IllustrationTHE BRAKES OF THE CONSUMER'S 2003 CHEVROLET CAVALIER GRIND LOUDLY WHILE BRAKING. *NM THE CONSUMER ALSO EXPERIENCED EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE WHILE BRAKING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO INDICATED THAT THE BRAKES WERE OPERATING AS DESIGNED.
2003 Chevrolet Cavalier
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Cavalier years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Chevrolet Cavalier are substantially higher than the model-year median of 140.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Cavalier 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
810–25K
9225–50K
19750–75K
10875–100K
58100–150K
17150K+
553 reports with mileage · 125 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.
- Fuel System, Gasoline. Review the 340 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 106 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Exterior Lighting. Review the 57 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
31 crash reports6 fire reports16 injury reports
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
30 reportsWHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY EVERY TWO MONTHS THE BRAKE LIGHT WILL ILLUMINATE THE DASH BOARD. THE FUEL PUMP BLEW OUT. THE HEATING A COOLING WENT BAD. THE VEHICLE MAKES NOISE WHEN MAKING RIGHT TURNS. CONSUMER HAS NOT FOUND OUT WHAT IT IS AS OF YET. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN INTO THE DEALER AT LEAST TWENTY TIMES. *NM
I ALWAYS NOTICED ON MY 2003 CHEVROLET CAVALIER THAT THE LOW TRAC LIGHT WOULD PERIODICALLY COME ON WHEN I BRAKED. I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS JUST BECAUSE IT WAS A NICER VEHICLE THAN MY PREVIOUS ONE (AN OLD FORD ESCORT). I RECENTLY TOOK MY CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP (INTEGRITY CHEVROLET IN PARMA HEIGHTS, OH) FOR 2 RECALLS. WHEN THEY FI…
Read full complaint
I ALWAYS NOTICED ON MY 2003 CHEVROLET CAVALIER THAT THE LOW TRAC LIGHT WOULD PERIODICALLY COME ON WHEN I BRAKED. I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS JUST BECAUSE IT WAS A NICER VEHICLE THAN MY PREVIOUS ONE (AN OLD FORD ESCORT). I RECENTLY TOOK MY CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP (INTEGRITY CHEVROLET IN PARMA HEIGHTS, OH) FOR 2 RECALLS. WHEN THEY FINISHED DOING THE RECALL WORK, THEY INFORMED ME THAT MY FRONT BRAKES WERE LOW. I THOUGHT THAT WAS UNUSUAL SINCE THE CAR WAS ONLY 1 1/2 YEARS OLD AND HAD ONLY 23,000 MILES. A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER I INQUIRED TO THE DEALERSHIP ABOUT GETTING THE BRAKES REPAIRED. THEY INFORMED ME THAT THIS WAS JUST PART OF THE "NORMAL MAINTENANCE" WORK AND WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE WARRANTY. I THOUGHT THIS WAS NOT USUAL MAINTENANCE SINCE A PERSON SHOULD NOT NEED NEW BRAKES AFTER 23,000 MILES. I TOOK MY CAR TO A LOCAL SERVICE CENTER A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER TO CHECK MY BRAKES. THEY INFORMED ME THAT NOT ONLY DID I NEED NEW BRAKES, BUT I ALSO NEEDED NEW ROTORS BECAUSE MINE WERE RUSTED. THIS TRIP TO THE LOCAL SERVICE CENTER COST ME $423.14. I AM STILL MAKING PAYMENTS ON THIS CAR AND IT IS ONLY 1 1/2 YEARS OLD! THIS SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING TO A 1 1/2 YEAR OLD CAR WITH ONLY 23,000 MILES! THE SERVICE CENTER ATTENDANT HAD INFORMED ME THAT THEY HAD NOTICED THIS WITH MANY OF THE 2003 CHEVROLET CAVALIERS. THIS LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEM WITH MY BRAKES AND ROTORS IS INDICATIVE OF A MANUFACTURING DEFECT! *JB
