Looks like I'll be staying with my 2005 4Runner and 2010 Xterra for a little while longer...

When i saw the video, my first impression was CV joint. But looks like a T-case.
Anyway, any mass produced item will have a few defective units. I don't have any idea who produces that T-case for Toyota. Maybe its in house, that would be easy. But probably outsourced. Anyway, it may not really be a problem. Maybe only one in a million. The rest could be bullet proof. Only time will tell. It sure didn't look like it was under a lot of stress. So i would go with a rare defect.

Here's the latest news on the failure. The (A.D.D.) auto drive disconnect, designed to fail part, failed. a purpose built part designed to fail, genius.

Here's What Broke on Our New Toyota Tacoma When We Took It Off-Road! - YouTube

FYI for others who want the quick answer…go to 10:30 mark.

Cheap ass part failed. This is not a good look for the new platform (Tacoma, Land Cruiser 250, Lexus GX550, and upcoming 4Runner).

It's the same part on all these?

Not sure since LC and GX have full-time 4wd. The others…well…will see.

The last Gen of GX has full time 4x4 with locking transfer case. So failure of the front diff disconnect. Probably an unusual failure, and probably isolated.
Anything can fail, and anything mass produced can have a few that are defective.

Difference is that Toyota did NOT say that it was a defective part. It said that ADD was a planned failure to prevent further damage.

That Tacoma failure happened on a full production (not test mule) vehicle and should have been caught very early in development!

And I am angry that Toyota states that this ADD failure was “planned” to avoid further damage. Great……. Except that ADD failure would have stranded the driver in the middle of nowhere!!! Think about that. TFL only got off that mountain bc they had another vehicle to tow it down. If that Tacoma was alone like some of us when we off-road, it would have been stranded far away from main road in the middle of winter…probably not in cell coverage. From that perspective, what is the difference between ADD failure and something more severe that ADD was supposed to prevent???

IMHO, Toyota rep fooled everyone with that marketing BS about it being a “good thing” that ADD failed. Huh?!?!!! It stranded the driver in the middle of nowhere! It only got home via another vehicle towing it down.

I sometimes off-road with my family alone to get to a site or scenic place. If this happened to me, my family would be stranded and to add to insult, Toyota likely would deny repairs because I went off-road. (This is why I am glad that Apple iPhones have satellite communication.)

Given how much Toyota was touting the off-road capability of the platform, you would assume that this weakness in ADD would have been seen early in off-road testing. It almost seems like Toyota did not really test these vehicles like they do in the past. They kinda just threw parts together from the parts bin and call it a day. You know like what Ford/Chevy do.

Kinda like the new Tundra waste gate issue. Come on Toyota!

If I want something to strand me in a precarious situation, then I rather buy a Ford! At least, I would be stranded in a vehicle with Apple CarPlay! I get to listen to my favorite tunes while I freeze to death!

I understand teething issues (rattles, misaligned panels, software glitches, radiators crack from 3rd party, parts manufacturing defect in a batch, etc). But these are major issues in areas where you are literally advertising the hell out of them (off road and 3.4 turbo power).

I used to have a 2009 Suzuki Grand Vitara. It was full time 4WD with just LO and LOCK options. I did far worse to that thing and it never broke anything. It was 10 years old at the time.

Toyota engineer’s response to Taco failure…Toyota designed it to meet bare minimum…no over-engineering here. Fix: software to limit power…basically software to fix under-engineering. ��

https://youtu.be/hjdY-_w78TI?si=RC-Dt41_QsbDSiXJ