134 complaints reported

2002 Toyota Tacoma Structure

Owner-reported problems and safety issues filed with NHTSA. Review common failures, severity levels, and complaint trends over time.

Reports
134
Crashes
0
Fires
0
Injuries
0

Complaint Timeline

Chronological view of owner reports

Jul 2014

FRAME RUSTED AND CRACKED. *JS

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Jul 2014
Jul 2014

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE COULD NOT BE INSPECTED BECAUSE THE SUBFRAME WAS CORRODED. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A NOTICE FOR AN UNRELATED RECALL. THE DEALER INSPECTED THE VEHICLE PER THE RECALL AND RELEASED THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE CONTACT. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Feb 2010
Jul 2014

FRAME CRACKED AT RIGHT REAR BOX RAIL... *TR

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Jul 2014
Jun 2014

FRAME RUST WHEN PURCHASED OUT OF STATE (MINNESOTA) FROM DEALER AND INSPECTED ON 10/2/2012 (IN VIRGINIA, UPON TRANSPORT ARRIVAL). THEY SAID THEY BELIEVED IT WAS MOSTLY SURFACE RUST. INSPECTED AGAIN IN MAY OF 2014 AND FOUND WITHIN 20 MONTHS AND 24000 MILES LATER, THE FRAME HAD PERFORATED, AND DEEMED UNSAFE TO DRIVE. IT WAS MARKETED AS A VEHICLE IN GREAT SHAPE, AND WASN'T CHEAP. MUCH MONEY IS STILL OWED ON THIS CONDEMNED VEHICLE. THESE VEHICLES HAVE A HISTORY OF THIS, YET THERE IS NOTHING BEING DONE CONCERNING THESE UNSAFE VEHICLES. *JS

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Feb 2012
Jun 2014

FRAME IS RUSTED AND BROKEN AND TRUCK IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. *TR

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Feb 2014
May 2014

I CONTACTED TOYOTA IN NOVEMBER OF 2013 PRIOR TO PURCHASING A USED 2002 DOUBLE CAB TACOMA. I WAS AWARE OF THE FRAME ISSUE SO I CALLED TO CHECK TO SEE IF IT HAD BEEN SERVICED. I GAVE THE VIN TO THE CUSTOMER SERVICE ASSOCIATE AND HE WAS ABLE TO PULL RECORDS ON THE VEHICLE. HE TOLD ME THAT IT HAD NOT HAD THE CORROSION TREATMENT, HOWEVER, THE CORROSION TREATMENT FAILED AND WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REFORMULATED. HE SAID THAT THE PROGRAM HAD BEEN REOPENED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE TREATMENT FAILED. HE SAID AFTER PURCHASING THE VEHICLE I SHOULD TAKE IT TO BE INSPECTED AND IF ANY RUST WAS FOUND IT WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE FRAME PROGRAM. I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE IN NOVEMBER OF 2013 AND UPON INSPECTION WE FOUND THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED. IN JANUARY OF 2014 MY HUSBAND CALLED A LOCAL TOYOTA DEALER TO SET UP AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE FRAME INSPECTION AND THEY SAID THAT THEY HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE FRAME PROGRAM BEING REOPENED. MY HUSBAND CALLED TOYOTA AND THEY PULLED UP THE VEHICLE AND SAID SINCE THE ORIGINAL TREATMENT HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED THEY WOULD NOT HONOR THE FRAME PROGRAM. WE SPOKE TO SEVERAL TOYOTA ASSOCIATES AND WE WERE TOLD THAT NOTHING COULD BE DONE. WE HAVE CONTACTED THE TOYOTA LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND THE VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH NO SUCCESS. *TR

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Dec 2013
May 2014

LETTER FROM CONGRESSMAN RAHALL ON BEHALF OF CONSTITUENT RE A RECALL FROM SEVERAL YEARS AGO ON HIS TOYOTA TACOMA SR 5 PICK UP TRUCK. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED HE SAW ON THE NEWS A RECALL HAD BEEN ISSUED, REGARDING DEFECTIVE FRAMES, AND HE MISSED OUT ON THE RECALL, DUE TO PERSONAL ISSUES. HE WOULD LIKE TO GET THE VEHICLE FIXED, BECAUSE IT CAN NO LONGER BE DRIVEN DUE TO A CRACKED FRAME. *JB