1) BRAKE FAILURE, WARPED ROTORS AND HUBS, LRO. 2) CRASH, REAR END COLLISION. PROPERTY DAMAGE. 3) GM REFUSED TO FIX 2003 CAVALIER ON 01-17-04 UNDER WARRANTY AND AS A RESULT A CRASH HAPPENED ON 02-28-04, A REAR END COLLISION DUE TO BRAKE FAILURE.CAUSE WAS DEFECTIVE FACTORY EQUIPMENT, WARPED ROTORS AND HUBS RESULTING IN VIOLENT J…
Read full complaint
1) BRAKE FAILURE, WARPED ROTORS AND HUBS, LRO. 2) CRASH, REAR END COLLISION. PROPERTY DAMAGE. 3) GM REFUSED TO FIX 2003 CAVALIER ON 01-17-04 UNDER WARRANTY AND AS A RESULT A CRASH HAPPENED ON 02-28-04, A REAR END COLLISION DUE TO BRAKE FAILURE.CAUSE WAS DEFECTIVE FACTORY EQUIPMENT, WARPED ROTORS AND HUBS RESULTING IN VIOLENT JUDDER, SHUTTER, AND CHATTER, DUE TO A LATERAL BRAKE RUN OUT PROBLEMS.THIS CONDITION SHOWS UP THRU THE STEERING WHEEL WHICH SHAKES VIOLENTLY WHEN APPLYING THE BRAKES, ESPECIALLY ON THE FREEWAY AT 70 MPH. IT'S A TOTAL OUT OF CONTROL CONDITION.THERE IS INDEED 2 TSB'S OUT ON THE LRO PROBLEM FROM GM, TSB 01-05-23-001A, BRAKE LATERAL RUNOUT,TSB 00-05-05-22-002B, BRAKES ROTOR SERVICE GUIDE ON 02-28-04 MY DAUGHTER AUDRA M GRIFFIN CRASHED INTO A 2001 FORD PICKUP DUE TO FRONT BRAKE FAILURE. MY DAUGHTERS STATEMENT WAS "DADDY THE BRAKES DIDN'T WORK", THIS AFTER AN EXTREME NASTY GRAM (FAX) WAS SENT TO JESSICA WHITE GM CUSTOMER SERVICE ABOUT THE DANGEROUS CONDITION REGARDING MY FROM BRAKE SYSTEM. GM ABSOLUTELY REFUSED TO FIX THIS UNSAFE CONDITION UNDER MY WARRANTY CONTRACT. THEY DID NOTHING THUS ENDANGERING ME AND MY FAMILY. FAST ACTION IS REQUIRED TO INVESTIGATE AND GET THIS CAR FIXED PRONTO. SO FAR GM SEEMS CONTENT TO DO NOTHING. THEY NOW SEEM TO BE MORE INTERESTED IN AVOIDING LEGAL LIABILITY, THEN THEY ARE ABOUT MY SAFETY.*AK
WHEN BRAKING CONSUMER HEARD A SQUEAKING NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR BRAKES. DEALERSHIP WAS NOTIFIED, BUT DID NOT RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. *AK THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN AND CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE FOR A RIDE AND DETERMINED THAT THE REAR BRAKES WERE THE PROBLEM. THE CONSUMER ASKED IF THE BRAKES WERE COV…
Read full complaint
WHEN BRAKING CONSUMER HEARD A SQUEAKING NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR BRAKES. DEALERSHIP WAS NOTIFIED, BUT DID NOT RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. *AK THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN AND CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE FOR A RIDE AND DETERMINED THAT THE REAR BRAKES WERE THE PROBLEM. THE CONSUMER ASKED IF THE BRAKES WERE COVERED UNDER THE VEHICLE'S WARRANTY AND WAS ASSURED THAT THEY WERE. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS RETURNED THE NEXT DAY FOR REPAIRS SOMEONE ELSE TOLD THE CONSUMER THAT THE REAR BRAKES WERE NOT COVERED UNDER THE WARRANTY. THE CONSUMER CHOSE NOT TO HAVE THE REPAIRS MADE. *NM
SIX MONTHS OR SO AFTER THE PURCHASE OF MY VEHICLE I STARTED EXPERIENCING ROTOR PROBLEMS, I TOOK IT TO MY DEALER AND THEY FIXED IT. IT WORKED WELL FOR ABOUT A MONTH OR SO THEN IT START TO PULSATE AND GRIND AGAIN SO I TOOK IT IN AND THEY FIXED IT AGAIN, THIS IS THE PATTERN TWO MONTHS AGO WAS MY FITH OR SIX TIME THAT I HAVE HAD TH…
Read full complaint
