IllustrationPARKING BRAKE MALFUNCTION ( LINITIAL LACK OF ADJUSTMENT) REF: SERVICE BULLETIN #010526001 NHTSA 3619514. CONCERN WITH THE FACT A DEALER CHARGE IS REQUIRED TO CORRECT A DEFECT WHICH CAN LEAD TO HAZARDOUS CONDITION. *TR
2000 GMC Yukon
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2000 GMC Yukon do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 103.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Yukon 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
80–25K
825–50K
1250–75K
1375–100K
7100–150K
12150K+
60 reports with mileage · 106 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 39 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Tires. Review the 23 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Visibility. Review the 18 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
16 crash reports0 fire reports9 injury reports
Parking Brake complaints
10 reportsTHE DESIGN OF MY 2000 GMC YUKON'S EMERGENCY BRAKE IS FAULTY. THE EMERGENCY BRAKE FAILED ON MY CAR TWICE. IN APRIL OF 2002, MY CAR FAILED INSPECTION DUE TO THE EMERGENCY BRAKE NOT WORKING. I HAD TO PAY $550 TO REPLACE THE BRAKE PADS AND REPLACE A REAR ROTOR THAT THE EMERGENCY BRAKE HAD DAMAGED BECAUSE THE EMERGENCY BRAKE PADS HAD…
Read full complaint
THE DESIGN OF MY 2000 GMC YUKON'S EMERGENCY BRAKE IS FAULTY. THE EMERGENCY BRAKE FAILED ON MY CAR TWICE. IN APRIL OF 2002, MY CAR FAILED INSPECTION DUE TO THE EMERGENCY BRAKE NOT WORKING. I HAD TO PAY $550 TO REPLACE THE BRAKE PADS AND REPLACE A REAR ROTOR THAT THE EMERGENCY BRAKE HAD DAMAGED BECAUSE THE EMERGENCY BRAKE PADS HAD WORN DOWN AND THE BASE OF THE BRAKE DAMAGED THE ROTOR. THE CAR PASSED INSPECTION BUT THE BRAKE DID NOT SEEM TO WORK WELL. SO IN 2004, INSPECTION TIME ROLLS AROUND AND MY EMERGENCY BRAKE AGAIN FAILS. I WAS TOLD GM HAD PLACED A RECALL TO FIX THEIR FAULTY DESIGN BUT I AM NOT SURE IF THAT IS TRUE OR NOT. EITHER WAY, THE DESIGN ON THIS CAR IS TERRIBLE. THE ONLY TIME THE EMERGENCY BRAKE IS EVER USED IS WHEN THE STATE INSPECTION SERVICE TESTS IT TO SEE IF IT WORKS. GMC SHOULD FIX THE BRAKE SYSTEM WHERE THE EMERGENCY BRAKE SHOULD NOT BE A $400 PROBLEM EVERY TWO YEARS. *JB
PARKING BRAKE ISSUE. I OCCASIONALLY NOTICED A SCRAPING NOISE COMING SOMEWHERE FROM THE REAR OF THE CAR. THE SERVICING DEALER PULLED THE REAR BREAK ROTOR OFF TO INSPECT THE PARKING BRAKE. THEY FOUND THAT THE PAD HAD WORN ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE METAL AND THAT THE NOISE I WAS HEARING WAS THE REMENANTS OF THE SHOE, THE LINER, SCRA…
Read full complaint
PARKING BRAKE ISSUE. I OCCASIONALLY NOTICED A SCRAPING NOISE COMING SOMEWHERE FROM THE REAR OF THE CAR. THE SERVICING DEALER PULLED THE REAR BREAK ROTOR OFF TO INSPECT THE PARKING BRAKE. THEY FOUND THAT THE PAD HAD WORN ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE METAL AND THAT THE NOISE I WAS HEARING WAS THE REMENANTS OF THE SHOE, THE LINER, SCRAPING AGAINST THE DRUM. THE DEALER MAINTAINED THAT I MUST BE DRIVING WITH THE PARKING BRAKE ENGAGED. I MAINTAINED THAT WAS NOT TRUE, THAT THERE MUST BE A DESIGN FLAW WITH SOME OF THE BRAKE COMPONENTS CAUSING THE UNINTENDED ENGAGING OF THE PARKING BRAKE SHOE AND THE DRUM. I CONTACTED GMC DIRECTLY A SPOKE WITH A SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE WHO MAINTAINED THERE WAS NOTHING HE COULD DO TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM. I DID NOT WANT TO SIMPLY REPLACE ALL THE PARKING BRAKE AND DRUM AS I FELT THERE WAS A DESIGN PROBLEM AND THAT MY ISSUE WOULD BE RECURRING. MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT THE BRAKE SHOE LINER COULD EVENTUALLY WEAR OUT THE DRUM AND POSSIBLE CAUSE A CRASH. HOWEVER, I AM NOT ABLE TO STOP DRIVING THE CAR. SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER RESEARCHING THE NHTSA SITE, I FOUND GMC'S SERVICE BULLETIN, NHTSA # 10000172 DESCRIBING THE PROBLEM AND THE RECOMMENDED FIX, WHICH WAS REPLACING A PART WITH A "NEWLY DESIGNED PART ( A TENSION SPRING)! THE SERVICE BULLETIN DID NOT STATE THAT THE PROBLEM WAS CAUSED BY DRIVERS DRIVING THEIR CARS WITH THEIR PARKING BRAKE ENGAGED. I BELIEVE THAT ENOUGH OWNERS COMPLAINED AND GMC REALIZED THAT IT WAS A DESIGN PROBLEM. THE BULLENTIN COVERS SERVAL GM MODELS. AGAIN, THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE NOISE CAUSED BY THE SCRAPING, BUT THE POTENTIAL ACCIDENT CAUSED BY THE BRAKE SHOE LINER EVENTUALLY WEARING THRU THE PARKING BRAKE DRUM POSSIBLE CAUSING THE ROTOR TO SEPERATE. THIS COULD HAPPEN WHILE DRIVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. A LOSS OF CONTROL OR SUDDEN STOP PROBABLY WOULD TAKE PLACE. I THINK THAT COULD BE VERY SERIOUS AND NEEDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.