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Jan 2014
Apr 2014

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME AND CHASSIS WERE CORRODED. THE CONTACT WAS ALSO CONCERNED THAT THE SPARE TIRE WOULD BECOME DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE DEALER ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THERE WERE NO OPEN RECALLS ON THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 212,000.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Apr 2014
Apr 2014

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE WOULD SWAY FROM SIDE TO SIDE. THE CONTACT DISCOVERED THAT THE ENTIRE SUB FRAME OF WAS RUSTED AND CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 147,000.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Apr 2012
Apr 2014

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE HAVING THE VEHICLE INSPECTED, THE TECHNICIAN MADE HIM AWARE THAT THE FRAME HAD COMPLETED RUSTED AND CRACKED. THE INDEPENDENT MECHANIC DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 168,000.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Aug 2014
Mar 2014

AT THE YEARLY REQUIRED STATE INSPECTION THE VEHICLE FAILED DUE TO THE FRAME BEING RUSTED OUT WITH HOLES. IT APPEARS TO BE A VERY COMMON ISSUE WITH THIS VEHICLE. *TR

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Mar 2014
Feb 2014

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY RUSTED AND AS A RESULT, THE REAR AXLE AND SPRING HANGER BECAME DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT BEING DRIVEN DUE TO A POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 162,000.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Aug 2013
Feb 2014

THERE WAS A RECALL ON THIS VEHICLE FOR PREMATURE FRAME RUSTING. I TOOK IT IN FOR THE INSPECTION AND WAS TOLD IT WAS OK. WHEN I TOOK IT IN FOR THE LAST SERVICE, IT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME THAT THERE ARE TWO HOLES RUSTED THROUGH THE FRAME IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT REAR WHEEL AREA. THE FRAME IS RUSTING FROM THE INSIDE OUT. THE BODY OF THE TRUCK HAS NO RUST. WITH THE LOW MILEAGE I HAD HOPED TO DRIVE THE TRUCK FOR MANY MORE YEARS. I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND DID NOT EVEN GET A RESPONSE. WHAT RECOURSE DO I HAVE? *TR

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Jul 2014
Feb 2014

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT RUSTING AND CORROSION WAS DISCOVERED ON THE FRAME. THE CONTACT INDICATED THAT THE REAR DRIVER'S SIDE LEAF SPRING SHACKLE HAD SUNK INTO THE UNDER FRAME DUE TO THE RUST AND CORROSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT BUT NO SOLUTION WAS OFFERED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 150,000. *TR

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Jan 2013
Jan 2014

INFORMED BY DEALER THAT FRAME IS RUSTED THROUGH AND TRUCK IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. ALSO INFORMED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A SERVICE BULLETIN FOR THIS PROBLEM. BUT MY TRUCK IS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR REPAIR UNDER THE VOLUNTARY SERVICE RECALL (OF WHICH I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED), AS IT HAD EXPIRED. I THINK TOYOTA SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. THEY RECOGNIZED THEIR DEFECTIVE PRODUCT; HOWEVER MY TRUCK IS INELIGIBLE FOR REPAIR BECAUSE THEY GET TO LIMIT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE THEIR REMEDY IS NOT TECHNICALLY A "RECALL". I, AND I'M SURE MANY OTHERS, ARE BY NECESSITY, DRIVING UNSAFE VEHICLES. *TR

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Jan 2014
Nov 2013

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR FRAME WAS DETERIORATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHO STATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT REPAIR THE PROBLEM. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DEALER INFORMED HIM THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN A MANUFACTURER'S RECALL AND SEVERAL NOTICES HAD BEEN SENT HOWEVER, THE CONTACT FAILED TO HAVE THE VEHICLE SERVICED PER THE RECALL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 220,000.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Oct 2013
Nov 2013

