IllustrationDAUGHTER HYDROPLANED, WENT INTO DITCH ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD, TRAVELED ACROSS ROAD INTO LEFT DITCH AND HIT TREE, OPENING THE CONVERTIBLE TOP DURING CRASH AND TOTALED VEHICLE AIRBAGS DIDN'T DEPLOY DURING CRASH.
2000 Pontiac Sunfire
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2000 Pontiac Sunfire do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 77.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Sunfire 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
10–25K
825–50K
1150–75K
675–100K
4100–150K
4150K+
34 reports with mileage · 62 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.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 25 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 23 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 15 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
13 crash reports5 fire reports11 injury reports
Air Bags complaints
9 reportsDT:THE CONTACT STATED TWO FRONTAL AIR BAGS DEPLOYED WHILE TURNING INTO A GAS STATION. THIS OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING AT A LOW SPEED. SHE WAS THE ONLY OCCUPANT IN THE VEHICLE AND WAS WEARING HER SEAT BELT AT THE TIME. THEE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED ON THE PASSENGER SIDE. THERE WAS CORROSION AND WATER IN THE AIR BAG. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED …
Read full complaint
DT:THE CONTACT STATED TWO FRONTAL AIR BAGS DEPLOYED WHILE TURNING INTO A GAS STATION. THIS OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING AT A LOW SPEED. SHE WAS THE ONLY OCCUPANT IN THE VEHICLE AND WAS WEARING HER SEAT BELT AT THE TIME. THEE AIRBAGS DEPLOYED ON THE PASSENGER SIDE. THERE WAS CORROSION AND WATER IN THE AIR BAG. THE CONTACT SUSTAINED TWO BLACK EYES, A KNOT ON HER FOREHEAD AND BURNS ON HER THROAT AND CHEST. AFTER THE DEPLOYMENT THE DRIVER'S SIDE FRAME WAS LYING ON THE GROUND. SHE DID NOT HIT ANYTHING. IT SOUNDED AS IF SHE RAN OVER GLASS IN THE ROAD. THE PASSENGER'S SIDE AIR BAG DEPLOYED TOWARD THE WINDSHIELD INSTEAD OF DEPLOYING OUT TOWARD THE PASSENGER SEAT. THE POLICE OFFICER DID CAME AND TOOK A REPORT. THE INSURANCE COMPANY CAME TOOK THE VEHICLE TO SEE WHO WAS AT FAULT FOR THIS PROBLEM. THE CONTACT STATED THAT SHE WAS IN TWO PREVIOUS REAR END ACCIDENTS AND NEITHER AIR BAG DEPLOYED AT THAT TIME. FROM THE TIME OF HER LAST ACCIDENT IT HAD BEEN ABOUT TWO MONTHS UNTIL THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED. *AK UPDATE 12/6/2005 - THE ROAD THE CONSUMER WAS TRAVELING ON WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT. *NM
I WAS ON ROUTE 65 IN NORTH SEWICKELY IN PENNSYLVANIA. I WAS STOPPED DUE TO ANOTHER DRIVER IN FRONT OF ME MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN. A CAR CAME FROM BEHIND HITTING ME AND I WAS PROPELLED IN FRONT OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC WHICH HIT THE FRONT END OF MY CAR. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY FROM THE HEAD ON COLLISION. I RECEIVED MULTIPLE BRUIS…
Read full complaint