PARKING BRAKE ON MY 2000 GMC YUKON HAS NEVER WORKED. VEHICLE WILL ROLL DOWNHILL IF PARKING BRAKE PEDAL PUSHED TO THE FLOOR. DEALER CLAIMS THE BRAKE IS WORKING PROPERLY AS DESIGNED, TAKEN TO DEALER AT LEAST 3 TIMES OVER THE PAST 3 YEARS FOR THIS COMPLAINT, ALWAYS WITH THE SAME EXPLANATION. LAST TIME I HAD THIS CHECKED RECENTL…
Read full complaint
PARKING BRAKE ON MY 2000 GMC YUKON HAS NEVER WORKED. VEHICLE WILL ROLL DOWNHILL IF PARKING BRAKE PEDAL PUSHED TO THE FLOOR. DEALER CLAIMS THE BRAKE IS WORKING PROPERLY AS DESIGNED, TAKEN TO DEALER AT LEAST 3 TIMES OVER THE PAST 3 YEARS FOR THIS COMPLAINT, ALWAYS WITH THE SAME EXPLANATION. LAST TIME I HAD THIS CHECKED RECENTLY I WAS TOLD THE PARKING BRAKE SHOES NEEDED REPLACEMENT, THAT I HAD BEEN DRIVING WITH THE PARKING BRAKE ON (UNTRUE). I HAD BRAKES EXAMINED AT A NON GMC SHOP AND WAS TOLD THE BRAKES WERE OVERLY WORN ON ONE SIDE DUE TO IMPROPER ADJUSTMENT. I HAVE NEVER HAD A FUNCTIONING PARKING BRAKE IN THIS VEHICLE. THE DEALER GAVE ME MISINFORMATION ON AT LEAST 3 OCCASIONS, NOW REFUSING TO REPAIR THAT THE WARRANTY HAS EXPIRED. THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE WHICH SHOULD BE EXAMINED BY NSTA. THANK YOU.
THE PARKING BRAKE ON MY 2000 YUKON WOULD NOT HOLD THE VEHICLE WHEN THE PARKING BRAKE WAS APPLIED AND THE TRANSMISSION WAS IN NEUTRAL. THIS CONDITION EXISTED WHEN I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE NEW. WHEN I TOOK IT BACK TO HAVE THE PROBLEM FIXED, I WAS TOLD THIS VEHICLE HAS A NEW TYPE PARKING BRAKE. IT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO HOLD THE VEHICL…
Read full complaint
THE PARKING BRAKE ON MY 2000 YUKON WOULD NOT HOLD THE VEHICLE WHEN THE PARKING BRAKE WAS APPLIED AND THE TRANSMISSION WAS IN NEUTRAL. THIS CONDITION EXISTED WHEN I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE NEW. WHEN I TOOK IT BACK TO HAVE THE PROBLEM FIXED, I WAS TOLD THIS VEHICLE HAS A NEW TYPE PARKING BRAKE. IT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO HOLD THE VEHICLE WITH THE TRANSMISSION IN NEUTRAL. IT WOULD ONLY HOLD THE VEHICLE WITH THE TRANSMISSION IN PARK. AFTER TWO YEARS OF THE PARKING BRAKE NOT HOLDING I HAD IT IN FOR SERVICE AND INQUIRED ONE MORE TIME ABOUT THE PARKING BRAKE. THE DEALER CHECKED IT AND TOLD ME THE BRAKE PADS WERE WORN OUT AND NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE DEALER REPLACED THE PADS AND MADE SOME OTHER CHANGES. NOW THE PARKING BRAKE DOES HOLD THE VEHICLE WITH THE TRANSMISSION IN NEUTRAL. I FEEL I HAVE BEEN DECEIVED AND TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF SINCE THE DEALER TOLD ME THERE WAS NO PROBLEM UNTIL THE WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE HAS BEEN OTHER COMPLAINTS OF THIS TYPE. JB
VEHICLE PARKING BRAKE WAS INOPERATIVE. CONSUMER PUSHED LEVER TO ENGAGE PARKING BRAKES, BUT VEHICLE WAS STILL MOBILE. TS PARKING BRAKE WILL NOT HOLD ON THE SLIGHTEST GRADE ESPECIALLY WITH CONSUMER'S BOAT ATTACHED. FAILURE OF THE PARKING BRAKE COULD RESULT IN THE VEHICLE AND BOAT TO SUBMERGE IN THE WATER. *TT
MY PARKING/EMERGENCY BRAKE GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR AND DOES NOT HOLD MY VEHICLE ON EVEN THE SLIGHTEST GRADE. THE DEALER STATES THAT THIS IS NORMAL PER GMC EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE HAD NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS. MY ENGINE HAS A KNOCKING NOISE WHEN I START IT UP IN THE MORNING. THE DEALER ALSO STATED THAT THIS IS NORMAL PER GMC. …
Read full complaint
