1988 Chevrolet C25

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Limited comparison data

There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.

Counts are not adjusted for sales, age, mileage exposure or reporting. A lower count does not establish that a car is problem-free.

About this comparison →

3Owner complaints

Model-year median: 1

0Recall campaigns

View recall details →

1Investigations

View investigation details →

Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗ Model-level counts do not show whether a particular VIN is affected or repaired.

Inspection summary

1988 Chevrolet C25

NHTSA snapshot: September 18, 2026. 3 owner complaints · 0 recall campaigns · 1 investigations.

Counts are not failure probabilities and are not adjusted for sales, age, mileage exposure or reporting. One report may name several categories. Comparison method and limitations.

Top reported categories (up to 5)

Seats: 1 reports
Tires: 1 reports
Visibility: 1 reports

Full reported-category list and vehicle report

Recall links

No recall campaigns in this snapshot.

Check a VIN with NHTSA. Model-level history does not establish whether a particular VIN is affected or repaired.

Print the top reported categories, recall links, snapshot date and comparison limits.

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year

Compare all C25 years →

Counts vary with age, sales, mileage exposure and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

Seats

1 Tires

1 Visibility

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

Limited mileage data: 1 of 3 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.

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.

Seats. Review the 1 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Tires. Review the 1 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Visibility. Review the 1 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

0 crash reports0 fire reports0 injury reports

Tires complaints

1 reports

Clear category filter

Mileage unknown · Jul 1, 2002

Tires

Read full complaint

SIX TIRES PURCHASED ON JUNE 17, 1998. THREE OF THESE TIRES HAVE EXPERIENCED TREAD SEPARATION WITH LESS THAN 15,000 MILES ON THE TIRE. FIRST INCIDENT: AUGUST 2, 2001, TREAD SEPARATED FROM TIRE LEAVING ITS DEBRIS ON I-10 BETWEEN PHOENIX AND TUCSON. VEHICLE SPEED APPROXIMATELY 80 MPH. SECOND INCIDENT: AUGUST 16, 2001, TREAD BEGAN TO SEPARATE LEAVING A BULGE ON THE TREAD, ON I-17 IN PHOENIX. VEHICLE SPEED APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH. THIRD INCIDENT: JUNE 21, 2002, TREAD SEPERATED LEAVING BULGE ON TREAD, ON US 60 BETWEEN MESA AND FLORENCE JUNCTION. VEHICLE SPEED APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH. RETAINED DAMAGED INCIDENT #3 TIRE. INCIDENT #1 & #2 TIRES WERE TRADED FOR REPLACEMENT. THREE TIRES FROM ORGINAL PURCHASE REMAIN TO FAIL AT A FUTURE DATE.*AK

NHTSA ODI #763710

Recall campaigns

No recalls in this snapshot.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

Defect investigations

PE88019 · Rear Brk Lights Stay On

Opened Jan 19, 1988 · Closed Mar 31, 1988

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM MANUFACTURER:ON SOME 1988 C/K MODEL TRUCKSTHE BRAKE LIGHTS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO STAY ON AFTER THE BRAKE PEDAL HAS BEENRELEASED.IN A MAJORITY OF CASES, THE STOPLAMP SWITCH BEING MISADJUSTEDHAS BEEN THE CAUSE.OTHER POSSIBILITIES INCLUDE (A) BINDING AT THE EYELET OF THE BRAKE BOOSTER ROD AND ITS ATTACHMENT PIN AND (B) PEDAL MOUNTINGBUSHINGS NOT BEING PROPERLY LUBRICATED.GM BELIEVES THAT IF THE VEHICLEIS EITHER ACCELERATING OR TRAVELING AT A CONSTANT SPEED, AND THE STOP LAMPSREMAIN ON, A FOLLOWING DRIVER WOULD LIKELY FOLLOW AT A GREATER DISTANCEBECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTY OF THE ACTIONS OF THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HIM.GMCONCLUDES THAT THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO REPORTED ACCIDENTS WHEREIT IS ALLEGED THE BRAKE LIGHTS STAYED ON.TO THE CONTRARY, BRAKE LIGHTSWHICH ARE ALWAYS ON APPEAR ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM NORMAL TAILIGHTOPERATION AND THEREFORE FAIL TO SIGNAL BRAKING/DECELERATION WHICH IS THEONLY FUNCTION OF THE BRAKE LIGHTS.APPARENT INFANT MORTALITY SUPPORTS THEPOSITION THAT NO DEFECT TREND IS DEVELOPING.ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGED DEFECTMAY OCCUR AT ANY GIVEN TIME (IT DOES HOWEVER APPEAR TO OCCUR AT ANY GIVENTIME EARLY IN THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE), ONCE THE BRAKE LIGHTS ARE STUCK INTHE ON POSITION, THE LIGHTS REMAIN ON UNTIL THE BATTERY GOES DEAD OR THECONDITION IS OTHERWISE DETECTED AND CORRECTED.THE ALLEGED DEFECT AFFECTSONLY THE EARLY PRODUCTION 1988 MODEL VEHICLES AND GM HAS ISSUED A SERVICEBULLETIN ADVISING SERVICE PERSONNEL OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ALLEGEDDEFECT AND HOW TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM. #======

An investigation is not a finding of a defect, and closure does not prove a vehicle is problem-free.