IllustrationMileage unknown · Jul 13, 2023
StructureUnknown Or Other
Frame rot
NHTSA ODI #11531971
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
Structure complaints
88 reportsFrame rot
The contact owns a 2002 Toyota 4Runner. The contact stated that while inspecting underneath the vehicle, he noticed that there was a hole in the subframe and that the subframe and sway bar were corroded. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was not made aware of the fai…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2002 Toyota 4Runner. The contact stated that while inspecting underneath the vehicle, he noticed that there was a hole in the subframe and that the subframe and sway bar were corroded. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 160,000.
Frame is excessively rusted. The recall that already exists for this issue only covers certain frames from Japan made with this steel. However, the same frames were imported to America and a large percentage of 4Runners were made with the same steel and didn’t receive a recall. Mine is one of them.
The contact owns a 2002 Toyota 4Runner. The contact stated that while driving 60 MPH through a slight right curve, the vehicle independently shifted from side to side without warning nearly causing the vehicle to flip. The contact had an independent mechanic inspect the vehicle and the mechanic discovered severe corrosion throug…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2002 Toyota 4Runner. The contact stated that while driving 60 MPH through a slight right curve, the vehicle independently shifted from side to side without warning nearly causing the vehicle to flip. The contact had an independent mechanic inspect the vehicle and the mechanic discovered severe corrosion throughout the entire subframe of the vehicle. The mechanic informed him that the entire subframe needed to be replaced to ensure safe driving. Neither the dealer nor the manufacturer had been notified of the failure. The vehicle had yet to be repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 115,000.
Premature rusted frame throughout, vehicle is garaged and well maintained 117,000 miles on my 2002 Toyota 4Runner. Auto body specialist estimates $3k-$4k to restore, at least.
Frame and rear passenger control arm bracket, rotted out .only there, 2 nd time this has happened, same spot but on my previous 2001 4runner
Had vehicle inspected on Oct. 1 ,2021 for road trip to North Carolina from Washington, DC. Was informed that my vehicle is unsafe by the automotive shop (name withheld) due to [rusting] frame front suspension components' threads rusted off on bolts that hold suspension, control arms, and shocks on both front and rear areas + bo…
Read full complaint
Had vehicle inspected on Oct. 1 ,2021 for road trip to North Carolina from Washington, DC. Was informed that my vehicle is unsafe by the automotive shop (name withheld) due to [rusting] frame front suspension components' threads rusted off on bolts that hold suspension, control arms, and shocks on both front and rear areas + body of vehicle located where shocks bolt to the body. I also had two other shops (names withheld) assess the state of the frame and suspension + and was told that the vehicle has maybe 1 year or so until the frame falls apart. Given I am the original owner, have gargage-kept my vehicle, have very low-mileage - 74,000 miles, and have maintained the vehicle immaculately and am aware of rusting problems with other Toyota [truck] frames, etc. this seems to be a defect in the manufacturing process. I know there have been recalls on Toyota's other trucks due to Toyota's failure to add [enough?] rust inhibitor/preventative to the molten steel when forming the frame for many models of their trucks.
The contact owns a 2002 Toyota 4Runner. The contact stated that while receiving routine maintenance repair on the vehicle, the independent mechanic informed the contact that the subframe was rusted. The dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The approximate failu…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2002 Toyota 4Runner. The contact stated that while receiving routine maintenance repair on the vehicle, the independent mechanic informed the contact that the subframe was rusted. The dealer was not contacted. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 136,000.
After having my 4 runner in for routine maintenance, my mechanic informed me that my frame was in bad condition and rusting through. Doubtful it has a year left and he advised me to junk it as fast as I can. 180;000 miles - so much for Toyota’s lasting a long time.
FRAME IS SHOWING EXCESSIVE RUST ALL OVER, A KNOWN PROBLEMS WITH 4RUNNERS AND TOYOTA TRUCKS. AUTO REPAIR SHOP SAYS VEHICLE PROBABLY HAS ONLY 1 YEAR OF LIFE LEFT BEFORE UNSAFE AND UNDRIVABLE. CAR HAS ONLY 100000 MILES ON IT, 1998 4RUNNER WE HAD MADE IT TO 250000 MILES- UNACCEPTABLE.
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