IllustrationWHEN THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS ILLUMINATED, THE TRACTION CONTROL AND ANTI LOCK BRAKE FEATURES ARE AUTOMATICALLY DISABLED.
2002 Toyota 4RUNNER
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most 4RUNNER years
Owner complaints for the 2002 Toyota 4RUNNER are substantially higher than the model-year median of 58.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all 4RUNNER years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
40–25K
325–50K
1550–75K
1375–100K
57100–150K
54150K+
146 reports with mileage · 46 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Structure. Review the 88 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Suspension. Review the 43 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 29 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
12 crash reports2 fire reports9 injury reports
Power Train complaints
29 reportsI PURCHASED THE 2002 4RUNNER IN 2014. AT THAT TIME, THE 4RUNNER ONLY HAD 79,000 MILES AND HAD BEEN CARED FOR METICULOUSLY. I HAVE TAKEN THE CAR IN FOR ROUTINE SERVICE OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS. UPON TAKING THE 4RUNNER IN DUE TO A VIBRATION AND CHECK OF THE DIFFERENTIAL, THE MECHANIC CALLED ME IN TO LOOK AT THE FRAME WHILE IT WAS UP …
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED THE 2002 4RUNNER IN 2014. AT THAT TIME, THE 4RUNNER ONLY HAD 79,000 MILES AND HAD BEEN CARED FOR METICULOUSLY. I HAVE TAKEN THE CAR IN FOR ROUTINE SERVICE OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS. UPON TAKING THE 4RUNNER IN DUE TO A VIBRATION AND CHECK OF THE DIFFERENTIAL, THE MECHANIC CALLED ME IN TO LOOK AT THE FRAME WHILE IT WAS UP ON THE LIFT. BELOW IN THE ATTACHED PHOTOS, THERE IS EXTENSIVE RUSTING OF THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL, AXLE AND FRAME. THE VEHICLE WAS STATIONARY AND THE ISSUE WAS FOUND DURING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE RUSTED FRAME AND DIFFERENTIAL HAVE RENDERED THIS VEHICLE PRACTICALLY VALUELESS AND UNSAFE.
"TAKATA RECALL" FRAME RUSTED OUT FROM THE INSIDE OUT. LOOKING AT ON FRAME IT WAS AT LEAST 1.5 INCHES OF DIRT AND SMALL ROCK FROM MAINE ROADS AND THAN WHEN RAINED IT WAS JUST MUD THE BAD SPOT IS ON THE PASSENGER SIDE D BY TORSION BAR NO WAY TO DRAIN. ALSO REAR END DIFFERENTIAL GEAR COVER RUSTED OUT ON OTHER VEHICLES YOU REPLAC…
Read full complaint
"TAKATA RECALL" FRAME RUSTED OUT FROM THE INSIDE OUT. LOOKING AT ON FRAME IT WAS AT LEAST 1.5 INCHES OF DIRT AND SMALL ROCK FROM MAINE ROADS AND THAN WHEN RAINED IT WAS JUST MUD THE BAD SPOT IS ON THE PASSENGER SIDE D BY TORSION BAR NO WAY TO DRAIN. ALSO REAR END DIFFERENTIAL GEAR COVER RUSTED OUT ON OTHER VEHICLES YOU REPLACED JUST THE COVER ON THE 4RUNNER I WAS TOLD TO REPLACE THE REAR END PRICE JUST FOR THE REAR END WAS $2500 THAN LABOR.
REAR DIFFERENTIAL COVERED RUSTING THROUGH.
REAR DIFFERENTIAL RUSTED THROUGH
I TOOK MY VEHICLE IN FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE RECENTLY AND THE TECHNICIAN SAID THAT I HAVE SOME MAJOR RUST ISSUES ON MY REAR AXLE AND DRIVETRAIN. HE SHOULD ME WHEN IT WAS ON THE LIFT. HE EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THE BOLT AND CLIP THAN HOLDS THE BRAKE LINE DOWN ON THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL HAD RUSTED AND BROKEN OFF OF THE DIFFERENTIAL CO…
Read full complaint
I TOOK MY VEHICLE IN FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE RECENTLY AND THE TECHNICIAN SAID THAT I HAVE SOME MAJOR RUST ISSUES ON MY REAR AXLE AND DRIVETRAIN. HE SHOULD ME WHEN IT WAS ON THE LIFT. HE EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THE BOLT AND CLIP THAN HOLDS THE BRAKE LINE DOWN ON THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL HAD RUSTED AND BROKEN OFF OF THE DIFFERENTIAL COVER. THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL IS NOW LEAKING GEAR OIL. THE TECHNICIAN ADVISED ME THAT IT IS TOO RISKY TO ATTEMPT TO REPAIR AS IT MAY CAUSE THE ENTIRE DIFFERENTIAL TO BE DAMAGED AND THE WHOLE REAR AXLE WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE TECHNICIAN ALSO SAID THAT IT IS A RISK TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE AND IS POSSIBLY UNSAFE TO KEEP DRIVING. HE STATED THAT IT IS UNKNOWN HOW MUCH LONGER I WOULD BE ABLE TO DRIVE IT UNTIL THE REAR AXLE CEASES.
