NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Parking Brake complaints
37 reportsClear category filter44,356 miles · Jan 5, 2005
Parking Brake
I OWN A 2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE, THAT DID NOT PASS INSPECTION DUE TO THE PARKING BRAKE NO HOLDING. THIS OCCURRED WITH OUT WARNING SINCE MY LAST INSPECTION. I VISTED THE DEALER AND THEY ASKED FOR MILEAGE AND STATED IT WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THERE IS NO WARRNING SYSTEM FOR THIS PROBLEM. AND THAT THIS IS…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE, THAT DID NOT PASS INSPECTION DUE TO THE PARKING BRAKE NO HOLDING. THIS OCCURRED WITH OUT WARNING SINCE MY LAST INSPECTION. I VISTED THE DEALER AND THEY ASKED FOR MILEAGE AND STATED IT WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THERE IS NO WARRNING SYSTEM FOR THIS PROBLEM. AND THAT THIS IS A DESIGN FLOW FOUND ON THIS VEHICLE. THIS WILL COST ME CLOSE TO $800 FOR BRAKE SHOES DRUM / ROTOR ASSEMBLY AND BRAKE PADS I BELIEVE THAT A RECALL SHOULD BE ISSUED . *AK
NHTSA ODI #10105796
71,000 miles · Dec 6, 2004
Parking Brake
I OWN A 2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE, THAT I COULD NOT GET INSPECTED DUE TO THE PARKING BRAKE NOT HOLDING. UPON HAVING THE VEHICLE SERVICED FOUND THAT A RETAINING CLIP ASSEMBLY FAILED, CAUSING THE PARKING BRAKE SHOES TO ENGAGE AT SOME POINT IN THE LAST YEAR AND WEAR THE SHOES DOWN, DAMAGE THE DRUM / ROTOR ASSEMBLY, AND CAUSE CHIPPI…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE, THAT I COULD NOT GET INSPECTED DUE TO THE PARKING BRAKE NOT HOLDING. UPON HAVING THE VEHICLE SERVICED FOUND THAT A RETAINING CLIP ASSEMBLY FAILED, CAUSING THE PARKING BRAKE SHOES TO ENGAGE AT SOME POINT IN THE LAST YEAR AND WEAR THE SHOES DOWN, DAMAGE THE DRUM / ROTOR ASSEMBLY, AND CAUSE CHIPPING / CRACKING WITH THE REAR BRAKE PADS DUE TO THE HEAT GENERATED BY THE RETAINING CLIP ASSEMBLY FAILURE. I CONTACTED GM AND WAS TOLD THAT THIS WAS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY, AND MY DEALER ALSO SAID THE SAME THING, THAT THESE ARE 'WEAR AND TEAR' ITEMS THAT I WAS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR. THEY SAID THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL IF THE CLIP HAD FAILED OR IF I HAD DRIVEN WITH THE PARKING BRAKE ENGAGED, WHICH NEVER HAPPENED. I FOUND A PREVIOUS TSB WAS REFERENCED TO THIS ISSUE (020526002A) AND NHTSA# 10000172, WHICH WERE SIMILAR. THE TSB INDICATED REPLACING THE RETAINING CLIP WITH A NEWLY DESIGNED ONE. WHICH TELLS ME THIS WAS A DESIGN FLAW WITH THE RETAINING CLIP ON MY 2002 VEHICLE, WHICH HAS NOW RESULTED IN A COSTLY REPAIR (BRAKE SHOES X2, RETAINING CLIP X2, DRUM / ROTOR ASSEMBLY X2, BRAKE PADS X2 (PRIMARIES) THAT IS OVER $800. I'VE FOUND MANY OTHER AVALANCHE AND SILVERADO OWNERS ALSO HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM, SOME ARE BEING COVERED BY WARRANTY, SOME ARE NOT. I FEEL THAT THIS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY GM AND A RECALL ISSUED BEFORE THIS $8 RETAINING CLIP PART WINDS UP COSTING OTHER CUSTOMERS OVER $800.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10102229
Mileage unknown · Nov 30, 2004
Parking Brake
2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE Z66 HAS FAILED PARKING BRAKE. I DO NOT TOW OR EVEN USE THE BRAKE. HOWEVER IN ATTEMPTING TO PASS TEXAS STATE INSPECTION, MY PARKING BRAKE FAILS. WHEN BRAKE IS SET IN ALL THE WAY, TRUCK PUT IN DRIVE, TRUCK WILL MOVE FORWARD AS IF BRAKE IS NOT SET. CHEVYTALK.ORG HAS OVER 5000 POST OF USERS ON THIS SAME ITEM…
Read full complaint
2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE Z66 HAS FAILED PARKING BRAKE. I DO NOT TOW OR EVEN USE THE BRAKE. HOWEVER IN ATTEMPTING TO PASS TEXAS STATE INSPECTION, MY PARKING BRAKE FAILS. WHEN BRAKE IS SET IN ALL THE WAY, TRUCK PUT IN DRIVE, TRUCK WILL MOVE FORWARD AS IF BRAKE IS NOT SET. CHEVYTALK.ORG HAS OVER 5000 POST OF USERS ON THIS SAME ITEM. CHEVY ASE MECHANIC SAID IT'S A KNOWN DESIGN FLAW IN THE CLIPS THAT CAUSES E-BRAKE TO WEAR EVEN IF NEVER USED. MY CONCERN IS THAT IF I NEED IT, DUE TO A HYDROLIC FAILURE, IT DOESN'T WORK. CONTACTED DEALER AND THEY CLAIM IT IS NOT PART OF WARRANTY. THIS IS CLEARLY A DANGEROUS DESIGN PROBLEM THAT GM IS NOT OWNING UP TO. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10100778
Mileage unknown · Nov 19, 2004
Parking BrakePower Train
PARKING BRAKE FAILURE INVOLVING 2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE. THERE WAS NO DAMAGE OR INJURY. HOWEVER, WHEN BROUGHT IN FOR REPAIR, I WAS GIVEN A REPORT THAT STATES, ACCORDING TO CHEVROLET TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE "PARKING BRAKE IS NOT DESIGNED TO HOLD ON A DOWN SLOPE AND ONLY DESIGNED TO HOLD AT 8% GRADE ON UP SLOPE." THIS RUNS COUNTE…
Read full complaint
PARKING BRAKE FAILURE INVOLVING 2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE. THERE WAS NO DAMAGE OR INJURY. HOWEVER, WHEN BROUGHT IN FOR REPAIR, I WAS GIVEN A REPORT THAT STATES, ACCORDING TO CHEVROLET TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE "PARKING BRAKE IS NOT DESIGNED TO HOLD ON A DOWN SLOPE AND ONLY DESIGNED TO HOLD AT 8% GRADE ON UP SLOPE." THIS RUNS COUNTER TO THE 2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE OWNERS MANUAL, SECTION 7-20, ENTITLED "PARKING BRAKE AND AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION PARK MECHANISM CHECK WHICH INSTRUCTS AS FOLLOWS: "PARK ON A FAIRLY STEEP HILL, WITH THE VEHICLE FACING DOWNHILL" AND PROCEEDS TO GIVE STEPS FOR CHECKING THE PARKING BRAKE FUNCTION THAT CREATE A CLEAR EXPECTATION THAT THE PARKING BRAKE SHOULD FUNCTION "ON A FAIRLY STEEP HILL." SINCE BRINGING MY VEHICLE FOR REQUESTED ADJUSTMENT/REPAIR, I CONTINUE TO FIND THAT THE PARKING BRAKE WILL NOT HOLD WITH THE VEHICLE FACING DOWNHILL ON EVEN A MODEST SLOPE.*AK KNOWING THAT I CANNOT RELY ON THE PARKING BRAKE, FOR NOW I WILL TAKE OTHER STEPS TO ASSURE SAFETY. I AM VERY CONCERNED FOR OTHER OWNERS OF THIS VEHICLE ... FOR THEIR SAFETY AND THE SAFETY OF THEIR FAMILIES. IF AN OWNER, UNAWARE OF THIS DEFECT, HAVING A DRIVEWAY OF ANY MODEST SLOPE, RELIES ON THIS VEHICLE'S PARKING BRAKE ... THEY CLEARLY FACE THE RISK OF UNEXPECTED MOVEMENT OF THE VEHICLE ... RISKING DAMAGE TO PROPERTY OR TO HUMAN LIFE.
