IllustrationDT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE APPLYING THE BRAKE ON WET PAVEMENT AT SPEEDS OF 4 MPH THE ANTI-LOCK ENGAGES. THERE IS A NHTSA RECALL, # 05V379000, REGARDING THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKES. THE VEHICLE HAS THE SAME PROBLEMS AS INDICATED IN THE RECALL; HOWEVER IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN. UPDATED 03/03/06
1998 Chevrolet Tahoe
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 1998 Chevrolet Tahoe do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 246.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Tahoe 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
30–25K
525–50K
2450–75K
3275–100K
14100–150K
11150K+
89 reports with mileage · 174 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 71 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Visibility. Review the 50 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 31 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
18 crash reports7 fire reports9 injury reports
What owners actually said
263 reportsIN SEPT 2005 MY WINDSHIELD WIPERS STARTED TO CONTINUE RUNNING AFTER TURNING THEM OFF OR ON INTERMITENT. IT HAD PROGRESS AND GOT WORSE EVER SINCE. I TOOK MY CAR TO MY MECHANIC AND HE HAD TO REPLACE THE COMPONENT IN MID JANUARY OF 2006. *NM
ANTILOCK BRAKE ACTIVATION AT LOW SPEEDS (< 5MPH). SOUNDS SAME AS RECALL 05V37900. STARTED OUT INTERMITTENT, NOW OCCURS 80% OF TIME. DANGEROUS AS IT EFFECTS STOPPING DISTANCE AS YOU APPROACH TO MAKE A STOP. DEALER WILL NOT ADDRESS AS RECALL IS FOR 1999+, MY TAHOE IS 1998. *NM
I OWN A 1998 CHEVROLET TAHOE IN WHICH I HAD TO PAY OVER $900 TO HAVE REPAIRED TO REPAIR/REPLACE FRONT HUB ASSEMBLIES. THIS IS FOR THE SAME WORK THAT GM HAS RECALLED 1999 AND NEWER VEHICLES THAT ARE USED IN AREAS OF THE COUNTRY THAT USE ROAD SALT. THOSE REPAIRS WERE MADE JUST PRIOR THE RECALL THAT I THINK YOUR AGENCY FORCED GM…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 1998 CHEVROLET TAHOE IN WHICH I HAD TO PAY OVER $900 TO HAVE REPAIRED TO REPAIR/REPLACE FRONT HUB ASSEMBLIES. THIS IS FOR THE SAME WORK THAT GM HAS RECALLED 1999 AND NEWER VEHICLES THAT ARE USED IN AREAS OF THE COUNTRY THAT USE ROAD SALT. THOSE REPAIRS WERE MADE JUST PRIOR THE RECALL THAT I THINK YOUR AGENCY FORCED GM TO CALL FOR THE VERY SAME ISSUE. I CONTACTED GM AND WAS TOLD THAT THEY ONLY RECALL VEHICLES BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS BY YEAR. THE FACT THAT THE DESIGN IS IDENTICAL IN MY AND THE 1999 MODEL WAS A NON ISSUE AS FAR AS THEY ARE CONCERNED. I INTEND TO LOOK INTO A CIVIL SUIT SINCE I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME WILL BE INVOLVED, BUT EVEN THOUGH THIS MAY NOT HELP ME, I THOUGHT THAT I COULD AT LEAST ADD MY EXPERIENCE AND NAME TO SEE IF IT WILL GENERATE SUFFICIENT NUMBERS FOR GM TO CARE ABOUT DOING THE RIGHT THING AND ADDING THIS YEAR TO THE RECALL. I AM USING THE DATE THAT I FIRST WROTE TO GM BUT MY REPAIRS WERE DONE 8/12/04. THEY ASSIGNED SERVICE REQUEST # 1 387872013 AND TOLD ME THAT THEY WERE NOT EVEN SURE IF I LIVE IN A STATE THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE RECALL. THEY ARE WRONG ABOUT THAT AS WELL. ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT INJURED, IT IS ONLY BECAUSE I SPENT MY OWN MONEY WHEN I WENT IN COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SAME THING THAT IS NOW PART OF THE RECALL. *NM
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE ABS ACTIVATES AT LOW SPEEDS. THERE IS A NHTSA RECALL, #05V379000, REGARDING THE ANTILOCK BRAKES. THE VEHICLE HAS THE SAME PROBLEMS AS INDICATED IN THE RECALL; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN.
