IllustrationWHILE DRIVING AT 25 MPH PASSENGER'S SIDE REAR TIRE BLEW OUT. PRIOR TO THE BLOWOUT DEALERSHIP INDICATED THAT ALL TIRES HAD ABNORMAL WEAR. AT THE TIME OF BLOWOUT CONSUMER WAS ABLE TO SEE THE METAL BELT THROUGH THE SIDEWALL. *AK *SC
2002 Toyota Prius
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2002 Toyota Prius do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 164.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Prius years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
250–25K
2525–50K
1850–75K
2075–100K
30100–150K
12150K+
130 reports with mileage · 37 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Steering. Review the 80 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 18 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Tires. Review the 18 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
12 crash reports4 fire reports7 injury reports
Tires complaints
18 reportsPROBLEMS WITH TIRE EQUIPMENT ON 2002 TOYOTA PRIUS.*MR CONSUMER REPLACED THE TIRES SEVEN TIMES TO DATE. PROBLEMS WITH THE TREAD AND SIDEWALL. MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE DEFECT. *PH
WHILE DRIVING, THE CONSUMER NOTICED A NOISE WAS COMING FROM THE FRONT END. THE FIRST FAILURE OF THE FRONT TIRES WAS JULY 2,2003 AT 20624 MILES. NEW REPLACEMENT TIRES WERE PUT ON THE REAR. THE OLD TIRES WERE MOVED TO THE FRONT. THE FRONT TIRES FAILED SEP 27 2003. TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIP AND THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED BY THE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING, THE CONSUMER NOTICED A NOISE WAS COMING FROM THE FRONT END. THE FIRST FAILURE OF THE FRONT TIRES WAS JULY 2,2003 AT 20624 MILES. NEW REPLACEMENT TIRES WERE PUT ON THE REAR. THE OLD TIRES WERE MOVED TO THE FRONT. THE FRONT TIRES FAILED SEP 27 2003. TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIP AND THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED BY THE MECHANIC THAT THE TIRES WORE OUT BADLY ON THE INSIDE AND WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED. TIRE SIZE P175/65R14XL. THE VEHICLE JERKED WHEN STARTED. NO PROBLEM FOUND. *AK *TT *JB
2002 TOYOTA PRIUS HAVE HAD FIVE TIRES REPLACED ON THIS CAR AND ONLY HAVE 28,000 MILES ON IT. THE TIRES WEAR UNEVEN, AND THE SIDEWALLS BREAK DOWN TO CAUSE FLAT. THE TREAD COMES OFF IN CHUNKS. STEEL WIRES SHOWING. EVERY TIRE HAS HAD A DIFFERENT THING HAPPEN TO IT. I HAVE 3 TIRES REPLACED BY THE DEALERSHIP IN ONE DAY. THE 1ST T…
Read full complaint
2002 TOYOTA PRIUS HAVE HAD FIVE TIRES REPLACED ON THIS CAR AND ONLY HAVE 28,000 MILES ON IT. THE TIRES WEAR UNEVEN, AND THE SIDEWALLS BREAK DOWN TO CAUSE FLAT. THE TREAD COMES OFF IN CHUNKS. STEEL WIRES SHOWING. EVERY TIRE HAS HAD A DIFFERENT THING HAPPEN TO IT. I HAVE 3 TIRES REPLACED BY THE DEALERSHIP IN ONE DAY. THE 1ST TIRE WENT FLAT FROM THE SIDEWALL BRAKING DOWN AND BEING WEAK. THE ONE I HAD REPLACED ON 8-28-03 WAS WEARING UNEVENLY AND JUST HAD THE CAR IN FOR MAINT. THESE TIRES ARE UNSAFE TO DRIVE ON AND I WOULD HOPE FOR A RECALL. *AK
TWO FRONT TIRES WORE OUT PREMATURELY. DEALER SAYS THE REMEDY FOR THIS PROBLEM IS TO ROTATE THE TIRES AND KEEP THE APPROPRIATE TIRE PRESSURE. *AK
PREMATURE TIRE WEAR. *JB
TWO BRIDGESTONE POTENZA RE92 [P175/65 R14 84S, DOT EL(PJDH4801] TIRES FAILED ON MY 2002 PRIUS WITHIN ONE WEEK. THESE ARE THE TIRES INSTALLED ON THE VEHICLE WHEN WE BOUGHT IT. OUR VEHICLE CURRENTLY HAS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 25,000 MILES ON THE ODOMETER AND IS DRIVEN PRIMARILY FOR COMMUTING ON FREEWAYS. WE DISCOVERED THE RIGHT FRONT …
Read full complaint
