Fuel tank, filler or EVAP failure on the 2001 Toyota Tundra
When fuel tank, filler or evap failure gets reported
Owners of the 2001 Toyota Tundra report fuel tank, filler or EVAP failure at a median of 115,000 miles. A quarter of the reports come in before 95,000 miles and a quarter after 170,000 miles, from 16 reports that carried an odometer reading.
A part like this is normally expected to survive 88,000 miles. It is the 6th most-reported problem on this model year.
The mileage distribution
The reported range runs from 60,000 miles at the tenth percentile to 180,000 miles at the ninetieth, a spread of 119,675 miles across the middle 80% of reports.
When the reports scatter this far, the mileage is telling you about how these cars were driven more than about the part itself.
0% of the dated reports were filed under 36,000 miles.
The whole distribution
| 10th | 25th | Median | 75th | 90th |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 58,325 miles | 95,919 miles | 114,387 miles | 171,000 miles | 178,000 miles |
Read the 10th percentile as “one report in ten arrived this early”. Exact figures are shown in this table because it is the table of record; everywhere else on the site they are rounded to the precision the sample can carry.
What a percentile can and cannot tell you here
These five numbers describe the readings owners gave, in order. The median is the middle one: half the reports arrived below it. The 10th and 90th are the edges of the bulk of the distribution, and the distance between them is the part worth reading. A tight spread — say 70,000 to 95,000 miles — points at something that wears out on a schedule, and the schedule is knowable. A wide one, 20,000 to 190,000, points at a fault that hits some cars and never troubles others, which means the mileage on the listing in front of you tells you very little about your odds.
What these figures are not is a survival curve. Every reading here comes from a car whose owner filed a complaint, so the sample contains only failures: it cannot say what share of the fleet made it past 150,000 miles untouched, because those owners had nothing to report. Nor is the mileage the moment of failure — it is the odometer reading as recalled at the time of filing, which may be weeks later and is sometimes rounded to the nearest ten thousand by the person typing it.
Percentiles are shown at all only once 8 readings exist for the vehicle and mode. Below that the middle of a handful of numbers is noise wearing a decimal point, so the figures are withheld rather than dressed up.
What happens, and what it costs
Putting it right typically runs $250–$1,800 at an independent US shop. That range is an editorial estimate held in this site's failure-mode catalogue, not a figure from NHTSA, and it is a repair cost rather than a diagnosis cost.
The same failure on other years
The same failure is reported on 12 model years of this car. It shows up earliest on the 2017, at a median of 45,000 miles, and latest on the 2004 at 140,000 miles.
By volume the 2000 carries the most reports, with 56; the 2001 has 19. A mode that appears across most years of a model is usually a design choice rather than a bad batch.
If one year stands out to the left, that is the year to avoid; if the whole line sits at a similar mileage, this is wear rather than a defect in one production run.
Tick median reported mileage Solid middle half of reports Faint 10th to 90th percentile Colour how bad the failure is when it happens
What owners wrote
Verbatim from NHTSA complaint narratives, trimmed for length. The mileage is the one the owner gave.
I have a 2001 toyota tundra pickup truck. On 9/5/09 I lost my power steering, and the truck was towed to my local garage, gil's garage in burnt hills, ny. Gil's garage found that my steering rack had rusted out and that the frame was rusted and cracked in two places. One at the left rear spring shackle and one in the fuel tank mounting bracket area. The truck, therefore, could not be driven. I opened a case with toyota's national hotline (case reference # 0909115275). I was told by my dealer, new country toyota, in saratoga, ny and toyota's hotline representative, that there were no corrective programs in place for the tundra. Subsequently, two toyota representatives visited gil's garage and inspected my tundra. They were isao furukawa, corporate manager, product quality and support and jim rosasco, field product engineer. Their phone #'s are 973-882-2026 and 973-493-2518 respectively. I have heard nothing since. I feel there should be restitution similar to the actions taken by toyota for the tacomas which had similar problems. *tr
Excessive rust problems impacted the gas tank and securing straps under my 2001 toyota tundra. The corrosion created small pinholes in the tanks, resulting in gas leakage and required the tank and straps to be replaced.
Toyota's tundra corrosion recall focuses on the frame, fuel tank mounting, and spare tire mounting hardware. If the frame has no perforations and the fuel tank suspension and spare tire mounting are sound, the truck is determined to be safe. My tundra has been so inspected by a dealer, passed their test, and found to be "safe.". My complaint is that the vehicle's undercarriage shows extensive corrosion of frame, steering, and suspension components beyond the scope of toyota's recall. The extent of the corrosion is so great that it calls into question the potential for a suspension or steering component to fail during operation, leading to a loss of control and injury to passengers and others on the highway. I have digital photographs of several corrosion sites on the undercarriage of my truck that illustrate my concern. I have taken my truck to a body shop for evaluation and was told it is not safe. Toyota's recall does not address the full range of safety issues brought on by their corrosion problem. Toyota should be required to inspect all of the critical components subject to the excessive corrosion and either determine they…
Also reported on the 2001 Toyota Tundra
Rust or structural corrosion
Other body or interior problem
Other brake problem
Control arm, ball joint or bushing failure
Premature brake pad or rotor wear
Parking brake failure
How far this goes
Complaints are voluntary, so 19 is a floor and not a count of affected cars. Mileages are typed in by owners and cluster on round numbers. And the mode itself is assigned by software reading the complaint text, which is reliable in bulk and fallible one report at a time.
Questions this page answers
At what mileage does fuel tank, filler or evap failure happen on the 2001 Toyota Tundra?
Across 16 owner reports that included an odometer reading, half were filed by 115,000 miles. A quarter were filed before 95,000 miles and a quarter after 170,000 miles. These are the mileages owners reported when they complained, not a prediction for any individual car.
How common is fuel tank, filler or evap failure on the 2001 Toyota Tundra?
19 reports have been filed with NHTSA, about 0.7 per 1,000 vehicles. Complaints are voluntary, so this is a floor rather than a count of affected cars.
What this is and is not. These are the mileages at which owners chose to complain to a federal agency, which is not the same as the mileage at which the part fails on every car. It skews toward failures that happened outside warranty, cost real money, or frightened someone. It is still the only public dataset that carries failure mileage at all, and the shape of a few hundred readings is informative even when a single one is not. Methodology · JSON · this failure on other cars
Source Owner complaints and recall records published by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, model years 1996–2027 Figures rebuilt Published by AtWhatMileage How every figure is computed