It is. But its wear is almost exclusively for Tesla's benefit, not the customers. That's what's galling to me. Capturing extensive logging data so Tesla can do product improvement is NOT something I should be hammered hundreds of dollars for service on because it impacts the ability of me to use my vehicle.
They should eat the cost on these cars, and re-engineer the part to be easily replaced on future vehicles so that it actually is a user-serviceable replaceable part.
I always think this type of bad first step is a "test the waters" move.
If no one complains, sweet. If someone complains backpedal with one of those "We hear you! And while we haven't done anything wrong, we will do right by the customer just like we have always done" PR stunts.
Most everyone forgets, and the people that do remember, well they remember you "making things right." Exploding batteries on your s21? Anyone?
The semi-annual Toyota frame recall is a great example. They start small and then begrudgingly widen it to some larger range of years and maybe add in the 4Runners if it looks like people are switching brands.
I have seen this repeated in this thread several times - had to look it up, turns out it's BS. There has been one frame recall - in 2008, for cars made between 1994 and 2004 - including the Tacoma and the 4Runners and Toyota extended the warranty for rust perforation and bought back the damaged trucks. [0] In 2012 there has been a recall for Tacomas in a smaller set - produced between 2001 and 2004 - for rusting tire carrier.
The last recall for rust in Toyotas includes cars made up to 2010 [1]. So - if by "semi-annual" - you mean nothing in the last ten years, then you are correct, else it's BS.
