NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
96 reports64,000 miles · Mar 31, 2005
Seat Belts
IIN DECEMBER OF 2004 MY SON WAS IN THE BACKSEAT PUTTING ON HIS SEAT BELT AND AN IT BROKE. SINCE THEN HE HAS BEEN SITTING IN THE MIDDLE. ABOUT 3 WEEKS AGO THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO THE SEAT BELT. ON MONDAY THE 21ST OF MARCH I WAS PUTTING MY OTHER SONS CAR SEAT IN THE CAR AND WAS TIGHTNING UP THE BELT AND THAT ONE BROKE TOO. NOW …
Read full complaint
IIN DECEMBER OF 2004 MY SON WAS IN THE BACKSEAT PUTTING ON HIS SEAT BELT AND AN IT BROKE. SINCE THEN HE HAS BEEN SITTING IN THE MIDDLE. ABOUT 3 WEEKS AGO THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO THE SEAT BELT. ON MONDAY THE 21ST OF MARCH I WAS PUTTING MY OTHER SONS CAR SEAT IN THE CAR AND WAS TIGHTNING UP THE BELT AND THAT ONE BROKE TOO. NOW I HAVE NO SEAT BELTS THAT WORK IN MY BACK SEAT. I CANNOT BELEIVE THAT THEY WOULD BREAK THAT EASILY. WHAT IF I WOULD HAVE GOTTEN INTO AN ACCIDENT PRIOR TO THIS I AM SURE THEY WOULD HAVE BROKE. I HAVE THE CAR IN FOR REPAIRS TO HAVE THE SEAT BELTS LOOKED AT. I JUST CAN NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THEY ARE MADE TO BRAKE WHEN THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO SAVE YOUR LIFE!
NHTSA ODI #10116183
Mileage unknown · Feb 1, 2005
Power Train
MY 2000 SUNFIRE AUTOMATIC CAR STOPPED MOVING ON DECEMBER 19, 2004 WITH 64,000 MILES ON IT. I HAD IT IN THE DEALERSHIP IN VIROQUA, WI ON MON., DEC. 21. THEY TOLD ME ON DEC. 22 THE TRANSMISSION WENT OUT AND THE PART WOULD BE IN AT THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY 2005. I CALLED THEM EVERY WEEK IN THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH. I WAS TOLD…
Read full complaint
MY 2000 SUNFIRE AUTOMATIC CAR STOPPED MOVING ON DECEMBER 19, 2004 WITH 64,000 MILES ON IT. I HAD IT IN THE DEALERSHIP IN VIROQUA, WI ON MON., DEC. 21. THEY TOLD ME ON DEC. 22 THE TRANSMISSION WENT OUT AND THE PART WOULD BE IN AT THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY 2005. I CALLED THEM EVERY WEEK IN THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH. I WAS TOLD "I WAS ON THE TOP OF THE HUNDREDS LIST TO GET THE PART." THEN THE DATE WAS MOVED TO THE END OF JAN. 2005. I CALLED THEM BACK ON FEB. 1, 2005 AND THEY TOLD ME THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHEN THE PART WOULD BE MADE AND THEY HAVE MOVED THE PLACE WHERE THEY MAKE THE PARTS. I HAVE A LOANER CAR FROM THE DEALERSHIP, BUT I WANT MY CAR BACK. IS THERE A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS IN GM VECHILES OR IN THE SUNFIRE CAR DIRECTLY?*AK
NHTSA ODI #10108387
63,000 miles · Jan 17, 2005
EquipmentFuel System, Gasoline
REPEAT FAILURE: AFTER FUEL PUMP WAS REPLACED ON 12-29-04, ON 1-14-05 UNDER SAME CONDITIONS - COLD WEATHER - EXPRESSWAY SPEED - THE CAR LOST POWER AND STALLED - WOULD NOT RESTART AND REQUIRED TOW TO DEALERSHIP. ANALYSIS SHOWED THE REPLACEMENT FUEL PUMP ALSO BECAME DEFECTIVE. (CAR LOST POWER AND STALLED ON 12-28-04 AND 12-2…
Read full complaint
REPEAT FAILURE: AFTER FUEL PUMP WAS REPLACED ON 12-29-04, ON 1-14-05 UNDER SAME CONDITIONS - COLD WEATHER - EXPRESSWAY SPEED - THE CAR LOST POWER AND STALLED - WOULD NOT RESTART AND REQUIRED TOW TO DEALERSHIP. ANALYSIS SHOWED THE REPLACEMENT FUEL PUMP ALSO BECAME DEFECTIVE. (CAR LOST POWER AND STALLED ON 12-28-04 AND 12-29-04 AND WAS TOWED TO DEALERSHIP, WERE THE MODULE WAS REPLACED.) *JB
NHTSA ODI #10106469
63,000 miles · Jan 17, 2005
