RoadVitals

2002 Toyota 4Runner

Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data

Data refreshed

Owner complaintsComplaints are reports submitted to NHTSA by owners and drivers. NHTSA does not verify most reports before publishing them, and a complaint does not establish that a defect exists. Volume is influenced by how many of a vehicle were sold, how long it has been on the road, and how much attention an issue has received.
224
Latest Jun 17, 2024
Safety recallsA safety recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle has a safety-related defect or does not comply with a federal motor vehicle safety standard. Recall repairs are free. Whether a specific vehicle is covered depends on its VIN — a recall listed for a model year does not necessarily apply to every vehicle of that year.
3
Latest May 24, 2006
InvestigationsNHTSA opens an investigation to examine whether a safety defect may exist. An open investigation is not a determination that a defect exists, and many investigations close without a recall. Investigations can, however, lead to one.
1
Crash or fire reportedComplaints whose submitter recorded that a crash or a fire occurred. These are the reporter's own answers on the NHTSA form, not verified findings.
22
20 injuries, 0 deaths reported

Overview

Our database contains 224 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2002 Toyota 4Runner, most frequently naming the body & structure, suspension and powertrain (other) categories. 3 safety recalls have been issued covering this model year; 1 NHTSA investigation names it; and 107 manufacturer communications are on file.

Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.

What owners report

Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded

Percentages are of component mentions. A single complaint can name more than one component, so these do not sum to the total complaint count.

Safety recalls

3 campaigns cover this model year

Recalls apply to specific vehicles, not to every vehicle of a model year. Check your VIN with NHTSA or your manufacturer's dealer to confirm whether a recall affects your vehicle.

Check a VIN on NHTSA.gov

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

May 24, 2006
27,176 units potentially affected
The defect: CERTAIN CK MOTORSPORTS COMBINATION HEADLIGHTS, CLEAR CORNER, BUMPER, AND SIDE MARKER LIGHTS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON THE PASSENGER VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION LAMPS THAT ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
The risk: WITHOUT THE AMBER REFLECTORS, THE VEHICLE WILL BE POORLY ILLUMINATED, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN A VEHICLE CRASH WITHOUT WARNING.
The remedy: CK MOTORSPORT WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND REPLACE THE NONCOMPLIANT LAMPS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 1, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT CK MOTORSPORT AT 1-909-610-7211.
CK MOTORSPORT, INC.View on NHTSA.gov

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

Mar 23, 2006
61,944 units potentially affected
The defect: CERTAIN PRO-A MOTORS CORNER LAMPS, TURN SIGNALS, AND HEADLIGHTS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION LAMPS THAT ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
The risk: WITHOUT THE AMBER REFLECTORS, THE VEHICLE WILL BE POORLY ILLUMINATED, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN A VEHICLE CRASH WITHOUT WARNING.
The remedy: PRO-A MOTORS WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND OFFER TO REPURCHASE THE LAMPS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 3, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT PRO-A MOTORS AT 323-838-2988.
PRO-A MOTORS, INC.View on NHTSA.gov

SUSPENSION:FRONT:CONTROL ARM:LOWER BALL JOINT

May 17, 2005
768,379 units potentially affected
The defect: 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.
The risk: THE LOWER BALL JOINT MAY SEPARATE FROM THE KNUCKLE CAUSING LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL AND A CRASH COULD OCCUR.
The 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.
TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.Manufacturer number 50JView on NHTSA.gov

Safety investigations

NHTSA inquiries naming this vehicle. An investigation is not a finding of a defect.

DP18002ClosedDefect Petition

Frame corrosion

Opened Aug 17, 2018
Closed Mar 18, 2022

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

STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS

Recent owner complaints

Reports submitted to NHTSA, shown in the owner's own words

Tires & wheels
Filed Jun 17, 2024

THIS IS FOR TIRE SIZE P265 75 16. To start, I've seen multiple other complaints describing the same scenario and type of incident. Driving along the highway at appropriate speeds, I hear a whoosh/deep pitch rumble, then my vehicle began to vibrate violently. I was luckily able to pull over but had to swerve to regain control of my vehicle once the rumbling and vibration got too severe since it happened so quickly. Witnessed my driver side rear tire completely shredded, no damage along tread material, only on sidewall with multiple tears/punctures. This was a center lane on the highway with no debris. I'm now noticing other similar "tear/wear" signs on my other 3 tires on the vehicle. All specifically on the sidewall along the aggressive tread that the AT3W tires were known to have for extra grip. It just seems to be separating over time.