NHTSA ODI #10100221
12,000 miles · Oct 6, 2004
Parking Brake
2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE Z66 HAS FAILED PARKING BRAKE. I DO NOT TOW OR EVEN USE THE BRAKE. HOWEVER IN ATTEMPTING TO PASS TEXAS STATE INSPECTION, MY PARKING BRAKE FAILS. WHEN BRAKE IS SET IN ALL THE WAY, TRUCK PUT IN DRIVE, TRUCK WILL MOVE FORWARD AS IF BRAKE IS NOT SET. CHEVYTALK.ORG HAS OVER 5000 POST OF USERS ON THIS SAME ITEM…
Read full complaint
2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE Z66 HAS FAILED PARKING BRAKE. I DO NOT TOW OR EVEN USE THE BRAKE. HOWEVER IN ATTEMPTING TO PASS TEXAS STATE INSPECTION, MY PARKING BRAKE FAILS. WHEN BRAKE IS SET IN ALL THE WAY, TRUCK PUT IN DRIVE, TRUCK WILL MOVE FORWARD AS IF BRAKE IS NOT SET. CHEVYTALK.ORG HAS OVER 5000 POST OF USERS ON THIS SAME ITEM. CHEVY ASE MECHANIC SAID IT'S A KNOWN DESIGN FLAW IN THE CLIPS THAT CAUSES E-BRAKE TO WEAR EVEN IF NEVER USED. MY CONCERN IS THAT IF I NEED IT, DUE TO A HYDROLIC FAILURE, IT DOESN'T WORK. CONTACTED DEALER AND THEY CLAIM IT IS NOT PART OF WARRANTY. Y UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS DEFECT EXISTIS TO PROVIDE GM WITH A COST SAVINGS IN MANUFACTURING, BUT IT IS AT THE COST OF THOUSANDS OF DRIVERS AND THIER FAMILIES. IS THAT WORTH IT?*AK
NHTSA ODI #10093694
Mileage unknown · Sep 22, 2004
Parking Brake
WHILE APPLYING THE PARKING BRAKE VEHICLE FAILED. THERE WAS NO BRAKING POWER. CONSUMER WAS ABLE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, AND DROVE IT TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT PARKING BRAKE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. ALSO, RECALL ISSUED DID NOT INCLUDE THIS VEHICLE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10094131
Mileage unknown · Sep 22, 2004
Parking Brake
MY EMERGENCY BRAKE DOES NOT WORK ON MY 2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE 1500 SERIES. I WENT TO GET IT INSPECTED TODAY AND IT FAILED INSPECTION B/C OF THIS PROBLEM....WHICH I HAD NO IDEA OF! I AM GLAD I FOUND OUT THIS WAY. I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS A COMMON PROBLEM ON CHEVROLETS AND IT IS QUITE AN EXPENSIVE PROBLEM TO FIX. I CALLED PARK…
Read full complaint
MY EMERGENCY BRAKE DOES NOT WORK ON MY 2002 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE 1500 SERIES. I WENT TO GET IT INSPECTED TODAY AND IT FAILED INSPECTION B/C OF THIS PROBLEM....WHICH I HAD NO IDEA OF! I AM GLAD I FOUND OUT THIS WAY. I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS A COMMON PROBLEM ON CHEVROLETS AND IT IS QUITE AN EXPENSIVE PROBLEM TO FIX. I CALLED PARKS CHEVROLET IN CHARLOTTE AND THEY WANT ME TO COME BY NEXT TUESDAY TO GET IT LOOKED AT AND FIXED. BUT IF THIS A COMMON PROBLEM SHOULDN'T IT BE RECALLED OR SHOULDN'T THE VEHICLE TELL ME THAT THE EMERGENCY BRAKE IS NOT WORKING?? I THINK THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10093018
75,000 miles · Sep 7, 2004
Parking Brake
PARKING BRAKE DOES NOT HOLD VEHICLE. THE BRAKE DOES NOT LOCK THE BACK WHEELS. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10090526
36,500 miles · Mar 22, 2004
Parking Brake
PARKING BRAKE WORN OUT AND ROTOR RUSTED AT 36OOO MILES. I DON'T USE THE PARKING BRAKE AT ALL. WHY WAS IT WORN OUT? REAR BRAKE PADS ALSO WORE OUT BEFORE FRONT PADS. DESIGN OF PARKING BRAKE MAKES ADJUSTMENT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE AT THE WHEEL. THE CABLE CANNOT BE ADJUSTED ENOUGH TO ACTIVATE THE PARKING BRAKE. THE PARTS MAN AT THE DEALE…
Read full complaint
PARKING BRAKE WORN OUT AND ROTOR RUSTED AT 36OOO MILES. I DON'T USE THE PARKING BRAKE AT ALL. WHY WAS IT WORN OUT? REAR BRAKE PADS ALSO WORE OUT BEFORE FRONT PADS. DESIGN OF PARKING BRAKE MAKES ADJUSTMENT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE AT THE WHEEL. THE CABLE CANNOT BE ADJUSTED ENOUGH TO ACTIVATE THE PARKING BRAKE. THE PARTS MAN AT THE DEALERSHIPJUST SHRUGGED HIS SHOULDERS AND INFORMED ME THAT THE ONLY POSSIBLE REMEDY IS TO REPLACE BOTH ROTORS, PADS AND PARKING BRAKE SHOES. THIS SEEMS LIKE A DESIGN FLAW.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10062807
10,000 miles · Feb 23, 2004
Parking Brake
PARKING DOES NOT WORK AND CABLE IS TO LONG FOR ANY ADJUSTMENTS. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10058800
NHTSA investigations
7PE10010 · Brake Line Corrosion Failure
Opened Mar 30, 2010 · Closed Jan 5, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist:hydraulic:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received Defect Petition DP10-003 on March 2, 2010, requesting the investigation of model year (MY) 2003 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 4WD pickup trucks for corrosion failures of the vehicle brake lines.DP10-003 was granted and on March 30, 2010, Preliminary Evaluation PE10-010 was opened on more than six million model year 1999 through 2003 light trucks and sport utility vehicles manufactured and sold by General Motors Corporation (GM).On July 2, 2010, ODI received GM's response to an information request, which included GM's assessment of the frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect. GM stated that:(1) the brake system of the subject vehicles is split front/rear and should a brake pipe suddenly fail for any reason, the affected vehicle would be capable of stopping with the pressure supplied by the remaining circuit; (2) the subject vehicles were designed to meet the hydraulic circuit partial failure requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 105 and 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; and (3) should a brake fluid leak occur for any reason, the brake system malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) would illuminate and warn the driver before the brake fluid level was low enough to cause a loss of line pressure.ODI's and GM's analysis indicates that 85 percent of the complaints occurred on vehicles used primarily