fuel pump recall (issued 10/28/2020, repaired 581 days later on 6/10/2022). While out on personal lease, the truck was driven over 16,000 miles with the defective pump, which can cause lean running conditions and elevated combustion temperatures. The result was metallic contamination and a damaged wrist pin in cylinder #6, requiring full engine replacement. All failed components remain available for inspection upon request. The fuel pump defect and resulting internal engine damage continues to place my safety and others’ at risk by creating potential for loss of power, engine stall, or total failure while driving. The problem was confirmed by two separate Toyota dealerships, both of which diagnosed the need for engine replacement. The vehicle has been inspected by multiple Toyota service centers and the Toyota Brand Engagement Center, which opened and later denied my case. No warning lights or messages appeared prior to the ticking noise that first appeared around 62,000 miles. In fact, no warning lights have ever illuminated on the dash. Despite clear evidence that the recall-related defect likely caused the damage, Toyota has refused to provide any assistance or coverage toward repairing or replacing the failed engine, leaving me with a $21,000 repair for a vehicle that was otherwise maintained and operated responsibly.
While driving at Highway speeds fuel pump failed resulting in near miss collision on Interstate. Initial fuel pump was replaced with recall. This is second pump that failed. Vehicle towed to Bob Tyler Toyota in Pensacola Fl where fuel pump replaced by owner. Toyota refuses to pay for pump even though class action lawsuit resulted in Toyota being responsible for reimbursement. Vehicle has only 36000 miles.
On 10/9/25 said vehicle was brought to Central Florida Toyota (CFT) for the investigation of water intrusion into the rear passenger compartment. The cause of water intrusion was due to a defective duct (vent) assy (PN: 62930-04040. There are 2 vents located at the rear of the passenger cab.). The cost for the repair was estimated to be $15,153.39. This exorbitant fee includes the replacement of the entire carpeting system and the need to remove the vehicle bed to access the vents. Based on a musty smell CFT assumed that the carpet had been damaged by molds. Subsequently, CFT was requested to have the 2 vents replaced, only, and not the carpeting. In return, CFT stipulated that I must sign a health hazard waiver due the assumed (no evidence) moldy condition. Now, not only can 2 simple mechanical vents cause such an exorbitant fee to repair it has now evolved into a potential health safety issue. Yet, Toyota has failed to provide any caution/warning to the effect of water intrusion into the rear of the passenger area. No caution/warning in owner's manual that vehicle owner must periodically inspect the rear passenger for water, no warning tags/labels inside vehicle. On the other, my Toyota OEM floor mats have all sorts caution/warning plus installation instruction. It is recommended, as a minimum, Toyota must issue a recall to confirm the integrity of all vents in circulation. On my vehicle, the defective vent was due to bad seal which implies poor manufacturing. Secondly, the location of the vents is simply poor engineering. Even, if there's no damage to the carpeting the cost to replace the 2 vents would be $2,500 due to the need to vehicle bed removed.
Water leaked through the third brake light assembly into the cab roof, soaking the ceiling, seats, and carpet. This caused extensive mold growth and electrical corrosion near the control modules. The affected systems include the third brake light seal, cab roof, interior materials, and ECM (documentation attached). The truck remains at the dealer and is available for inspection upon request. The entire interior is contaminated with mold, creating a serious health hazard, and the vehicle cannot be safely driven or occupied. The leak also damaged electrical components, posing a risk of malfunction or short-circuit while operating the vehicle, and it is currently undrivable due to this damage. The problem was confirmed by Toyota of Clermont, which inspected the truck, documented the damage, and provided a written estimate exceeding $8,000 for repairs (copy attached). The vehicle was at the dealership while the manufacturer’s Limited Service Campaign 21TD03—issued to address this same defect—was still active, but the required inspection and seal repair were not performed. The failure of Toyota of Clermont to perform the mandated remedy under Campaign 21TD03 while the vehicle was in its possession resulted in a serious safety hazard. The entire interior of the cab—including the seats, ceiling, and carpet—is covered in mold, and the vehicle is undrivable due to water intrusion and electrical damage. There were no warning lamps or error messages before the failure, only a strong musty smell inside the cab shortly before the leak became visible. Toyota Motor North America was notified but declined responsibility. This case represents a potential noncompliance with federal defect-remedy obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. § 30120) and should be investigated as such.
The rear cabin pressure vent leaks water into the cabin creating an unsafe vehicle to drive during rainy days. I took the vehicle to Sarasota Toyota and was told that my claim to get it fixed thru the Toyota warranty was denied because it is considered trim. I contacted the warranty company and Toyota about this issue but was told the same.NOT COVERED. I am also concerned that the water intrusion can affect the safety and health hazard of more drivers with this problem if not addressed by Toyota as soon as possible.
While having routine maintenance performed on 8/5/2025, I was advised that the steering rack must be replaced at an approximate cost of $2,200. I was told this should be done as soon as possible because it poses a safety issue. The vehicle only has 29,000 miles and has not been driven off road or in extreme conditions. I researched the issue and it seems that a number of complaints have been filed for the same concern, specifically because this is happening at such low mileage. If Toyota does not come up with a resolution and recall for faulty equipment, will I be doing this repair again in another 29,000 miles?
The contact owns a 2019 Toyota Tacoma. The contact stated that the rear cabin pressure vent seals had deteriorated, causing rainwater to leak into the rear cabin of the vehicle. The contact stated that there was a mildew odor inside the cabin of the vehicle. The contact was concerned that mold had developed inside the vehicle due to the water inside the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer, who indicated that the rear pressure seals were faulty and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure, but no assistance was provided. The failure mileage was 80,000.
Rear leaf springs are flat and curving in opposite direction causing vehicle to bottom out with only 100 pounds in the truck bed. This is a potential safety issue as control problems to keep vehicle going straight.
Truck has 33,XXX miles. Was driving and the fuel gauge needle dropped to E. Dash screen stated 225 miles till empty please refuel. I tried turning it on and off, no change. Filled the gas tank numerous times, no change. Needle remains on E with warning message to please refuel. Mechanic checked and there are no codes or CELs.
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
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.
Technical service bulletins and other communications the manufacturer sent dealers about this vehicle. Ask a dealer for the full document by its number.
Bars are owner complaints, dots mark years with recalls. Select a year to open its report.