NHTSA ID
11594739
Incident
Jun 16, 2024
Body & structure
Filed Jul 13, 2023

Frame rot

NHTSA ID
11531971
Incident
Jul 13, 2023
Body & structure
Filed May 19, 2023

The contact owns a 2002 Toyota 4Runner. The contact stated that while inspecting underneath the vehicle, he noticed that there was a hole in the subframe and that the subframe and sway bar were corroded. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 160,000.

NHTSA ID
11522804
Incident
May 18, 2023
Mileage
160,000 mi
Interior & seats
Filed Mar 9, 2023

The contact owns a 2002 Toyota 4Runner. The contact stated while pulling the door handle to unlock the doors, the auto unlock function failed to unlock the doors. The contact had to press the unlock button to unlock the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to the dealer to be diagnosed and the dealer stated that a failure was not found. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not contacted. The failure mileage was 150,000.

NHTSA ID
11511032
Incident
Mar 9, 2004
Mileage
150,000 mi
Body & structure
Filed Sep 1, 2022

Frame is excessively rusted. The recall that already exists for this issue only covers certain frames from Japan made with this steel. However, the same frames were imported to America and a large percentage of 4Runners were made with the same steel and didn’t receive a recall. Mine is one of them.

NHTSA ID
11482461
Incident
Aug 23, 2021
Filed May 28, 2022

frame rust saftey hazardous? midas mechanic pointed out to me while work being done on exhaust march 2022

NHTSA ID
11466536
Incident
Mar 1, 2022
Body & structureSuspension
Filed Apr 18, 2022

The contact owns a 2002 Toyota 4Runner. The contact stated that while driving 60 MPH through a slight right curve, the vehicle independently shifted from side to side without warning nearly causing the vehicle to flip. The contact had an independent mechanic inspect the vehicle and the mechanic discovered severe corrosion throughout the entire subframe of the vehicle. The mechanic informed him that the entire subframe needed to be replaced to ensure safe driving. Neither the dealer nor the manufacturer had been notified of the failure. The vehicle had yet to be repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 115,000.

NHTSA ID
11461138
Incident
Mar 18, 2022
Mileage
115,000 mi
Filed Feb 22, 2022

Frame rusted through from the inside out. There isnt even any surface rust where the hole started. Its just a hole in the middle of clean metal. The rest of the frame rail is solid. Rear suspension arm mount is also rusted out and starting to come off. The entire structural integrity of the frame is in question, even though externally, theres only slight surface rust. The frame should not be rusting this way.

NHTSA ID
11453546
Incident
Feb 21, 2022

Manufacturer communications

A bulletin sent by a manufacturer to its dealers. Not a recall, and repairs are not necessarily free.

T-SB-0038-24 Rev2

STRUCTURE:BODY

To prevent brake rotor rust from forming during transportation and storage, wheel film will be used instead of a cardboard type of anti-rust cover. The purpose of the wheel film is to shield the disc brake rotor from weather elements and initial rust before the vehicle is delivered to the customer. Consequently, the film should remain on the wheel for as long as possible.

T-SB-0039-24 Rev2

STRUCTURE:BODY

The condition known as acid rain is caused by airborne chemicals or particles in the atmosphere, which mix with rainwater, nighttime dew, or high humidity to form acidic compounds. If these contaminants settle and remain on a painted vehicle surface, especially the horizonal areas of the hood, roof, and decklid, significant damage can occur. This damage is the result of actual etching of the paint and appears as pitting or water spots. As acid rain droplets on the vehicle surface evaporate, the concentration strength of the acid increases, causing deeper and more rapid damage. This evaporation and corrosive action also occur more rapidly on dark colored cars as direct sun heat increases. It is the dealer’s responsibility to protect and maintain the quality of the vehicle’s paint finish after receipt at the dealership prior to the first sale. In areas known for high frequency and/or concentration of acid rain, frequent vehicle washing during high heat or humidity periods will minimize the potential for paint damage caused by acid rain. It is further recommended that either reverse osmosis or deionized water be used to prevent water spotting.

