EXTERIOR LIGHTING
2002 Toyota 4Runner
Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data
Data refreshed
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.
Complaint activity over time
When owners filed reports about this model year
View as table
| Month | Complaints filed | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|
| May 2015 | 2 | 110 |
| Sep 2015 | 7 | 117 |
| Oct 2015 | 2 | 119 |
| Nov 2015 | 1 | 120 |
| Dec 2015 | 1 | 121 |
| Jan 2016 | 3 | 124 |
| Feb 2016 | 1 | 125 |
| Mar 2016 | 6 | 131 |
| Apr 2016 | 1 | 132 |
| Jun 2016 | 3 | 135 |
| Jul 2016 | 3 | 138 |
| Oct 2016 | 1 | 139 |
| Nov 2016 | 2 | 141 |
| Jan 2017 | 1 | 142 |
| Feb 2017 | 1 | 143 |
| Apr 2017 | 4 | 147 |
| Jun 2017 | 1 | 148 |
| Aug 2017 | 1 | 149 |
| Sep 2017 | 1 | 150 |
| Oct 2017 | 3 | 153 |
| Nov 2017 | 3 | 156 |
| Dec 2017 | 1 | 157 |
| Mar 2018 | 1 | 158 |
| Apr 2018 | 1 | 159 |
| May 2018 | 2 | 161 |
| Jun 2018 | 1 | 162 |
| Jul 2018 | 2 | 164 |
| Aug 2018 | 4 | 168 |
| Sep 2018 | 6 | 174 |
| Oct 2018 | 5 | 179 |
| Nov 2018 | 2 | 181 |
| Jan 2019 | 1 | 182 |
| Feb 2019 | 3 | 185 |
| Mar 2019 | 2 | 187 |
| Apr 2019 | 3 | 190 |
| May 2019 | 2 | 192 |
| Jun 2019 | 2 | 194 |
| Jul 2019 | 1 | 195 |
| Jan 2020 | 1 | 196 |
| Feb 2020 | 1 | 197 |
| Mar 2020 | 1 | 198 |
| Apr 2020 | 1 | 199 |
| Jun 2020 | 1 | 200 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 204 |
| Oct 2020 | 1 | 205 |
| Nov 2020 | 1 | 206 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 209 |
| Apr 2021 | 2 | 211 |
| Jul 2021 | 1 | 212 |
| Aug 2021 | 1 | 213 |
| Oct 2021 | 1 | 214 |
| Dec 2021 | 1 | 215 |
| Feb 2022 | 2 | 217 |
| Apr 2022 | 1 | 218 |
| May 2022 | 1 | 219 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 220 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 221 |
| May 2023 | 1 | 222 |
| Jul 2023 | 1 | 223 |
| Jun 2024 | 1 | 224 |
What owners report
Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded
- Body & structure8832.7%
- Suspension4918.2%
- Powertrain (other)2910.8%
- Brakes217.8%
- Engine176.3%
- Driver assistance134.8%
- Steering124.5%
- Airbags93.3%
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.govEXTERIOR LIGHTING
SUSPENSION:FRONT:CONTROL ARM:LOWER BALL JOINT
Safety investigations
NHTSA inquiries naming this vehicle. An investigation is not a finding of a defect.
Frame corrosion
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
Recent owner complaints
Reports submitted to NHTSA, shown in the owner's own words
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
Frame rot
- NHTSA ID
- 11531971
- Incident
- Jul 13, 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
| Year | Complaints | Recalls | Investigations | Issue Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 7 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2025 | 54 | 1 | 0 | 49.7 |
| 2024 | 8 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2023 | 30 | 1 | 0 | 51.7 |
| 2022 | 39 | 3 | 0 | 58.8 |
| 2021 | 34 | 1 | 0 | 51.1 |
| 2020 | 31 | 1 | 0 | 44.0 |
| 2019 | 64 | 4 | 0 | 58.1 |
| 2018 | 58 | 5 | 0 | 56.9 |
| 2017 | 36 | 5 | 1 | 63.7 |
| 2016 | 78 | 8 | 1 | 65.4 |
| 2015 | 86 | 9 | 1 | 59.1 |
| 2014 | 77 | 7 | 1 | 59.4 |
| 2013 | 36 | 6 | 1 | 57.3 |
| 2012 | 96 | 8 | 1 | 58.8 |
| 2011 | 163 | 10 | 1 | 57.4 |
| 2010 | 145 | 12 | 1 | 56.6 |
| 2009 | 22 | 6 | 1 | 60.0 |
| 2008 | 96 | 5 | 1 | 58.6 |
| 2007 | 154 | 5 | 1 | 53.2 |
| 2006 | 380 | 5 | 2 | 60.0 |
| 2005 | 424 | 5 | 2 | 56.6 |
| 2004 | 678 | 2 | 2 | 53.0 |
| 2003 | 695 | 3 | 2 | 53.5 |
| 2002Viewing | 224 | 3 | 1 | 55.7 |
| 2001 | 185 | 3 | 0 | 49.9 |
| 2000 | 483 | 2 | 0 | 49.0 |
| 1999 | 330 | 2 | 0 | 51.2 |
| 1998 | 250 | 4 | 0 | 52.1 |
| 1997 | 261 | 4 | 0 | 55.1 |
| 1996 | 161 | 5 | 0 | 54.3 |
| 1995 | 172 | 4 | 1 | 59.2 |
| 1994 | 64 | 4 | 2 | 63.2 |
| 1993 | 51 | 3 | 2 | 59.9 |
| 1992 | 53 | 3 | 2 | 60.1 |
| 1991 | 43 | 2 | 4 | 55.7 |
| 1990 | 78 | 2 | 4 | 65.1 |
| 1989 | 6 | 1 | 1 | — |
| 1988 | 9 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 1987 | 5 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1986 | 8 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1985 | 2 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1984 | 2 | 0 | 0 | — |
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.