in States that use salt on the roads during Winter months (Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin).Overall the complaint rates per 100,000 vehicles for Salt Belt States is 43.0 and Non-Salt Belt is 3.0.In approximately 25 percent of the complaints the brake pipe failure occurred suddenly, with no warning (i.e., no MIL, Brake Fluid Loss Warning), and resulted in extended stopping distances.In 30 of these the increase in stopping distance that resulted was a factor in the crash and in 10 others the vehicle was intentionally steered off the road or into another lane of travel in order to avoid a crash.This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA11-001) for subject vehicles sold or currently registered in Salt Belt States to further assess the scope, frequency and safety risks associated with sudden failures of corroded brake pipes that can result in decreased brake effectiveness. ODI will continue to gather information on subject vehicles outside the Salt Belt as well.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received Defect Petition DP10-003 on March 2, 2010, requesting the investigation of model year (MY) 2003 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 4WD pickup trucks for corrosion failures of the vehicle brake lines.DP10-003 was granted and on March 30, 2010, Preliminary Evaluation PE10-010 was opened on more than six million model year 1999 through 2003 light trucks and sport utility vehicles manufactured and sold by General Motors Corporation (GM).On July 2, 2010, ODI received GM's response to an information request, which included GM's assessment of the frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect. GM stated that:(1) the brake system of the subject vehicles is split front/rear and should a brake pipe suddenly fail for any reason, the affected vehicle would be capable of stopping with the pressure supplied by the remaining circuit; (2) the subject vehicles were designed to meet the hydraulic circuit partial failure requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 105 and 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; and (3) should a brake fluid leak occur for any reason, the brake system malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) would illuminate and warn the driver before the brake fluid level was low enough to cause a loss of line pressure.ODI's and GM's analysis indicates that 85 percent of the complaints occurred on vehicles used primarily in States that use salt on the roads during Winter months (Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin).Overall the complaint rates per 100,000 vehicles for Salt Belt States is 43.0 and Non-Salt Belt is 3.0.In approximately 25 percent of the complaints the brake pipe failure occurred suddenly, with no warning (i.e., no MIL, Brake Fluid Loss Warning), and resulted in extended stopping distances.In 30 of these the increase in stopping distance that resulted was a factor in the crash and in 10 others the vehicle was intentionally steered off the road or into another lane of travel in order to avoid a crash.This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA11-001) for subject vehicles sold or currently registered in Salt Belt States to further assess the scope, frequency and safety risks associated with sudden failures of corroded brake pipes that can result in decreased brake effectiveness. ODI will continue to gather information on subject vehicles outside the Salt Belt as well.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist:hydraulic:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received Defect Petition DP10-003 on March 2, 2010, requesting the investigation of model year (MY) 2003 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 4WD pickup trucks for corrosion failures of the vehicle brake lines.DP10-003 was granted and on March 30, 2010, Preliminary Evaluation PE10-010 was opened on more than six million model year 1999 through 2003 light trucks and sport utility vehicles manufactured and sold by General Motors Corporation (GM).On July 2, 2010, ODI received GM's response to an information request, which included GM's assessment of the frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect. GM stated that:(1) the brake system of the subject vehicles is split front/rear and should a brake pipe suddenly fail for any reason, the affected vehicle would be capable of stopping with the pressure supplied by the remaining circuit; (2) the subject vehicles were designed to meet the hydraulic circuit partial failure requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 105 and 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; and (3) should a brake fluid leak occur for any reason, the brake system malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) would illuminate and warn the driver before the brake fluid level was low enough to cause a loss of line pressure.ODI's and GM's analysis indicates that 85 percent of the complaints occurred on vehicles used primarily in States that use salt on the roads during Winter months (Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin).Overall the complaint rates per 100,000 vehicles for Salt Belt States is 43.0 and Non-Salt Belt is 3.0.In approximately 25 percent of the complaints the brake pipe failure occurred suddenly, with no warning (i.e., no MIL, Brake Fluid Loss Warning), and resulted in extended stopping distances.In 30 of these the increase in stopping distance that resulted was a factor in the crash and in 10 others the vehicle was intentionally steered off the road or into another lane of travel in order to avoid a crash.This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA11-001) for subject vehicles sold or currently registered in Salt Belt States to further assess the scope, frequency and safety risks associated with sudden failures of corroded brake pipes that can result in decreased brake effectiveness. ODI will continue to gather information on subject vehicles outside the Salt Belt as well.