I WAS ON ROUTE 65 IN NORTH SEWICKELY IN PENNSYLVANIA. I WAS STOPPED DUE TO ANOTHER DRIVER IN FRONT OF ME MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN. A CAR CAME FROM BEHIND HITTING ME AND I WAS PROPELLED IN FRONT OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC WHICH HIT THE FRONT END OF MY CAR. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY FROM THE HEAD ON COLLISION. I RECEIVED MULTIPLE BRUISES AND SPRAINED NECK AND SHOULDER. I HAVE PAIN TO MY ABDOMEN DUE TO THE SEAT BELT, I HAD ON. NOTHING, MY CAR WAS TOTALED DUE TO THIS ACCIDENT. I HAVE A CALL INTO GM BECAUSE THIS IS THE SECOND ACCIDENT IN THIS CAR WHICH THE AIR BAG DID NOT DEPLOY. THE OTHER ONE WAS A FEW MONTHS OF BUYING THE CAR BRAND NEW IN 2000. WHEN A DEER RAN IN FRONT OF ME ON INTERSTATE 19. SMASHING THE FRONT END THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY THEN EITHER. I WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 50 MPH WHEN THE DEER HIT ME. I HAD ON MY SAFETY BELT. *NM
VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A FRONTAL COLLISION CRASHING INTO A TREE, IMPACT WAS APPROXIMATELY 45-50 MPH. UPON IMPACT, BOTH FRONTAL AIR BAGS DEPLOYED 15 MINUTE AFTERWARD. CONSUMER WAS AIR CARRIES TO THE LOCAL HOSPITAL WITH MAJOR INJURIES. DEALER AND THE MANUFACTURER WERE BOTH NOTIFIED. *AK
WHILE TRAVELING AT 10 MPH A VAN HEADED SOUTH RAN STOP SIGN AND HIT CONSUMER'S VEHICLE ON DRIVER'S SIDE AT ABOUT 40 MPH, AND NONE OF AIRBAGS DEPLOYED. *AK
CONSUMER WAS HAVING PROBLEM WITH BRAKES BEFORE ACCIDENT. WHILE TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 15MPH ANOTHER VEHICLE STOPPED SUDDENLY IN FRONT. AIRBAG DIDN'T DEPLOY, AND SEATBELT RESTRAINT DIDN'T LOCK UP. CONSUMER HAD COMPLAINED ALMOST A YEAR ABOUT BRAKES. DEALER CLAIMED THEY HAD CHECKED BRAKES. VEHICLE WAS TAKE TO ANOTHER DEALER, …
Read full complaint
CONSUMER WAS HAVING PROBLEM WITH BRAKES BEFORE ACCIDENT. WHILE TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 15MPH ANOTHER VEHICLE STOPPED SUDDENLY IN FRONT. AIRBAG DIDN'T DEPLOY, AND SEATBELT RESTRAINT DIDN'T LOCK UP. CONSUMER HAD COMPLAINED ALMOST A YEAR ABOUT BRAKES. DEALER CLAIMED THEY HAD CHECKED BRAKES. VEHICLE WAS TAKE TO ANOTHER DEALER, AND THEY FOUND FACTORY SEALS STILL ON BRAKES. CONSUMER SUFFERED SOME SERIOUS INJURIES. *AK
FRONT-END COLLISION; CAR TOTALLED; MAJOR FRONT END DAMAGE; NEITHER AIR BAG DEPLOYED.
VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A FRONTAL COLLISION AT 60 MPH, AND THE AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WILL BE NOTIFIED. *AK
CONSUMER HIT THE FRONT SIDE OF A DODGE TRUCK AT ABOUT 35 MPH, AND THE AIRBAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. *AK *ML
Official recalls
104V036000 · Electrical System:ignition:switch
Jan 27, 2004
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES. IF THE ENGINE FAILS TO START AND THE DRIVER HOLDS THE KEY IN THE "START" POSITION FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD, HIGH CURRENT FLOWS THROUGH THE IGNITION SWITCH, AND SOMETIMES PRODUCES ENOUGH HEAT TO MELT INTERNAL SWITCH PARTS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE SWITCH IS DAMAGED, A FIRE COULD OCCUR IN THE STEERING COLUMN, EVEN WITH THE ENGINE OFF AND THE KEY REMOVED. THE FIRE COULD SPREAD TO THE INTERIOR OF THE CAR, WHICH COULD INJURE OCCUPANTS OR CAUSE DAMAGE TO ADJOINING STRUCTURES.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A RELAY KIT IN THESE VEHICLES TO PREVENT HIGH CURRENT FROM FLOWING THROUGH THE IGNITION SWITCH, AND CHECK THAT YOUR CAR WILL START WITH A PROPERLY CHARGED BATTERY AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE THE IGNITION SWITCH. OWNER NOTIFICATION WILL BEGIN ON MARCH 1, 2004. 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 1-800-630-2438, PONTIAC AT 1-800-620-7668, BUICK AT 1-866-608-8080, OR OLDSMOBILE AT 1-800-630-6537. CUSTOMERS CAN ALSO CHECK THEIR VEHICLE ONLINE BY GOING TO WWW.MYGMLINK.COM AND ENTERING THE VEHICLE'S IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.
