IllustrationCORROSION OF FRONT END CROSS MEMBER - CAN PUT HAND RIGHT THROUGH- DRIVER SIDE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED BUT WITH FIXED INCOME NOT FEASIBLE. ONLY CAR - DON' KNOW WHERE TO TURN TO BEFORE WHEEL COMES OFF. *B
2000 Chevrolet Tracker
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Limited comparison data
There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Tracker 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
00–25K
1225–50K
550–75K
1475–100K
18100–150K
7150K+
56 reports with mileage · 53 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.
- Suspension. Review the 37 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 27 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 13 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
12 crash reports0 fire reports7 injury reports
Structure complaints
27 reportsDT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE HAVING AN ANNUAL INSPECTION,THE INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP DETERMINED THE FRONT CROSS MEMBER RUSTED THROUGH ON THE PASSENGER'S SIDE WERE THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BOLTS IN. THE CROSS MEMBER WERE REPLACED AT CONTACT'S EXPENSE, COSTING HER OVER $400.00. A RECALL SHOULD BE INSITUTED. THE CONTACT INSITUTED …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE HAVING AN ANNUAL INSPECTION,THE INDEPENDENT REPAIR SHOP DETERMINED THE FRONT CROSS MEMBER RUSTED THROUGH ON THE PASSENGER'S SIDE WERE THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BOLTS IN. THE CROSS MEMBER WERE REPLACED AT CONTACT'S EXPENSE, COSTING HER OVER $400.00. A RECALL SHOULD BE INSITUTED. THE CONTACT INSITUTED A COMPLAINED WITH NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. *AK
DT: THE CONTACT STATED WHEN LIFTING THE VEHICLE TO PERFORM BRAKE REPAIRS THE FRONT SUSPENSION FRAME SUPPORT THAT HOLDS ON THE A ARM RUSTED. HE COULD NOT DRIVE THE VEHICLE . THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPAIRS MADE TO THE VEHICLE. *AK THE CONSUMER HAS SINCE PAID FOR THE REPAIRS. UPDATED 01/11/06. *JB
DT: THE CONTACT'S WIFE WAS DRIVING DOWN A HILL AND SHE PRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO PULL TO THE RIGHT. SHE WAS UNABLE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE , AND HAD TO HAVE IT TOWED. THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE CROSS-MEMBER WAS HEAVILY CORRODED AND BROKE AND DISLOCATED THE GEAR BOX . THE VEHICLE IS CURRENTLY B…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONTACT'S WIFE WAS DRIVING DOWN A HILL AND SHE PRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO PULL TO THE RIGHT. SHE WAS UNABLE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE , AND HAD TO HAVE IT TOWED. THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE CROSS-MEMBER WAS HEAVILY CORRODED AND BROKE AND DISLOCATED THE GEAR BOX . THE VEHICLE IS CURRENTLY BEING REPAIRED, THE CROSS-MEMBER IS BEING REPLACED.*AK UPDATED 2/9/2006 - *NM
DT: THE FRONT CROSS MEMBER CONTROL ARM MOUNT RUSTED , AND IT BROKE LOOSE WHILE THE CONSUMER WAS DRIVING. IT DID NOT CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. THERE HAD BEEN FRONT END NOISES, AND THE CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. THEY REPLACED THE LEFT FRONT STABILIZER LINK. THE PART THAT BROKE LOOSE WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE. THE VEHICLE …
Read full complaint
DT: THE FRONT CROSS MEMBER CONTROL ARM MOUNT RUSTED , AND IT BROKE LOOSE WHILE THE CONSUMER WAS DRIVING. IT DID NOT CAUSE AN ACCIDENT. THERE HAD BEEN FRONT END NOISES, AND THE CONSUMER TOOK VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. THEY REPLACED THE LEFT FRONT STABILIZER LINK. THE PART THAT BROKE LOOSE WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE. THE VEHICLE WAS CURRENTLY AT THE DEALERSHIP BEING REPAIRED. *AK UPDATED12/27/05. *JB