MY PARKING/EMERGENCY BRAKE GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR AND DOES NOT HOLD MY VEHICLE ON EVEN THE SLIGHTEST GRADE. THE DEALER STATES THAT THIS IS NORMAL PER GMC EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE HAD NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS. MY ENGINE HAS A KNOCKING NOISE WHEN I START IT UP IN THE MORNING. THE DEALER ALSO STATED THAT THIS IS NORMAL PER GMC. MY FRONT PASSENGER BUCKET SEAT BACK MOVES FORWARD AND BACK (WOBBLES). MY REAR END WHEEL BEARING WERE REPLACED BECAUSE OF A LOUD HUM. THAT WAS MISDIAGNOSED TWICE BY ALFRED MATHEWS. MY FRONT END FEELS LOOSE AND SQUEAKS WHEN ACCELERATING OR BRAKING. REAR LEATHER BUCKET SEATS RATTLE ALL THE TIME WHEN DRIVING AND THE LEATHER HAS RIPPED @ SEAMS TWICE. ALFRED MATHEWS REPLACED ONCE AND TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO FIX SEAT RATTLE. MY NEWEST COMPLAINT IS A NOISE THAT COMES FROM THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE WHEN YOU SHUT THE DOORS. *JB ***DIMSII IVOQ ENTRY POSTED AFTER 12/12/02 CUT-OVER TO ARTEMIS****761455
EMERGENCY PARK BRAKE FAILURE. *AK
CONSUMER APPLIED EMERGENCY BRAKE AND PEDAL WENT TO THE GROUND, RESULTING IN EMERGENCY BRAKE MALFUNCTIONING. *AK
THE PARKING BRAKE SYSTEM IS NOT DESIGNED TO HOLD MORE THAN THE WEIGHT OF THE VEHICLE ON MORE THAN AN ELEVEN PERCENT GRADE. THE YUKON XL IS ADVERTISED BY GMC TO BE A VEHICLE CAPBABLE OF TOWING A 7800 LB TRAILER. WITH A BOAT TRAILER OR HORSE TRAILER YOU CAN NOT SAFELY PARK ON ANYTHING BUT LEVEL GROUND WITHOUT THE WEIGHT OF…
Read full complaint
THE PARKING BRAKE SYSTEM IS NOT DESIGNED TO HOLD MORE THAN THE WEIGHT OF THE VEHICLE ON MORE THAN AN ELEVEN PERCENT GRADE. THE YUKON XL IS ADVERTISED BY GMC TO BE A VEHICLE CAPBABLE OF TOWING A 7800 LB TRAILER. WITH A BOAT TRAILER OR HORSE TRAILER YOU CAN NOT SAFELY PARK ON ANYTHING BUT LEVEL GROUND WITHOUT THE WEIGHT OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAILER BEING HELD BY THE TRANMISSION PARK. THIS NOT A SAFELY DESIGNED SYSTEM.*AK
Official recalls
605V379000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip
Aug 29, 2005
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES MAY EXPERIENCE UNWANTED ANTILOCK BRAKE SYSTEM (ABS) ACTIVATION. THIS CONDITION IS MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR IN ENVIRONMENTALLY CORROSIVE AREAS. THIS RECALL WILL BE LAUNCHED IN THE "SALT BELT" STATES OF CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ONLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CAN CAUSE INCREASED STOPPING DISTANCES DURING LOW-SPEED BRAKE APPLICATIONS, WHICH COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS ARE TO REMOVE THE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR AND THOROUGHLY CLEAN THE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR MOUNTING SURFACE ON THE BEARING, APPLY RUST INHIBITOR TO THE CLEANED SURFACE, GREASE THE MOUNTING SURFACE, REINSTALL THE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR, AND CHECK THE PEAK-TO-PEAK OUTPUT VOLTAGE TO ENSURE THE WHEEL SPEED SIGNAL IS WITHIN SPECIFICATIONS. THE RECALL BEGAN SEPTEMBER 22, 2005. OWNERS MAY CONTACT CHEVROLET AT 1-800-630-2438 OR GMC AT 1-866-996-9463.
03V094000 · Structure
Mar 7, 2003
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK, VAN, AND MINI VAN CONVERSIONS EQUIPPED WITH SOUTHERN COMFORT BUILT RUNNING BOARDS THAT CONTAIN CERTAIN COURTESY LIGHTS MANUFACTURED BY AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS, INC. THESE UNITS CONTAIN A COURTESY LIGHT OR LIGHTS THAT MIGHT OVERHEAT WHEN THE WIRE HARNESS IS EXPOSED TO EXCESSIVE MOISTURE AND ROAD SALT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS OVERHEATING CONDITION CAN CAUSE THE RUNNING BOARD TO MELT OR CAUSE A FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE WIRING HARNESS ON THESE RUNNING BOARDS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN MARCH 7, 2003. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT SOUTHERN COMFORT AT 1-800-745-6096.
