IllustrationTHE FRAME IS ROTTING FROM THE INSIDE OUT
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
Unknown Or Other complaints
30 reportsTHE FRAME OF MY 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER IS COMPLETE RUSTED AND IS DANGEROUS TO BE DRIVING. THE RUST HAS RECENTLY ACCELERATED. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF TOYOTA WILL REPLACE THE FRAME AND STAND BY THERE VEHICLE. IT HAS BEEN METICULOUSLY MAINTAINED INCLUDING THE UNDER CARRIAGE. PHOTO'S CAN BE SUBMITTED AT YOUR REQUEST.
THE FRAME ON MY 4 RUNNER HAS RUSTED AND BROKE IN HALF THEY RECALLED MY 2005 AND 1996 TACOMA AND PUT A NEW FRAME UNDER IT AND IT WAS NOT AS BAD AS MY 4 RUNNER DONT UNDERSTAND
MY 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER FRAME IS ROTTED IN FRONT OF THE REAR PASSANGER WHEEL WELL MEASURING ABOUT 31' INSIDE NEXT TO THE MUFFLER AND DRIVER SIDE REAR BODY MOUNT IT'S STARTING TO RUST THROUGH NOW THE REST IS IN GREAT SHAPE BODY WISE
RUST THROUGH ON THE FRAME.
FRAME AND SOME SUSPENSION PARTS ARE VERY RUSTED, FRAME HAS HOLES AND IS BECOMING UNSAFE TO DRIVE. VEHICLE IS ONLY 13 YEARS OLD, ONLY 100100 MILES. PASSENGER SIDE FRONT SUSPENSION POP'S WHEN STRESSED IN CORNERING. WHEN AT IDLE, YOU CAN HEAR THE VIBRATION FROM RUST CHUNKS IN THE FRAME. ALL HEAT SHIELDS RUSTED. SKID PLATES ON …
Read full complaint
FRAME AND SOME SUSPENSION PARTS ARE VERY RUSTED, FRAME HAS HOLES AND IS BECOMING UNSAFE TO DRIVE. VEHICLE IS ONLY 13 YEARS OLD, ONLY 100100 MILES. PASSENGER SIDE FRONT SUSPENSION POP'S WHEN STRESSED IN CORNERING. WHEN AT IDLE, YOU CAN HEAR THE VIBRATION FROM RUST CHUNKS IN THE FRAME. ALL HEAT SHIELDS RUSTED. SKID PLATES ON FRONT AND FUEL TANK SO RUSTED MUST REMOVE. NOW NOTHING IS PROTECTING THE FUEL TANK.
AFTER BUYING THIS VEHICLE I WAS UNDERNEATH VEHICLE TO REPAIR A AXLE SEAL LEAKING AND FOUND EXTENSIVE FRAME RUST ON PASSENGER REAR OF FRAME. BY EXTENSIVE I MEAN THE FRAME WAS RUSTED COMPLETELY THROUGH! I HAVE LIVED IN OHIO ALL OF MY LIFE AND HAVE NEVER SEEN A VEHICLE WITH THIS MILEAGE AND OF THIS YEAR HAVE SUCH SEVERE FRAME RUS…
Read full complaint
AFTER BUYING THIS VEHICLE I WAS UNDERNEATH VEHICLE TO REPAIR A AXLE SEAL LEAKING AND FOUND EXTENSIVE FRAME RUST ON PASSENGER REAR OF FRAME. BY EXTENSIVE I MEAN THE FRAME WAS RUSTED COMPLETELY THROUGH! I HAVE LIVED IN OHIO ALL OF MY LIFE AND HAVE NEVER SEEN A VEHICLE WITH THIS MILEAGE AND OF THIS YEAR HAVE SUCH SEVERE FRAME RUST! AFTER FURTHER INSPECTION I NOTICED REAR END HOUSING WAS ALSO SEVERELY RUSTED. THE RUST ON THE FRAME IS SEVERELY PERFORATED AT POINT WHERE TRAILING ARM FOR THE REAR END ATTACHES TO THE FRAME! I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS ISSUE BEFORE BUYING VEHICLE BUT AFTER SOME RESEARCH HAVE FOUND THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY A MANUFACTURER DEFECT OF SOME SORT! THESE VEHICLES ARE NOT SAFE TO DRIVE WITH THESE FRAMES IN THIS CONDITION AND TOYOTA IS AWARE OF THIS!
