AtWhatMileage
Model year report

2002 Toyota Tundra: what breaks, and at what mileage

What breaks on the 2002 Toyota Tundra

On the 2002 Toyota Tundra, the failure owners report most often is other brake problem, and the reports cluster around 30,000 miles. The earliest to appear is misfire or rough idle, reported by a median of 5,000 miles. Overall it scores 68 out of 100, high risk for a 2002.

High risk for a 2002 — 158th riskiest of the 329 2002 vehicles we can rate. 648 owner reports; fleet size estimated from this year's own recall paperwork.

What breaks on the 2002 Toyota Tundra

Owners have reported 56 named failure modes on the 2002 Toyota Tundra, and the three most-reported carry 33% of everything filed, which is an unusually even spread for one model year.

Other brake problem leads with 75 reports, about 1.2 per 1,000 vehicles and with the middle half of reports between 10k to 45,000 miles.

Other body or interior problem follows with 72 reports, usually reported between 80k to 140,000 miles.

Rust or structural corrosion follows with 68 reports, usually reported between 88k to 160,000 miles.

By system, the reports fall mostly into body (142), brakes (133) and suspension (88).

The mileage the reports cluster at

502 of the reports on the 2002 Toyota Tundra came with an odometer reading, and half of those were filed before 87,000 miles.

Cumulatively, 28% by 50,000 miles, 58% by 100,000 miles and 80% by 150,000 miles of the dated reports had been filed, with 36 filed above the top of the chart.

The busiest stretch is between 80,000 and 90,000 miles, which alone holds 9% of the dated reports.

22% of the dated reports were filed below 36,000 miles.

In the order they tend to show up: misfire or rough idle around 6k, premature brake pad or rotor wear around 22k, other brake problem around 29k and fuel leak or fuel odor around 54k.

Showing the 12 most-reported failure modes of 56. The full list is in the table below.

How reports accumulate

Share of reports filed by each mileage
half by 87k

Every report with an odometer reading, cumulative, from 0 to 200,000 miles. A further 36 reports came in above that, which is why the line stops short of the top. A curve that climbs early is a car with early problems, whatever its total.

  • Line share of reports filed by that mileage
  • Dashed the median reported mileage

How bad it is when it goes

Across the named modes, 38 mention a crash, 2 a fire, 23 an injury and 5 a fatality. Those are the words owners used in their own complaints, and NHTSA does not verify them, but they are the closest thing in this data to a measure of what a failure actually did.

The average severity weight across every report on this year is 4.37, where a stalled engine or a failed airbag weighs many times more than a rattling trim panel, and a figure this high means the reports are dominated by failures with safety consequences rather than annoyances. The weighting is set out in full on the methodology page.

What the top failures cost to put right, as editorial estimates for an independent US shop rather than figures from NHTSA: other brake problem at $300–$1,800, other body or interior problem at $200–$2,000, rust or structural corrosion at $500–$6,000 and control arm, ball joint or bushing failure at $400–$2,200. Dealer labour, a seized bolt or a part that is no longer made can push any of these past the top of its range.

15% of the reports on this year sit in the engine, transmission, drivetrain or cooling systems — the four where a repair bill is usually four figures.