02V253000 · Seats:front Assembly:head Restraint
Sep 17, 2002
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH REARWARD FOLDING HEAD RESTRAINTS ON THE SECOND ROW SEATS, TWO POTENTIAL PINCH POINTS EXIST ON EACH OF THE FOLDING HEAD RESTRAINTS WHEN THE RESTRAINTS ARE FOLDED REARWARD AS THE SEATBACK IS FOLDED DOWN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF A PERSON WERE TO INSERT THEIR FINGER(S) INTO THE PINCH POINT WHEN THE HEAD RESTRAINT FOLDS, IT COULD TRAP AND PINCH THE FINGER(S) CAUSING INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL PROTECTIVE COVERS OVER THE PINCH POINTS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN NOVEMBER 8, 2002. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT CHEVROLET AT 1-800-222-1020, GMC AT 1-800-462-8782, OR CADILLAC AT 1-800-458-8006.
02V178000 · Air Bags:frontal:sensor/control MODULE-INACTIVE
Jul 1, 2002
ON CERTAIN PICKUP AND UTILITY TRUCKS, SOME OF THESE VEHICLES HAVE AN AIR BAG SENSING DIAGNOSTIC MODULE (SDM) WHICH CONTAINS AN ANOMALY THAT COULD RESULT IN THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER'S AIR BAG FAILING TO DEPLOY DURING CERTAIN FRONTAL CRASHES.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN A VEHICLE CRASH, FRONT SEAT OCCUPANTS MAY RECEIVE MORE SEVERE INJURIES.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL RECALIBRATE THE SDM ON THE AFFECTED VEHICLES. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN AUGUST 28, 2002. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT CHEVROLET AT 1-800-222-1020 OR GMC AT 1-800-462-8782.
00V345000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
Oct 30, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: LIGHT DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES. SOME OF THESE VEHICLES HAVE A CLEARANCE CONDITION BETWEEN THE FRONT RIGHT-HAND BRAKE PIPE AND THE BODY CROSS SILL THAT COULD DECREASE TO THE POINT OF ALLOWING CONTACT DURING THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE. IF CONTACT OCCURS AND THE BRAKE PIPE BECOMES DAMAGED, IN HALF OF THE BRAKE SYSTEM THERE CAN BE A LOSS OF BRAKE FLUID AND PRESSURE. THE BRAKE WARNING LAMP WILL BE ACTIVATED WHEN THE BRAKE FLUID LEVEL REACHES THE INDICATOR LIMIT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: DURING BRAKING, THE PEDAL WILL BE LOWER THAN NORMAL AND STOPPING DISTANCES WILL BE LONGER. IF THIS OCCURS WHEN STOPPING DISTANCE IS LIMITED, A CRASH COULD OCCUR.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE FRONT RIGHT-HAND BRAKE PIPE FOR WEAR. IF THERE ARE SIGNS OF WEAR, THIS SECTION OF THE BRAKE PIPE WILL BE REPLACED WITH A NEW DESIGNED BRAKE PIPE SECTION. IF THERE ARE NOT SIGNS OF WEAR ON THE BRAKE PIPE, THE DEALER WILL INSTALL A SPACER CLIP TO ENSURE SUFFICIENT CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE BRAKE PIPE AND THE BODY CROSS SILL.
00V343000 · Structure:body
Oct 25, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: LIGHT DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES. SOME OF THESE VEHICLES HAVE LOOSE OR MISSING REAR WHEELHOUSE PLUGS. UNDER CERTAIN VEHICLE OPERATING CONDITIONS, EXHAUST GASES CAN FLOW FORWARD AND ACCUMULATE IN THE REAR WHEELHOUSE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THESE GASES COULD FLOW INTO THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT IF THE PLUG IS MISSING OR LOOSE AND COULD CAUSE POSSIBLE ILLNESS, UNCONSCIOUSNESS, OR DEATH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE VEHICLE FOR LOOSE OR MISSING WHEELHOUSE PLUGS AND INSTALL NEW PLUGS IF NECESSARY.
