← New search

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 →

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.

12 crash reports2 fire reports9 injury reports

What owners actually said

192 reports
72,000 miles · Oct 21, 2012
Power Train

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

NHTSA ODI #10481316

203,000 miles · Sep 6, 2012
Power Train

AFTER NOTICING A STRONG GEAR OIL ODOR AND SEEING THE ACTUAL GEAR OIL ON THE BACK THE OF THE VEHICLE I WAS ALARMED TO FIND OUT THAT THE REAR AXLE HOUSING HAD RUST PERFORATING THE REAR OF THE HOUSING. ONCE THE HOUSING WAS CHECKED BY A CERTIFIED MECHANIC AND TURNED AWAY DUE TO FEAR OF DESTROYING THE HOUSING, I REMOVED THE VEHICLE …

Read full complaint

AFTER NOTICING A STRONG GEAR OIL ODOR AND SEEING THE ACTUAL GEAR OIL ON THE BACK THE OF THE VEHICLE I WAS ALARMED TO FIND OUT THAT THE REAR AXLE HOUSING HAD RUST PERFORATING THE REAR OF THE HOUSING. ONCE THE HOUSING WAS CHECKED BY A CERTIFIED MECHANIC AND TURNED AWAY DUE TO FEAR OF DESTROYING THE HOUSING, I REMOVED THE VEHICLE FROM THE ROAD. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10474018

116,450 miles · May 20, 2012
Structure

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 DE…

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

44,700 miles · Apr 11, 2012
Power Train

REAR DIFFERENTIAL RUST THROUGH. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10454833

135,000 miles · Nov 28, 2011
Engine And Engine Cooling

ENGINE AT IDLE, LOUD NOISE, WON'T START. AFTER TAKEN APART FOUND 4 CONNECTING RODS AT THE BOTTOM OF OIL PAN. *KB

NHTSA ODI #10437549

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

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 IT EVEN THOU THERE IS A HISTORY OF FRAME FAILURES WITH TOYOTA'S. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10432509

36,000 miles · Aug 25, 2011
Tires

RE: GOODYEAR DUNLOP GRAND TREK TG35 P265/70R16 TIRE. ON AUGUST 19, 2011, I WAS DRIVING ON I-10 IN FL AT APPROXIMATELY 65 MILES PER HOUR. THE CAR SUDDENLY GOT VERY BUMPY AND IN A MATTER OF SECONDS, THE REAR RIGHT TIRE EXPLODED ON MY TOYOTA 4RUNNER. I LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE BUT MANAGED TO FINALLY PULL OFF TO THE SIDE OF …

Read full complaint

RE: GOODYEAR DUNLOP GRAND TREK TG35 P265/70R16 TIRE. ON AUGUST 19, 2011, I WAS DRIVING ON I-10 IN FL AT APPROXIMATELY 65 MILES PER HOUR. THE CAR SUDDENLY GOT VERY BUMPY AND IN A MATTER OF SECONDS, THE REAR RIGHT TIRE EXPLODED ON MY TOYOTA 4RUNNER. I LOST CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE BUT MANAGED TO FINALLY PULL OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE. AFTER EXAMINING THE DAMAGES TO MY VEHICLE, I NOTICED THAT THE TREAD ON THE RIGHT REAR TIRE COMPLETELY SEPARATED ALL THE WAY AROUND THE TIRE. LUCKILY, THE CAR DID NOT FLIP OR COLLIDE WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE. I SUSTAINED PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL INJURIES AND OVER $2000 WORTH OF DAMAGES TO MY CAR AS A RESULT OF THE BLOWOUT. MY CAR ONLY HAS 36K MILES ON IT AND IS ALWAYS KEPT IN THE GARAGE. THE TREAD ON ALL 4 TIRES IS PRACTICALLY BRAND NEW AS IT IS DRIVEN SELDOMLY, WITH REGULAR TIRE ROTATION/BALANCE/MAINTENANCE. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY REASON FOR A TIRE WITH THIS LITTLE WEAR AND TEAR TO EXPLODE THE WAY IT DID. I HAVE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH AND REALIZE THAT THIS COULD HAVE HAD A FAR WORSE OUTCOME, AND THAT THE TIRES ARE INDEED DEFECTIVE. IN ADDITION, MY INSURANCE COMPANY WILL NOT COVER THE EXPENSES OF THE TIRES. NOW I AM FORCED TO REPLACE ALL 4 TIRES OUT OF POCKET FOR FEAR OF THE SAME SCENARIO AND NOT AS LUCKY OF AN OUTCOME IF THIS HAPPENS AGAIN. IN MY RESEARCH, I ALSO SAW THAT NHTSA HAS OPENED AN INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE TREAD SEPARATION PROBLEMS INVOLVING DUNLOP TIRES SOLD AS STANDARD EQUIPMENT ON 1995-1999 NISSAN PATHFINDER SUVS. NHTSA SAYS IT HAS RECEIVED SIX REPORTS OF INJURIES IN TWO ROLLOVER CRASHES THAT WERE BLAMED ON TREAD SEPARATIONS ON THE GRANDTREK TG35 TIRE. I FEEL THAT UNLESS I SUSTAINED LIFE-LONG INJURIES, PARALYSIS, OR DEATH WOULD THE TIRE MANUFACTURER COME FORWARD WITH ANY GOODWILL OR COMPENSATION. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10421520