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
3EA02028 · Erratic Fuel Gauge
Opened Sep 30, 2002 · Closed Dec 30, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline; Fuel System, Other:storage:fuel Gauge System
ODI OPENED EA 02-028 TO REVIEW COMPLAINTS OF CONSUMERS REPORTING THAT THEIR FUEL GAUGE WAS INCORRECTLY DISPLAYING THE AMOUNT OF FUEL IN THE GAS TANK.THE FUEL GAUGE RECEIVES AN ELECTRICAL SIGNAL FROM A FUEL TANK SENDING SENSOR CIRCUIT CARD.A FLOAT ARM IN THE TANK MOVES ELECTRICAL CONTACTS THAT RUB AGAINST THE CARD AS THE LEVEL OF FUEL RISES AND FALLS.DISRUPTION OF THE ELECTRICAL SIGNAL (SUCH AS CAUSED BY CORROSION OF THE CIRCUIT CARD) WILL CAUSE INCORRECT READINGS TO REGISTER ON THE FUEL GAUGE.GM REPORTED IN THEIR RESPONSE TO ODI DATED JANUARY 13, 2003 THAT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF ERRATIC FUEL GAUGE OPERATION IS EXCESS ELEMENTAL SULFUR IN FUEL.GM REPORTED THAT ABNORMAL LEVELS OF SULFUR SPORADICALLY OCCURRED IN CERTAIN PARTS OF CANADA AND THE U.S. RESULTING IN REPORTS OF FUEL GAUGE MALFUNCTION.GM MODIFIED THE SENDING SENSOR FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER OCTOBER 2000.IT MADE A SECOND SENSOR MODIFICATION FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER JANUARY 2003.GM ALSO ISSUED A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION CAMPAIGN (GM NUMBER 00101) IN DECEMBER 2000 FOR U.S. CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF MAINE AND ISSUED SEVERAL SERVICE BULLETINS INFORMING DEALERS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF SENSORS WITH IMPROVED CORROSION RESISTANCE.THE COMPLAINT TREND INDICATES THAT COMPLAINTS PEAKED IN LATE 2000 TO EARLY 2001.WARRANTY CLAIMS DECLINED SINCE PEAKING IN APRIL 2002.BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AND THE INDICATION OF A DECLINING TREND, FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Fuel System, Gasoline
ODI OPENED EA 02-028 TO REVIEW COMPLAINTS OF CONSUMERS REPORTING THAT THEIR FUEL GAUGE WAS INCORRECTLY DISPLAYING THE AMOUNT OF FUEL IN THE GAS TANK.THE FUEL GAUGE RECEIVES AN ELECTRICAL SIGNAL FROM A FUEL TANK SENDING SENSOR CIRCUIT CARD.A FLOAT ARM IN THE TANK MOVES ELECTRICAL CONTACTS THAT RUB AGAINST THE CARD AS THE LEVEL OF FUEL RISES AND FALLS.DISRUPTION OF THE ELECTRICAL SIGNAL (SUCH AS CAUSED BY CORROSION OF THE CIRCUIT CARD) WILL CAUSE INCORRECT READINGS TO REGISTER ON THE FUEL GAUGE.GM REPORTED IN THEIR RESPONSE TO ODI DATED JANUARY 13, 2003 THAT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF ERRATIC FUEL GAUGE OPERATION IS EXCESS ELEMENTAL SULFUR IN FUEL.GM REPORTED THAT ABNORMAL LEVELS OF SULFUR SPORADICALLY OCCURRED IN CERTAIN PARTS OF CANADA AND THE U.S. RESULTING IN REPORTS OF FUEL GAUGE MALFUNCTION.GM MODIFIED THE SENDING SENSOR FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER OCTOBER 2000.IT MADE A SECOND SENSOR MODIFICATION FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER JANUARY 2003.GM ALSO ISSUED A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION CAMPAIGN (GM NUMBER 00101) IN DECEMBER 2000 FOR U.S. CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF MAINE AND ISSUED SEVERAL SERVICE BULLETINS INFORMING DEALERS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF SENSORS WITH IMPROVED CORROSION RESISTANCE.THE COMPLAINT TREND INDICATES THAT COMPLAINTS PEAKED IN LATE 2000 TO EARLY 2001.WARRANTY CLAIMS DECLINED SINCE PEAKING IN APRIL 2002.BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AND THE INDICATION OF A DECLINING TREND, FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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.
