IllustrationFRONT AND REAR DIFFERENTIAL BEARING FAILURE ON 02 AVALANCHE AT 51,000 MILES- BROUGHT TO DEALER BEFORE TOTAL FAILURE. OTHER SIMILAR COMPLAINTIS CAN BE FOUND IN THE CLUB AVALANCHE WEBSITE. THIS DEFECT COULD LEAD TO WHEELS FALLING OFF AND CATASTROPHIC INJURY. GM IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM BUT DOES NOTHING . *AK
2002 Chevrolet Avalanche
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Avalanche years
Owner complaints for the 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche are substantially higher than the model-year median of 82.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Avalanche 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
670–25K
8525–50K
5750–75K
4675–100K
38100–150K
20150K+
313 reports with mileage · 131 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.
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 115 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 67 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes. Review the 54 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
38 crash reports0 fire reports21 injury reports
Power Train complaints
25 reportsMEXICAN ASSEMBLY FACTORY FAILURE. THERE WAS A MAJOR FAILURE OF THE REAR AXLES AND PARKING BRAKE SYSTEM. *BF THE REAR AXLES HAD GROOVES WORN IN THEM AND THE REAR BEARING FAILED. THE CONSUMER REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT. THE PARKING BRAKE REMAINED INOPERATIVE. WHEN THE PARKING BRAKE WAS RELEASED, THE ACCELERATION WOULD HANG UP…
Read full complaint
MEXICAN ASSEMBLY FACTORY FAILURE. THERE WAS A MAJOR FAILURE OF THE REAR AXLES AND PARKING BRAKE SYSTEM. *BF THE REAR AXLES HAD GROOVES WORN IN THEM AND THE REAR BEARING FAILED. THE CONSUMER REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT. THE PARKING BRAKE REMAINED INOPERATIVE. WHEN THE PARKING BRAKE WAS RELEASED, THE ACCELERATION WOULD HANG UP AND A POP WOULD BE HEARD IN THE REAR, THERE WAS A RATTLE BEHIND THE STEERING WHEEL, AND THE AXLE SEALS LEAKED. *SC *JB
TRANSMISSION FLUID COOLER FAILURE. *AK
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.
BEGINNING ON 06/09/03 AND CONTINUING TO THE CURRENT DATE, MY VEHICLE HAS HAD A RECURRING FRONT DIFFERENTIAL LEAK. FIRST 3 REPAIRS WERE FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL SEALS, UNTIL IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE VENT TUBE WAS PLUGGED, THE NEXT 4 TIMES FOR REPAIR WERE DUE TO THE FACT THAT WHEN THIS VEHICLE IS DRIVEN ON A TRIP FOR AN EXTENDED PE…
Read full complaint
BEGINNING ON 06/09/03 AND CONTINUING TO THE CURRENT DATE, MY VEHICLE HAS HAD A RECURRING FRONT DIFFERENTIAL LEAK. FIRST 3 REPAIRS WERE FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL SEALS, UNTIL IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE VENT TUBE WAS PLUGGED, THE NEXT 4 TIMES FOR REPAIR WERE DUE TO THE FACT THAT WHEN THIS VEHICLE IS DRIVEN ON A TRIP FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME ON THE HIGHWAY, THE FRONT DIFFERENTIAL PURGES THE FLUID OUT THE VENT TUBE. THE LAST TRIP I TOOK THE VEHICLE ON WAS A 400 MILE ROUND TRIP AND THE VEHICLE UNDERBODY WAS HALF COVERED IN DIFF OIL, AND IT CONTINUED TO DRIP FOR 2 DAYS. MY CONCERN IS A LONGER TRIP, WHICH I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE FOR, WOULD RESULT IN THE SEIZING OF THE FRONT DIFFERENTIAL AT HIGHWAY SPEED, POSSIBLY CAUSING AN ACCIDENT.*JB
WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH TRANSMISSION WENT INTO REVERSE. CONSUMER WAS ABLE TO PULL THE VEHICLE OFF THE ROAD. CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. *AK