SIX MONTHS OR SO AFTER THE PURCHASE OF MY VEHICLE I STARTED EXPERIENCING ROTOR PROBLEMS, I TOOK IT TO MY DEALER AND THEY FIXED IT. IT WORKED WELL FOR ABOUT A MONTH OR SO THEN IT START TO PULSATE AND GRIND AGAIN SO I TOOK IT IN AND THEY FIXED IT AGAIN, THIS IS THE PATTERN TWO MONTHS AGO WAS MY FITH OR SIX TIME THAT I HAVE HAD THEM FIX IT. WELL THE PROBLEMS IS GETTING WORSE IT MAKE A VERY BAD GRINDING SOUND WHEN I PUSH ON THE BREAKS AND IT IS REALLY PULSATING THIS TIME AROUND. I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR THE ROTORS TO BE REPLACED. I'M REALLY TIRED OF THE CONSTANT TRIPS TO THE SHOP.*AK
WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH,= THE TRUNK CAME OPEN AND WOULD NOT STAY LATCH. DEALER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. VEHICLE EXPERIENCED GRINDING/SCRAPING NOISE WHEN BACKING UP OR COMING TO A STOP. DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. DEALER HAD TURN THE FRONT ROTORS TWICE AND THE PROBLEM RECURRED.*AK
VEHICLE EXPERIENCING GRINDING/SCRAPING NOISE WHEN BACKING UP OR COMING TO A STOP. DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. DEALER HAD TO TURN THE FRONT ROTORS TWICE, BUT PROBLEM RECURRED.*AK
WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKES AT A LOW SPEED, A CLICKING NOISE WAS HEARD. THE CONSUMER STATED THE PART HAS BEEN REPAIRED FIVE TIMES, HOWEVER THE PROBLEM STILL EXIST. PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. *JB
I PURCHASED MY CAR IN AUGUST OF20 03. I IMMEDIATLY HAD TO HAVE THE ROTORS REDONE. WITHIN TWO MONTHS I ONCE AGAIN HAD TO HAVE THEM FIXED, THIS TIME AT THE CHEVERLOT DEALER IN PENSACOLA. WITHIN A FEW MONTHS NOT ONLY DID MY ROTERS ONCE AGAIN BEGIN TO PULSATE BADLY, MY BRAKES BEGAN TO GO OUT. BOTH WERE REDONE. THE BRAKES AT MY COS…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED MY CAR IN AUGUST OF20 03. I IMMEDIATLY HAD TO HAVE THE ROTORS REDONE. WITHIN TWO MONTHS I ONCE AGAIN HAD TO HAVE THEM FIXED, THIS TIME AT THE CHEVERLOT DEALER IN PENSACOLA. WITHIN A FEW MONTHS NOT ONLY DID MY ROTERS ONCE AGAIN BEGIN TO PULSATE BADLY, MY BRAKES BEGAN TO GO OUT. BOTH WERE REDONE. THE BRAKES AT MY COST. IT HAS NOW BEEN OVER A MONTH AND ONCE AGAIN MY ROTARS AND BRAKES ARE MESSING UP. THIS IS VERY INCONVIENT FOR ME AS I AM IN THE MILITARY AND I CAN NOT BE WITHOUT A CAR BECAUSE I LIVE OFF OF BASE. *AK
Official recalls
104V524000 · Exterior Lighting:turn Signal
Nov 1, 2004
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES, THE REAR LAMPS THAT PROVIDE STOP AND TURN SIGNALS AND TAIL LAMP FUNCTIONS STOP WORKING BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE CONTACT BETWEEN THE BULB AND SOCKET. IN ADDITION, IF ONE BULBS WERE TO BECOME INOPERATIVE WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS OPERATING IN CRUISE CONTROL, THE CRUISE CONTROL WOULD DISENGAGE WHEN THE REMAINING BULB WAS ACTIVATED. IF BOTH LAMPS WERE TO BECOME INOPERATIVE, THE CRUISE CONTROL WOULD NOT ENGAGE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AN INOPERATIVE BRAKE LAMP WILL NOT CONVEY THE DRIVER'S INTENTION OF STOPPING TO DRIVERS IN FOLLOWING VEHICLES, AND AN INOPERATIVE REAR TURN SIGNAL LAMP WILL NOT CONVEY THE DRIVER'S INTENTION TO TURN TO DRIVERS IN FOLLOWING VEHICLES. BOTH OF THESE FAILURES CAN INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE REAR LAMP BULB SOCKET ASSEMBLIES AND APPLY GREASE OR REPLACE THEM IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JANUARY 18, 2005. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT CHEVROLET AT 1-800-630-2438 OR PONTIAC AT 1-800-620-7668.
