REAR DIFFERENTIAL HAS RUSTED THROUGH, THE WHOLE THING HAS TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE THERE IS NO SEPARATE COVER THE REPAIR COST MAY BE HIGH. *TR
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
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.
Power Train complaints
29 reports4 WHEEL DRIVE WOULD NOT WORK. VCS LITES AND CHECK ENGINE LITES ON. CAR ENGINE FILLED WITH BLACK SMOKE AND WAS TOWED TO REPAIR SHOP. DETAILS: DROVE ON FREEWAY AND LOST TRACTION AND THAN ON SHOULDER WITH ABOVE PROBLEM. DIFFERENTIAL REPAIRED. TWO DAYS LATER LITES ON AGAIN AND OIL LEAK. *TR
I FILED A NHTSA COMPLAINT (ODI NUMBER 10569206 WAS ASSIGNED) ON 13 MARCH 2014 ABOUT THIS VEHICLE. ON 14 MARCH 2014, I TOOK MY 4RUNNER TO MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AFTER CONTACTING TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE AND LOGGING A COMPLAINT ( CASE NUMBER [XXX] ) WITH THEM ON THE 14TH OF MARCH 2014 AT THEIR OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA AND THE CUST…
Read full complaint
I FILED A NHTSA COMPLAINT (ODI NUMBER 10569206 WAS ASSIGNED) ON 13 MARCH 2014 ABOUT THIS VEHICLE. ON 14 MARCH 2014, I TOOK MY 4RUNNER TO MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AFTER CONTACTING TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE AND LOGGING A COMPLAINT ( CASE NUMBER [XXX] ) WITH THEM ON THE 14TH OF MARCH 2014 AT THEIR OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA AND THE CUSTOMER SERVICE REP TELLING ME DOCUMENTATION OF THE ISSUE AT MY DEALERSHIP WOULD HELP ME. THIS VEHICLE WAS BOUGHT IN NY AND REMAINED UP NORTH FOR 10 YEARS AND ACCORDING TO EMERSON TOYOTA AUBURN, ME RECORDS AT 85,199 MILES ON 07/11/2012. SERVICE ADVISER, [XXX] CONDITION1 AT 85,199 MILES . USED CAR PREP. VEHICLE BEING WHOLESALED PER RICH. NEEDS ENGINE LIGHT ON, A/C INOP, REAR AXLE HOUSING VERY RUSTED AND CRACKED, HOOD LATCH INOP, RADIATOR LEAKING, FRAME IS SOFT. IT HAD 85,404 MILES WHEN IT CAME TO FLORIDA ON 07 SEPTEMBER 2012 MY 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER SR5 WITH ONLY 112109 MILES AT COGGIN TOYOTA AT THE AVENUES DEALERSHIP ON PHILIPS HWY IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA AT 12:20PM ON 14 MARCH 2014 MY COMPLAINT AT THE DEALERSHIP ON 14 MARCH 20014 AT 12:20.........CUSTOMER STATES REAR SUBFRAME IS RUSTED. CHECK AND ADVISE. THEIR FINDINGS AT 12:55PM ON 14 MARCH 2014... CASE NUMBER [XXX], FOUND SEVERE FRAME RUST, HOLES IN FRAME ON RIGHT SIDE, HOLES RUSTED THROUGH FRAME BY GAS TANK ON LEFT SIDE.HOLES RUSTED THROUGH GAS TANK AND LEAKING FUEL. UPPER REAR TRACK BAR BRACKET RUSTED OFF OF REAR END HOUSING, REAR SHOCKS RUSTED OFF. FRONT BRAKE ROTOR BACKING PLATES RUSTED THROUGH. THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE DUE TO FUEL LEAK AND EXTREME RUST THROUGH OF FRAME. I WANT THIS VEHICLE FRAME AND AXLE FIXED OR BOUGHT BACK BY TOYOTA. A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP IN AUBURN, ME KNEW OF THIS PROBLEM ALMOST 2 YEARS AGO AND SENT IT OUT THE DOOR. TOTALLY UNSATISFACTORY. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
VEHICLE FRAME, FRONT & REAR BUMPERS AND UNDERCARRIAGE HAVE EXCESSIVE / UNSAFE RUST CORROSION. *TR
REAR AXLE ASSEMBLY ROT! NOW LEAKING ON REAR NON REPLACEABLE YOKE COVER. 1800-2000 DOLLAR FIX. TO MAKE THINGS WORSE AXLE ASSEMBLY HAS NO TAGS!!!! TOLD BY DEALER DOOR TAGS ARE OFTEN WRONG SO ORDERING RECYCLED (IF YOU CAN FIND ONE IN BETTER SHAPE) IS A GAMBLE!!!! HAS BEEN A DEPENDABLE TRUCK OTHER WISE BUT NOW IT SEEMS AS THOUGH…