Fuel System, Other:storage:fuel Gauge System
ODI OPENED EA 02-028 TO REVIEW COMPLAINTS OF CONSUMERS REPORTING THAT THEIR FUEL GAUGE WAS INCORRECTLY DISPLAYING THE AMOUNT OF FUEL IN THE GAS TANK.THE FUEL GAUGE RECEIVES AN ELECTRICAL SIGNAL FROM A FUEL TANK SENDING SENSOR CIRCUIT CARD.A FLOAT ARM IN THE TANK MOVES ELECTRICAL CONTACTS THAT RUB AGAINST THE CARD AS THE LEVEL OF FUEL RISES AND FALLS.DISRUPTION OF THE ELECTRICAL SIGNAL (SUCH AS CAUSED BY CORROSION OF THE CIRCUIT CARD) WILL CAUSE INCORRECT READINGS TO REGISTER ON THE FUEL GAUGE.GM REPORTED IN THEIR RESPONSE TO ODI DATED JANUARY 13, 2003 THAT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF ERRATIC FUEL GAUGE OPERATION IS EXCESS ELEMENTAL SULFUR IN FUEL.GM REPORTED THAT ABNORMAL LEVELS OF SULFUR SPORADICALLY OCCURRED IN CERTAIN PARTS OF CANADA AND THE U.S. RESULTING IN REPORTS OF FUEL GAUGE MALFUNCTION.GM MODIFIED THE SENDING SENSOR FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER OCTOBER 2000.IT MADE A SECOND SENSOR MODIFICATION FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER JANUARY 2003.GM ALSO ISSUED A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION CAMPAIGN (GM NUMBER 00101) IN DECEMBER 2000 FOR U.S. CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF MAINE AND ISSUED SEVERAL SERVICE BULLETINS INFORMING DEALERS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF SENSORS WITH IMPROVED CORROSION RESISTANCE.THE COMPLAINT TREND INDICATES THAT COMPLAINTS PEAKED IN LATE 2000 TO EARLY 2001.WARRANTY CLAIMS DECLINED SINCE PEAKING IN APRIL 2002.BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AND THE INDICATION OF A DECLINING TREND, FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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.
PE02066 · Engine Stall Due To Fuel Starvation
Opened Sep 6, 2002 · Closed Nov 3, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline; Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump; Fuel System, Other; Fuel System, Other:delivery:fuel Pump
ODI OPENED PE02-066 TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCE OF ENGINE POWER-LOSS DUE TO FUEL STARVATION INDUCED BY IN-TANK MODULAR FUEL PUMP STRAINER RESTRICTION.THE SUBJECT PUMPS USE AN EXTERNAL ?SOCK? STRAINER TO FILTER FUEL FLOWING TO THE PUMP INLET.THIS FILTER CAN SOMETIMES BECOME CLOGGED, RESULTING IN A REDUCED FLOW OF FUEL TO THE ENGINE.GM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED THE STRAINERS TO REDUCE THIS RESTRICTION.ANALYSIS OF THE ODI COMPLAINT DATABASE SHOWS THAT DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES STALL AT A RATE THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF MANY PEER VEHICLES.ADDITIONALLY, NONE OF THE RELEVANT WARRANTY REPAIR RATES EXCEED 1% AT 36 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE.ONE RELATED CRASH INVOLVES A STALLED VEHICLE THAT WAS REAR-ENDED ON THE ROADWAY, WHILE THE REMAINDER INVOLVED MINOR COLLISIONS OR SCRAPES.THE SOLE INJURY CONSISTED OF BRUISING FROM A LOW SPEED FRONTAL CRASH. GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY RESOURCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS MATTER.THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION IS THEREFORE CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
ODI OPENED PE02-066 TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCE OF ENGINE POWER-LOSS DUE TO FUEL STARVATION INDUCED BY IN-TANK MODULAR FUEL PUMP STRAINER RESTRICTION.THE SUBJECT PUMPS USE AN EXTERNAL ?SOCK? STRAINER TO FILTER FUEL FLOWING TO THE PUMP INLET.THIS FILTER CAN SOMETIMES BECOME CLOGGED, RESULTING IN A REDUCED FLOW OF FUEL TO THE ENGINE.GM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED THE STRAINERS TO REDUCE THIS RESTRICTION.ANALYSIS OF THE ODI COMPLAINT DATABASE SHOWS THAT DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES STALL AT A RATE THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF MANY PEER VEHICLES.ADDITIONALLY, NONE OF THE RELEVANT WARRANTY REPAIR RATES EXCEED 1% AT 36 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE.ONE RELATED CRASH INVOLVES A STALLED VEHICLE THAT WAS REAR-ENDED ON THE ROADWAY, WHILE THE REMAINDER INVOLVED MINOR COLLISIONS OR SCRAPES.THE SOLE INJURY CONSISTED OF BRUISING FROM A LOW SPEED FRONTAL CRASH. GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY RESOURCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS MATTER.THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION IS THEREFORE CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.