Every reported failure mode

Mileage figures are percentiles of owner-reported readings. Click a column to sort.
Failure mode System Reports With reading 25th Median 75th Per 1,000 Typical repair Severity
Other brake problem brakes 75 63 10k 29k 44k 1.2 $300–$1,800 High
Other body or interior problem body 72 61 80k 106k 140k 1.1 $200–$2,000 Moderate
Rust or structural corrosion body 68 51 88k 129k 160k 1.1 $500–$6,000 High
Control arm, ball joint or bushing failure suspension 66 52 68k 118k 185k 1.0 $400–$2,200 High
Differential or transfer case failure drivetrain 28 24 85k 88k 110k 0.4 $900–$4,200 High
Premature brake pad or rotor wear brakes 28 21 15k 22k 32k 0.4 $300–$1,400 Moderate
Steering rack, gear or tie rod failure steering 28 27 67k 116k 135k 0.4 $700–$2,600 High
Fuel tank, filler or EVAP failure fuel 26 22 100k 138k 150k 0.4 $250–$1,800 Moderate
Other powertrain problem transmission 21 18 36k 85k 133k 0.3 $400–$4,500 High
Other suspension problem suspension 19 14 49k 75k 153k 0.3 $350–$2,000 Moderate
Other wheel or tire problem wheels 13 7 — 48k — 0.2 $200–$1,500 High
Fuel leak or fuel odor fuel 12 11 51k 54k 204k 0.2 $300–$2,500 Critical
Steering column or shaft failure steering 12 8 108k 126k 136k 0.2 $600–$2,500 Critical
CV axle or driveshaft failure drivetrain 11 11 111k 111k 141k 0.2 $450–$2,200 High
Loss of braking brakes 11 3 — 91k — 0.2 $400–$3,000 Critical
Misfire or rough idle engine 10 10 6k 6k 6k 0.2 $250–$1,600 Moderate
Seat belt or retractor failure airbag 10 2 — 50k — 0.2 $200–$900 High
Parking brake failure brakes 9 8 74k 79k 93k 0.1 $250–$1,300 Moderate
Other speed control problem adas 8 6 — 80k — 0.1 $250–$2,000 Critical
Other engine problem engine 7 5 — 60k — 0.1 $300–$4,000 High
Other steering problem steering 7 5 — 38k — 0.1 $350–$2,400 High
Airbag warning light or occupant sensor fault airbag 6 4 — 143k — 0.1 $300–$1,600 High
Airbag inflator rupture airbag 6 3 — 100k — 0.1 $0–$0 Critical
ABS module or sensor failure brakes 5 4 — 27k — 0.1 $500–$2,400 High
Overheating cooling 4 2 — 92k — 0.1 $400–$3,500 High
Brake line, hose or caliper failure brakes 4 4 — 111k — 0.1 $250–$1,600 Critical
Loss of power steering steering 4 4 — 70k — 0.1 $600–$2,800 Critical
Wheel, stud or lug nut failure wheels 4 4 — 103k — 0.1 $150–$1,500 Critical
Exhaust leak or fumes in the cabin emissions 4 3 — 171k — 0.1 $250–$2,000 High
Other lighting problem lighting 4 3 — 60k — 0.1 $120–$1,200 Moderate
Airbag failed to deploy in a crash airbag 3 1 — 39k — 0.0 $1,000–$5,000 Critical
Strut, shock or spring failure suspension 3 3 — 133k — 0.0 $500–$2,000 Moderate
Other electrical problem electrical 3 3 — 38k — 0.0 $250–$2,000 Moderate
Other fuel system problem fuel 3 3 — 80k — 0.0 $300–$2,200 High
Complete engine failure or seizure engine 2 2 — 87k — 0.0 $4,500–$12,000 Critical
Oil leak engine 2 2 — 93k — 0.0 $250–$2,200 Moderate
Complete transmission failure transmission 2 2 — 96k — 0.0 $2,800–$8,000 Critical
Engine sensor failure electrical 2 2 — 59k — 0.0 $180–$900 Moderate
Headlight failure or clouding lighting 2 1 — 40k — 0.0 $150–$1,800 Moderate
Other visibility problem glass 2 1 — 1k — 0.0 $150–$1,400 Moderate
Excessive oil consumption engine 1 0 — — — 0.0 $900–$6,500 High
No-start or intermittent start failure engine 1 0 — — — 0.0 $200–$1,800 Moderate
Radiator or coolant leak cooling 1 1 — 51k — 0.0 $350–$1,900 High
Heater core failure cooling 1 0 — — — 0.0 $700–$2,400 Moderate
Harsh or jerky shifting transmission 1 1 — 111k — 0.0 $600–$4,000 Moderate
Torque converter failure transmission 1 1 — 1k — 0.0 $1,100–$3,200 High
Shifter, linkage or stuck-in-park failure transmission 1 1 — 130k — 0.0 $250–$1,400 High
Wiring harness or short circuit electrical 1 1 — 48k — 0.0 $400–$3,500 High
Control module (ECM/PCM/BCM) failure electrical 1 1 — 186k — 0.0 $700–$3,000 High
Master cylinder or brake booster failure brakes 1 0 — — — 0.0 $450–$2,200 Critical
Cruise control failure adas 1 0 — — — 0.0 $200–$1,400 High
Parking sensor failure adas 1 0 — — — 0.0 $180–$900 Low
Tire blowout or tread separation wheels 1 0 — — — 0.0 $200–$1,500 Critical
Paint peeling or clear coat failure body 1 0 — — — 0.0 $600–$6,000 Low
Liftgate, tailgate or trunk failure body 1 0 — — — 0.0 $250–$1,500 Moderate
Other driver assistance problem adas 1 1 — 38k — 0.0 $250–$1,800 High
Unclassified problem other 26 15 119k 145k 182k 0.4 — Moderate

Rate per 1,000 uses a fleet-size estimate derived from recall paperwork for this exact model year. It is a lower bound. Repair costs are typical independent-shop ranges for the failure, not figures from these reports.