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
4EA07015 · Engine Stalling - Fuel Pump Failure
Opened Nov 1, 2007 · Closed Oct 28, 2008
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline; Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery; Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE STALLING INCIDENTS THAT HAVE RESULTED FROM SUBJECT COMPONENT FAILURES FOUND THAT THEY CAN OCCUR AT ANY SPEED AND GENERALLY RESULT IN A NO RESTART CONDITION.THESE ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BE FACTORS THAT INCREASE THE POTENTIAL SEVERITY OF STALLING INCIDENTS.HOWEVER, THESE INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED AT RELATIVELY LOW RATES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION WHEN COMPARED WITH PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING SIMILAR CATEGORIES OF ENGINE STALL CONSEQUENCES.EVEN FOR THE EARLY MY 2003 PRODUCTION, WHERE HIGHER FAILURE RATES WERE NOTED, THE RATES OF PUMP FAILURES RESULTING IN ENGINE STALL ARE LOWER THAN RATES RECORDED IN PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS OF POPULATIONS THAT WERE NOT RECALLED.FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER WOULD NOT BE AN EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF AGENCY RESOURCES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CLOSING RESUME.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE STALLING INCIDENTS THAT HAVE RESULTED FROM SUBJECT COMPONENT FAILURES FOUND THAT THEY CAN OCCUR AT ANY SPEED AND GENERALLY RESULT IN A NO RESTART CONDITION.THESE ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BE FACTORS THAT INCREASE THE POTENTIAL SEVERITY OF STALLING INCIDENTS.HOWEVER, THESE INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED AT RELATIVELY LOW RATES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION WHEN COMPARED WITH PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING SIMILAR CATEGORIES OF ENGINE STALL CONSEQUENCES.EVEN FOR THE EARLY MY 2003 PRODUCTION, WHERE HIGHER FAILURE RATES WERE NOTED, THE RATES OF PUMP FAILURES RESULTING IN ENGINE STALL ARE LOWER THAN RATES RECORDED IN PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS OF POPULATIONS THAT WERE NOT RECALLED.FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER WOULD NOT BE AN EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF AGENCY RESOURCES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CLOSING RESUME.
Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery
ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE STALLING INCIDENTS THAT HAVE RESULTED FROM SUBJECT COMPONENT FAILURES FOUND THAT THEY CAN OCCUR AT ANY SPEED AND GENERALLY RESULT IN A NO RESTART CONDITION.THESE ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BE FACTORS THAT INCREASE THE POTENTIAL SEVERITY OF STALLING INCIDENTS.HOWEVER, THESE INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED AT RELATIVELY LOW RATES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION WHEN COMPARED WITH PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING SIMILAR CATEGORIES OF ENGINE STALL CONSEQUENCES.EVEN FOR THE EARLY MY 2003 PRODUCTION, WHERE HIGHER FAILURE RATES WERE NOTED, THE RATES OF PUMP FAILURES RESULTING IN ENGINE STALL ARE LOWER THAN RATES RECORDED IN PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS OF POPULATIONS THAT WERE NOT RECALLED.FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER WOULD NOT BE AN EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF AGENCY RESOURCES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CLOSING RESUME.
