IllustrationFRAME RUSTED OUT IN THE REAR SUSPENSION
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
What owners actually said
192 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER. WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH, THE CONTACT REAR ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED UPPER AND LOWER BACK INJURIES THAT REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPEN…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER. WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH, THE CONTACT REAR ENDED ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED UPPER AND LOWER BACK INJURIES THAT REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR BODY REPAIR, BUT THE AIR BAG FAILURE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED. THE LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
FRAME DETERIORATION.
WHILE TRAVELING ON A HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE RIGHT REAR TIRE (FIRESTONE DESTINATION LE2 265/70R16; MANUFACTURED APRIL 2015; APPROX. 19,500 MILES ON THE TIRE) ABRUPTLY UNDERWENT COMPLETE TREAD SEPARATION. (SEE PHOTO). ALL FOUR TIRES WERE PROPERLY INFLATED PER TOYOTA'S SPECIFICATIONS. FORTUNATELY, THE STABILITY CONTRO…
Read full complaint
WHILE TRAVELING ON A HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, THE RIGHT REAR TIRE (FIRESTONE DESTINATION LE2 265/70R16; MANUFACTURED APRIL 2015; APPROX. 19,500 MILES ON THE TIRE) ABRUPTLY UNDERWENT COMPLETE TREAD SEPARATION. (SEE PHOTO). ALL FOUR TIRES WERE PROPERLY INFLATED PER TOYOTA'S SPECIFICATIONS. FORTUNATELY, THE STABILITY CONTROL KEPT THE VEHICLE FROM CRASHING. EVEN THOUGH THE TIRE WAS CLEARLY DEFECTIVE, FIRESTONE DECLINED TO ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY AND I WAS FORCED TO PAY FULL PRICE FOR ANOTHER TIRE. I CERTAINLY WONDER ABOUT THE OTHER THREE TIRES AND WHETHER THEY'RE SIMILARLY DEFECTIVE.
FRAME RUSTED OUT, SIMILAR TO TACOMA PICK UP TRUCKS RECALL. ADDITIONALLY CLIMATE CONTROL HEATING, COOLING, FAN DEFECTIVE, POWER ANTENNA IN-OPERABLE.
TAKATA RECALL: I WAS DRIVING ON. FREEEWAY (5) FREEWAY AND BALL JOINTS BUSTED OFF AND LOST WHEEL AND SLID ABOUT 60 FEET BEFORE STOPING. BUSTED BREAK LINE AND BENT CONTROL JOINT.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE TECHNICIAN OBSERVED THAT THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE WAS RUSTED OUT AND COULD NOT BE REPAIRED. A LOCAL DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE TECHNICIAN OBSERVED THAT THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE WAS RUSTED OUT AND COULD NOT BE REPAIRED. A LOCAL DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN.
AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY IN TOTAL LOSS ACCIDENT. SENSOR WAS DAMAGED, YET DID NOT DEPLOY THE AIRBAG TOYOTA COMPANY WOULD NOT GIVE THE MAKE AND NAME OF THE AIRBAG
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER. THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE MAIN FRAME WAS RUSTING ON THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, BUT WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE DEALER WAS NOT CONTACTED ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 209,000.
I WAS AT A FULL STOP, BEHIND A LINE OF CARS, AT A RED LIGHT, ON A CITY STREET. A JEEP LIBERTY SUV REAR-ENDED ME AT APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, PUSHING ME INTO THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME, AND TOTALING MY VEHICLE. MY SHOULDER BELT DID NOT LOCK IN PLACE, CAUSING ME TO HIT, AND CRACK, THE WINDSHIELD, WITH THE LEFT FRONTAL ASPECT OF MY SKULL, …
Read full complaint
I WAS AT A FULL STOP, BEHIND A LINE OF CARS, AT A RED LIGHT, ON A CITY STREET. A JEEP LIBERTY SUV REAR-ENDED ME AT APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, PUSHING ME INTO THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME, AND TOTALING MY VEHICLE. MY SHOULDER BELT DID NOT LOCK IN PLACE, CAUSING ME TO HIT, AND CRACK, THE WINDSHIELD, WITH THE LEFT FRONTAL ASPECT OF MY SKULL, RESULTING IN A CONCUSSION. THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE THAT RAN INTO ME, WAS TAKEN BY AMBULANCE TO THE HOSPITAL. WHILE MY CAR WAS AT THE COLLISION REPAIR CENTER, BEFORE IT WAS TAKEN TO SALVAGE, I WENT TO GATHER MY BELONGINGS THAT WERE INSIDE MY 4RUNNER. AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER SERVICE MANAGER, I REPEATEDLY TESTED BOTH THE DRIVER, AND FRONT PASSENGER SHOULDER BELTS, BY ABRUPTLY AND RAPIDLY PULLING ON THEM. THE DRIVER SIDE BELT ONLY LOCKED IN PLACE ONCE, DURING APPROXIMATELY 10 TRIALS. THE PASSENGER SHOULDER BELT LOCKED IN PLACE EVERY TIME.
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