MY FRAME IS ROTTING OUT. I JUST HAD TO REPLACE MY REAR AXLE BECAUSE IT HAD ALMOST ROTTED THROUGH. IT WAS ACTUALLY WEAPING GEAR OIL OUT OF SMALL HOLES THROUGH THE ROT. SOME OF THE FRAME HAD TO BE WELDED TO PASS INSPECTION.
THE FRAME IS RUSTING ALMOST IN TWO. LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BREAK ANY TIME. REAR AXEL IS ALSO VERY RUSTED WITH PIECES FALLING OFF. *TR
FRAME AND REAR DIFFERENTIAL RUSTING OUT. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT FLUID WAS LEAKING UNDER THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING WAS RUSTED, LEAKED FLUID INTERMITTENTLY AND THERE WERE MULTIPLE HOLES TO THE POINT THAT THE COMPONENT MAY FRACTURE.…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT FLUID WAS LEAKING UNDER THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING WAS RUSTED, LEAKED FLUID INTERMITTENTLY AND THERE WERE MULTIPLE HOLES TO THE POINT THAT THE COMPONENT MAY FRACTURE. THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
Official recalls
105V225000 · Suspension:front:control Arm:lower Ball Joint
May 17, 2005
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, DUE TO A MANUFACTURING ISSUE IN THE FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER BALL JOINT, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE SURFACE OF THE BALL OF THE JOINT MAY HAVE BEEN SCRATCHED. THE BALL JOINT MAY EVENTUALLY EXPERIENCE EXCESSIVE WEAR AND LOOSENESS, RESULTING IN INCREASED STEERING EFFORT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE LOWER BALL JOINT MAY SEPARATE FROM THE KNUCKLE CAUSING LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL AND A CRASH COULD OCCUR.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER BALL JOINTS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 5, 2005. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
1DP18002 · Frame Corrosion
Opened Aug 17, 2018 · Closed Mar 18, 2022
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:frame And Members
On August 7, 2018, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a defect petition from Mr. Gary Weinreich alleging premature frame corrosion failure in model year (MY) 2002 - 2006 Toyota 4Runner vehicles. The petitioner based his request upon a corrosion-related front suspension failure he experienced in his MY 2005 Toyota 4Runner, a class action lawsuit settlement involving other Toyota products, and other complaints of underbody corrosion in Toyota 4Runner vehicles that he found in NHTSA?s online complaint database. The petitioner submitted a complaint to NHTSA documenting his experience (NHTSA ID 11098055). On August 17, 2018, ODI opened DP18-002 to evaluate the petitioner?s request. ODI?s evaluation included information provided by the petitioner regarding his vehicle, facts related to the class action lawsuit cited by the petitioner, and consumer complaint data received by NHTSA regarding underbody corrosion in third and fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner vehicles.The undercarriage of the petitioner?s vehicle exhibited severe corrosion damage indicative of seawater immersion. The vehicle?s service history shows that concerns with underbody corrosion were first noted by a Toyota dealer in a multi-point vehicle inspection performed on April 28, 2011. The invoice for that inspection noted ?severe and excessive amount of rust on the undercarriage and on the drive shaft transmission.? Two years later, on October 21, 2013, another multi-point inspection by a Toyota dealer observed further progression of underbody corrosion damage, noting: ?rust on shocks/struts and other components,? ?rust on exhaust system,? ?both splash shields severely rusted,? and ?undercarriage very rusty.? On July 17, 2017, approximately 10 months prior to experiencing the suspension failure incident, an independent repair facility performing routine oil change and brake maintenance informed the Petitioner of a concern with ?excessive frame corrosion? on his vehicle. The service history, severe general corrosion damage, failure age, and environment do not support the petitioner?s allegation of premature corrosion failure.ODI?s analysis of NHTSA complaint data identified fifteen incidents of front lower control arm failure in fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner sport utility vehicles. Two of the failures, including the petitioner?s vehicle, involve vehicles operated in ocean front communities with continuous exposure to aerosolized marine salts and potential exposure to seawater immersion. The remaining thirteen failures all involved vehicles owned or previously registered in states with the greatest use of deicing salts to treat road surfaces in winter months (?Salt states?). On average, the front lower control arm failures occurred after 13.1 years in service in highly corrosive environments. The failure ages and environments do not support the petitioner?s allegation of premature corrosion failure. NHTSA is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the Agency?s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. ?? 30102(a)(9), 30118. Since the information before the Agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. Therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. The denial of this petition does not foreclose the Agency from taking further action if warranted or the p