2004 Chevrolet Silverado 2500

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2500. THE CONTACT STATED AFTER THE ENGINE STARTED IT STALLED WITHIN 10 SECONDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO CONFIRMED THE INJECTORS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 81,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 127,000.

2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2500HD LT 4X4 EXTENDED CAB SHORT BED ALL HARD STEEL BRAKE LINES ARE SEVERELY RUSTED. I WAS TOLD BY THE DEALER 2 DAYS AGO THAT MY GENERAL MOTORS WARRANTY (IT IS A GM WARRANTY PURCHASED THOUGH THE GM DEALER NOT SOME OTHER COMPANY) DOES NOT COVER RUST ON ANY PARTS. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE REPLACED THEY MUST FAIL. I SORRY BUT BRAKE LINES FAILING WITH MY WIFE AND 6 MONTH OLD DAUGHTER IN THE TRUCK IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME. PLEASE HELP US GET GM TO RECALL THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE LINES WITH ALL STAINLESS STEEL LINES. THANKS FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER. *TR

WE HAD A LIFE THREATENING EVENT ON OCTOBER 19, 2011. THE LEFT LOWER CONTROL ARM WAS BROKEN AND THE RIGHT LOWER CONTROL ARM WAS CRACKED READY TO BREAK. THIS WAS DISCOVERED WHEN WE WENT FOR A WHEEL ALIGNMENT. WE HAD TO HAVE THEM REPAIR IT IMMEDIATELY DUE TO THE DANGER OF THE PROBLEM. THE PITMAN ARM AND IDLER ARM NEEDED TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM. WE DON'T HAVE A CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP HERE. THEY SAID THE LOWER CONTROL ARMS WERE DEFECTIVE. WE USE THIS TRUCK ONLY FOR PLEASURE, NO HAULING. WE E-MAILED THE CHEVROLET CONSUMER SUPPORT CENTER AND THEY GAVE US A SERVICE REQUEST NUMBER. WE WERE REQUESTED BY THEM TO COMMUNICATE BY PHONE. WE CALLED THEM ON OCTOBER 21, 2011 AND THEY REQUESTED THE ALIGNMENT SHOP'S PHONE NUMBER. ON OCTOBER 25, 2011, THEY CALLED US AND SAID THAT THIS WAS NOT UNDER WARRANTY. THEY DIDN'T SEEMED TO BE CONCERNED THAT THE PARTS WERE DEFECTIVE. WE WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW OF THIS DANGEROUS PROBLEM SINCE THERE MAY BE MORE DEFECTIVE LOWER CONTROL ARMS. I STILL HAVE THE DEFECTIVE PARTS. *TR

NOT ONLY HAVE I HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE EMERGENCY BRAKE STICKING AND REAR BRAKES BUT THE BRAKES AND FUEL LINES WHERE IT MAKES A TURN AROUND THE FRAME JUST UNDER THE DRIVER SIDE FOOT WELL ARE SCARY RUSTED AS IF THEY USED A CHEAP STEEL FOR THE LINES. I WAS A CHEVY DEALER MECHANIC IN THE 1980S AND KNOW WHAT IM LOOKING AT. I HAVENT HAD THE LINES BLOW OUT YET BUT IM SURE THEY WILL. ALSO ALL THE GAUGES IN THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER EXEPT THE ODOMETER AND GAS GAUGE AND THE FAN CONTROLS DO NOT WORK. *TT

WAS TESTING THE BRAKES ON A BOAT TRAILER BEFORE TOWING IT AWAY AND A STEEL BRAKE LINE RUNNING INSIDE THE FRAME CHANNEL BEHIND THE DRIVER'S SIDE REAR WHEEL SUDDENLY BURST. UPON INSPECTION, THE LINE WAS COMPLETELY ROTTEN FOR ABOUT A 3 TO 4 INCH SECTION IN THAT AREA. NO WARNING, ANOTHER 10 MINUTES I WOULD HAVE BEEN TOWING A HEAVY TRAILER AND THE BRAKES WOULD HAVE FAILED AT ANY SUDDEN STOP. AFTER THIS LINE FAILURE, THE TRUCK HAS NO BRAKES EXCEPT THE E-BRAKE, WHICH ISN'T MUCH. HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE A RECALL, THOUGH I ALREADY DROPPED $600 AT THE SHOP TO GET IT FIXED TODAY. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2500 HD. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE TOWING A TRAILER AT APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH, A CLICKING NOISE WAS HEARD FROM THE ENGINE AND THE ENGINE EXPLODED. THE CONTACT ALSO OBSERVED SMOKE RISING FROM THE ENGINE DURING THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE ENGINE EXPLODED AND ALL OF ITS COMPONENTS WERE MELTED. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TOWED TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHERE THE FAILURE WAS CONFIRMED AND THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE ENGINE WAS DESTROYED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE, BUT OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 55,000.

2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO. FIRE INVESTIGATOR WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE DASH FIRE *TGW THE VEHICLE WAS HEAVILY DAMAGED BY A FIRE WHICH REPORTEDLY ORIGINATED IN THE DASH. THE FIRE SPREAD AND CONSEQUENTLY CONSUMED THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT, THEN SPREAD TO THE ENGINE. THE PROBLEM MANIFESTED WHILE THE DRIVER WAS USING THE CIGARETTE LIGHTER. PRIOR TO THE FIRE, THE TRANSMISSION, ALTERNATOR AND A 15 AMP FUSE LIGHTER FUSE WAS REPLACED. THE CIGARETTE LIGHTER WAS USED FREQUENTLY, PLUGGING A 400 WATT INVERTER WHICH ALLOWED THE DRIVER TO USE HIS COMPUTER. AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE, THE CONSUMER WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN HE UNPLUGGED THE INVERTER FROM THE CIGARETTE LIGHTER SOCKET AND INSERTED HIS CIGARETTE LIGHTER WHICH POPPED BACK. ABOUT A SECOND LATER, WHITE SMOKE STARTING COMING FROM THE DASH. THERE WERE NO CIGARETTES IN THE ASH TRAY. THE SMOKE STARTED TO INCREASE AND THE CONSUMER IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM AS AN ELECTRICAL INSULATION SMOKE ODOR. THE SMOKE WAS COMING FROM THE BACK OF THE DASH; THERE WAS NO SMOKE COMING FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT OR THE HOOD AT THAT TIME. IT WAS IN THE FIRE INVESTIGATOR'S OPINION, THAT THE RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATION LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT ON A MORE PROBABLE THAN NOT BASIS, AN ELECTRICAL ANOMALY AT THE DASH AREA AND IN THE VICINITY OF THE CIGARETTE LIGHTER IGNITED NEARBY COMBUSTIBLES AND THE FIRE SPREAD INTO THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. (LETTER SENT IN BY FIRE INVESTIGATOR) *JB