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN FOR STATE INSPECTION WHEN HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE FRONT AREA OF THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED THAT THE FRAME WAS NOT SAFELY COATED THEREFORE, THEY DENIED ASSISTANCE WITH ANY REPAIRS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 161,250.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Jan 2013
Nov 2013

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR UNRELATED REPAIRS WHEN HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE SUB-FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. AS A RESULT, THE TECHNICIAN ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 110,000.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Nov 2013
Oct 2013

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR BUMPER HAD RUSTED AND THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO TOW ANYTHING WITH THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH THE MANUFACTURER ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 65,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 110,000. *TR

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Sep 2009
May 2013

2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE SPLIT IN HALF DUE TO RUSTED FRAME. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE FRAME RUSTED FROM THE INSIDE OUT.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Jan 2013
May 2013

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE EXHIBITED SEVERE RUST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS AND THE CONTACT WAS REFERRED TO THE MANUFACTURER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 140,000.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: May 2013
Apr 2013

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME AND THE REAR LEAF SPRINGS CONTAINED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF RUST AND WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE DUE TO THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 151,000.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Apr 2013
Mar 2013

THIS VEHICLE WAS ALREADY INVOLVED IN A "CAMPAIGN" BY TOYOTA TO REPLACE SEVERELY RUSTED FRAMES. NOW THE SPARE TIRE LIFT PLATE IS ALSO RUSTED THROUGH ON MANY OF THEM WHICH TOYOTA IS "IMPLEMENTING A REMEDY FOR". MY COMPLAINT IS THAT I HAVE A SEVERELY RUSTED HOUSING OF THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL, NEXT TO AND JUST BELOW THE RUSTED SPARE TIRE CARRIER LIFT PLATE,TOYOTA REFUSES TO PAY FOR THE RUSTED THROUGH HOUSING OF THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL. THIS IS A NEGLIGENT SAFETY ISSUE ON THEIR PART, BECAUSE THOSE OWNERS WHO ARE NOT AWARE OF THE LEAKAGE OF THIS PART MAY FIND THEMSELVES WITHOUT POWER, OR WORSE PERHAPS, A LOCKUP OF THAT PART WHEN THEY ARE GOING 65 MPH ON HIGHWAY POSSIBLY WITH CHILDREN IN THEIR VEHICLE. THE RUST ON THESE VEHICLES IS LEGENDARY AMONG TOYOTA OWNERS AS EVIDENCED BY THEIR COMPLAINTS ON THE INTERNET. TOYOTA DID REPLACE THE FRAME ON MY 2002 TACOMA, BUT IN MY OPINION, IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO REPLACE THE RUSTED OUT HOUSING. IT IS NOT AS IF THAT IS THE ONLY RUST ON THIS VEHICLE, AND NO OTHER VEHICLES THAT I AM AWARE OF HAVE THIS PROBLEM. *TR

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Mar 2013
Mar 2013

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR SERVICE UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V542000 (TIRES). THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE COULD NOT BE SERVICE UNDER THE RECALL BECAUSE OF EXCESSIVE CORROSION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE WAS NEVER ADVISED OF CORROSION WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED IN 2010 FOR A MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ISSUE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 95,000.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Nov 2013
Feb 2013

2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE SEVERE FRAME RUST ISSUE AND NO WARNING OF RECALLS. *SMD TOYOTA USA INFORMED THE CONSUMER, A RECALL WAS NOT ISSUED, BUT A CUSTOMER SERVICE PROGRAM WAS OFFERED, BUT IT EXPIRED AT THE END OF 2011. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED SIX LETTERS WERE MAILED INFORMING HER OF THE ISSUE. HOWEVER, THE CONSUMER STATED SHE NEVER RECEIVED ANY LETTERS.

Type: Vehicle, Vehicle: 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA, Manufacturer: Toyota Motor Corporation
Incident: Feb 2013

Trend Over Time

Complaints by year

Quick Summary

The 2002 Toyota Tacoma has 134 Structure complaints on file. Review the timeline above for detailed owner experiences.