DT*: THE CONSUMER STATED THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS WORK INTERMITTENTLY. THERE IS A NHTSA RECALL, # 98V150001, REGARDING THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS. THE CONSUMER HAS THE SAME PROBLEM AS INDICATED IN THE RECALL; HOWEVER THE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. *JB
LOW SPEED ANTILOCK BRAKE ACTIVATION CAUSING EXCESSIVE STOPPING DISTANCES. DEALER SERVICE REP STATED THAT THE ABS SENSORS WERE CORRODED MOST LIKELY FROM ROAD SALT. STARTED OUT AS VERY INTERMITTENT BUT RECENTLY BECAME A CONSTANT PROBLEM. *NM
DT: THE CONTACT STATES THERE IS NHTSA RECALL CAMPAIGN 05V370000 CONCERNING THE ANTI LOCK BRAKES. THIS VEHICLE HAS THE SAME PROBLEMS AS INDICATED IN THE RECALL, BUT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO THE VIN. NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE.*AK
ABS ACTIVATION AT LOW SPEEDS FOR PAST 9 MONTHS ON A 1998 CHEVROLET TAHOE RECALLS IN MY STATE APPLICABLE TO 1999 & NEWER DESPITE GM SERVICE BULLETINS OF MODELS OF 1995 & UP AFFECTED BY PROBLEM. PAID DEALER TO CLEAN ABS SINCE GM REFUSED. *JB
THIS IS TO ADDRESS THE RECENT EXPANDED RECALL OF GM LIGHT TRUCKS/SUVS. I HAVE A 1998 TAHOE AND HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING THE EXACT SAME ISSUES THAT HAVE CAUSED GM TO RECALL THE TRUCKS/SUVS DUE TO RUST AFFECTING THE ABS SYSTEM. I BROUGHT MY VEHICLE TO A CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP AND THEY CONFIRMED THAT I AM EXPERIENCING THE SAME CORROS…
Read full complaint
THIS IS TO ADDRESS THE RECENT EXPANDED RECALL OF GM LIGHT TRUCKS/SUVS. I HAVE A 1998 TAHOE AND HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING THE EXACT SAME ISSUES THAT HAVE CAUSED GM TO RECALL THE TRUCKS/SUVS DUE TO RUST AFFECTING THE ABS SYSTEM. I BROUGHT MY VEHICLE TO A CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP AND THEY CONFIRMED THAT I AM EXPERIENCING THE SAME CORROSION RELATED ISSUES THAT ARE ADDRESSED BY THE RECALL - HOWEVER, BECAUSE I HAVE A 1998, GM WILL NOT PROVIDE ME ANY ASSISTANCE. WHEN I INQUIRED AS TO WHETHER THE WHEEL HUB ASSEMBLY (THAT HOUSES THE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR) IN MY VEHICLE IS ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE VEHICLES BEING RECALLED, THE DEALERSHIP CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS NOT ANY DIFFERENCE. MY COMPLAINT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE FACT THAT GM HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE IS A FAULTY DESIGN IN THE WHEEL ASSEMBLY, HOWEVER, WILL NOT TAKE ANY ACTION TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION - ULTIMATELY LEAVING MY VEHICLE (AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS BUILT IN 1998 OR 1997) AS UNSAFE TO OPERATE. *NM
Official recalls
298V033000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:disc:rotor
Feb 17, 1998
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: LIGHT DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS AND MULTI-PURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES. ONE OR BOTH FRONT BRAKE ROTOR/HUBS WERE BUILT WITH AN OUT-OF-SPECIFICATION GRAY IRON THAT CAN FAIL DURING THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF A DRIVER CONTINUES TO DRIVE WITH A CRACKED ROTOR, THE CRACKS COULD CONTINUE AROUND THE WHEEL MOUNTING BOLT CIRCLE AND ULTIMATELY RESULT IN A WHEEL SEPARATION.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE ROTORS FOR A CORE DATE OF "287" AND, IF FOUND, REPLACE THE ROTOR.
97V142000 · Steering:gear Box (other Than Rack And Pinion)
Aug 29, 1997
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: LIGHT DUTY EXTENDED-CAB PICKUP TRUCKS AND 4-DOOR UTILITY TRUCKS. THE LOWER STEERING SHAFT TO STEERING GEAR PINCH BOLT IS "FINGER LOOSE" OR MISSING ALLOWING THE BOLT TO LOOSEN AND FALL OUT. THE STEERING SHAFT YOKE CAN WEAR CAUSING AN OFF CENTER STEERING WHEEL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: RELATIVE MOVEMENT BETWEEN THE CHASSIS AND CAB CAN CAUSE THE STEERING SHAFT TO SEPARATE FROM THE STEERING GEAR. THIS CONDITION CAN RESULT IN A LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS ARE ARRANGING TO HAVE THE VEHICLES INVOLVED TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP AND ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION IS BEING ARRANGED FOR OWNERS. DEALERS WILL THEN INSPECT THE VEHICLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF A PINCH BOLT AND TORQUE THIS BOLT TO PROPER SPECIFICATIONS.
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
2PE01023 · Seat Belt Anchorage Separation
Opened Jul 17, 2001 · Closed Dec 20, 2001
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seat Belts:front:anchorage
ODI HAS RECEIVED ONE (1) COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT THE 2ND ROW PASSENGER-SIDE SEAT BELT RELEASE BUCKLE ANCHOR DETACHED FROM SEAT FRAME DURING A SIDE IMPACT CRASH.DURING THE CRASH, THE OCCUPANT WAS THROWN FROM HIS SEAT, PARTIALLY EJECTED THROUGH THE REAR QUARTER WINDOW OF THE VEHICLE.OCCUPANT SUSTAINED INJURY.GM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED SEAT BELT ANCHORING DESIGN IN MY 2000. ODI HAS COMPLETED A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND HAS DETERMINED THAT FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A SAFETY DEFECT EXISTS.
EA99011 · Erratic Power Steering Assist While Driv
Opened May 12, 1999 · Closed Feb 27, 2001
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering
THE OFFICE OF DEFECT INVESTIGATION (ODI) HAS INVESTIGATED ALLEGATIONS OF POWER STEERING ASSIST FLUCTUATIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.FOR DETAILS AND A BASIS FOR THE INVESTIGATION CONCLUSIONS, PLEASE SEE THE CLOSING REPORT IN THE EA99-011 PUBLIC FILE.ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION.FUTHER EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY RESOURCES ON THIS SUBJECT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED AT THIS TIME.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.THE ENGINEERING IS CLOSED.