T-SB-0035-24 Rev2

STRUCTURE:BODY

Acid rain results from rainwater or other airborne moisture that become acidic due to industrial chemical impurities in the atmosphere. If these acidic compounds settle on an exposed vehicle, especially the horizontal areas such as the hood, roof, and decklid, significant damage to the painted surfaces can occur. Acid rain damage can typically be identified on vehicles by the presence of stains on the paint surface that resemble hard water spots. Unlike water spots however, acid rain damage cannot be removed by regular washing procedures. Also, because acid rain can etch and soften the paint, normal buffing or polishing repair procedures should not be attempted. This can cause further damage and result in visible depressions in the paint surface. The following are the three major categories of acid rain damage: •Minor damage: requires only buffing to repair. •Moderate damage: usually requires neutralizing, color sanding, and buffing. •Severe damage: extending beyond 1/2 mil of clearcoat on a pearl, metallic, or solid color, requires neutralization, sanding, and repainting. In cases where acid rain damage is minor, neutralization and buffing with a liquid-type paint finessing product may provide an adequate repair. Only specially formulated products outlined in this bulletin should be used for that purpose. Unfortunately, other than minor damage, there is no simple method of determining the actual extent (depth) of acid penetration other than color sanding a representative affected area until there is no visible etching or depressions, followed by measuring the amount of paint removed with either a magnetic or digital-type film thickness gauge. The procedures in this bulletin are intended for use by qualified body/paint technicians and should not be attempted by inexperienced personnel. It is the dealer’s responsibility to protect and maintain the quality of the vehicle’s paint finish after receipt at the dealership prior to the first sale. Perform frequent vehicle washing, as often as daily, during high heat and humidity periods to minimize the potential for paint damage due to acid rain exposure. This is especially important in geographical areas known for high frequency and concentration of acid rain and industrial fallout.

T-SB-0061-23 Rev2

STRUCTURE:BODY

Toyota vehicles are currently protected with RapgardTM protective film designed to protect the horizontal painted surfaces. This material protects from acid rain, environmental fallout, and rail contamination. Follow the Removal Procedure in this bulletin to remove the RapgardTM protective film within 90 days from initial application.

T-SB-0062-23 Rev2

STRUCTURE:BODY

Vehicles may occasionally be subjected to contamination by airborne iron particles shed from railroad tracks, train wheels, exposure to heavy machinery facilities, grinding, welding, etc. This type of contamination can be identified by the presence of small, red or brown particles on the paint surface. These particles are often difficult to see on dark color paints but can be easily felt when brushing a hand across horizontal body surfaces such as the hood, roof, or deck lid. Follow the Repair Procedure in this bulletin to clean vehicles that may have been subjected to contamination by airborne iron particles such as rail dust during rail transportation or extended storage near industrial areas.

T-SB-0038-24 Rev1

STRUCTURE:BODY

To prevent brake rotor rust from forming during transportation and storage, wheel film will be used instead of a cardboard type of anti-rust cover. The purpose of the wheel film is to shield the disc brake rotor from weather elements and initial rust before the vehicle is delivered to the customer. Consequently, the film should remain on the wheel for as long as possible.

Manufacturers file copies of the bulletins they send to dealers with NHTSA. These often describe diagnostic or repair procedures for a known condition. They are not recalls: repairs described in a bulletin are usually only free if the vehicle is still under warranty or the manufacturer has extended coverage.

Compare model years

Complaint and recall counts across every year of this model

Toyota 4Runner by model year
YearComplaintsRecallsInvestigationsIssue Index
2026710
2025541049.7
2024810
2023301051.7
2022393058.8
2021341051.1
2020311044.0
2019644058.1
2018585056.9
2017365163.7
2016788165.4
2015869159.1
2014777159.4
2013366157.3
2012968158.8
201116310157.4
201014512156.6
2009226160.0
2008965158.6
20071545153.2
20063805260.0
20054245256.6
20046782253.0
20036953253.5
2002Viewing2243155.7
20011853049.9
20004832049.0
19993302051.2
19982504052.1
19972614055.1
19961615054.3
19951724159.2
1994644263.2
1993513259.9
1992533260.1
1991432455.7
1990782465.1
1989611
1988910
1987500
1986800
1985200
1984200

Higher-selling and older vehicles accumulate more reports. Counts are not failure rates and are not directly comparable between vehicles that sold in very different numbers. Older model years have had longer for reports to accumulate.