PE06016 · Crank Position Sensor Failure - Stall
Opened May 4, 2006 · Closed Sep 14, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE06-016) ON MAY 4, 2006 BASED ON ELEVEN VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQS) AND EARLY WARNING (EWR) DATA ALLEGING SUDDEN ENGINE SHUTDOWN WHILE DRIVING AS A RESULT OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURES IN MY 2001-2002 GENERAL MOTORS C/K PLATFORM VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 8.1L ENGINES.IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER SENT BY ODI, GENERAL MOTORS (GM) PROVIDED OWNER COMPLAINT INFORMATION, FIELD REPORTS AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA BASED ON A POPULATION OF 108,338 VEHICLES. THE DATA WAS CATEGORIZED BY ENGINE STALLS WHILE DRIVING, ENGINE STALLS WITH AN UNKNOWN DRIVING CONDITION, NO START CONDITIONS AND CLAIMS WHERE IT WAS INDETERMINATE IF AN ENGINE STALL OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING.GENERAL MOTOR'S RESPONSE INCLUDED 1,213 OWNER COMPLAINTS AND FIELD REPORTS OF WHICH 289 WERE CATEGORIZED AS ENGINE STALLS WHILE DRIVING ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURES. GENERAL MOTORS ALSO SUBMITTED WARRANTY CLAIMS FROM ITS REGULAR WARRANTY (5 YEARS/50,000 MILES) AND FROM ITS EXTENDED WARRANTY DATABASE. FROM THE REGULAR WARRANTY DATABASE THERE WERE 3,140 CLAIMS OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR REPLACEMENT OF WHICH 147 CLAIMS WERE FROM CONSUMERS ALLEGING ENGINE STALL WHILE DRIVING.GM STATED THAT 2,841 OF THE CLAIMS WERE INDETERMINATE IF AN ENGINE STALL OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING.FROM ITS EXTENDED WARRANTY DATABASE, GM SUBMITTED 1,561 CLAIMS OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURE THAT IT ALSO STATED WERE INDETERMINATE AS TO WHETHER AN ENGINE STALL OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING.IN TOTAL, GM REPORTS 4,701 CLAIMS OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURE COMBINING REGULAR WARRANTY AND EXTENDED WARRANTY.SIMILAR TO GM'S STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, ODI'S ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT THE FAILURE RATE FOR WARRANTY CLAIMS OF ENGINE STALL WHILE DRIVING AT THREE YEARS IN SERVICE IS LOW (LESS THAN 1%).HOWEVER, FURTHER ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT THE MY 2001 VEHICLE BUILD PERIOD FROM MAY 2000 THROUGH OCTOBER 2000 HAD SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER (MORE THAN FOUR TIMES) CRANK POSITION FAILURE RATES IN BOTH CONSUMER COMPLAINT DATA AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA THAN IN THE BUILD PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 2000 THROUGH JULY 2001.ADDING THE CLAIMS OF KNOWN ENGINE STALL WHILE DRIVING AND CLAIMS WHERE ENGINE STALL WAS INDETERMINATE, THE FAILURE RATE AT THREE YEARS IN SERVICE FOR THIS POPULATION IS OVER 6%.AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-016) HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER ASSESS THE FREQUENCY AND POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN VEHICLES BUILT FROM MAY 2000 THROUGH OCTOBER 2000.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE06-016) ON MAY 4, 2006 BASED ON ELEVEN VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQS) AND EARLY WARNING (EWR) DATA ALLEGING SUDDEN ENGINE SHUTDOWN WHILE DRIVING AS A RESULT OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURES IN MY 2001-2002 GENERAL MOTORS C/K PLATFORM VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 8.1L ENGINES.IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER SENT BY ODI, GENERAL MOTORS (GM) PROVIDED OWNER COMPLAINT INFORMATION, FIELD REPORTS AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA BASED ON A POPULATION OF 108,338 VEHICLES. THE DATA WAS CATEGORIZED BY ENGINE STALLS WHILE DRIVING, ENGINE STALLS WITH AN UNKNOWN DRIVING CONDITION, NO START CONDITIONS AND CLAIMS WHERE IT WAS INDETERMINATE IF AN ENGINE STALL OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING.GENERAL MOTOR'S RESPONSE INCLUDED 1,213 OWNER COMPLAINTS AND FIELD REPORTS OF WHICH 289 WERE CATEGORIZED AS ENGINE STALLS WHILE DRIVING ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURES. GENERAL MOTORS ALSO SUBMITTED WARRANTY CLAIMS FROM ITS REGULAR WARRANTY (5 YEARS/50,000 MILES) AND FROM ITS EXTENDED WARRANTY DATABASE. FROM THE REGULAR WARRANTY DATABASE THERE WERE 3,140 CLAIMS OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR REPLACEMENT OF WHICH 147 CLAIMS WERE FROM CONSUMERS ALLEGING ENGINE STALL WHILE DRIVING.GM STATED THAT 2,841 OF THE CLAIMS WERE INDETERMINATE IF AN ENGINE STALL OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING.FROM ITS EXTENDED WARRANTY DATABASE, GM SUBMITTED 1,561 CLAIMS OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURE THAT IT ALSO STATED WERE INDETERMINATE AS TO WHETHER AN ENGINE STALL OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING.IN TOTAL, GM REPORTS 4,701 CLAIMS OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURE COMBINING REGULAR WARRANTY AND EXTENDED WARRANTY.SIMILAR TO GM'S STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, ODI'S ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT THE FAILURE RATE FOR WARRANTY CLAIMS OF ENGINE STALL WHILE DRIVING AT THREE YEARS IN SERVICE IS LOW (LESS THAN 1%).HOWEVER, FURTHER ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT THE MY 2001 VEHICLE BUILD PERIOD FROM MAY 2000 THROUGH OCTOBER 2000 HAD SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER (MORE THAN FOUR TIMES) CRANK POSITION FAILURE RATES IN BOTH CONSUMER COMPLAINT DATA AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA THAN IN THE BUILD PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 2000 THROUGH JULY 2001.ADDING THE CLAIMS OF KNOWN ENGINE STALL WHILE DRIVING AND CLAIMS WHERE ENGINE STALL WAS INDETERMINATE, THE FAILURE RATE AT THREE YEARS IN SERVICE FOR THIS POPULATION IS OVER 6%.AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-016) HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER ASSESS THE FREQUENCY AND POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN VEHICLES BUILT FROM MAY 2000 THROUGH OCTOBER 2000.