How often, against how many were built

Scaled by an estimate of how many of these cars exist, the 2002 Toyota Tundra draws about 10 per 1,000 vehicles, which puts it in the 87th percentile of complaint rates among 2002 vehicles we can rate.

That denominator is the weakest number on the page and it is fair to say so plainly. Rate per 1,000 uses a fleet-size estimate derived from recall paperwork for this exact model year. It is a lower bound.

The working figure is 64,031 vehicles. If the true number is twice that, every rate on this page is half what it says; the ranking against other 2002 vehicles, which is what the risk score uses, is far more robust than the rate itself.

What owners wrote

Verbatim from NHTSA complaint narratives, trimmed for length. The odometer reading is the one the owner gave.

Other brake problem

40 MPH. Driving down lookout mountain. Riding the brakes. Shaking so bad, I thought I might wreck. Scared me and my family very much. Dealer will not fix under warranty. Dealer "fixed brakes" 12,000 miles ago. Truck has 24,000 miles on odometer. Heard from other tundra owners this is a very common problem. *jb

23,000 miles NHTSA complaint 403949 filed 2003-04-23

The brakes on my 2002 tundra started vibrating when pressure applied after about 400 miles. Dealer repaired the problem. Now the brakes are vibrating again. Will have to return to the dealer. *jb *scc ****dimsii ivoq entry posted after 12/12/02 cut-over to artemis*****764848

4,200 miles NHTSA complaint 405467 filed 2003-05-01

Other body or interior problem

Cab separated from chassis. Cab is attached to chassis at 4 flanges welded to frame. 2 each 10 mm bolts connect cab to each flange. A 71 mm hole exists in flange between the 2 each 13 mm holes for the 10 mm bolts. Only 6 mm of flange steel exists between 13 mm holes and 71 mm hole. Cab separated by tearing 10 mm bolt nuts through the 13 mm holes at the 6 mm dimension. It has been my experience in aircraft structureal repair that the minimum dimension for hole spacing is 3 hole diameters (I.e., hole spacing should have been approximately 30 mm instead of 6 mm).

6,500 miles NHTSA complaint 388655 filed 2003-01-10

The plastic link member of the rear side window latching pivot failed/broke/fractured when the window was latched closed. This occurred on both the driver and passenger side windows within about 2 months of each other at the end of 2005. It is apparent to me that this is a design defect as it occurred in both latches on a vehicle that is only 4 years old. The pin pressed into the mechanism, through the hole in the plastic link, is a split spring pin with a zig-zag 'tooth" pattern along the slit in the pin. I believe the "teeth" in this pin create a stress point on the inner diameter of the molded hole through the plastic link causing the link to fracture when the latch is closed as intended. The dealer from whom the vehicle was purchased has refused to replace the failed parts. *jb

73,000 miles NHTSA complaint 571581 filed 2006-02-05

Rust or structural corrosion

Report of severe rust to the frame structure of toyota tundra pickup. Upon discovery of corrosion owner called toyota and was advised to take vehicle to dealer for frame inspection. Frame was inspected and one large hole was made by dealer in frame on front drivers side. Upon questioning of dealer owner was told that the hole was minor compared to holes found on other tundra pickups. Dealer said truck was ok to drive, but upon doing research it seems that truck would not have passed inspection if hole had been visible 1 week before. There is a clear issue with frame construction and upon contacting toyota after inspection toyota claims that there is no program to address issue and will not comment on vehicle safety with this intense frame corrosion. At this time there is no document provided by either dealer or toyota that states in writing that truck is road worthy and safe to drive. *tr

182,763 miles NHTSA complaint 735943 filed 2009-09-17

Tl* the contact owns a 2002 toyota tundra. The contact was performing maintenance on the vehicle to replace the shock absorbers when he detected that the main frame exhibited severe rust corrosion. The corrosion progressed over a period of time and resulted in thinning and warping of the frame. The vehicle is in the process of being taken to an authorized dealer for inspection. The manufacturer has been notified. The contact had concerns of the safety risk involved. The failure mileage was 92,000. The current mileage was unavailable.