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
5PE10010 · Brake Line Corrosion Failure
Opened Mar 30, 2010 · Closed Jan 5, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist:hydraulic:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received Defect Petition DP10-003 on March 2, 2010, requesting the investigation of model year (MY) 2003 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 4WD pickup trucks for corrosion failures of the vehicle brake lines.DP10-003 was granted and on March 30, 2010, Preliminary Evaluation PE10-010 was opened on more than six million model year 1999 through 2003 light trucks and sport utility vehicles manufactured and sold by General Motors Corporation (GM).On July 2, 2010, ODI received GM's response to an information request, which included GM's assessment of the frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect. GM stated that:(1) the brake system of the subject vehicles is split front/rear and should a brake pipe suddenly fail for any reason, the affected vehicle would be capable of stopping with the pressure supplied by the remaining circuit; (2) the subject vehicles were designed to meet the hydraulic circuit partial failure requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 105 and 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; and (3) should a brake fluid leak occur for any reason, the brake system malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) would illuminate and warn the driver before the brake fluid level was low enough to cause a loss of line pressure.ODI's and GM's analysis indicates that 85 percent of the complaints occurred on vehicles used primarily in States that use salt on the roads during Winter months (Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin).Overall the complaint rates per 100,000 vehicles for Salt Belt States is 43.0 and Non-Salt Belt is 3.0.In approximately 25 percent of the complaints the brake pipe failure occurred suddenly, with no warning (i.e., no MIL, Brake Fluid Loss Warning), and resulted in extended stopping distances.In 30 of these the increase in stopping distance that resulted was a factor in the crash and in 10 others the vehicle was intentionally steered off the road or into another lane of travel in order to avoid a crash.This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA11-001) for subject vehicles sold or currently registered in Salt Belt States to further assess the scope, frequency and safety risks associated with sudden failures of corroded brake pipes that can result in decreased brake effectiveness. ODI will continue to gather information on subject vehicles outside the Salt Belt as well.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received Defect Petition DP10-003 on March 2, 2010, requesting the investigation of model year (MY) 2003 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 4WD pickup trucks for corrosion failures of the vehicle brake lines.DP10-003 was granted and on March 30, 2010, Preliminary Evaluation PE10-010 was opened on more than six million model year 1999 through 2003 light trucks and sport utility vehicles manufactured and sold by General Motors Corporation (GM).On July 2, 2010, ODI received GM's response to an information request, which included GM's assessment of the frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect. GM stated that:(1) the brake system of the subject vehicles is split front/rear and should a brake pipe suddenly fail for any reason, the affected vehicle would be capable of stopping with the pressure supplied by the remaining circuit; (2) the subject vehicles were designed to meet the hydraulic circuit partial failure requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 105 and 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; and (3) should a brake fluid leak occur for any reason, the brake system malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) would illuminate and warn the driver before the brake fluid level was low enough to cause a loss of line pressure.ODI's and GM's analysis indicates that 85 percent of the complaints occurred on vehicles used primarily in States that use salt on the roads during Winter months (Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin).Overall the complaint rates per 100,000 vehicles for Salt Belt States is 43.0 and Non-Salt Belt is 3.0.In approximately 25 percent of the complaints the brake pipe failure occurred suddenly, with no warning (i.e., no MIL, Brake Fluid Loss Warning), and resulted in extended stopping distances.In 30 of these the increase in stopping distance that resulted was a factor in the crash and in 10 others the vehicle was intentionally steered off the road or into another lane of travel in order to avoid a crash.This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA11-001) for subject vehicles sold or currently registered in Salt Belt States to further assess the scope, frequency and safety risks associated with sudden failures of corroded brake pipes that can result in decreased brake effectiveness. ODI will continue to gather information on subject vehicles outside the Salt Belt as well.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist:hydraulic:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received Defect Petition DP10-003 on March 2, 2010, requesting the investigation of model year (MY) 2003 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 4WD pickup trucks for corrosion failures of the vehicle brake lines.DP10-003 was granted and on March 30, 2010, Preliminary Evaluation PE10-010 was opened on more than six million model year 1999 through 2003 light trucks and sport utility vehicles manufactured and sold by General Motors Corporation (GM).On July 2, 2010, ODI received GM's response to an information request, which included GM's assessment of the frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect. GM stated that:(1) the brake system of the subject vehicles is split front/rear and should a brake pipe suddenly fail for any reason, the affected vehicle would be capable of stopping with the pressure supplied by the remaining circuit; (2) the subject vehicles were designed to meet the hydraulic circuit partial failure requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 105 and 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; and (3) should a brake fluid leak occur for any reason, the brake system malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) would illuminate and warn the driver before the brake fluid level was low enough to cause a loss of line pressure.ODI's and GM's analysis indicates that 85 percent of the complaints occurred on vehicles used primarily in States that use salt on the roads during Winter months (Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin).Overall the complaint rates per 100,000 vehicles for Salt Belt States is 43.0 and Non-Salt Belt is 3.0.In approximately 25 percent of the complaints the brake pipe failure occurred suddenly, with no warning (i.e., no MIL, Brake Fluid Loss Warning), and resulted in extended stopping distances.In 30 of these the increase in stopping distance that resulted was a factor in the crash and in 10 others the vehicle was intentionally steered off the road or into another lane of travel in order to avoid a crash.This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA11-001) for subject vehicles sold or currently registered in Salt Belt States to further assess the scope, frequency and safety risks associated with sudden failures of corroded brake pipes that can result in decreased brake effectiveness. ODI will continue to gather information on subject vehicles outside the Salt Belt as well.
DP05009 · Parking Brake Failure
Opened Dec 20, 2005 · Closed May 31, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Parking Brake; Parking Brake:conventional; Parking Brake:conventional:mechanical
ODI'S REVIEW OF COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED SINCE THE CLOSE OF EA04-011 REVEALED NO INDICATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE RE-OPENED.MORE DETAILS CAN BE FOUND IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ENCLOSED IN THE DP05-009 PUBLIC FILE.ODI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION IN THE FUTURE SHOULD CONDITIONS WARRANT.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Parking Brake:conventional
ODI'S REVIEW OF COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED SINCE THE CLOSE OF EA04-011 REVEALED NO INDICATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE RE-OPENED.MORE DETAILS CAN BE FOUND IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ENCLOSED IN THE DP05-009 PUBLIC FILE.ODI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION IN THE FUTURE SHOULD CONDITIONS WARRANT.
