IllustrationCD PLAYER FAILED AT 9,000MI. FOG LIGHT SWITCH REPLACED AT 10,00MI TRUNK LATCH FAILED AT 8,500MI. *AK
2003 Pontiac Sunfire
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2003 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
240–25K
725–50K
750–75K
1075–100K
3100–150K
1150K+
52 reports with mileage · 20 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.
- Exterior Lighting. 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 →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 8 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
4 crash reports1 fire reports3 injury reports
What owners actually said
72 reportsREAR BRAKE LIGHT IGNITED DUE TO FAULTY SOCKET INSTALLATION WHILE DRIVING CAR.
REAR SEAT IS BROKEN RUNK LATCH IS BROKEN. WARRANTY WAS NOT HONORED. *AK
WE BOUGHT THE VEHICLE ON MARCH 8TH AND IT WENT IN THE FIRST TIME ON MARCH 24TH FOR A WATER LEAK COMING FROM THE SUNROOF HOUSING. THE SUPPOSEDLY RESEALED THE SUNROOF HOUSING AND IT WENT BACK IN FOR THE SECOND TIME ON JUNE 23RD. SAME WATER LEAK IN THE EXACT PLACE AGAIN. NOW THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE SUNROOF GLASS IS WARPED AND TH…
Read full complaint
WE BOUGHT THE VEHICLE ON MARCH 8TH AND IT WENT IN THE FIRST TIME ON MARCH 24TH FOR A WATER LEAK COMING FROM THE SUNROOF HOUSING. THE SUPPOSEDLY RESEALED THE SUNROOF HOUSING AND IT WENT BACK IN FOR THE SECOND TIME ON JUNE 23RD. SAME WATER LEAK IN THE EXACT PLACE AGAIN. NOW THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE SUNROOF GLASS IS WARPED AND THAT'S WHY THE SEAL ISN'T HOLDING. 2 TIMES IN SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 3 MONTHS WITHIN 6000 MILES.
FRONT ROTORS ON THE CAR ARE DEFECTIVE. MY CAR WAS BROUGHT IN AT 6000 MILES WITH A COMPLAINT OF WARPED ROTORS CAUSING A VIBRATION UPON BRAKEING. AT THAT TIME I WAS TOLD THE ROTORS "WERE WITHIN SPECS". I BROUGHT THE CAR IN AT 14000 MILES WITH THE SAME COMPLAINT AND THE ROTORS WERE "RESURFACED AND THE PADS WERE BUFFED". I DID N…
Read full complaint
FRONT ROTORS ON THE CAR ARE DEFECTIVE. MY CAR WAS BROUGHT IN AT 6000 MILES WITH A COMPLAINT OF WARPED ROTORS CAUSING A VIBRATION UPON BRAKEING. AT THAT TIME I WAS TOLD THE ROTORS "WERE WITHIN SPECS". I BROUGHT THE CAR IN AT 14000 MILES WITH THE SAME COMPLAINT AND THE ROTORS WERE "RESURFACED AND THE PADS WERE BUFFED". I DID NOT RECEIVE THE CAR WITH RESURFACED ROTORS AND BUFFED PADS. THIS HAS BEEN A COMPLAINT SINCE I BOUGHT THE CAR IN FEBRUARY 2003. I FEEL SINCE THE CAR CAME WITH A DEFECTIVE PART, THE ROTORS AND THE BRAKE PADS SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH NEW ONES. THIS COULD BE A LIFE THREATING PROBLEM IF THE BRAKES FAIL DUE TO DEFECTIVE ROTORS.*AK
CONSUMER REPLACED DIRECTIONAL SIGNAL BULBS FOUR TIMES. CONSUMER BELIEVED THAT THIS WAS A SAFETY HAZARD BECAUSE WHEN PREPARING TO MAKE A TURN, AND LOOKING IN THE REAR VIEW MIRROR A VEHICLE WAS RIGHT NEXT TO HER. *AK
WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. VEHICLE HAD BEEN REPAIRED THREE TIMES. *AK
LEFT BLINKER AND BRAKE LIGHTS NOT FUNCTIONING - PURCHASED VEHICLE 5/03 - MILEAGE 2300 MILES.
