There are 6 stored owner reports matching the body & structure leading-label group for the 1997 Toyota RAV4 in our NHTSA-sourced dataset. These are unverified consumer reports and may not reflect confirmed defects.
This group counts stored reports whose component label starts with one of this site's matching prefixes, ignoring case. Each matching report counts once within the group. Components mentioned later in the label or only in the narrative are not searched. How component counts work
Loaded 6 of 6 matching reports.
Open the full vehicle complaint log (all categories)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
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
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
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
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
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
Complaints are unverified consumer reports submitted to NHTSA. A high complaint count may reflect vehicle popularity, not defect severity. Data sourced from NHTSA public records.
NHTSA source checks for this vehicle year
Checks are recorded separately for each dataset, not for the whole page. Dates use UTC. A missing check date does not mean no records exist.
Vehicle import recorded: May 4, 2026. This is the stored import date, not confirmation that every source was successfully refreshed.