Fuel System, Gasoline
ODI'S ANALYSIS OF THE STALLING INCIDENTS THAT HAVE RESULTED FROM SUBJECT COMPONENT FAILURES FOUND THAT THEY CAN OCCUR AT ANY SPEED AND GENERALLY RESULT IN A NO RESTART CONDITION.THESE ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BE FACTORS THAT INCREASE THE POTENTIAL SEVERITY OF STALLING INCIDENTS.HOWEVER, THESE INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED AT RELATIVELY LOW RATES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION WHEN COMPARED WITH PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING SIMILAR CATEGORIES OF ENGINE STALL CONSEQUENCES.EVEN FOR THE EARLY MY 2003 PRODUCTION, WHERE HIGHER FAILURE RATES WERE NOTED, THE RATES OF PUMP FAILURES RESULTING IN ENGINE STALL ARE LOWER THAN RATES RECORDED IN PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS OF POPULATIONS THAT WERE NOT RECALLED.FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER WOULD NOT BE AN EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF AGENCY RESOURCES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.SEE DOCUMENT FILE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CLOSING RESUME.
PE07033 · Fuel Pump Failure
Opened Jun 28, 2007 · Closed Nov 1, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline; Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery; Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND POTENTIAL SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) HAS IDENTIFIED AN ISSUE WITH ACCELERATED MOTOR BRUSH WEAR IN THE FUEL PUMP ASSEMBLY OF MODEL YEAR (MY) 2001 THROUGH 2003 CHEVROLET VEHICLES THAT CAN CAUSE THE PUMP TO STOP OPERATING.GENERAL MOTORS INDICATED THAT PEROXIDE OR SULFUR, WHICH ARE BOTH PRESENT IN VARYING AMOUNTS IN GASOLINE, CAN REACT WITH THE COPPER COMMUTATOR OF THE PUMP MOTOR AND CORRODE/ROUGHEN THE SURFACE.A ROUGH COMMUTATOR SURFACE INCREASES THE RATE OF BRUSH WEAR.THE INCREASED ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE CAUSED BY DEGRADATION OF THE BRUSH-COMMUTATOR INTERFACE INHIBITS CURRENT FLOW THROUGH THE MOTOR WINDINGS.ACCORDING TO GM, THE CONDITION WILL USUALLY RESULT IN A NO-START CONDITION BECAUSE OF THE HIGH CURRENT REQUIRED DURING START-UP.WHEN THE ALLEGED DEFECT DOES CAUSE A STALL WHILE DRIVING INCIDENT, THE VEHICLE TYPICALLY CANNOT BE RESTARTED.GM'S ANALYSIS OF WARRANT CLAIMS SHOWED THAT NO START/HARD START WAS THE MOST COMMON CONDITION AND THE FREQUENCY OF CLAIMS ASSOCIATED WITH STALL WHILE DRIVING INCIDENTS WAS TOO LOW TO WARRANT FIELD ACTION. THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA07-015) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA AND THE ANALYSES PROVIDED BY GM.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND POTENTIAL SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) HAS IDENTIFIED AN ISSUE WITH ACCELERATED MOTOR BRUSH WEAR IN THE FUEL PUMP ASSEMBLY OF MODEL YEAR (MY) 2001 THROUGH 2003 CHEVROLET VEHICLES THAT CAN CAUSE THE PUMP TO STOP OPERATING.GENERAL MOTORS INDICATED THAT PEROXIDE OR SULFUR, WHICH ARE BOTH PRESENT IN VARYING AMOUNTS IN GASOLINE, CAN REACT WITH THE COPPER COMMUTATOR OF THE PUMP MOTOR AND CORRODE/ROUGHEN THE SURFACE.A ROUGH COMMUTATOR SURFACE INCREASES THE RATE OF BRUSH WEAR.THE INCREASED ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE CAUSED BY DEGRADATION OF THE BRUSH-COMMUTATOR INTERFACE INHIBITS CURRENT FLOW THROUGH THE MOTOR WINDINGS.ACCORDING TO GM, THE CONDITION WILL USUALLY RESULT IN A NO-START CONDITION BECAUSE OF THE HIGH CURRENT REQUIRED DURING START-UP.WHEN THE ALLEGED DEFECT DOES CAUSE A STALL WHILE DRIVING INCIDENT, THE VEHICLE TYPICALLY CANNOT BE RESTARTED.GM'S ANALYSIS OF WARRANT CLAIMS SHOWED THAT NO START/HARD START WAS THE MOST COMMON CONDITION AND THE FREQUENCY OF CLAIMS ASSOCIATED WITH STALL WHILE DRIVING INCIDENTS WAS TOO LOW TO WARRANT FIELD ACTION. THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA07-015) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA AND THE ANALYSES PROVIDED BY GM.
Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery
AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND POTENTIAL SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) HAS IDENTIFIED AN ISSUE WITH ACCELERATED MOTOR BRUSH WEAR IN THE FUEL PUMP ASSEMBLY OF MODEL YEAR (MY) 2001 THROUGH 2003 CHEVROLET VEHICLES THAT CAN CAUSE THE PUMP TO STOP OPERATING.GENERAL MOTORS INDICATED THAT PEROXIDE OR SULFUR, WHICH ARE BOTH PRESENT IN VARYING AMOUNTS IN GASOLINE, CAN REACT WITH THE COPPER COMMUTATOR OF THE PUMP MOTOR AND CORRODE/ROUGHEN THE SURFACE.A ROUGH COMMUTATOR SURFACE INCREASES THE RATE OF BRUSH WEAR.THE INCREASED ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE CAUSED BY DEGRADATION OF THE BRUSH-COMMUTATOR INTERFACE INHIBITS CURRENT FLOW THROUGH THE MOTOR WINDINGS.ACCORDING TO GM, THE CONDITION WILL USUALLY RESULT IN A NO-START CONDITION BECAUSE OF THE HIGH CURRENT REQUIRED DURING START-UP.WHEN THE ALLEGED DEFECT DOES CAUSE A STALL WHILE DRIVING INCIDENT, THE VEHICLE TYPICALLY CANNOT BE RESTARTED.GM'S ANALYSIS OF WARRANT CLAIMS SHOWED THAT NO START/HARD START WAS THE MOST COMMON CONDITION AND THE FREQUENCY OF CLAIMS ASSOCIATED WITH STALL WHILE DRIVING INCIDENTS WAS TOO LOW TO WARRANT FIELD ACTION. THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA07-015) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA AND THE ANALYSES PROVIDED BY GM.
Fuel System, Gasoline
AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS HAS BEEN OPENED TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND POTENTIAL SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) HAS IDENTIFIED AN ISSUE WITH ACCELERATED MOTOR BRUSH WEAR IN THE FUEL PUMP ASSEMBLY OF MODEL YEAR (MY) 2001 THROUGH 2003 CHEVROLET VEHICLES THAT CAN CAUSE THE PUMP TO STOP OPERATING.GENERAL MOTORS INDICATED THAT PEROXIDE OR SULFUR, WHICH ARE BOTH PRESENT IN VARYING AMOUNTS IN GASOLINE, CAN REACT WITH THE COPPER COMMUTATOR OF THE PUMP MOTOR AND CORRODE/ROUGHEN THE SURFACE.A ROUGH COMMUTATOR SURFACE INCREASES THE RATE OF BRUSH WEAR.THE INCREASED ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE CAUSED BY DEGRADATION OF THE BRUSH-COMMUTATOR INTERFACE INHIBITS CURRENT FLOW THROUGH THE MOTOR WINDINGS.ACCORDING TO GM, THE CONDITION WILL USUALLY RESULT IN A NO-START CONDITION BECAUSE OF THE HIGH CURRENT REQUIRED DURING START-UP.WHEN THE ALLEGED DEFECT DOES CAUSE A STALL WHILE DRIVING INCIDENT, THE VEHICLE TYPICALLY CANNOT BE RESTARTED.GM'S ANALYSIS OF WARRANT CLAIMS SHOWED THAT NO START/HARD START WAS THE MOST COMMON CONDITION AND THE FREQUENCY OF CLAIMS ASSOCIATED WITH STALL WHILE DRIVING INCIDENTS WAS TOO LOW TO WARRANT FIELD ACTION. THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA07-015) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA AND THE ANALYSES PROVIDED BY GM.