Engine And Engine Cooling
THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE06-016) ON MAY 4, 2006 BASED ON ELEVEN VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES (VOQS) AND EARLY WARNING (EWR) DATA ALLEGING SUDDEN ENGINE SHUTDOWN WHILE DRIVING AS A RESULT OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURES IN MY 2001-2002 GENERAL MOTORS C/K PLATFORM VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 8.1L ENGINES.IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER SENT BY ODI, GENERAL MOTORS (GM) PROVIDED OWNER COMPLAINT INFORMATION, FIELD REPORTS AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA BASED ON A POPULATION OF 108,338 VEHICLES. THE DATA WAS CATEGORIZED BY ENGINE STALLS WHILE DRIVING, ENGINE STALLS WITH AN UNKNOWN DRIVING CONDITION, NO START CONDITIONS AND CLAIMS WHERE IT WAS INDETERMINATE IF AN ENGINE STALL OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING.GENERAL MOTOR'S RESPONSE INCLUDED 1,213 OWNER COMPLAINTS AND FIELD REPORTS OF WHICH 289 WERE CATEGORIZED AS ENGINE STALLS WHILE DRIVING ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURES. GENERAL MOTORS ALSO SUBMITTED WARRANTY CLAIMS FROM ITS REGULAR WARRANTY (5 YEARS/50,000 MILES) AND FROM ITS EXTENDED WARRANTY DATABASE. FROM THE REGULAR WARRANTY DATABASE THERE WERE 3,140 CLAIMS OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR REPLACEMENT OF WHICH 147 CLAIMS WERE FROM CONSUMERS ALLEGING ENGINE STALL WHILE DRIVING.GM STATED THAT 2,841 OF THE CLAIMS WERE INDETERMINATE IF AN ENGINE STALL OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING.FROM ITS EXTENDED WARRANTY DATABASE, GM SUBMITTED 1,561 CLAIMS OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURE THAT IT ALSO STATED WERE INDETERMINATE AS TO WHETHER AN ENGINE STALL OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING.IN TOTAL, GM REPORTS 4,701 CLAIMS OF CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURE COMBINING REGULAR WARRANTY AND EXTENDED WARRANTY.SIMILAR TO GM'S STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, ODI'S ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT THE FAILURE RATE FOR WARRANTY CLAIMS OF ENGINE STALL WHILE DRIVING AT THREE YEARS IN SERVICE IS LOW (LESS THAN 1%).HOWEVER, FURTHER ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT THE MY 2001 VEHICLE BUILD PERIOD FROM MAY 2000 THROUGH OCTOBER 2000 HAD SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER (MORE THAN FOUR TIMES) CRANK POSITION FAILURE RATES IN BOTH CONSUMER COMPLAINT DATA AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA THAN IN THE BUILD PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 2000 THROUGH JULY 2001.ADDING THE CLAIMS OF KNOWN ENGINE STALL WHILE DRIVING AND CLAIMS WHERE ENGINE STALL WAS INDETERMINATE, THE FAILURE RATE AT THREE YEARS IN SERVICE FOR THIS POPULATION IS OVER 6%.AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-016) HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER ASSESS THE FREQUENCY AND POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN VEHICLES BUILT FROM MAY 2000 THROUGH OCTOBER 2000.
DP05009 · Parking Brake Failure
Opened Dec 20, 2005 · Closed May 31, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Parking Brake; Parking Brake:conventional; Parking Brake:conventional:mechanical
ODI'S REVIEW OF COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED SINCE THE CLOSE OF EA04-011 REVEALED NO INDICATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE RE-OPENED.MORE DETAILS CAN BE FOUND IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ENCLOSED IN THE DP05-009 PUBLIC FILE.ODI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION IN THE FUTURE SHOULD CONDITIONS WARRANT.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Parking Brake:conventional
ODI'S REVIEW OF COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED SINCE THE CLOSE OF EA04-011 REVEALED NO INDICATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE RE-OPENED.MORE DETAILS CAN BE FOUND IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ENCLOSED IN THE DP05-009 PUBLIC FILE.ODI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION IN THE FUTURE SHOULD CONDITIONS WARRANT.
Parking Brake:conventional:mechanical
ODI'S REVIEW OF COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED SINCE THE CLOSE OF EA04-011 REVEALED NO INDICATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE RE-OPENED.MORE DETAILS CAN BE FOUND IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ENCLOSED IN THE DP05-009 PUBLIC FILE.ODI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION IN THE FUTURE SHOULD CONDITIONS WARRANT.
Parking Brake
ODI'S REVIEW OF COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED SINCE THE CLOSE OF EA04-011 REVEALED NO INDICATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE RE-OPENED.MORE DETAILS CAN BE FOUND IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ENCLOSED IN THE DP05-009 PUBLIC FILE.ODI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION IN THE FUTURE SHOULD CONDITIONS WARRANT.