94,000 miles · Aug 13, 2011
Electrical SystemService Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control

I OWN A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER WITH APPROXIMATELY 94,000 MILES. THE VEHICLE PRIMARY USE IS DRIVING LESS THAN 10 MILES A DAY OFF HIGHWAY. THE FOLLOWING ALARM LIGHTS CAME ON: BRAKE LIGHT, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT, VSC LIGHT, TRAC LIGHT, ABS LIGHT, AND THE SPEEDOMETER QUIT WORKING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO MIKE CALVERT TOYOTA IN HOUSTON…

Read full complaint

I OWN A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER WITH APPROXIMATELY 94,000 MILES. THE VEHICLE PRIMARY USE IS DRIVING LESS THAN 10 MILES A DAY OFF HIGHWAY. THE FOLLOWING ALARM LIGHTS CAME ON: BRAKE LIGHT, CHECK ENGINE LIGHT, VSC LIGHT, TRAC LIGHT, ABS LIGHT, AND THE SPEEDOMETER QUIT WORKING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO MIKE CALVERT TOYOTA IN HOUSTON, TX TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM. THEIR SCANNER WAS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY A CODE FOR THE PROBLEM. THE CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE ADS CONTROL MODULE (SKID CONTROL SENSOR) WAS AT FAULT AND THUS HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE ASSISTANT SERVICE MANAGER, GRANT MILES ADVISED ME NOT TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE UNTIL THE ADS CONTROL MODULE WAS REPLACED. THE COST FOR THE PARTS AND LABOR WAS QUOTED AS $2377.01. IT WOULD TAKE 3 TO 5 BUSINESS DAYS FOR THE PART TO BE ORDERED AND REPLACED. I HAD TO RENT A CAR FROM THE DEALERSHIP BECAUSE OF THE VEHICLE WAS DEEMED UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND BECAUSE OF THE LENGTHY REPAIR TIME. THE COST OF THE RENTAL CAR IS APPROXIMATELY $289.00. BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBLE SAFETY ISSUES WITH THE ADS CONTROL MODULE (SKID CONTROL SENSOR-PART # 8954035270), I AM REGISTERING THIS NOTIFICATION WITH THE NHTSA. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10419300

141,000 miles · Jul 10, 2011
Power Train

2002 4RUNNER SR5 4WD, 141K MILES, COMPLETELY RUSTED THROUGH REAR DIFFERENTIAL, BOTH REAR AXLE SEALS BUSTED OUT, DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING HAS SEVERAL PIN HOLE LEAKS AND IS THINNED OUT, THE ONLY FIX IS A COMPLETELY NEW REAR END, WHICH IS VERY COSTLY, I AM THE 2ND OWNER, I'VE OWNED A 99 4RUNNER THAT HAD THESE SAME REAR DIFFERENTIAL RUS…

Read full complaint

2002 4RUNNER SR5 4WD, 141K MILES, COMPLETELY RUSTED THROUGH REAR DIFFERENTIAL, BOTH REAR AXLE SEALS BUSTED OUT, DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING HAS SEVERAL PIN HOLE LEAKS AND IS THINNED OUT, THE ONLY FIX IS A COMPLETELY NEW REAR END, WHICH IS VERY COSTLY, I AM THE 2ND OWNER, I'VE OWNED A 99 4RUNNER THAT HAD THESE SAME REAR DIFFERENTIAL RUST ISSUES, THE RUST IS RIDICULOUS AND HAS DETERIORATED THE WHOLE UNDERCARRIAGE AND MY 4RUNNER IS GARAGE KEPT AND I WASH IT ALL THE TIME. I CAN'T BELIEVE TOYOTA HAS NOT BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE RUSTING OUT OF REAR DIFFERENTIALS AND REAR AXLE ISSUES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10411676

158,000 miles · Jul 3, 2011
Power Train

THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING HAS RUSTED THROUGH CAUSING ITS OIL TO LEAK OUT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10410344

Official recalls

1

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

1

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