Fuel System, Gasoline
REPEAT ISSUE ON 12-28-04 - COLD WEATHER, EXPRESSWAY SPEEDS - NO WARNING CAR LOST POWER AND STALLED ON EXPRESSWAY. FINALLY RESTARTED AFTER TOW TRUCK ARRIVED. STALLED AGAIN ON 12-29-04 SAME CONDITIONS - WOULD NOT RESTART - TOWED TO GM DEALERSHIP. FUEL PUMP AND SYSTEM REPLACED. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10106466
72,000 miles · Dec 16, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
PONTIAC SUNFIRE 2000 WILL BE DRIVING THE CARS, IT STALLS OUT, THEN RESTARTS WITHOUT TURNING THE KEY. HAVE TALKED TO THE PONTIAC DEALER. BRINGING IT IN ON 12/20/2004 FOR FURTHER DIAGNOSTICS FROM WHAT I HAVE READ THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM RELATED TO A COLLAPSED FUEL STRAINER THATWILL CAOST IN THE AREA OF $200 TO REPAIR. ODI ACTI…
Read full complaint
PONTIAC SUNFIRE 2000 WILL BE DRIVING THE CARS, IT STALLS OUT, THEN RESTARTS WITHOUT TURNING THE KEY. HAVE TALKED TO THE PONTIAC DEALER. BRINGING IT IN ON 12/20/2004 FOR FURTHER DIAGNOSTICS FROM WHAT I HAVE READ THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM RELATED TO A COLLAPSED FUEL STRAINER THATWILL CAOST IN THE AREA OF $200 TO REPAIR. ODI ACTION NO. PE02-66 WAS FILED IN 2002, NEEDS TO BE PUSHED FORWARD TO HOLD PONTIAC ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR POOR DESIGN. SEE (HTTP://WWW.CARSURVEY.ORG/VIEWCOMMENTS_REVIEW_42762.HTML) FOR FURTHER CONFIRMATION.
NHTSA ODI #10103077
35,000 miles · Oct 30, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
LAST YEAR I TOOK MY 2000 PONTIAC SUNFIRE TO THE DEALER DUE TO IT'S LEAKING BREAK FLUID AND LOSS OF BREAKING POWER. THE DEALER REPLACED THE BREAK LINE GOING TO THE RIGHT REAR BRAKE. I WAS TOLD THAT THE CRACK IN THE LINE WAS DUE TO "OIL'S AND OTHER FLUIDS FROM DRIVING ON THE ROAD CAUSED IT TO CORRODE AND BRAKE. I WAS CHARGED AP…
Read full complaint
LAST YEAR I TOOK MY 2000 PONTIAC SUNFIRE TO THE DEALER DUE TO IT'S LEAKING BREAK FLUID AND LOSS OF BREAKING POWER. THE DEALER REPLACED THE BREAK LINE GOING TO THE RIGHT REAR BRAKE. I WAS TOLD THAT THE CRACK IN THE LINE WAS DUE TO "OIL'S AND OTHER FLUIDS FROM DRIVING ON THE ROAD CAUSED IT TO CORRODE AND BRAKE. I WAS CHARGED APPROX. $250.00 FOR THEM TO REPLACE IT. THEY SAID IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE 30,000 MILE WARRANTY. ABOUT A WEEK AGO I BEGAN TO EXPERIENCE THE SAME PROBLEM AND HAD MY SON WHO IS A MECHANIC, EXAMINE IT SINCE IT IS NO LONGER UNDER WARRANTY, (IT NOW HAS 35,000 MILES ON IT.) HE FOUND THAT THE LEFT REAR BRAKE LINE IS NOW BROKEN DUE TO THE WAY THE LINE WAS ROUTED (BY THE FACTORY.) IT IS BROKEN JUST ON THE INSIDE OF THE FRONT, DRIVER'S SIDE WHEEL DUE TO RUBBING AGAINST PART OF THE STRUT MOUNT. IT SEEMS TO MY THAT A CARE WITH SO FEW MILES WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN VERY GOOD CARE OF, SHOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF PROBLEM TWICE NOW IN ONE YEAR, ON TWO SEPARATE BRAKE LINES. I CHECKED YOUR RECALL LIST AND FOUND NOTHING. I HAVE SPOKEN TO SEVERAL MECHANICS REGARDING THIS PROBLEM AND ALL BELIEVE IT TO BE SOME SORT OF FACTORY DEFECT. DUE TO THIS INFORMATION AND THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM, I AM FILING THIS FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH YOU AND THE CA DMV. PLEASE CONTACT ME REGARDING THIS COMPLAINT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PROMPT ATTENTION. SINCERELY, INGRID C. TIPTON. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10098036