TOOK VEHICLE FOR INSPECTION, WAS TOLD IT NEEDED TO BE WELDED. TOOK IT TOOK A WELDING SHOP, THAT DOES THIS TYPE OF WORK. WE WERE THEN TOLD BY THE GENTLEMEN DOING THE WORK THAT IT WAS THE FRAME UNDER THE VEHICLE AND DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE. BECAUSE HE HAS HEARD OF ISSUES WITH 4RUNNER RUSTING ISSUES AND SAID IT WOULD COST THOUS…
Read full complaint
TOOK VEHICLE FOR INSPECTION, WAS TOLD IT NEEDED TO BE WELDED. TOOK IT TOOK A WELDING SHOP, THAT DOES THIS TYPE OF WORK. WE WERE THEN TOLD BY THE GENTLEMEN DOING THE WORK THAT IT WAS THE FRAME UNDER THE VEHICLE AND DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE. BECAUSE HE HAS HEARD OF ISSUES WITH 4RUNNER RUSTING ISSUES AND SAID IT WOULD COST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO FIX IT. HE KNEW WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FUNDS TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY. WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE WHO SAW A PHOTO OF IT AND STATED JUST FROM THE PICTURES IT WOULD BE OVER $2,000 TO FIX IT. WE FEEL THAT TOYOTA SHOULD RECALL THIS. JUST BECAUSE IT WASN'T MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES THEN IN JAPAN. NOT A HAPPY CUSTOMER.
FRAME HAS EXCESSIVE RUST AND HAS HOLES IN PARTS OF IT. THE REST OF THE BODY AND INTERIOR ARE IN GREAT CONDITION. ENGINE RUNS WELL AND THERE ARE OTHERWISE NO MAJOR MECHANICAL ISSUES. UPON HAVING A MINOR REPAIR DONE, INSPECTION SHOWED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE WITH THE FRAME IN THAT CONDITION AS IT IS ABOUT TO CRACK IN…
Read full complaint
FRAME HAS EXCESSIVE RUST AND HAS HOLES IN PARTS OF IT. THE REST OF THE BODY AND INTERIOR ARE IN GREAT CONDITION. ENGINE RUNS WELL AND THERE ARE OTHERWISE NO MAJOR MECHANICAL ISSUES. UPON HAVING A MINOR REPAIR DONE, INSPECTION SHOWED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE WITH THE FRAME IN THAT CONDITION AS IT IS ABOUT TO CRACK IN HALF. THIS SEEMS TO BE PREMATURELY FAILING COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE VEHICLE.
THE ENTIRE FRAME AND OTHER PARTS OF THE UNDERBODY ARE RUSTED. THE BRAKES BOTH FRONT AND BACK WERE ALSO RUSTED. I PULLED OFF FROM THE HIGHWAY AND STOPPED TO PICKUP MY DOGS. WHEN I TRIED TO LEAVE MY BRAKES WERE GONE. WHEN THE CAR WAS TOWED TO MY MECHANIC HE SAID BOTH FRONT AND REAR BRAKE LINES WERE RUSTED THROUGH AND HAD TO BE REP…
Read full complaint
THE ENTIRE FRAME AND OTHER PARTS OF THE UNDERBODY ARE RUSTED. THE BRAKES BOTH FRONT AND BACK WERE ALSO RUSTED. I PULLED OFF FROM THE HIGHWAY AND STOPPED TO PICKUP MY DOGS. WHEN I TRIED TO LEAVE MY BRAKES WERE GONE. WHEN THE CAR WAS TOWED TO MY MECHANIC HE SAID BOTH FRONT AND REAR BRAKE LINES WERE RUSTED THROUGH AND HAD TO BE REPLACED. I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED. HE ALSO SAID THAT THE FRAME IS RUSTED AND IS DANGEROUS TO DRIVE. I AM AFRAID TO DRIVE THIS CAR. *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