1997 Toyota RAV4 Recalls, Ratings & Complaints

Incident: August 10, 2019 · Filed: August 15, 2019

VEHICLE ALARM ADD ON MODULE AND HARNESS WERE FOUND TO BE FAULTY AND HAS SHORTED OUT UPON INSPECTION OF MODULE I HAVE FOUND BURNT CIRCUITS . VEHICLE IS UNABLE TO START ALSO LEADING TO BELIEVE THE ECM HAS BEEN EFFECTED .

Incident: February 18, 2016 · Filed: February 19, 2016

1997 RAV4 AWD 109000 DEALER SERVICED TOOK IN FOR A OIL CHANGE 2/18/16 DEALER INFORMED ME THAT THE CRADLE ASSY HAS A TENNIS BALL SIZE HOLE IN IT NEAR NEXT TO LEFT CONTROL ARM , $2361.30 TO REPLACE OR JUNK THE VEHICLE NOT SAFE TO DRIVE, VEHICLE SERVICED EVERY 5000 MILES AND ITS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION NOW, MY 22 YR OLD DAUGHTER HAS BEEN DRIVING THIS VEHICLE THE LAST 6 1/2 YRS A VERY POOR DESIGN BY TOYOTA

Incident: April 23, 2015 · Filed: April 24, 2015

RECEIVED WARRANTY ENHANCEMENT NOTICE-ZE7, AS INSTRUCTED, DEALER TEST WAS PERFORMED. OIL LOSS TOTALS UNDER 1QT. FOR EA. 1200 MILES DRIVEN. WAS TOLD THIS DID NOT QUALIFY FOR REPAIR. MY CONCERN IS THIS: TOYOTA SERVICE REQUIRED FOR OIL CHANGE IS EVERY 5,000 MILES. MY CAR HAS EXCESSIVE OIL CONSUMPTION OF JUST UNDER 1QT PER 1,200 MILES, SO DRIVING 5,000 MILES WOULD EFFECTIVELY BURN 4QTS., OR MORE, THEREBY STARVING ENGINE FOR OIL AND RESULTING IN ENGINE FAILURE. SERVICE DEPARTMENT ADVISED ME TO KEEP CHECKING OIL LEVEL, AND ADD OIL AS REQUIRED. I AM DISAPPOINTED IN TOYOTA'S SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM AND ADVISED THEM OF MY OPINION. I AM ABLE TO ADD OIL AS REQUIRED, BUT QUESTIONED CUSTOMER SERVICE ABOUT OTHER SENIOR CITIZEN'S ABILITY TO SELF MAINTAIN THE OIL LEVEL, OR FOR THAT MATTER, ANY CONSUMER THAT HAS THIS PROBLEM. TOYOTA HAS ASSIGNED ME A CASE NUMBER FROM REGIONAL CA. OFFICE. I WAS TOLD THAT PERHAPS TOYOTA WILL CHANGE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS SO THAT AT 5,000 MILES, OIL CONSUMPTION WOULD NOT RESULT IN ENGINE STARVATION AND FAILURE. ALSO, IN MY CASE CONTINUE TO MONITOR OIL LOSS, AND IF IT INCREASES IN VOLUME, COME BACK TO DEALER AND TEST AGAIN. I THINK THAT DESIGN FAILURE DUE TO MANUFACTURING DEFECT SHOULD BE FULLY COVERED UNDER THIS WARRANTY ENHANCEMENT NOTIFICATION THAT WAS MAILED TO ME. *TR

Incident: February 5, 2015 · Filed: March 6, 2015

RAV 4 TOYOTA 1997-WAS UNABLE TO DRIVE MORE THAN 30 MILES WITHOUT THE RPR INCREASED WITHOUT CONTROL, TRANSMISSION AND ENGINE BECOME EXTREMELY HOT, FLUIDS WERE DRAINED . CAR SENT TO DARCARS TOYOTA THERMOSTAT WAS REPLACED, AND NOW FACING SEVERE TRANSMISSION ISSUES, BECAUSE LACK OF RECALL RPR 'S ISSUE VERY DETRIMENTAL AND RISKY . *TR

Incident: June 30, 2014 · Filed: July 4, 2014

MY SON WAS DRIVING, HIT A POTHOLE, AND THE SUB FRAME COMPLETELY BROKE IN HALF. UPON INSPECTION, I FOUND THAT IT HAD BEEN ROTTING OUT FROM THE TOP. *TR

Incident: December 2, 2013 · Filed: December 3, 2013

WE TOOK OUR 1997 RAV4 TO THE MECHANIC FOR A ROUTINE TIRE ROTATION AND OIL CHANGE. THE MECHANIC INFORMED US THE SUBFRAME WAS SEVERELY RUSTED AND DANGEROUS TO DRIVE. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON THE PROBLEM AND FOUND OUT IT IS A COMMON OCCURRENCE WITH ALL RAV4'S AND THAT TOYOTA REFUSES TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR A MAJOR DESIGN FLAW IN THESE VEHICLES. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THIS HAPPENING IN OTHER VEHICLES I'VE OWNED. MY MECHANIC WHOM I TRUST IMPLICITLY SAID THEY'VE REPLACED MANY SUB FRAMES ON THESE VEHICLES EXCLUSIVELY. *TR

Incident: March 20, 2012 · Filed: March 27, 2012

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 TOYOTA RAV4. THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHERE THEY DETECTED THAT THE ENTIRE SUBFRAME WAS COMPLETELY RUSTED. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR A SECOND OPINION. THE TECHNICIAN INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE BODY FRAME WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 108,000. UPDATED 05/11/12 *BF UPDATED 05/21/12

Incident: March 21, 2012 · Filed: March 21, 2012

THE SUB-FRAME IS RUSTING OUT AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD IT IS DANGEROUS TO DRIVE. TOYOTA HAS TOLD ME THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO. *JS

Incident: September 14, 2011 · Filed: October 14, 2011

I TOOK MY VEHICLE IN FOR SOME ROUTINE MAINTENANCE TO BE DONE AND WAS CALLED TO COME IN BY THE MECHANIC. HE SHOWED ME UNDER MY CAR, MORE SPECIFICALLY THE FRAME ON MY CAR. IT HAD EXTENSIVE RUST DAMAGE. THE RUST WAS NOT JUST ON THE SURFACE, BUT HAD LARGE HOLES EATEN AWAY WITHIN THE ENTIRE FRAME. THE BODY OF THE VEHICLE IS IN VERY GOOD CONDITION. THE MECHANIC STATED IT WAS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE, BECAUSE OF THE HOLES/DAMAGE ON THE FRAME. HE DID NOT THINK IT WAS NORMAL WEAR. UPDATED 10/20/11 *BF

Incident: March 19, 2010 · Filed: March 19, 2010

GAS PEDAL STICKS. *TR