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 reports

Clear category filter

110,000 miles · Dec 3, 2013

Structure

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME AND UNDERCARRIAGE WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 110,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 110,500.

NHTSA ODI #10554604

113,000 miles · Sep 30, 2013

Power TrainStructure

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

NHTSA ODI #10546324

Mileage unknown · Jul 22, 2013

Structure

FRAME RUSTED THROUGH AT LOWER CONTROL ARM AREA. TOYOTA HAS HAD RECALLS FOR OTHER MODELS FOR RUSTED FRAMES BUT NOT ACKNOWLEDGING 4RUNNER FRAME ISSUES THAT ARE DANGEROUS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10526253

Mileage unknown · Dec 30, 2012

StructureVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury

Read full complaint

I HAVE ALREADY FILED A SAFETY COMPLAINT REGARDING MY SUDDEN ACCELERATION ACCIDENT APPROXIMATELY 4 YEARS AGO. I NOTICED THAT TOYOTA HAS ISSUED A RECALL FOR THIS PROBLEM FOR TOYOTA 4RUNNERS GOING BACK TO 2003. MY VEHICLE IS A 2002. BASICALLY, I'M WRITING TO URGE NHTSA TO ASKTOYOTA WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE GAS PEDAL ASSEMBLY FROM 2003 TO 2002 BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT THERE WAS A MAJOR MALFUNCTION WITH MY CAR AND IF THE ASSEMBLE & PARTS MANUFACTURES IS THE SAME FROM 03 TO 02 THEN THE RECALL SHOULD BE EXTENDED. ALSO, THE OTHER MAIN REASON I'M WRITING YOU IS SO THAT THERE IS A RECORD OF ME REQUESTING MY VEHICLE BE INCLUDED IN THE RECALL SO THAT WAY IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO ME AGAIN WE WILL HAVE A RECORD OF IT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10490505

116,450 miles · May 20, 2012

Structure

Read full complaint

I HAVE A 2002 TOYOTA SR5 4RUNNER WITH EXTREME FRAME ROT FRAME THE INSIDE OUT. EXPERTS AGREE THAT I HAVE ONLY A YEAR OR TWO LEFT WITH THIS FRAME. I HAVE HAD REPAIRS TO PASS INSPECTION BUT THIS IS ONLY A BAND AID. I UNDERSTAND THAT I LIVE IN A STATE WHERE ROAD SALT IS USED, BUT TO HAVE THE FRAME ROT FROM THE INSIDE OUT SHOWS A DESIGN FLAW OR INFERIOR STEEL USED FRO THE FRAME, POSSIBLY INADEQUATE CORROSION PROTECTION. JUST A BAD SCENARIO NOT WHICH WAY YOU PUT IT. ROT FROM THE INSIDE OUT IS JUST UNACCEPTABLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10459039

148,138 miles · Oct 23, 2011

Structure

MY 2002 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER THAT IS IN EXCELLENT BODY AND RUNNING CONDITION WAS IN FOR A ROUTINE SERVICE AND THE DEALER TOLD US THE FRAME HAD A HOLE IN IT AND IT WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE, IT WAS INSPECTED BY TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF TOYOTA WHO SAID THAT IT IS NOT A WARRANTY ISSUE AND THERE ARE NO "PROGRAMS' AND THEY WOULD DO NOTHING ABOUT …

Read full complaint

NHTSA ODI #10432509

39,000 miles · Oct 15, 2009

Structure

LARGE AMOUNT OF RUST ON THE UNDERBODY, GAS TANK SHIELD AND FRONT BRAKES. JUST PURCHASED THIS VEHICLE USED WITH 39K MILES AND HAVE BEEN FINDING LOST OF CORROSION. TRIED TO USE RUST REMOVER AND NEUTRALIZER AND WIRE BRUSH. HOPE I CAN GET IT UNDER CONTROL BEFORE THE ENTIRE THING FALLS APART. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10288606

Mileage unknown · Oct 15, 2009

Structure

Read full complaint

I HAVE A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER. IT'S UNDER MY WIFE'S NAME BUT I AM THE ONE THAT'S IN CHARGE OF AUTOMOTIVE ISSUES. THE BUMPERS HAVE BEEN HANGING DOWN ON THE FRONT AND REAR. AS I DRIVE AROUND THE CITY, I'VE STARTED TO NOTICE MAJORITY OF THE 4RUNNERS IN THE SAME MODEL HAVING THE SAME ISSUE. THIS MAKES ME THINK THAT THERE IS A DEFECT. I BELIEVE IT'S A SAFETY DEFECT ESPECIALLY SINCE BUMPERS ARE NOT JUST FOR COSMETIC REASONS, ITS HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN A CRASH SITUATION. IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE IT IS ALSO LINKED TO THE AIRBAG SENSORS AND I AM AFRAID THAT IT MAY GO OFF AT ANY TIME. I'VE GONE ON FORUMS AND FOUND THAT OTHERS TALK ABOUT THIS ALSO. THEY ALSO TALK ABOUT RUSTING AROUND THE BUMPER AREA WHICH IS SOMETHING I HAVE ON MY 4RUNNER ALSO. I HOPE YOUR DEPARTMENT LOOKS INTO THIS MATTER THOROUGHLY AND GET BACK TO ME ABOUT IT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10287464

Official recalls

05V225000 · 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

DP18002 · 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