92,000 miles NHTSA complaint 736528 filed 2009-09-21

Recalls on the 2002 model year

NHTSA has issued 6 recall campaigns covering the 2002 Toyota Tundra, affecting an estimated 92,453 vehicles. A recall is a different kind of evidence from a complaint: it is the regulator and the manufacturer agreeing that something has to be fixed, and the fix is free for as long as the car exists.

The campaigns cover structure:frame and members:underbody shields, exterior lighting:headlights and exterior lighting. Whether the work was actually done on the car in front of you is a question only the VIN can answer, and the manufacturer or NHTSA will answer it free.

Recalls also distort complaint counts. Publicity about a campaign reminds owners that complaining is possible, so reports for a recalled component often spike after the recall rather than before it.

09V444000

STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS:UNDERBODY SHIELDS

110,000 vehicles 2009-11-18
Defect
Toyota is recalling model year 2000-2003 tundra vehicles originally sold in or currently registered in the following states: connecticut, delaware, illinois, indiana, kentucky, maine, maryland, massachusetts, michigan, minnesota, new hampshire, new jersey, new york, ohio, pennsylvania, rhode island, vermont, virginia, west virginia, wisconsin and the district of columbia. Excessive corrosion of the rear cross member may cause the separation of the spare tire stowed under the truck bed which would present a road hazard that could cause a crash. Also, corrosion of the rear…
Consequence
Separation of the spare tire and diminished brake capacity could increase the risk of a crash.
Remedy
Toyota is asking owners of the affected vehicles to remove the spare tire from under the vehicle until a remedy can be obtained. Dealers will inspect the rear cross member and related components, including the brake lines, and replace them if necessary. If the cross member does not need to be replaced, it will be sprayed with a corrosion protection compound. These services will be performed free of charge, however multiple visits to the dealer may be required. The safety recall is expected to begin on or about april 30, 2010. Owner may contact toyota at 1-800-331-4331.
09E025000

EXTERIOR LIGHTING:HEADLIGHTS

42,540 vehicles 2009-05-11
Defect
Dope, inc. Is recalling 42,540 combination corner and bumper lamp assemblies of various part numbers sold for use as aftermarket equipment for various passenger vehicles. These headlamps fail to conform to the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment." these lamps do not contain the required amber side reflectors.
Consequence
Decreased lighting visibility may result in a vehicle crash.
Remedy
Dope, inc. Will notify owners and offer a full refund for the noncompliant combination lamps. The safety recall began on july 28, 2009. Owners may contact dope, inc. At 1-626-272-1798.
06E065000

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

3,593 vehicles 2006-07-17
Defect
Certain aj motorsport combination lamps sold as replacement lamps for use on the above listed passenger vehicles. Combination lamps not equipped with amber side reflectors fail to conform with the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.
Consequence
Lack of amber side reflectors in the lamps will decrease lighting visibility to other drivers and may possibly result in a vehicle crash.
Remedy
Aj motorsport will notify owners and offer reimbursement for the lamps. The recall began on july 31, 2006. Owners may contact aj motorsport at 626-618-2026.
06E026000

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

61,944 vehicles 2006-03-23
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.
Consequence
Without the amber reflectors, the vehicle will be poorly illuminated, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash without warning.
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.
05V225000

SUSPENSION:FRONT:CONTROL ARM:LOWER BALL JOINT

768,379 vehicles 2005-05-17
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.
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.
02V129000

WHEELS

3,041 vehicles 2002-05-01
Defect
On certain 4x2 vehicles equipped with an alloy wheel tire upgrade (options wm4, wm8, zl1-zl4, dh4, or dh5) installed by the processing centers in jacksonville, florida or commerce, georgia, a label identifying the spare tire as a temporary use spare tire was not installed. The upgrade includes 4 larger size tires with alloy wheels. The original spare tire/steel wheel is not part of the upgrade and was not changed.
Consequence
Different operating characteristics can be experienced when the spare tire is installed on the vehicle.
Remedy
Owners will be provided with a caution label and an insert for their owner's manual. Owner notification began july 15, 2002. Owners who do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact southeast toyota at 1-800-301-6859.

Recall work is free at a franchised dealer regardless of the car's age. Check the VIN at nhtsa.gov/recalls before assuming it was done.

