IllustrationWHILE DRIVING AT 45 MPH, THE CONSUMER WAS INVOLVED IN A FRONT COLLISION AND NONE OF THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. *AK THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED DURING A RAINSTORM. THE VEHICLE HYDROPLANED, SPUN AROUND, AND STRUCK THE MEDIAN. THE ANTI LOCK BRAKES FAILED TO HELP GAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. *SCC *JB
1995 Chevrolet Camaro
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Camaro years
Owner complaints for the 1995 Chevrolet Camaro are substantially higher than the model-year median of 32.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Camaro 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
Limited mileage data: 11 of 216 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.
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 60 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Air Bags. Review the 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 23 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
39 crash reports22 fire reports20 injury reports
What owners actually said
216 reportsVEHICLE WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 45 MPH, HYDROPLANED, SPUN OUT OF CONTROL, ABS SYSTEM FAILED TO STABILIZE VEHICLE. CAR STRUCK GUARDRAIL, NO DRIVER OR PASSENGER AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT. VEHILCE IS TOTAL LOSS.*AK
MY 16-YEAR OLD SON WAS INVOLVED IN A FENDER-BENDER. BOTH THE DRIVERS AND PASSENGER AIR BAGS DEPLOYED, DESTROYING THE DASH AND WINDSHIELD OF HIS 1995 CHEVY CAMARO. THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO THE FRONT OF HIS CAR FROM THE CRASH, EXCEPT FOR A BROKEN FOG LIGHT, AS HE WAS TRAVELING AT APPROX 5-8 MPH. THE AIR BAG RIPPED THE DASH FROM THE …
Read full complaint
MY 16-YEAR OLD SON WAS INVOLVED IN A FENDER-BENDER. BOTH THE DRIVERS AND PASSENGER AIR BAGS DEPLOYED, DESTROYING THE DASH AND WINDSHIELD OF HIS 1995 CHEVY CAMARO. THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO THE FRONT OF HIS CAR FROM THE CRASH, EXCEPT FOR A BROKEN FOG LIGHT, AS HE WAS TRAVELING AT APPROX 5-8 MPH. THE AIR BAG RIPPED THE DASH FROM THE FIREWALL, BURNED HIS ARM AND SCRATHCED HIS FACE AND ARMS. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT IN THIS LOW SPEED THIS MUCH DAMAGE SHOULD HAVE RESULTED FROM THIS TYPE OF INCIDENT. WHEN I SPOKE TO PRODUCT ALLEGATIONS GROUP WITH GM, THEY AGREED WITH ME THAT THIS TYPE OF AIR BAG WAS DESIGNED FOR"MODERATE-TO-SEVERE CRASHES", NOT A LOW-SPEED INCIDENT. BUT UPON LOOKING AT PICTURES SUPPLIED BY THE LOCAL CHEVY DEALER, GM IS NOW TELLING ME THAT THE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED BASED ON THE SOUND WAVES COMING FROM THE STEREO SYSTEM. WHAT A LOAD OF BUNK! IF THAT IS THE CASE, AIR-BAGS SHOULD BE GOING OFF ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND IF THAT WERE TRUE, ISN'T THAT ALSO A DESIGN FLAW? PLEASE CONTACT ME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE....I BELIEVE THAT GM SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING MY SON'S DESTROYED DASH AND WINDSHIELD, BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE AIR-BAGS WERE DEFECTIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DEPLOYED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. THANK YOU. *AK
WHILE TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY THE CRUISE CONTROL GOT STUCK. *TT
WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE 10 MPH THE CONSUMERS VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT AND BOTH FRONTAL AIR BAGS DEPLOYED AT THE SAME TIME. THEY BROKE THE WINDSHIELD AND BUSTED THE DASH BOARD. *NLM. *AK
NARY 02/28/2003 MR THE HEADLIGHT AND THE FOGLAMP ON THE DRIVERS SIDE REPEATEDLY FAILED. THE HEADLIGHT HAD BEEN REPLACED SIX TIMES IN THE SAME POSITION. *CB
CONSUMER STATED HAS EXCESSIVE PLAY IN STEERING WHEEL AFFECTING CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING. CONSUMER HAS HAD ALL TIRES REPLACED AND ALIGNMENT ADJUSTED, BUT PROBLEM STILL EXISTS. RELATED RECALL 95V046000 DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSUMER'S V.I.N. TS
THE SERVICE WRITER KEPT THE PART FOR OVER A WEEK AND THEN CLAIMED "IRREGULAR WEAR". MR
CONSUMER'S VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A FRONTAL COLLISON AT APPROXIMATELY 25MPH AND BOTH DRIVER AND PASSENGER AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY.*AK
WHILE DRIVING AND SLOWING TO STOP ABS ENGAGES, AND THERE IS LOSS OF CONTROL. BRAKES GO TO THE FLOOR.*AK
Official recalls
195V046000 · Steering:gear Box (other Than Rack And Pinion)
Mar 22, 1995
THE STEERING INTERMEDIATE SHAFT COULD HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY ASSEMBLED CAUSING THE SHAFT LOWER COUPLING TO LOOSEN AND ROTATE ON THE STEERING GEAR INPUT SHAFT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CONDITION CAN RESULT IN A LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL INCREASING THE POTENTIAL FOR A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE INTERMEDIATE STEERING SHAFT FOR THE CORRECT LOWER COUPLING AND REPLACE IT AS REQUIRED.
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
2EA97024 · Fuel Tube Retaining Clip Failure
Opened Nov 13, 1997 · Closed Sep 29, 1998
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
MOST OF THE REPORTS REVIEWED IN THIS INVESTIGATION ARE FIRE INCIDENTS IN WHICH FUEL LEAKAGE HAS BEEN ALLEGED AS THE CAUSE OR THE AREA OF ORIGIN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ALLEGED DEFECT.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE SUBJECT CLIP WAS A FACTOR IN ANY OF THESE FIRE INCIDENTS AND NHTSA TESTING INDICATES THATBROKEN OR DISLODGED RETENTION CLIP DOES NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT OF THE FUEL LINE BUNDLE TOWARD THE LEFT SECONDARY AIR INJECTION CHECK VALVE.FAILURE OF THE CLIP PLACES THE FUEL LINE BUNDLE ASSEMBLY IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION AS THE 1993 MODEL YEAR LTI VEHICLES.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
PE97036 · Fuel Tub Retaining Clip Failure
Opened Jul 24, 1997 · Closed Nov 13, 1997
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
OWNERS HAVE REPORTED FAILURES OF THE FUEL TUBE RETENTION CLIP THAT ATTACHES TO THE PLASTIC THROTTLE LINKAGE COVER.ACCORDING TO GM, THE SUBJECT RETENTION CLIP (P/N 12048089) WAS IMPLEMENTED IN PRODUCTION ON OCTOBER 12, 1993, TO ADDRESS A CONCERN WITH INCORRECT ASSEMBLY PLANT FUEL LINE ROUTING.MIS-ROUTED FUEL TUBES MAY FAIL FROM CONTACT WITH A HOT AIR CHECK VALVE, CREATING A FIRE HAZARD IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT.GM MAINTAINS THAT NO PROBLEMS SHOULD OCCUR IF THE CLIP IS PROPERLY INSTALLED AND ISN'T MISHANDLED DURING SUBSEQUENT SERVICE OPERATIONS.SOME OWNERS HAVE ALLEGED TO ODI THAT THE SUBJECT CLIP BECOMES BRITTLE OVER TIME AND MAY ALSO PULL FREE OF THE THROTTLE LINKAGE COVER ATTACHMENT HOLE.