BRAKE ROTORS WARPED AFTER LESS THAN 11,000 MILES OF TRAVEL; 2003 PONTIAC-SUNFIRE PURCHASED ON APRIL 29, 2003. I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A BAD BATCH OF BRAKE PARTS OR THE COMPONENT IS EITHER UNDER DESIGNED OR IMPROPERLY SPECIFIED TO WITHSTAND DAY-TO-DAY CITY DRIVING CONDITIONS. A 2001 CHEVROLET-CAVALIER THAT I PREVIOUSLY OWNED EXHIB…
Read full complaint
BRAKE ROTORS WARPED AFTER LESS THAN 11,000 MILES OF TRAVEL; 2003 PONTIAC-SUNFIRE PURCHASED ON APRIL 29, 2003. I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A BAD BATCH OF BRAKE PARTS OR THE COMPONENT IS EITHER UNDER DESIGNED OR IMPROPERLY SPECIFIED TO WITHSTAND DAY-TO-DAY CITY DRIVING CONDITIONS. A 2001 CHEVROLET-CAVALIER THAT I PREVIOUSLY OWNED EXHIBITED THE SAME INSUFFICIENCY IN IT'S BRAKE ROTORS THAT REQUIRED SERVICING THREE TIMES IN 60,000 MILES OF DRIVING. BOTH OF THESE CARS ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TRIMS AND GM DIVISION NAME. THE COST TO RESURFACE SALVAGABLE ROTORS IS APPROXIMATELY $140 AT THE DEALER. IF THEY CAN'T BE RESURFACED THEN THEY HAVE TO BE REPLACED ENTIRELY. LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR RESPONSE.*AK
WHILE APPLYING THE GEAR TO SHIFT AND WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING VEHICLE STARTED VIBRATING, AND THE TRANSMISSION LOCKED UP.*AK
Official recalls
104V524000 · Exterior Lighting:turn Signal
Nov 1, 2004
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES, THE REAR LAMPS THAT PROVIDE STOP AND TURN SIGNALS AND TAIL LAMP FUNCTIONS STOP WORKING BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE CONTACT BETWEEN THE BULB AND SOCKET. IN ADDITION, IF ONE BULBS WERE TO BECOME INOPERATIVE WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS OPERATING IN CRUISE CONTROL, THE CRUISE CONTROL WOULD DISENGAGE WHEN THE REMAINING BULB WAS ACTIVATED. IF BOTH LAMPS WERE TO BECOME INOPERATIVE, THE CRUISE CONTROL WOULD NOT ENGAGE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AN INOPERATIVE BRAKE LAMP WILL NOT CONVEY THE DRIVER'S INTENTION OF STOPPING TO DRIVERS IN FOLLOWING VEHICLES, AND AN INOPERATIVE REAR TURN SIGNAL LAMP WILL NOT CONVEY THE DRIVER'S INTENTION TO TURN TO DRIVERS IN FOLLOWING VEHICLES. BOTH OF THESE FAILURES CAN INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE REAR LAMP BULB SOCKET ASSEMBLIES AND APPLY GREASE OR REPLACE THEM IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JANUARY 18, 2005. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT CHEVROLET AT 1-800-630-2438 OR PONTIAC AT 1-800-620-7668.
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
2EA04028 · Turn Signal Malfunction
Opened Sep 14, 2004 · Closed Nov 22, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting:turn Signal
ON MAY 14, 2004 THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE04-043) BASED ON CONSUMER COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THAT THE BRAKE/TAIL TURN SIGNAL LAMPS WOULD NOT OPERATE PROPERLY WHEN EITHER THE TAIL LIGHTS WERE TURNED ON, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED, OR WHEN THE TURN SIGNAL SWITCH WAS ACTIVATED.ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 ODI UPGRADED PE 04-043 TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA04-028).GM STATES THAT SOME BRAKE/TAIL/TURN SIGNAL LAMP BULBS CAN PREMATURELY BECOME INOPERATIVE DUE TO EXCESSIVE HEAT BUILDUP WITHIN THE BULB SOCKETS.THE CAUSE OF THE EXCESSIVE HEAT BUILD UP WAS DETERMINED TO BE A LACK OF THERMAL GREASE PLACED IN BETWEEN THE BULB AND THE SOCKET. BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 27, 2004 GM NOTIFIED NHTSA THAT IT WILL CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA # 04V524) COVERING ALL MY 2003 VEHICLES.GM DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE REAR LAMP BULB SOCKET ASSEMBLIES AND APPLY THERMAL GREASE TO THEM OR REPLACE THEM WITH NEW ASSEMBLIES WITH THERMAL GREASE ALREADY ATTACHED.MODEL YEAR 2004 AND NEWER VEHICLES HAVE THE THERMAL GREASE INSTALLED FROM THE FACTORY. THE ACTION TAKEN BY GM IS SUFFICIENT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THIS INVESTIGATION.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
PE04043 · Turn Signal Malfunction
Opened May 14, 2004 · Closed Sep 14, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting:turn Signal
COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THAT THE REAR TURN SIGNALS FAIL TO ILLUMINATE AND DO NOT PROVIDE A SIGNAL TO DRIVERS IN FOLLOWING VEHICLES.ODI HAS RECEIVED ONE REPORT OF A CRASH WHERE THE COMPLAINANT BRAKED AND ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN AND THE FOLLOWING VEHICLE IMPACTED THE COMPLAINANT'S VEHICLE IN THE DRIVER-SIDE DOOR.IN MAY 2002, GM'S SUPPLIER MADE CHANGES TO THE BULB SOCKET THAT INCLUDED STOPPING THE USE OF THERMAL-MASTIC GREASE IN THE BULB SOCKET.GM REPORTS THAT THE GREASE REDUCES ARCING AT THE CONTACTS AND DISSIPATES HEAT THUS PREVENTING MELTING OF THE SOCKET MATERIAL OR BURNING OF THE CONTACTS.MOST OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE PRODUCED WITHOUT GREASE APPLIED TO THE BULB SOCKET.IN JUNE 2003, GM DIRECTED THE SUPPLIER TO RESUME THE USE OF GREASE IN THE SOCKET.GM ISSUED TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN (TSB) 04-08-42-004A ON JULY 15, 2004 ADVISING TECHNICIANS TO MAKE SURE THAT ADEQUATE AMOUNTS OF GREASE WERE ADDED TO THE BULB SOCKETS ON ALL SERVICE PARTS.ODI WILL UPGRADE THIS INVESTIGATION TO EA 04-028 TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE ISSUE.