Read full complaint
REAR AXLE ASSEMBLY ROT! NOW LEAKING ON REAR NON REPLACEABLE YOKE COVER. 1800-2000 DOLLAR FIX. TO MAKE THINGS WORSE AXLE ASSEMBLY HAS NO TAGS!!!! TOLD BY DEALER DOOR TAGS ARE OFTEN WRONG SO ORDERING RECYCLED (IF YOU CAN FIND ONE IN BETTER SHAPE) IS A GAMBLE!!!! HAS BEEN A DEPENDABLE TRUCK OTHER WISE BUT NOW IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THEY ARE PROFITING FROM THERE DESIGN FLAWS. *TR
(THERE WAS NO CATEGORY OFFERED FOR FRAME). DURING A RECENT AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE FOR BRAKES ON 9-26-13 FOR MY 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER, I WAS NOTIFIED OF A RUST PERFORATION IN THE FRAME BODY NEAR A REAR SUPPORT MOUNT FOR THE AXLE MAKING IT UNSAFE FOR OPERATION. THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE RUST FORMS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE FRAME AND WO…
Read full complaint
(THERE WAS NO CATEGORY OFFERED FOR FRAME). DURING A RECENT AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE FOR BRAKES ON 9-26-13 FOR MY 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER, I WAS NOTIFIED OF A RUST PERFORATION IN THE FRAME BODY NEAR A REAR SUPPORT MOUNT FOR THE AXLE MAKING IT UNSAFE FOR OPERATION. THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE RUST FORMS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE FRAME AND WORKS ITS WAY OUT DESTROYING THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE VEHICLE. IT SEEMS THE SERVICE TECHNICIAN USED TO WORK AT A TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AND KNEW EXACTLY WHERE TO LOOK FROM HIS PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER 4RUNNER FAILURES. THE TOYOTA DEALER INFORMED THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE COVERED. MY ?02 4RUNNER IS FROM THE SAME GENERATION (3RD) AND OF SIMILAR DESIGN TO THE TACOMA THAT WAS RECALLED FOR THIS THE DEALER INSTRUCTED ME TO CONTACT THE TORRANCE, CA TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE AS HIS DEALERSHIP WOULD BE UNABLE TO ASSIST IN ANYWAY. IT WAS CLEAR THEY HAD ENCOUNTERED THIS BEFORE. THROUGH DISCUSSION WITH TOYOTA CA THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF PROVIDING ANY MEANS OF RELIEF FOR A KNOWN AND WELL DOCUMENTED SAFETY PROBLEM. ONE REP DID COMMENT THAT THE TUNDRA AND SEQUOIA HAD BEEN RECENTLY ADDED TO THE RECALL BUT THE 4RUNNER WAS ?NOT YET? ON THE RECALL LIST. IT SEEMS TOYOTA VIEWS THE PRODUCTS TO BE DIFFERENT DUE TO THE BODY STYLE DIFFERENCES OR US VS JAPANESE BUILT PRODUCTS. THEY ALSO CLEARLY HAVE NO INTENTION TO ESCALATE INTERNALLY. I WAS INSTRUCTED TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH NHTSA AND NTSB. RESEARCH ON LINE SHOWS THAT THERE IS A VERY WIDESPREAD ISSUE THAT TOYOTA IS CLEARLY CHOOSING TO IGNORE. WEB INFORMATION SUGGESTS THAT COLD CLIMATE AND THE AXLE BRACKET IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE EXHAUST, ARE PRIMARY FACTORS. HOW CAN YOU RECALL ONE MODEL FOR A RUSTED FRAME DUE TO SAFETY BUT NOT ANOTHER? PERSONAL PHOTOS AVAILABLE. HUGE NUMBERS OF PHOTOS AND REPORTS AVAILABLE ONLINE - SEARCH " RUSTED FRAME 4RUNNER" OR SIMILAR. *TR
2002 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE GAS PEDAL MALFUNCTION. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED AFTER STOPPING AT A STOP SIGN, HE ATTEMPTED TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT MOVE. AFTER SEVERAL TRIPS TO THE DEALER, THE PROBLEM WAS FIXED. HOWEVER, THE CONSUMER DID STATE WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS.