Fuel System, Gasoline
ODI OPENED PE02-066 TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCE OF ENGINE POWER-LOSS DUE TO FUEL STARVATION INDUCED BY IN-TANK MODULAR FUEL PUMP STRAINER RESTRICTION.THE SUBJECT PUMPS USE AN EXTERNAL ?SOCK? STRAINER TO FILTER FUEL FLOWING TO THE PUMP INLET.THIS FILTER CAN SOMETIMES BECOME CLOGGED, RESULTING IN A REDUCED FLOW OF FUEL TO THE ENGINE.GM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED THE STRAINERS TO REDUCE THIS RESTRICTION.ANALYSIS OF THE ODI COMPLAINT DATABASE SHOWS THAT DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES STALL AT A RATE THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF MANY PEER VEHICLES.ADDITIONALLY, NONE OF THE RELEVANT WARRANTY REPAIR RATES EXCEED 1% AT 36 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE.ONE RELATED CRASH INVOLVES A STALLED VEHICLE THAT WAS REAR-ENDED ON THE ROADWAY, WHILE THE REMAINDER INVOLVED MINOR COLLISIONS OR SCRAPES.THE SOLE INJURY CONSISTED OF BRUISING FROM A LOW SPEED FRONTAL CRASH. GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY RESOURCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS MATTER.THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION IS THEREFORE CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.
Fuel System, Other:delivery:fuel Pump
ODI OPENED PE02-066 TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCE OF ENGINE POWER-LOSS DUE TO FUEL STARVATION INDUCED BY IN-TANK MODULAR FUEL PUMP STRAINER RESTRICTION.THE SUBJECT PUMPS USE AN EXTERNAL ?SOCK? STRAINER TO FILTER FUEL FLOWING TO THE PUMP INLET.THIS FILTER CAN SOMETIMES BECOME CLOGGED, RESULTING IN A REDUCED FLOW OF FUEL TO THE ENGINE.GM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED THE STRAINERS TO REDUCE THIS RESTRICTION.ANALYSIS OF THE ODI COMPLAINT DATABASE SHOWS THAT DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES STALL AT A RATE THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF MANY PEER VEHICLES.ADDITIONALLY, NONE OF THE RELEVANT WARRANTY REPAIR RATES EXCEED 1% AT 36 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE.ONE RELATED CRASH INVOLVES A STALLED VEHICLE THAT WAS REAR-ENDED ON THE ROADWAY, WHILE THE REMAINDER INVOLVED MINOR COLLISIONS OR SCRAPES.THE SOLE INJURY CONSISTED OF BRUISING FROM A LOW SPEED FRONTAL CRASH. GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY RESOURCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS MATTER.THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION IS THEREFORE CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.
Fuel System, Other
ODI OPENED PE02-066 TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCE OF ENGINE POWER-LOSS DUE TO FUEL STARVATION INDUCED BY IN-TANK MODULAR FUEL PUMP STRAINER RESTRICTION.THE SUBJECT PUMPS USE AN EXTERNAL ?SOCK? STRAINER TO FILTER FUEL FLOWING TO THE PUMP INLET.THIS FILTER CAN SOMETIMES BECOME CLOGGED, RESULTING IN A REDUCED FLOW OF FUEL TO THE ENGINE.GM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED THE STRAINERS TO REDUCE THIS RESTRICTION.ANALYSIS OF THE ODI COMPLAINT DATABASE SHOWS THAT DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES STALL AT A RATE THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF MANY PEER VEHICLES.ADDITIONALLY, NONE OF THE RELEVANT WARRANTY REPAIR RATES EXCEED 1% AT 36 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE.ONE RELATED CRASH INVOLVES A STALLED VEHICLE THAT WAS REAR-ENDED ON THE ROADWAY, WHILE THE REMAINDER INVOLVED MINOR COLLISIONS OR SCRAPES.THE SOLE INJURY CONSISTED OF BRUISING FROM A LOW SPEED FRONTAL CRASH. GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY RESOURCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS MATTER.THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION IS THEREFORE CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.
SQ01002 · Erratic Fuel Gauge
Opened Jan 26, 2001 · Closed Sep 30, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
There is no summary currently available