PE05020 · Unwanted LOW-SPEED Abs Activation
Opened Apr 28, 2005 · Closed Sep 13, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 29, 2005, GM NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WAS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1999 THROUGH 2002 C/K PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES TO CORRECT A PROBLEM WITH ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYSTEM (ABS) WHEEL SPEED SENSOR CORROSION THAT MAY RESULT IN UNWANTED ABS ACTIVATION AND EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCES DURING LOW-SPEED BRAKING (RECALL 05V-379).GM'S RECALL COVERS APPROXIMATELY 804,000 VEHICLES CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE FOLLOWING 14 SALT-BELT STATES:CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, MICHIGAN, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND WEST VIRGINIA.THE RECALL PROCEDURE WILL INVOLVE REMOVING THE SENSOR, CLEANING THE MOUNTING SURFACE, APPLYING A RUST INHIBITOR (ZINC-X) TO THE SURFACE, AND REINSTALLING THE SENSOR.IF NECESSARY, THE SENSOR WILL BE REPLACED. THE POPULATION AND FAILURE REPORT DATA GIVEN IN THIS RESUME ARE FOR THE FULL REGION THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ODI AS THE SALT-BELT.THAT INCLUDES DELAWARE, IOWA, MARYLAND, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, WISCONSIN AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN ADDITION TO THE 14 STATES INCLUDED IN 05V-379.THE STATES COVERED BY GM'S RECALL HAVE THE HIGHEST INCIDENT RATES FOR THE SUBJECT CONDITION, ACCOUNTING FOR 91% OF THE INCIDENTS, BUT ONLY 24% OF SUBJECT VEHICLE SALES IN THE UNITED STATES.ODI'S ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT 840 OF THE COMPLAINTS, 244 OF THE CRASHES, AND 16 OF THE INJURIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS INVESTIGATION OCCURRED IN THOSE STATES.THE RESULTING INCIDENT AND CRASH RATES ARE 96.2 AND 28.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES RESPECTIVELY (NOTE:RATES ARE BASED ON VEHICLE SALES, NOT REGISTERED VEHICLES). THE CORRESPONDING NUMBERS IN THE EXCLUDED PORTIONS OF THE SALT-BELT ARE 399,000 VEHICLES, 81 INCIDENTS (20.3 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 3 CRASHES, AND NO INJURIES.THE STATISTICS IN THE REMAINING 30 STATES ARE 2,406,000 VEHICLES, 168 INCIDENTS (7.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 31 CRASHES, AND ONE INJURY.GM AND ODI ARE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THE PROBLEM EXPERIENCE IN STATES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL.GM WILL PROVIDE ODI WITH UPDATED COMPLAINT, FIELD REPORT, AND WARRANTY DATA IN NOVEMBER 2005.ODI AND GM WILL REVIEW THAT DATA AND ASSESS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CURRENT SCOPE OF THE RECALL AT THAT TIME.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 29, 2005, GM NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WAS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1999 THROUGH 2002 C/K PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES TO CORRECT A PROBLEM WITH ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYSTEM (ABS) WHEEL SPEED SENSOR CORROSION THAT MAY RESULT IN UNWANTED ABS ACTIVATION AND EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCES DURING LOW-SPEED BRAKING (RECALL 05V-379).GM'S RECALL COVERS APPROXIMATELY 804,000 VEHICLES CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE FOLLOWING 14 SALT-BELT STATES:CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, MICHIGAN, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND WEST VIRGINIA.THE RECALL PROCEDURE WILL INVOLVE REMOVING THE SENSOR, CLEANING THE MOUNTING SURFACE, APPLYING A RUST INHIBITOR (ZINC-X) TO THE SURFACE, AND REINSTALLING THE SENSOR.IF NECESSARY, THE SENSOR WILL BE REPLACED. THE POPULATION AND FAILURE REPORT DATA GIVEN IN THIS RESUME ARE FOR THE FULL REGION THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ODI AS THE SALT-BELT.THAT INCLUDES DELAWARE, IOWA, MARYLAND, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, WISCONSIN AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN ADDITION TO THE 14 STATES INCLUDED IN 05V-379.THE STATES COVERED BY GM'S RECALL HAVE THE HIGHEST INCIDENT RATES FOR THE SUBJECT CONDITION, ACCOUNTING FOR 91% OF THE INCIDENTS, BUT ONLY 24% OF SUBJECT VEHICLE SALES IN THE UNITED STATES.ODI'S ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT 840 OF THE COMPLAINTS, 244 OF THE CRASHES, AND 16 OF THE INJURIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS INVESTIGATION OCCURRED IN THOSE STATES.THE RESULTING INCIDENT AND CRASH RATES ARE 96.2 AND 28.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES RESPECTIVELY (NOTE:RATES ARE BASED ON VEHICLE SALES, NOT REGISTERED VEHICLES). THE CORRESPONDING NUMBERS IN THE EXCLUDED PORTIONS OF THE SALT-BELT ARE 399,000 VEHICLES, 81 INCIDENTS (20.3 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 3 CRASHES, AND NO INJURIES.THE STATISTICS IN THE REMAINING 30 STATES ARE 2,406,000 VEHICLES, 168 INCIDENTS (7.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 31 CRASHES, AND ONE INJURY.GM AND ODI ARE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THE PROBLEM EXPERIENCE IN STATES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL.GM WILL PROVIDE ODI WITH UPDATED COMPLAINT, FIELD REPORT, AND WARRANTY DATA IN NOVEMBER 2005.ODI AND GM WILL REVIEW THAT DATA AND ASSESS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CURRENT SCOPE OF THE RECALL AT THAT TIME.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip
IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 29, 2005, GM NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WAS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1999 THROUGH 2002 C/K PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES TO CORRECT A PROBLEM WITH ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYSTEM (ABS) WHEEL SPEED SENSOR CORROSION THAT MAY RESULT IN UNWANTED ABS ACTIVATION AND EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCES DURING LOW-SPEED BRAKING (RECALL 05V-379).GM'S RECALL COVERS APPROXIMATELY 804,000 VEHICLES CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE FOLLOWING 14 SALT-BELT STATES:CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, MICHIGAN, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND WEST VIRGINIA.THE RECALL PROCEDURE WILL INVOLVE REMOVING THE SENSOR, CLEANING THE MOUNTING SURFACE, APPLYING A RUST INHIBITOR (ZINC-X) TO THE SURFACE, AND REINSTALLING THE SENSOR.IF NECESSARY, THE SENSOR WILL BE REPLACED. THE POPULATION AND FAILURE REPORT DATA GIVEN IN THIS RESUME ARE FOR THE FULL REGION THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ODI AS THE SALT-BELT.THAT INCLUDES DELAWARE, IOWA, MARYLAND, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, WISCONSIN AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN ADDITION TO THE 14 STATES INCLUDED IN 05V-379.THE STATES COVERED BY GM'S RECALL HAVE THE HIGHEST INCIDENT RATES FOR THE SUBJECT CONDITION, ACCOUNTING FOR 91% OF THE INCIDENTS, BUT ONLY 24% OF SUBJECT VEHICLE SALES IN THE UNITED STATES.ODI'S ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT 840 OF THE COMPLAINTS, 244 OF THE CRASHES, AND 16 OF THE INJURIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS INVESTIGATION OCCURRED IN THOSE STATES.THE RESULTING INCIDENT AND CRASH RATES ARE 96.2 AND 28.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES RESPECTIVELY (NOTE:RATES ARE BASED ON VEHICLE SALES, NOT REGISTERED VEHICLES). THE CORRESPONDING NUMBERS IN THE EXCLUDED PORTIONS OF THE SALT-BELT ARE 399,000 VEHICLES, 81 INCIDENTS (20.3 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 3 CRASHES, AND NO INJURIES.THE STATISTICS IN THE REMAINING 30 STATES ARE 2,406,000 VEHICLES, 168 INCIDENTS (7.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 31 CRASHES, AND ONE INJURY.GM AND ODI ARE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THE PROBLEM EXPERIENCE IN STATES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL.GM WILL PROVIDE ODI WITH UPDATED COMPLAINT, FIELD REPORT, AND WARRANTY DATA IN NOVEMBER 2005.ODI AND GM WILL REVIEW THAT DATA AND ASSESS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CURRENT SCOPE OF THE RECALL AT THAT TIME.