CONSUMER INDICATED THAT THERE WAS CLUCKING NOISE IN TRANSMISSION WHEN ACCELERATING. DEALERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGED THE NOISE, BUT WAS UNABLE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. *AK
OVERTIME I KEPT HEARING A WHINING NOISE, SMELL OF OIL, HEAT AND LIGHT VIBRATION FROM THE DRIVELINE. AT THE DEALERSHIP ON A 100, 000 MILE TOTAL OIL, TRANSMISSION AND COOLANT CHANGE (DID THIS AT 97,018 MI. 1/2/04). THE MECHANIC DID NOTICE A BIT OF PLAY IN THE FRONT & REAR DRIVELINE (DRIVE SHAFTS FROM TRANSFER CASE TO THE FRONT WHE…
Read full complaint
OVERTIME I KEPT HEARING A WHINING NOISE, SMELL OF OIL, HEAT AND LIGHT VIBRATION FROM THE DRIVELINE. AT THE DEALERSHIP ON A 100, 000 MILE TOTAL OIL, TRANSMISSION AND COOLANT CHANGE (DID THIS AT 97,018 MI. 1/2/04). THE MECHANIC DID NOTICE A BIT OF PLAY IN THE FRONT & REAR DRIVELINE (DRIVE SHAFTS FROM TRANSFER CASE TO THE FRONT WHEEL AXLE CASE AND THE REAR AXLE CASE), SOME OIL LEAKAGE ON THE RIGHT FRONT AXLE, BOTH SIDES OF THE REAR AXLE, THIS WAS NORMAL HE TOLD ME. MECHANIC FOUND BOTH FINE AND SMALL PIECES OF METAL IN THE FRONT 4X4 TRANSMISSION CASE, BUT SAID THIS WAS NOT A BIG PROBLEM. MECHANIC SUGGESTED THAT I SHOULD HAVE THE U-JOINTS REPLACED SOMETIME ON THE DRIVE SHAFTS AND THIS WOULD STOP THE NOISE AND VIBRATION. AT COLDWATER, MI. (1/14/04), I HAD TO REPLACE A RIGHT FRONT HUB BEARING; MECHANIC REPORTED TO ME THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO INSPECT THE REAR AXLE FOR NOISE. MECHANIC FOUND SOME PLAY IN THE DRIVELINE U-JOINTS, RIGHT REAR AXLE AND PINION SHAFT, AND SOME NOISE COMING FROM THE DIFFERENTIAL. ON 1/26/04 I HAD BOTH REAR & FRONT DRIVESHAFT U-JOINTS REPLACED & BALANCED (FLEET PRIDE SAID THERE WAS SOME PLAY IN THEM). THE NOISE AND VIBRATION STOPPED, BUT THE OIL & HOT SMELL STAYED. THEN THE LIGHT VIBRATION AND SOME NOISE (BETWEEN THE SPEEDS OF 40-75 MPH) STARTED TO RETURN IN JUST 150 MILES. AT 106,606 MILES THE REAR AXLE STARTED TO MAKE A CLUNKING NOISE AND HARD VIBRATION THEN STOPPED TURNING AT 106,607 MILES. I HAD THE REAR AXLE REMOVED AND FOUND THAT THE MAIN BEARING ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE MECHANICAL LOCKING DIFFERENTIAL (EATON G-80) HAD BROKE APART SENDING METAL THROUGH OUT THE REAR AXLE AND DESTROYED AXLE DRIVE SYSTEM. I HAVE PICTURES OF THE PARTS & DAMAGE TO THE REAR. THE FRONT AXLE IS STARTING THE SAME THING, LEAKING, HOT SMELL AND NOISE. I HAVE FOUND THROUGH YOUR SYSTEM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS AND WHEN I ASKED THE DEALERSHIP ABOUT THIS, THEY SAID THEY ARE CHECKING INTO IT. SERVICE BULLETINS 03-04-17-001, 03-07-30-005, 02-04-21-005A. *AK
TRANSMISSION AND/OR REAR AXLE LOCKS UP WHILE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION CAUSING ERRATIC VEHICLE HANDLING AND/OR LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION. * CB
I HAVE NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO THE DEALERSHIP SERVICE DEPARTMENT TO START REPAIRS. THEY TOLD ME IT WAS THE REAR AXLE OR REAR END THAT WAS DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR AND MUST BE REPLACED. I WAS QUOTED A REPAIR COST OF $2,400 FOR A USED PART AND $3,000 FOR A NEW PART. THIS TRUCK HAS AROUND 42,000 MILES AND WAS PURCHASED JUNE 1, 2003. …
Read full complaint