EA04028 · Turn Signal Malfunction
Opened Sep 14, 2004 · Closed Nov 22, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting:turn Signal
ON MAY 14, 2004 THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE04-043) BASED ON CONSUMER COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THAT THE BRAKE/TAIL TURN SIGNAL LAMPS WOULD NOT OPERATE PROPERLY WHEN EITHER THE TAIL LIGHTS WERE TURNED ON, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED, OR WHEN THE TURN SIGNAL SWITCH WAS ACTIVATED.ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 ODI UPGRADED PE 04-043 TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA04-028).GM STATES THAT SOME BRAKE/TAIL/TURN SIGNAL LAMP BULBS CAN PREMATURELY BECOME INOPERATIVE DUE TO EXCESSIVE HEAT BUILDUP WITHIN THE BULB SOCKETS.THE CAUSE OF THE EXCESSIVE HEAT BUILD UP WAS DETERMINED TO BE A LACK OF THERMAL GREASE PLACED IN BETWEEN THE BULB AND THE SOCKET. BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 27, 2004 GM NOTIFIED NHTSA THAT IT WILL CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA # 04V524) COVERING ALL MY 2003 VEHICLES.GM DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE REAR LAMP BULB SOCKET ASSEMBLIES AND APPLY THERMAL GREASE TO THEM OR REPLACE THEM WITH NEW ASSEMBLIES WITH THERMAL GREASE ALREADY ATTACHED.MODEL YEAR 2004 AND NEWER VEHICLES HAVE THE THERMAL GREASE INSTALLED FROM THE FACTORY. THE ACTION TAKEN BY GM IS SUFFICIENT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THIS INVESTIGATION.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
PE04043 · Turn Signal Malfunction
Opened May 14, 2004 · Closed Sep 14, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting:turn Signal
COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THAT THE REAR TURN SIGNALS FAIL TO ILLUMINATE AND DO NOT PROVIDE A SIGNAL TO DRIVERS IN FOLLOWING VEHICLES.ODI HAS RECEIVED ONE REPORT OF A CRASH WHERE THE COMPLAINANT BRAKED AND ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN AND THE FOLLOWING VEHICLE IMPACTED THE COMPLAINANT'S VEHICLE IN THE DRIVER-SIDE DOOR.IN MAY 2002, GM'S SUPPLIER MADE CHANGES TO THE BULB SOCKET THAT INCLUDED STOPPING THE USE OF THERMAL-MASTIC GREASE IN THE BULB SOCKET.GM REPORTS THAT THE GREASE REDUCES ARCING AT THE CONTACTS AND DISSIPATES HEAT THUS PREVENTING MELTING OF THE SOCKET MATERIAL OR BURNING OF THE CONTACTS.MOST OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE PRODUCED WITHOUT GREASE APPLIED TO THE BULB SOCKET.IN JUNE 2003, GM DIRECTED THE SUPPLIER TO RESUME THE USE OF GREASE IN THE SOCKET.GM ISSUED TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN (TSB) 04-08-42-004A ON JULY 15, 2004 ADVISING TECHNICIANS TO MAKE SURE THAT ADEQUATE AMOUNTS OF GREASE WERE ADDED TO THE BULB SOCKETS ON ALL SERVICE PARTS.ODI WILL UPGRADE THIS INVESTIGATION TO EA 04-028 TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE ISSUE.