Parking Brake:conventional:mechanical
ODI'S REVIEW OF COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED SINCE THE CLOSE OF EA04-011 REVEALED NO INDICATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE RE-OPENED.MORE DETAILS CAN BE FOUND IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ENCLOSED IN THE DP05-009 PUBLIC FILE.ODI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION IN THE FUTURE SHOULD CONDITIONS WARRANT.
Parking Brake
ODI'S REVIEW OF COMPLAINT DATA RECEIVED SINCE THE CLOSE OF EA04-011 REVEALED NO INDICATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE RE-OPENED.MORE DETAILS CAN BE FOUND IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ENCLOSED IN THE DP05-009 PUBLIC FILE.ODI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION IN THE FUTURE SHOULD CONDITIONS WARRANT.
PE05020 · Unwanted LOW-SPEED Abs Activation
Opened Apr 28, 2005 · Closed Sep 13, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 29, 2005, GM NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WAS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1999 THROUGH 2002 C/K PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES TO CORRECT A PROBLEM WITH ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYSTEM (ABS) WHEEL SPEED SENSOR CORROSION THAT MAY RESULT IN UNWANTED ABS ACTIVATION AND EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCES DURING LOW-SPEED BRAKING (RECALL 05V-379).GM'S RECALL COVERS APPROXIMATELY 804,000 VEHICLES CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE FOLLOWING 14 SALT-BELT STATES:CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, MICHIGAN, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND WEST VIRGINIA.THE RECALL PROCEDURE WILL INVOLVE REMOVING THE SENSOR, CLEANING THE MOUNTING SURFACE, APPLYING A RUST INHIBITOR (ZINC-X) TO THE SURFACE, AND REINSTALLING THE SENSOR.IF NECESSARY, THE SENSOR WILL BE REPLACED. THE POPULATION AND FAILURE REPORT DATA GIVEN IN THIS RESUME ARE FOR THE FULL REGION THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ODI AS THE SALT-BELT.THAT INCLUDES DELAWARE, IOWA, MARYLAND, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, WISCONSIN AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN ADDITION TO THE 14 STATES INCLUDED IN 05V-379.THE STATES COVERED BY GM'S RECALL HAVE THE HIGHEST INCIDENT RATES FOR THE SUBJECT CONDITION, ACCOUNTING FOR 91% OF THE INCIDENTS, BUT ONLY 24% OF SUBJECT VEHICLE SALES IN THE UNITED STATES.ODI'S ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT 840 OF THE COMPLAINTS, 244 OF THE CRASHES, AND 16 OF THE INJURIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS INVESTIGATION OCCURRED IN THOSE STATES.THE RESULTING INCIDENT AND CRASH RATES ARE 96.2 AND 28.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES RESPECTIVELY (NOTE:RATES ARE BASED ON VEHICLE SALES, NOT REGISTERED VEHICLES). THE CORRESPONDING NUMBERS IN THE EXCLUDED PORTIONS OF THE SALT-BELT ARE 399,000 VEHICLES, 81 INCIDENTS (20.3 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 3 CRASHES, AND NO INJURIES.THE STATISTICS IN THE REMAINING 30 STATES ARE 2,406,000 VEHICLES, 168 INCIDENTS (7.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 31 CRASHES, AND ONE INJURY.GM AND ODI ARE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THE PROBLEM EXPERIENCE IN STATES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL.GM WILL PROVIDE ODI WITH UPDATED COMPLAINT, FIELD REPORT, AND WARRANTY DATA IN NOVEMBER 2005.ODI AND GM WILL REVIEW THAT DATA AND ASSESS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CURRENT SCOPE OF THE RECALL AT THAT TIME.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 29, 2005, GM NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WAS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1999 THROUGH 2002 C/K PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES TO CORRECT A PROBLEM WITH ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYSTEM (ABS) WHEEL SPEED SENSOR CORROSION THAT MAY RESULT IN UNWANTED ABS ACTIVATION AND EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCES DURING LOW-SPEED BRAKING (RECALL 05V-379).GM'S RECALL COVERS APPROXIMATELY 804,000 VEHICLES CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE FOLLOWING 14 SALT-BELT STATES:CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, MICHIGAN, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND WEST VIRGINIA.THE RECALL PROCEDURE WILL INVOLVE REMOVING THE SENSOR, CLEANING THE MOUNTING SURFACE, APPLYING A RUST INHIBITOR (ZINC-X) TO