EA04012 · Hydraulic Pump Failres
Opened Apr 30, 2004 · Closed Feb 28, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist; Steering:hydraulic Power Assist System
GM IS CONDUCTING A RECALL ON ALL SUBJECT VEHICLES BUILD BETWEEN MAY 1999 AND OCTOBER 14, 1999.SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WERE INCORPORATED INTO PRODUCTION IN EARLY OCTOBER 1999, AND VEHICLES BUILT AFTER THAT DATE HAVE LOWER WARRANTY FAILURE RATES.THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA APPEAR TO SUPPORT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE CHANGES. GM MADE ADDITIONAL CHANGES IN NOVEMBER 1999, FEBRUARY 2000, MAY 2001, AND FEBRUARY 2004.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THIS PROBLEM AND WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION, IF WARRANTED, IN THE FUTURE.FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS SEE THE ATTACHED ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist
GM IS CONDUCTING A RECALL ON ALL SUBJECT VEHICLES BUILD BETWEEN MAY 1999 AND OCTOBER 14, 1999.SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WERE INCORPORATED INTO PRODUCTION IN EARLY OCTOBER 1999, AND VEHICLES BUILT AFTER THAT DATE HAVE LOWER WARRANTY FAILURE RATES.THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA APPEAR TO SUPPORT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE CHANGES. GM MADE ADDITIONAL CHANGES IN NOVEMBER 1999, FEBRUARY 2000, MAY 2001, AND FEBRUARY 2004.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THIS PROBLEM AND WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION, IF WARRANTED, IN THE FUTURE.FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS SEE THE ATTACHED ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT.
Steering:hydraulic Power Assist System
GM IS CONDUCTING A RECALL ON ALL SUBJECT VEHICLES BUILD BETWEEN MAY 1999 AND OCTOBER 14, 1999.SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WERE INCORPORATED INTO PRODUCTION IN EARLY OCTOBER 1999, AND VEHICLES BUILT AFTER THAT DATE HAVE LOWER WARRANTY FAILURE RATES.THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA APPEAR TO SUPPORT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE CHANGES. GM MADE ADDITIONAL CHANGES IN NOVEMBER 1999, FEBRUARY 2000, MAY 2001, AND FEBRUARY 2004.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THIS PROBLEM AND WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION, IF WARRANTED, IN THE FUTURE.FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS SEE THE ATTACHED ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REPORT.
EA04005 · Tailgate Cable Breakage
Opened Feb 19, 2004 · Closed Sep 28, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Latches/locks/linkages:tailgate:latch; Structure:body:tailgate ; Structure:body:tailgate:hinge And Attachments
GENERAL MOTORS FILED A DEFECT NOTICE 04V-129 ON MARCH 17, 2004, WHICH OUTLINES A PROGRAM TO REPLACE THE TAILGATE CABLES INSTALLED IN AFFECTED MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES.REFER TO ODI'S CLOSING REPORT FOR EA04-005 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.ODI IS AWARE OF REPORTS OF TAILGATE CABLE BREAKAGE OCCURRING IN MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES.THESE VEHICLES WERE EQUIPPED WITH SIMILAR TAILGATE CABLES AS ADDRESSED BY 04V-129, BUT ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY CAMPAIGN O4V-129.ODI IS INITIATING A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION TO ADDRESS THESE VEHICLES.THE COMPLAINT-INJURY-FATALITY STATISTICS SUMMARIZED ABOVE PERTAIN TO MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES. THE COMPLAINT-INJURY STATISTICS FOR MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE OPENING RESUME FOR THAT INVESTIGATION.
Additional source detail variants (6)
Latches/locks/linkages:tailgate:latch
GENERAL MOTORS FILED A DEFECT NOTICE 04V-129 ON MARCH 17, 2004, WHICH OUTLINES A PROGRAM TO REPLACE THE TAILGATE CABLES INSTALLED IN AFFECTED MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES.REFER TO ODI'S CLOSING REPORT FOR EA04-005 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.ODI IS AWARE OF REPORTS OF TAILGATE CABLE BREAKAGE OCCURRING IN MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES.THESE VEHICLES WERE EQUIPPED WITH SIMILAR TAILGATE CABLES AS ADDRESSED BY 04V-129, BUT ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY CAMPAIGN O4V-129.ODI IS INITIATING A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION TO ADDRESS THESE VEHICLES.THE COMPLAINT-INJURY-FATALITY STATISTICS SUMMARIZED ABOVE PERTAIN TO MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES. THE COMPLAINT-INJURY STATISTICS FOR MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE OPENING RESUME FOR THAT INVESTIGATION.
Latches/locks/linkages:tailgate:latch
GENERAL MOTORS FILED A DEFECT NOTICE 04V-129 ON MARCH 17, 2004, WHICH OUTLINES A PROGRAM TO REPLACE THE TAILGATE CABLES INSTALLED IN AFFECTED MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES.REFER TO ODI'S CLOSING REPORT FOR EA04-005 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.ODI IS AWARE OF REPORTS OF TAILGATE CABLE BREAKAGE OCCURRING IN MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES.THESE VEHICLES WERE EQUIPPED WITH SIMILAR TAILGATE CABLES AS ADDRESSED BY 04V-129, BUT ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY CAMPAIGN O4V-129.ODI IS INITIATING A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION TO ADDRESS THESE VEHICLES.THE COMPLAINT-INJURY-FATALITY STATISTICS SUMMARIZED ABOVE PERTAIN TO MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES. THE COMPLAINT-INJURY STATISTICS FOR MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE OPENING RESUME FOR THAT INVESTIGATION.
