← New search

2002 Toyota Prerunner

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Limited comparison data

There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Prerunner years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

Limited mileage data: 4 of 6 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.

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.

  • Power Train. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Seat Belts. Review the 2 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Structure. Review the 2 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

1 crash reports0 fire reports1 injury reports

Structure complaints

2 reports
Clear category filter
81,859 miles · Oct 6, 2013
Structure

I HAD MY VEHICLE IN FOR SERVICE ON 30 SEPTEMBER 2013 AT WHICH TIME THE VEHICLE FRAME WAS INSPECTED AND DETERMINED TO HAVE PERFORATIONS DUE TO RUST. TOYOTA INFORMED ME THAT THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND THAT THEY WOULD NOT REPAIR/REPLACE THE FRAME BECAUSE I HAD NOT HAD RUST PROOFING APPLIED DURING A CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM…

Read full complaint

I HAD MY VEHICLE IN FOR SERVICE ON 30 SEPTEMBER 2013 AT WHICH TIME THE VEHICLE FRAME WAS INSPECTED AND DETERMINED TO HAVE PERFORATIONS DUE TO RUST. TOYOTA INFORMED ME THAT THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND THAT THEY WOULD NOT REPAIR/REPLACE THE FRAME BECAUSE I HAD NOT HAD RUST PROOFING APPLIED DURING A CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM THAT BEGAN IN LATE 2008 AND ENDED SEPTEMBER 2011. THE PURPOSE OF THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM WAS TO INSPECT THE FRAME OF THE TRUCK AND REPLACE IT IF RUST CAUSED PERFORATIONS OR TO APPLY RUST COATING IF IT PASSED INSPECTION. I NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM. HOWEVER, BY CHANCE, I DID HAVE THE FRAME INSPECTED BY TOYOTA ON NOVEMBER 25, 2009 AT WHICH TIME THE FRAME PASSED INSPECTION, BUT TOYOTA FAILED TO APPLY THE REQUIRED RUST PROOF COATING OR TO INFORM ME OF THE ONGOING CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM. HAD I KNOWN ABOUT THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM, I WOULD HAVE DEMANDED TOYOTA APPLY THE COATING. SUBSEQUENTLY, I HAD MY TRUCK IN FOR MAINTENANCE AT TOYOTA ON APRIL 7, 2010 AND MAY 24, 2010 AT WHICH TIME THEY ONCE AGAIN DID NOT INFORM ME OF THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM. TOYOTA HAD THREE CHANCES TO INFORM ME OF THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM WHILE I HAD MY VEHICLE IN FOR MAINTENANCE AND THEY DID NOT DO SO. NOW I HAVE A TRUCK THAT IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND THAT I CAN'T GET REPAIRED BECAUSE TOYOTA BLAMES ME FOR NOT ADHERING TO THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM RULES OF WHICH I NEVER HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE. TOYOTA HAD MY CURRENT ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM AND NEVER BOTHERED TO NOTIFY ME. IN MY OPINION, THEY DID NOT DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE IN INFORMING CUSTOMERS OF THE PROGRAM AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO REPLACE THE FRAME ON THE TRUCKS. I DID FILE A CUSTOMER COMPLAINT WITH TOYOTA BUT THEY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY ASSISTANCE IN REPAIRING MY TRUCK. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10546948

104,000 miles · Sep 14, 2013
Seat BeltsStructureSuspension

I RECEIVED NOTICE FROM TOYOTA OF POSSIBLE EXCESSIVE FRAME RUST YEARS AGO . (ABOUT 2007) I DID THE INSPECTION MYSELF AND THOUGHT FRAME WAS GOOD. DID NOT TAKE TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION . IN SEPTEMBER OF 2013 I FIND OUT THAT TOYOTA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AND I MISSED THE DEADLINE. I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT SINCE IT WAS NOT A NHTSA ISSUE…

Read full complaint

I RECEIVED NOTICE FROM TOYOTA OF POSSIBLE EXCESSIVE FRAME RUST YEARS AGO . (ABOUT 2007) I DID THE INSPECTION MYSELF AND THOUGHT FRAME WAS GOOD. DID NOT TAKE TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION . IN SEPTEMBER OF 2013 I FIND OUT THAT TOYOTA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AND I MISSED THE DEADLINE. I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT SINCE IT WAS NOT A NHTSA ISSUED RECALL, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT A EXPIRATION DATE ON THE RECALL . THE BOTTOM LINE IS I GOOFED UP . BUT THERE STILL EXISTED THOUSANDS OF TACOMAS AND TUNDRAS ON THE ROADS TODAY THAT ARE A HAZARD TO THE DRIVER AND ALL OTHERS AROUND THEM . WHY DIDN'T THE NHTSA ISSUE A MANDATORY RECALL ? *TR

NHTSA ODI #10543571

Official recalls

0

No recalls in this snapshot.

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

0

No exact-year investigations in this snapshot.