I HAVE NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO THE DEALERSHIP SERVICE DEPARTMENT TO START REPAIRS. THEY TOLD ME IT WAS THE REAR AXLE OR REAR END THAT WAS DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR AND MUST BE REPLACED. I WAS QUOTED A REPAIR COST OF $2,400 FOR A USED PART AND $3,000 FOR A NEW PART. THIS TRUCK HAS AROUND 42,000 MILES AND WAS PURCHASED JUNE 1, 2003. I HAVE HAD MULTIPLE PROBLEMS RANGING FROM REPLACEMENT OF CD'S TO A DOOR WINDOW MOTOR PROBLEM. I INQUIRED/COMPLAINED ABOUT A NOISE IN THE REAR END AT AROUND 25,000 MILES PRIOR TO THE BREAKDOWN. HOWEVER, THEY COULD NOT FIND THE PROBLEM. THE TAILGATE WOULD FALL OPEN WHEN LOCKED OCCASIONALLY, BUT THIS WAS ADJUSTED AFTER TAKING IT BACK FOR REPAIR. I HAVE ALSO REPLACED ONE HUB ASSEMBLY ON THE FRONT OF THE TRUCK AT A COST OF $250.00. THERE IS AN OIL USAGE PROBLEM THAT REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL QUART TO BE ADDED BETWEEN CHANGES. I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THIS TRUCK IS A LEMON AND NEEDS TO BE RESEARCHED TO DISCERN IF IT HAS HAD SOME PREVIOUS MECHANICAL PROBLEMS. ALTHOUGH IT WAS PURCHASED NEW THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD HAVE HAD SOME MALFUNCTIONS BEFORE IT WAS DELIVERED. I MISPLACED MY RECEIPTS, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT WILL GIVE ME ANOTHER COPY. HOWEVER, I WILL SEARCH FOR THEM AS VERIFICATION THAT I TOOK THE TRUCK IN ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FOR VARIOUS AND SUNDRY COMPLAINTS.
Official recalls
205V379000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip
Aug 29, 2005
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES MAY EXPERIENCE UNWANTED ANTILOCK BRAKE SYSTEM (ABS) ACTIVATION. THIS CONDITION IS MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR IN ENVIRONMENTALLY CORROSIVE AREAS. THIS RECALL WILL BE LAUNCHED IN THE "SALT BELT" STATES OF CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ONLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CAN CAUSE INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES DURING LOW-SPEED BRAKE APPLICATIONS, WHICH COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS ARE TO REMOVE THE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR AND THOROUGHLY CLEAN THE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR MOUNTING SURFACE ON THE BEARING, APPLY RUST INHIBITOR TO THE CLEANED SURFACE, GREASE THE MOUNTING SURFACE, REINSTALL THE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR, AND CHECK THE PEAK-TO-PEAK OUTPUT VOLTAGE TO ENSURE THE WHEEL SPEED SIGNAL IS WITHIN SPECIFICATIONS. THE RECALL BEGAN SEPTEMBER 22, 2005. OWNERS MAY CONTACT CHEVROLET AT 1-800-630-2438 OR GMC AT 1-866-996-9463.
04V129000 · Structure:body:tailgate:hinge And Attachments
Mar 17, 2004
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, THE GALVANIZED STEEL TAILGATE SUPPORT CABLES THAT RETAIN THE TAILGATE IN THE FULL OPEN (HORIZONTAL) POSITION MAY CORRODE, WEAKEN, AND EVENTUALLY FRACTURE. IF BOTH CABLES FRACTURED, THE TAILGATE WOULD SUDDENLY DROP AND STRIKE THE TOP SURFACE OF THE REAR BUMPER.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: ANYONE SITTING OR STANDING ON THE HORIZONTAL SURFACE OF THE TAILGATE WHEN BOTH CABLES FRACTURED COULD BE INJURED BY FALLING FROM THE TAILGATE. ON VEHICLES THAT HAVE HAD THE BUMPER REMOVED, THE TAILGATE MAY DROP EVEN LOWER. ADDITIONALLY, IF THERE IS CARGO ON THE TAILGATE THE CARGO MAY FALL OFF IF THE SUPPORT CABLES FRACTURE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE CABLES. INTERIM OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON APRIL 7, 20004. THE RECALL BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2004, WHEN REPLACEMENT PARTS WERE AVAILABLE, AND WILL CONTINUE THROUGH OCTOBER 29, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT CADILLAC AT 1-866-982-2339, CHEVROLET AT 1-800-630-2438 OR GMC AT 1-866-996-9463, OR VISIT WWW.MYGMLINK.COM, AND ENTER YOUR VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.
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
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.