THE DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING IS RUSTING OUT AND IS SEEPING FLUID. IN ADDITION, THE FRAME IS DANGEROUSLY RUSTED, ESPECIALLY FROM THE REAR AXLE BACK. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY A VERY REPUTABLE BODY SHOP IN THE AREA, THAT THE FRAME NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, BUT DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF THE RUST, THIS IS NOT PRACTICAL. TOYOTA IS REPLACING FRAMES …
Read full complaint
THE DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING IS RUSTING OUT AND IS SEEPING FLUID. IN ADDITION, THE FRAME IS DANGEROUSLY RUSTED, ESPECIALLY FROM THE REAR AXLE BACK. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY A VERY REPUTABLE BODY SHOP IN THE AREA, THAT THE FRAME NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, BUT DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF THE RUST, THIS IS NOT PRACTICAL. TOYOTA IS REPLACING FRAMES ON THEIR TUNDRA PICKUPS DUE TO RUST, BUT REFUSES TO COVER 4RUNNERS, THOUGH THEY SHARE THE SAME FRAME. IF I DID NOT HAVE THE VEHICLE SERVICED BY THE DEALER REGULARLY, I WOULD BE UNAWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE FRAME. *TR
RECENTLY PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE AND STARTED CLEANING IT, AFTER I DROVE IT HOME AND PRESSURE WASHED UNDERCARRIAGE, PIECES OF THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL STARTED FLYING OFF AND GEAR OIL STARTED RUNNING OUT OF HOLES. I HAVE A 1971 DODGE CHALLENGER WITH ORIGINAL REAR END THAT HAS NEVER BEEN IN GARAGE AND HAVE NEVER SEEN A REAREND RUST LIK…
Read full complaint
RECENTLY PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE AND STARTED CLEANING IT, AFTER I DROVE IT HOME AND PRESSURE WASHED UNDERCARRIAGE, PIECES OF THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL STARTED FLYING OFF AND GEAR OIL STARTED RUNNING OUT OF HOLES. I HAVE A 1971 DODGE CHALLENGER WITH ORIGINAL REAR END THAT HAS NEVER BEEN IN GARAGE AND HAVE NEVER SEEN A REAREND RUST LIKE THIS. I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT HOW STRONG THE AXLE HOUSING STRUCTURE IS AND IF IT COULD POSSIBLE BREAK IN HALF WHILE DRIVING VEHICLE. *TR
MY 4RUNNER HAS 72000 MILES ON IT, AND I JUST REALIZED THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING HAS RUSTED THROUGH. THE METAL IS SO THIN THAT THE FLUID IS LEAKING OUT THROUGH THE POURS OF THE METAL. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND THEY SAID IT WOULD COST 3000$+ TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE REAR END. THERE IS NO OTHER RUST UNDER THE VEHICLE EXCEPT FOR…
Read full complaint
MY 4RUNNER HAS 72000 MILES ON IT, AND I JUST REALIZED THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING HAS RUSTED THROUGH. THE METAL IS SO THIN THAT THE FLUID IS LEAKING OUT THROUGH THE POURS OF THE METAL. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND THEY SAID IT WOULD COST 3000$+ TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE REAR END. THERE IS NO OTHER RUST UNDER THE VEHICLE EXCEPT FOR THE PUMPKIN HOUSING. AFTER LOOKING AROUND ON THE INTERNET I FOUND THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM, OF THE HOUSING NOT ONLY BEING TOO THIN OF METAL FOR THE APPLICATION, BUT LOW QUALITY STEEL THAT'S PRONE TO CORROSION. *TR
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
Illustration