THE SURFACE, AND REINSTALLING THE SENSOR.IF NECESSARY, THE SENSOR WILL BE REPLACED. THE POPULATION AND FAILURE REPORT DATA GIVEN IN THIS RESUME ARE FOR THE FULL REGION THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ODI AS THE SALT-BELT.THAT INCLUDES DELAWARE, IOWA, MARYLAND, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, WISCONSIN AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN ADDITION TO THE 14 STATES INCLUDED IN 05V-379.THE STATES COVERED BY GM'S RECALL HAVE THE HIGHEST INCIDENT RATES FOR THE SUBJECT CONDITION, ACCOUNTING FOR 91% OF THE INCIDENTS, BUT ONLY 24% OF SUBJECT VEHICLE SALES IN THE UNITED STATES.ODI'S ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT 840 OF THE COMPLAINTS, 244 OF THE CRASHES, AND 16 OF THE INJURIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS INVESTIGATION OCCURRED IN THOSE STATES.THE RESULTING INCIDENT AND CRASH RATES ARE 96.2 AND 28.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES RESPECTIVELY (NOTE:RATES ARE BASED ON VEHICLE SALES, NOT REGISTERED VEHICLES). THE CORRESPONDING NUMBERS IN THE EXCLUDED PORTIONS OF THE SALT-BELT ARE 399,000 VEHICLES, 81 INCIDENTS (20.3 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 3 CRASHES, AND NO INJURIES.THE STATISTICS IN THE REMAINING 30 STATES ARE 2,406,000 VEHICLES, 168 INCIDENTS (7.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 31 CRASHES, AND ONE INJURY.GM AND ODI ARE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THE PROBLEM EXPERIENCE IN STATES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL.GM WILL PROVIDE ODI WITH UPDATED COMPLAINT, FIELD REPORT, AND WARRANTY DATA IN NOVEMBER 2005.ODI AND GM WILL REVIEW THAT DATA AND ASSESS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CURRENT SCOPE OF THE RECALL AT THAT TIME.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip
IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 29, 2005, GM NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WAS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1999 THROUGH 2002 C/K PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES TO CORRECT A PROBLEM WITH ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYSTEM (ABS) WHEEL SPEED SENSOR CORROSION THAT MAY RESULT IN UNWANTED ABS ACTIVATION AND EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCES DURING LOW-SPEED BRAKING (RECALL 05V-379).GM'S RECALL COVERS APPROXIMATELY 804,000 VEHICLES CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE FOLLOWING 14 SALT-BELT STATES:CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, MICHIGAN, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND WEST VIRGINIA.THE RECALL PROCEDURE WILL INVOLVE REMOVING THE SENSOR, CLEANING THE MOUNTING SURFACE, APPLYING A RUST INHIBITOR (ZINC-X) TO THE SURFACE, AND REINSTALLING THE SENSOR.IF NECESSARY, THE SENSOR WILL BE REPLACED. THE POPULATION AND FAILURE REPORT DATA GIVEN IN THIS RESUME ARE FOR THE FULL REGION THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ODI AS THE SALT-BELT.THAT INCLUDES DELAWARE, IOWA, MARYLAND, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, WISCONSIN AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN ADDITION TO THE 14 STATES INCLUDED IN 05V-379.THE STATES COVERED BY GM'S RECALL HAVE THE HIGHEST INCIDENT RATES FOR THE SUBJECT CONDITION, ACCOUNTING FOR 91% OF THE INCIDENTS, BUT ONLY 24% OF SUBJECT VEHICLE SALES IN THE UNITED STATES.ODI'S ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT 840 OF THE COMPLAINTS, 244 OF THE CRASHES, AND 16 OF THE INJURIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS INVESTIGATION OCCURRED IN THOSE STATES.THE RESULTING INCIDENT AND CRASH RATES ARE 96.2 AND 28.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES RESPECTIVELY (NOTE:RATES ARE BASED ON VEHICLE SALES, NOT REGISTERED VEHICLES). THE CORRESPONDING NUMBERS IN THE EXCLUDED PORTIONS OF THE SALT-BELT ARE 399,000 VEHICLES, 81 INCIDENTS (20.3 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 3 CRASHES, AND NO INJURIES.THE STATISTICS IN THE REMAINING 30 STATES ARE 2,406,000 VEHICLES, 168 INCIDENTS (7.0 PER 100,000 VEHICLES), 31 CRASHES, AND ONE INJURY.GM AND ODI ARE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THE PROBLEM EXPERIENCE IN STATES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL.GM WILL PROVIDE ODI WITH UPDATED COMPLAINT, FIELD REPORT, AND WARRANTY DATA IN NOVEMBER 2005.ODI AND GM WILL REVIEW THAT DATA AND ASSESS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CURRENT SCOPE OF THE RECALL AT THAT TIME.