Structure:body:tailgate
GENERAL MOTORS FILED A DEFECT NOTICE 04V-129 ON MARCH 17, 2004, WHICH OUTLINES A PROGRAM TO REPLACE THE TAILGATE CABLES INSTALLED IN AFFECTED MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES.REFER TO ODI'S CLOSING REPORT FOR EA04-005 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.ODI IS AWARE OF REPORTS OF TAILGATE CABLE BREAKAGE OCCURRING IN MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES.THESE VEHICLES WERE EQUIPPED WITH SIMILAR TAILGATE CABLES AS ADDRESSED BY 04V-129, BUT ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY CAMPAIGN O4V-129.ODI IS INITIATING A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION TO ADDRESS THESE VEHICLES.THE COMPLAINT-INJURY-FATALITY STATISTICS SUMMARIZED ABOVE PERTAIN TO MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES. THE COMPLAINT-INJURY STATISTICS FOR MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE OPENING RESUME FOR THAT INVESTIGATION.
Structure:body:tailgate
GENERAL MOTORS FILED A DEFECT NOTICE 04V-129 ON MARCH 17, 2004, WHICH OUTLINES A PROGRAM TO REPLACE THE TAILGATE CABLES INSTALLED IN AFFECTED MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES.REFER TO ODI'S CLOSING REPORT FOR EA04-005 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.ODI IS AWARE OF REPORTS OF TAILGATE CABLE BREAKAGE OCCURRING IN MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES.THESE VEHICLES WERE EQUIPPED WITH SIMILAR TAILGATE CABLES AS ADDRESSED BY 04V-129, BUT ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY CAMPAIGN O4V-129.ODI IS INITIATING A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION TO ADDRESS THESE VEHICLES.THE COMPLAINT-INJURY-FATALITY STATISTICS SUMMARIZED ABOVE PERTAIN TO MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES. THE COMPLAINT-INJURY STATISTICS FOR MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE OPENING RESUME FOR THAT INVESTIGATION.
Structure:body:tailgate:hinge And Attachments
GENERAL MOTORS FILED A DEFECT NOTICE 04V-129 ON MARCH 17, 2004, WHICH OUTLINES A PROGRAM TO REPLACE THE TAILGATE CABLES INSTALLED IN AFFECTED MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES.REFER TO ODI'S CLOSING REPORT FOR EA04-005 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.ODI IS AWARE OF REPORTS OF TAILGATE CABLE BREAKAGE OCCURRING IN MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES.THESE VEHICLES WERE EQUIPPED WITH SIMILAR TAILGATE CABLES AS ADDRESSED BY 04V-129, BUT ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY CAMPAIGN O4V-129.ODI IS INITIATING A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION TO ADDRESS THESE VEHICLES.THE COMPLAINT-INJURY-FATALITY STATISTICS SUMMARIZED ABOVE PERTAIN TO MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES. THE COMPLAINT-INJURY STATISTICS FOR MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE OPENING RESUME FOR THAT INVESTIGATION.
Structure:body:tailgate:hinge And Attachments
GENERAL MOTORS FILED A DEFECT NOTICE 04V-129 ON MARCH 17, 2004, WHICH OUTLINES A PROGRAM TO REPLACE THE TAILGATE CABLES INSTALLED IN AFFECTED MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES.REFER TO ODI'S CLOSING REPORT FOR EA04-005 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.ODI IS AWARE OF REPORTS OF TAILGATE CABLE BREAKAGE OCCURRING IN MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES.THESE VEHICLES WERE EQUIPPED WITH SIMILAR TAILGATE CABLES AS ADDRESSED BY 04V-129, BUT ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY CAMPAIGN O4V-129.ODI IS INITIATING A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION TO ADDRESS THESE VEHICLES.THE COMPLAINT-INJURY-FATALITY STATISTICS SUMMARIZED ABOVE PERTAIN TO MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 VEHICLES. THE COMPLAINT-INJURY STATISTICS FOR MODEL YEAR 1999 AND EARLIER VEHICLES ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE OPENING RESUME FOR THAT INVESTIGATION.
EA02015 · Throttle Sticking Closed
Opened Aug 1, 2002 · Closed Jan 12, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
THIS INVESTIGATION INVOLVES THE GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (GM)THROTTLE BODY (TB) UTILIZED IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1999-2002 SILVERADO, SIERRA, TAHOE, SUBURBAN, AVALANCHE AND YUKON (SUBJECT VEHICLE(S)) WITH 4.8L, 5.3L, AND 6.0L ENGINES. THE TB VALVE MAY INTERMITTENTLY STICK IN A CLOSED POSITION.IN SUCH A SITUATION, AN OPERATOR MAY APPLY ADDITIONAL ACCELERATOR PEDAL FORCE TO INCREASE ENGINE SPEED.THE APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL ACCELERATOR PEDAL FORCE, TO OPEN A STUCK THROTTLE VALVE, MAY OPEN THE THROTTLE VALVE MORE THAN INTENDED AND, IN TURN, ACCELERATE THE ENGINE AND VEHICLE MORE THAN INTENDED AND REASONABLY EXPECTED BY THE DRIVER.ON AUGUST 1, 2002, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA), OPENED THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.THE INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT TWO FACTORS MAY CAUSE THE DEFECT: 1) TB MANUFACTURING PROCESS PROBLEMS; AND 2) ACCUMULATION OF DEPOSITS (A PCV SYSTEM BY-PRODUCT) ON OR AROUND THE TB THROTTLE VALVE AND BORE.ODI CONCLUDES THAT THE TB PERFORMS IN A DEFECTIVE MANNER AFTER ANALYZING GM?S DATA SUBMISSIONS, AND TEST DATA COLLECTED BY THE VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TEST CENTER (VRTC).FIFTY-NINE CRASHES ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF GM?S TB DEFECT.THE MAJORITY OF THE CRASHES INVOLVE A SINGLE VEHICLE, ENGAGING IN A CLOSE QUARTER VEHICLE MANEUVER (OR LOW SPEED), AND CAUSING ONLY MINOR PROPERTY DAMAGE.FOUR OUT OF THE FIFTY-NINE CRASHES INVOLVE INJURY, AND THOSE INJURIES WERE MINOR.ALTHOUGH GM?S TB IS DEFECTIVE, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE GATHERED, ODI HAS FOUND THAT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL FORCE REQUIRED TO OPEN A STUCK THROTTLE VALVE IS NEGLIGIBLE, AND THE THROTTLE VALVE DOES NOT STICK IN THE OPEN POSITION.THEREFORE THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA02-015) WILL BE CLOSED AT THIS TIME.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FOR A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE TB COMPONENT AND TESTING, PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED REPORT.
Illustration