CAR VEERS TO RT WHEN BRAKES HIT. DOES NOT RIDE ON WET ROADS AT ALL. NOTICE NO TRACKERS ON LOT GMC IS AWARE OF THE CARS PROBLEMS BUT JUST QUITE MAKING TO PREVENT PAYING DAMAGES. THERE ARE NUMEROUS DEFECTS WITH THIS MODEL. TO INCLUDED SEAT BELT ESPECIALLY THE ONES IN THE BACK. THE AIR BAGS CATCH FIRE WHEN THEY COME OUT, MY RT SID…
Read full complaint
CAR VEERS TO RT WHEN BRAKES HIT. DOES NOT RIDE ON WET ROADS AT ALL. NOTICE NO TRACKERS ON LOT GMC IS AWARE OF THE CARS PROBLEMS BUT JUST QUITE MAKING TO PREVENT PAYING DAMAGES. THERE ARE NUMEROUS DEFECTS WITH THIS MODEL. TO INCLUDED SEAT BELT ESPECIALLY THE ONES IN THE BACK. THE AIR BAGS CATCH FIRE WHEN THEY COME OUT, MY RT SIDE OF FACE IS STILL NUMB A=, ALSO THE BRAKES LOCK, I'VE REPORTED THIS ON THE SURVEY THEY SENT TO NO AVAIL. YOU HAVE TO CONTROL THE CAR VERY WELL IF THERE IS ANY KIND OF WIND BLOWING. I KNOW THEY ARE AWARE OF ALL THE DEFECTS, BUT JUST GOT AWAY WITH THIS ONE. *JB ***DIMSII IVOQ ENTRY POSTED AFTER 12/12/02 CUT-OVER TO ARTEMIS****744626
RIGHT FRONT PLASTIC INNER FENDER CAME LOOSE AND CAUGHT TIRE CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE INNER FENDER. *SLC
Official recalls
0No 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 ↗
NHTSA investigations
2EA06018 · Front Suspension Crossmember Corrosion
Opened Oct 30, 2006 · Closed Dec 3, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:front
IN OCTOBER 2007, GM INITIATED A SPECIAL COVERAGE PROGRAM FOR ALL MY 1999 THROUGH 2004 CHEVROLET TRACKER VEHICLES SOLD OR CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN SALT-BELT STATES.THE PROGRAM EXTENDS THE WARRANTY COVERAGE FOR FRONT SUSPENSION CROSSMEMBER CORROSION TO 10 YEARS OR 150,000 MILES, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST.GM IS ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM IN PHASES DUE TO PART AVAILABILITY.THE FIRST PHASE STARTED IN OCTOBER 2007 AND COVERS THE MY 1999 AND 2000 VEHICLES.OWNERS OF MY 2001 THROUGH 2004 VEHICLES WILL RECEIVE LETTERS AT A FUTURE DATE, BUT ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE FREE REPAIRS FROM THE PROGRAM IF THE CROSSMEMBER REQUIRES REPLACEMENT.GM'S PROGRAM PROVIDES FREE INSPECTIONS FOR CONSUMERS EVERY 12 MONTHS THROUGH THE TERMS OF THE POLICY ADJUSTMENT.COPIES OF THE DEALER BULLETIN AND OWNER LETTER FOR GM'S SPECIAL COVERAGE PROGRAM ARE ATTACHED TO THE CLOSING REPORT FOR THIS INVESTIGATION. THE RATE OF CONFIRMED LCA SEPARATIONS AT 5 YEARS IN SERVICE IS LESS THAN 10 PER 100,000 VEHICLES, WHICH IS LOW RELATIVE TO OTHER INVESTIGATIONS OF FRONT SUSPENSION ISSUES PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED BY ODI. 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 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS RESUME.
PE06021 · Crossmember Corrosion Failure
Opened Jun 12, 2006 · Closed Oct 30, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:front
ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2006 GENERAL MOTORS (GM) SUBMITTED INFORMATION REGARDING APPROXIMATELY 128,000 MODEL YEAR (MY) 1999 -2001 CHEVROLET TRACKER VEHICLES.ACCORDING TO GM, THESE VEHICLES WERE MANUFACTURED WITH FRONT CROSSMEMBERS DESIGNED AND MADE BY SUZUKI THAT CAN RUST FROM THE INSIDE OUT BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT CORROSION PROTECTION.THE DESIGN OF THE CROSSMEMBER LIMITED THE COVERAGE OF PAINT ON THE INTERIOR SURFACES DURING THE PAINTING PROCESS.IN MARCH 2006 SUZUKI MADE DESIGN CHANGES TO THE CROSSMEMBER TO ENHANCE THE COVERAGE OF PAINT TO THE INSIDE OF THE PART. GM INDICATED THAT WHEN OPERATED IN AREAS OF THE COUNTRY THAT USE ROAD SALT FOR DE-ICING, OVER TIME WATER AND SALT/MUD CAN ACCUMULATE INSIDE THE CROSSMEMBER AND CAUSE CREVICE CORROSIONTHAT CAN LEAD TO PERFORATION.THESE PERFORATIONS AT THE FRONT CONTROL ARM BRACKETS CAN CAUSE THE FRONT SUSPENSION TO BECOME PARTIALLY DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. GM PROVIDED VEHICLE TEST DATA SHOWING THAT CROSSMEMBERS THAT FAIL IN THIS MANNER DO NOT CAUSE A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT REPRESENT AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA06-018) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLEGED DEFECT CONDITION.