PE02067 · Alleged Failure Of 2ND Row Seatbelt Alr
Opened Sep 25, 2002 · Closed Feb 11, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seat Belts; Seat Belts:rear/other
THE AUTOMATIC LOCKING RETRACTOR (ALR) IS A FEATURE INCORPORATED IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE FOR LOCKING THE WEBBING TO PROPERLY SECURE A CHILD SAFETY SEAT INTO A VEHICLE.THIS PE WAS OPENED BASED ON A GM TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN STATING THAT WITH CERTAIN CHILD SAFETY SEATS THE WEBBING MAY NOT REMAIN LOCKED.THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS IN THE ODI DATABASE AND ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS TO GM.GM'S INSTRUCTIONS STATE FOR THE FINAL STEP IN USING THE WEBBING LOCK FEATURE TO PUSH AND PULL THE CHILD RESTRAINT TO BE SURE IT IS SECURE. IF THE ALR IS NOT LOCKED, THE USER WOULD BE FULLY AWARE OF THIS CONDITION PRIOR TO COMPLETING PROPER INSTALLATION OF THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT IN THIS VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION DID NOT UNCOVER ANY COMPLAINTS OF THE ALR INADVERTENTLY UNLOCKING WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.THE EMERGENCY LOCKING RETRACTOR (ELR) FEATURE REMAINS AVAILABLE TO LOCK THE RETRACTOR IN A CRASH.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.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.SEE ATTACHED SUMMARY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Seat Belts
THE AUTOMATIC LOCKING RETRACTOR (ALR) IS A FEATURE INCORPORATED IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE FOR LOCKING THE WEBBING TO PROPERLY SECURE A CHILD SAFETY SEAT INTO A VEHICLE.THIS PE WAS OPENED BASED ON A GM TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN STATING THAT WITH CERTAIN CHILD SAFETY SEATS THE WEBBING MAY NOT REMAIN LOCKED.THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS IN THE ODI DATABASE AND ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS TO GM.GM'S INSTRUCTIONS STATE FOR THE FINAL STEP IN USING THE WEBBING LOCK FEATURE TO PUSH AND PULL THE CHILD RESTRAINT TO BE SURE IT IS SECURE. IF THE ALR IS NOT LOCKED, THE USER WOULD BE FULLY AWARE OF THIS CONDITION PRIOR TO COMPLETING PROPER INSTALLATION OF THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT IN THIS VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION DID NOT UNCOVER ANY COMPLAINTS OF THE ALR INADVERTENTLY UNLOCKING WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.THE EMERGENCY LOCKING RETRACTOR (ELR) FEATURE REMAINS AVAILABLE TO LOCK THE RETRACTOR IN A CRASH.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.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.SEE ATTACHED SUMMARY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
Seat Belts:rear/other
THE AUTOMATIC LOCKING RETRACTOR (ALR) IS A FEATURE INCORPORATED IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE FOR LOCKING THE WEBBING TO PROPERLY SECURE A CHILD SAFETY SEAT INTO A VEHICLE.THIS PE WAS OPENED BASED ON A GM TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN STATING THAT WITH CERTAIN CHILD SAFETY SEATS THE WEBBING MAY NOT REMAIN LOCKED.THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS IN THE ODI DATABASE AND ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS TO GM.GM'S INSTRUCTIONS STATE FOR THE FINAL STEP IN USING THE WEBBING LOCK FEATURE TO PUSH AND PULL THE CHILD RESTRAINT TO BE SURE IT IS SECURE. IF THE ALR IS NOT LOCKED, THE USER WOULD BE FULLY AWARE OF THIS CONDITION PRIOR TO COMPLETING PROPER INSTALLATION OF THE CHILD SAFETY SEAT IN THIS VEHICLE.THIS INVESTIGATION DID NOT UNCOVER ANY COMPLAINTS OF THE ALR INADVERTENTLY UNLOCKING WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.THE EMERGENCY LOCKING RETRACTOR (ELR) FEATURE REMAINS AVAILABLE TO LOCK THE RETRACTOR IN A CRASH.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.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.SEE ATTACHED SUMMARY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
EA02015 · Throttle Sticking Closed
Opened Aug 1, 2002 · Closed Jan 12, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
THIS INVESTIGATION INVOLVES THE GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (GM)THROTTLE BODY (TB) UTILIZED IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1999-2002 SILVERADO, SIERRA, TAHOE, SUBURBAN, AVALANCHE AND YUKON (SUBJECT VEHICLE(S)) WITH 4.8L, 5.3L, AND 6.0L ENGINES. THE TB VALVE MAY INTERMITTENTLY STICK IN A CLOSED POSITION.IN SUCH A SITUATION, AN OPERATOR MAY APPLY ADDITIONAL ACCELERATOR PEDAL FORCE TO INCREASE ENGINE SPEED.THE APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL ACCELERATOR PEDAL FORCE, TO OPEN A STUCK THROTTLE VALVE, MAY OPEN THE THROTTLE VALVE MORE THAN INTENDED AND, IN TURN, ACCELERATE THE ENGINE AND VEHICLE MORE THAN INTENDED AND REASONABLY EXPECTED BY THE DRIVER.ON AUGUST 1, 2002, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA), OPENED THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.THE INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT TWO FACTORS MAY CAUSE THE DEFECT: 1) TB MANUFACTURING PROCESS PROBLEMS; AND 2) ACCUMULATION OF DEPOSITS (A PCV SYSTEM BY-PRODUCT) ON OR AROUND THE TB THROTTLE VALVE AND BORE.ODI CONCLUDES THAT THE TB PERFORMS IN A DEFECTIVE MANNER AFTER ANALYZING GM?S DATA SUBMISSIONS, AND TEST DATA COLLECTED BY THE VEHICLE RESEARCH AND TEST CENTER (VRTC).FIFTY-NINE CRASHES ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF GM?S TB DEFECT.THE MAJORITY OF THE CRASHES INVOLVE A SINGLE VEHICLE, ENGAGING IN A CLOSE QUARTER VEHICLE MANEUVER (OR LOW SPEED), AND CAUSING ONLY MINOR PROPERTY DAMAGE.FOUR OUT OF THE FIFTY-NINE CRASHES INVOLVE INJURY, AND THOSE INJURIES WERE MINOR.ALTHOUGH GM?S TB IS DEFECTIVE, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE GATHERED, ODI HAS FOUND THAT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL FORCE REQUIRED TO OPEN A STUCK THROTTLE VALVE IS NEGLIGIBLE, AND THE THROTTLE VALVE DOES NOT STICK IN THE OPEN POSITION.THEREFORE THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA02-015) WILL BE CLOSED AT THIS TIME.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FOR A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE TB COMPONENT AND TESTING, PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED REPORT.