TWO BRIDGESTONE POTENZA RE92 [P175/65 R14 84S, DOT EL(PJDH4801] TIRES FAILED ON MY 2002 PRIUS WITHIN ONE WEEK. THESE ARE THE TIRES INSTALLED ON THE VEHICLE WHEN WE BOUGHT IT. OUR VEHICLE CURRENTLY HAS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 25,000 MILES ON THE ODOMETER AND IS DRIVEN PRIMARILY FOR COMMUTING ON FREEWAYS. WE DISCOVERED THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE EXTREMELY LOW ON AIR WHEN RETURNING TO A PARKING GARAGE ON 4/12/03. AS WE WERE UNABLE TO LOCATE A GAS STATION MY HUSBAND CHANGED THE FAILED TIRE WITH THE TEMPORARY TIRE AND HAD THE THE FAILED TIRE REPAIRED THE NEXT DAY. WHEN SERVICED WE WERE TOLD THE TIRE HAD A PIN HOLE AND IRREGULAR WEAR PATTERN. WE TOOK THE VEHICLE INTO THE DEALERSHIP FOR ITS SCHEDULED 22,500 MILE SERVICE AND TO HAD THE TIRES INSPECTED AND THE FRONT END ALIGNED. WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE TIRES WEAR PATTERN WE WERE TOLD THE "TIRES WERE MARGINAL" AND THAT WE SHOULD EXPECT TO REPLACE THE TIRES IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS. THE SECOND TIRE FAILED TODAY WHEN MY HUSBAND WAS CUT OFF IN A PARKING LOT (TRAVELING LESS THAN 5 MILES AN HOUR AND SWERVED TO AVOID BEING HIT AND HIT THE PARKING CURB), THE TIRE FAILED AND REQUIRED IMMEDIATE REPLACEMENT WITH THE TEMPORARY TIRE. WE ARE HAVING ALL FOUR TIRES REPLACED, AT THIS TIME, DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE TWO BRIDGESTONE POTENZA RE92 [P175/65 R14 84S, DOT EL9PJDH4801] WITHIN A SEVEN DAY PERIOD. *NLM
I HAVE HAD THREE TIRE BLOWOUTS, ONE WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER PURCHASE OF THE TIRE.*AK
Official recalls
211V304000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System
Jun 1, 2011
TOYOTA IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2001 THROUGH 2003 PRIUS PASSENGER CARS MANUFACTURED FROM JANUARY 28, 2000, THROUGH MAY 30, 2003. THE STEERING LINKAGE MAY LOOSEN, RESULTING IN REDUCED ELECTRIC STEERING ASSISTANCE WHEN MAKING A LEFT TURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: LOSS OF POWER STEERING, PARTICULARLY WHEN AN OPERATOR IS ACTIVELY INTENDING TO STEER THE VEHICLE, MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: TOYOTA WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE NUTS IN THE STEERING LINKAGE FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 8, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
06V266000 · Engine And Engine Cooling
Jul 19, 2006
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES, DUE TO IMPROPER MOLDING OF THE RESIN BODY OF THE CRANKSHAFT POSITION SENOR INSTALLED ON THE ENGINE BLOCK, ENGINE OIL MAY PENETRATE THE SEAL AND ENTER THE SENSOR WIRING CONNECTOR. THE WIRE HARNESS CONNECTOR MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ATTACHED TO THE LOCKING TAB OF THE SENSOR WIRING CONNECTOR.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: ENGINE OIL INSIDE THE SENSOR WIRING CONNECTOR COULD CAUSE EXPANSION DUE TO THE HEAT OF THE ENGINE AND COULD DEFORM THE SENSOR WIRING CONNECTOR. THE CONNECTOR MAY BECOME DISCONNECTED, WHICH COULD CAUSE THE ENGINE TO STALL WHILE DRIVING AND NOT BE ABLE TO BE RESTARTED INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE CRANKSHAFT POSITION SENSOR FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 26, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
1DP22005 · Pedestrian Alert Sounds
Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Aug 7, 2023
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:propulsion System
NHTSA received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, NHTSA opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified NHTSA he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by NHTSA regarding the subject matter of the petition.