27,789 miles · Oct 12, 2004
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash
WHILE DRIVING 5 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED ON ITS OWN. UPON PARKING NEAR A STOP WITH FOOT OFF ACCELERATOR AND ON BRAKE PEDAL, THE VEHICLE JUMPED ONTO THE SIDEWALK. THE FRONT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED, AND WILL COST $4,700. NO POLICE REPORT.*AK *JB
NHTSA ODI #10091604
50,168 miles · Sep 30, 2004
Electrical SystemFuel System, GasolinePower Train
WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN THE ARMY, I PURCHASED A USED 2000 PONTIAC SUNFIRE IN GEORGIA. THE CAR BEGAN GIVING ME PROBLEMS ONLY 6 MONTHS AFTER THE PURCHASE. LUCKILY, I FORCED THE DEALERSHIP TO PAY FOR A WARRANTY BECAUSE I HAD TO HAVE 3 MAJOR REPAIRS WITHIN A 11/2 AFTER THAT. UNFORTUNATELY, SHORTLY AFTER THE WARRANTY WAS UP, I DISCO…
Read full complaint
WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN THE ARMY, I PURCHASED A USED 2000 PONTIAC SUNFIRE IN GEORGIA. THE CAR BEGAN GIVING ME PROBLEMS ONLY 6 MONTHS AFTER THE PURCHASE. LUCKILY, I FORCED THE DEALERSHIP TO PAY FOR A WARRANTY BECAUSE I HAD TO HAVE 3 MAJOR REPAIRS WITHIN A 11/2 AFTER THAT. UNFORTUNATELY, SHORTLY AFTER THE WARRANTY WAS UP, I DISCOVER NUMEROUS OTHER PROBLEMS WITH THE AUTOMOBILE, INCLUDING THE RECALL. THIS CAR IS TRULY A LEMON! I DO NOT BELIEVE I SHOULD HAVE TO SUFFER WITH THIS DEFECTIVE CAR. I OWE OVER 3 TIMES THE VALUE OF THE CAR. EVEN THOUGH I HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT MY GOOD CARE AND MAINTENANCE, NO ONE WILL TOUCH THIS CAR BECAUSE IT HAS SO MANY OTHER DEFECTS BESIDES THE RECALL (FRONT END SUSPENSION ISSUES, FUEL TANK). I AM A DISABLED VETERAN NOW WITH ONLY A SMALL PENSION TO SUPPORT MYSELF AND TWO CHILDREN. THIS CAR HAS BEEN A NIGHTMARE SINCE I BOUGHT IT AND FIXING THE IGNITION SWITCH IS NOT GOING TO FIX THIS LEMON. I HAVE PUT OVER $3000 IN REPAIRS ON THIS CAR OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS ASIDE FROM THE MONTHLY FINANCED PAYMENTS OF $282 X 3YRS=$10,152 AND I STILL OWE $7800. THE CAR IS ONLY VALUED AT $2150. AND WHEN DEALERS LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF PROBLEMS BEHIND THIS CAR, THEY DON'T EVEN WANT TO GIVE ME $2000.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10093379
62,088 miles · Sep 28, 2004
Power Train
THE TRANSMISSION FAILED AT 62000 MILES. *NM THE CONSUMER REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE MANUFACTURER BUT WAS DENIED. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10095209
35,000 miles · Sep 28, 2004
Engine And Engine CoolingService Brakes, Hydraulic
THE CONSUMER APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. THE VEHICLE SLOWED DOWN ON ITS ON. THE CONSUMER WAS ABLE TO CONTROL THE VEHICLE. THE DRIVER WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT TO DEALER. THE MECHANIC INFORMED THE DRIVER THAT THE PROBLEM COULD NOT BE DUPLICATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD AND REMAINED. *J…
Read full complaint
THE CONSUMER APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. THE VEHICLE SLOWED DOWN ON ITS ON. THE CONSUMER WAS ABLE TO CONTROL THE VEHICLE. THE DRIVER WAS ABLE TO DRIVE IT TO DEALER. THE MECHANIC INFORMED THE DRIVER THAT THE PROBLEM COULD NOT BE DUPLICATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD AND REMAINED. *JB THERE WAS LEAKING BOILING UNDER THE DASH ON BOTH SIDES. *SC
NHTSA ODI #10091503
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
Illustration