How it ranks in the 2002 field

The score at the top of the page, placed among its peers. The zones are the same thresholds the scorer applies, read out of the scorer itself, so the picture and the band word cannot disagree.

Risk score against the rest of the 2002 field

Scores are ranked within the model year, never across years, because an older car has had longer to accumulate reports.

  • Left fewer and less serious reports
  • Right more, or worse
  • Marker this vehicle

Where 2002 sits in the model line

High risk for a 2002 — 158th riskiest of the 329 2002 vehicles we can rate. Every score on this site is a rank inside its own model year, which is what makes a 2004 and a 2019 comparable at all.

Across the 27 model years of this car that carry enough reports to score, 2014 comes out best at 63 and 2026 worst at 79, with 2002 itself at 68.

If the model year is negotiable, 2014, 2021 and 2004 score lower than 2002 by a margin worth acting on. Same body, same engines, different luck — usually a supplier change or a mid-cycle fix, which the complaint data can show but never explain.

Within the 1999–2002 generation specifically, 2001 is the strongest year at 67 and 2002 the weakest at 68.

Scores compare each year against other cars of the same model year, so a low number on an older car is a real result and not an artefact of age.

Risk score by model year, out of 100

Shorter is better. Years with too few reports to score are shown without a bar rather than as a zero, because no data is not good news.

Within the 1999-2002 generation, 2001 Toyota Tundra scores best at 67 and 2002 Toyota Tundra worst at 68.

What to look at before buying one

The mileages below are where the first quarter of reports for each mode had already been filed, which makes them the point at which a fault is worth looking for rather than the point at which it happens: misfire or rough idle from about 6k, other brake problem from about 10k, premature brake pad or rotor wear from about 15k and other powertrain problem from about 36k.

On a 2002 Toyota Tundra with more miles than that on it, the useful question to put to a seller or a mechanic is whether misfire or rough idle has been dealt with, and if so with what parts and at whose expense. A car that has already had the repair is in a different position from one that has not.

None of this is a diagnosis. It is a list of what other owners of the same model year reported, ordered by when they reported it, which is a good place to point an inspection and a poor place to stop.

Where these figures stop being useful

648 owner reports; fleet size estimated from this year's own recall paperwork. Every count on this page is therefore a floor: it is the number of owners who went to the trouble of filing with a federal agency, which is a small and self-selected fraction of the owners who had the fault.

Of those 648 reports, 502 carried an odometer reading, so the mileages here describe 77% of the sample rather than all of it. Owners also round: readings pile up on multiples of ten thousand, which is why this site publishes "about 90,000 miles" and not "91,438".

Named failure modes come from matching phrases in the complaint text, so a badly worded complaint can land in the wrong bucket. The effect washes out across hundreds of reports and does not wash out across five.

And nothing here predicts what one car will do. These are other people's complaints, filed years apart, on cars maintained by strangers. Read the page as a map of where this model year has previously gone wrong, then have the specific car in front of you inspected.

Questions this page answers

What are the most common problems with the 2002 Toyota Tundra?

The most-reported failures are other brake problem (75 reports, median 30,000 miles), other body or interior problem (72 reports, median 105,000 miles) and rust or structural corrosion (68 reports, median 130,000 miles). Counts come from owner complaints filed with NHTSA, which are voluntary, so they show what owners bothered to report rather than every fault that occurred.

At what mileage do 2002 Toyota Tundra problems start?

Misfire or rough idle is the earliest failure mode to show up, with a median reported mileage of 5,000 miles and a quarter of reports before 5,000 miles. Across all failure modes on this year, the median report sits at 87,000 miles.

Is the 2002 Toyota Tundra reliable?

It scores 68 out of 100 on our risk index, which is high — 158th riskiest of the 329 2002 vehicles we can rate. The score is a comparison against other 2002 vehicles, not a prediction about any individual car, and it is built from complaint rates, severity and how early failures appear.

Which year of the Toyota Tundra is best?

Within the 1999–2002 generation, 2001 scores best at 67 out of 100 and 2002 worst at 68. Same body, same engines, different luck.

Where this comes from. Every figure above is computed from NHTSA owner complaints and recall records for this exact make, model and year. Complaints are voluntary and self-selected, so treat counts as a floor. The methodology page writes out each formula, and the same numbers are available as JSON.

What breaks at my mileage Compare with another car

Source Owner complaints and recall records published by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, model years 1996–2027 Figures rebuilt Published by AtWhatMileage How every figure is computed