Frame is rotting away. The tacomas, tundras, sequoia were recalled for this issue. The tacomas frame is very close in design to the 4runner. The main difference is the 4runner uses coil springs whereas the tacoma used leaf springs. Toyota stated that because the 4runner was made in Japan unlike the others that were made in the USA, that the 4runners were not part of the recall.most of the 4runners that are no longer drivable, are because of rotted frames. The repair kits that fix the rotted frames on the tacomas are the same kits that fix the 4runners. Now toyota won't even touch my vehicle for other repairs because of the rot holes.
2006 Toyota 4RUNNER body problems
143 complaints (38% of all complaints for this car). Typical mileage when it fails: 127,456. 2 crashes reported.
- owner complaints
- 143
- of this car's complaints
- 38%
- typical mileage
- 127,456
- crashes
- 2
- recalls
- 0
Which part fails
- Body127
- Frame and members7
- Frame and members: underbody shields3
- Body: hatchback/liftgate1
- Body: door1
At what mileage
Complaints by mileage at the time of the problem.
0k-25k
25k-50k
50k-75k
75k-100k
100k-125k
125k-150k
150k-175k
175k-200k
200k+
Toyota 4RUNNER body problems in other years
Related recalls
No recalls on record for this model year.
Related investigations
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 the federal safety agency?s online complaint database. The petitioner submitted a complaint to the federal safety agency documenting his experience (the federal safety agency 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 the federal safety agency 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 the federal safety agency 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. the federal safety agency 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
DP18002
What 2006 Toyota 4RUNNER owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
The frame under the car rusted so much that the gas tank literally fell through the frame to the ground. This put my son at risk and fortunately he was able to pull over in a residential area and exit the vehicle. A mechanic and welding company both assessed the vehicle and acknowledged the u unusual and excessive rusting. In researching online and speaking to car experts, this seems and is confirmed to be poor manufacturing and materials used for the frame.
Dangerous and rusted through frame. The vehicles frame should have been recalled like the other Toyotas affected.
We took the vehicle in for inspection and it failed due to the exhaust leaks, and more importantly the frame rusting out. We never received the recall notice for this issue. We have owned this vehicle for many years, so there is no reason we would not have been notified for the recall of the frame. The vehicle was just serviced last year and we spent a great deal of money to keep it running properly so we would not have any issues and it would last us for quite a long time to come. With the frame being rusted through, there is simply no way to keep this vehicle safe. Toyota did not notify customers that had the vehicles with the frame issue. This is something that is simply not acceptable. We are a family of Toyota owners and have always depended on the reliability of them. Finding this out has really shocked us and honestly diminished our trust in the Toyota reliability. Is Toyota willing to fix this issue, are we just stuck with this. Please help.
My 4runner have major frame rust issues and is a major safety hazard. This a known issue to Toyota and a recall needs to be made.
The contact owns a 2006 Toyota 4Runner. The contact stated that after a State Inspection, the vehicle was declared unsafe to drive on the State roadways due to severe corrosion. The contact stated no warning light was illuminated. The contact had taken the vehicle to a local dealer, where it was diagnosed and determined that the subframe needed to be replaced due to extensive corrosion. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was informed of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 140,000.
My control arm ripped completely off my fram on the passenger side due to excessive rust putting me and my family and any one else on the road at risk of something catastrophic.
My 4runner was purchased from a dealership and serviced there for rust related problems several times but was never told I had a serious rust problem. The problem is the frame has prematurely rusted and now the car is unsafe to drive due to the control arm rusting off the frame
Vehicle failed inspection due to rust on the frame. Bought vehicle because it is supposedly ruggedly built and for the frame to rust out when the vehicle has 103k miles and not driven off-road for more than a few times since we owned it is ridiculous. Dealer quoted $11k for the frame alone, not including labor. The fact this vehicle shares the platform with the Tacoma which was recalled for frame does not make sense. Vehicle was inspected last year (Virginia requires annual safety inspections), so given the amount of rust discovered makes me doubt whether or not the Toyota dealership did a thorough job inspecting the vehicle last year. We don't drive the vehicle that much so it doesn't make sense that it would rust som significantly.
I took my car in for routine maintenance and they pointed out rust on the frame and suggested it was more than it should have and could cause a safety hazard.
Questions about the 2006 Toyota 4RUNNER body
Does the 2006 Toyota 4RUNNER have body problems?
Owners have filed 143 complaints about the body of the 2006 Toyota 4RUNNER, 38% of all its complaints, more than any other problem.
At what mileage do 2006 Toyota 4RUNNER body problems start?
The typical (median) mileage in owner complaints is 127,456 miles.
Was there a recall on the 2006 Toyota 4RUNNER body?
There is no recall for this problem on this model year.
What year does the Toyota 4RUNNER have the most body problems?
The Toyota 4RUNNER model years with the most body complaints are 2004 (310 complaints), 2003 (284 complaints) and 2000 (256 complaints).
Other 2006 Toyota 4RUNNER problems
Suspension 65Brakes 34Transmission 30Airbags 24Steering 22Visibility 22Electrical 18Engine 18Acceleration 17Tires 13Driver assistance 6Fuel system 6Wheels 5Seats 3Lights 2Locks 2Seat belts 2
VIN decoder
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Buying a used 2006 Toyota 4RUNNER?
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history