2000 Chevrolet Silverado
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Chevrolet › Silverado › 2000
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2000 Chevrolet Silverado. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
20 recalls name the 2000 Chevrolet Silverado. Newest first.
Dope, inc. IS recalling 42,540 combination corner and bumper lamp assemblies of various part numbers sold for use as aftermarket equipment for various passenger vehicles. these headlamps fail to conform to the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment." these lamps do not contain…
Decreased lighting visibility may result in a vehicle crash.
Dope, inc. Will notify owners and offer a full refund for the noncompliant combination lamps. the safety recall began on july 28, 2009. owners may contact dope, inc. At 1-626-272-1798.
Sabersport IS recalling 16,270 combination corner and bumper lamp assemblies of various part numbers sold for use as aftermarket equipment for various passenger vehicles. these headlamps fail to conform to the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment." these lamps do not contain…
Decreased lighting visibility may result in a vehicle crash.
Sabersport will notify owners and offer a full refund for the noncompliant combination lamps. the safety recall began on may 11, 2009. owners may contact sabersport at 1-909-598-7589.
K2 motor IS recalling 1,921 aftermarket headlamps of various models sold for use on the above listed vehicles. these headlamps are missing the amber side reflex reflector which fails to conform with the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment."
Without the amber side reflex reflectors, the lighting visibility may be affected, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash.
K2 motor will notify owners and offer a full refund. the recall began on decemeber 17, 2008. owners may contact K2 motor at 1-909-839-2992.
Certain federal-mogul replacement wheel hub assemblies with the brand names: national, carquest p/nos. 515020, 515021, 515025, 515053, 515054, 515059, and 515060, shipped between january 23, 2006, and december 20, 2007, sold for light duty and medium duty trucks. the inboard retention nut used to maintain hub bearing assembly can loosen resulting in an ABS…
Wheel separation can result in a vehicle crash.
Federal-mogul will notify customers and will replace the hub assembly free of charge. the recall began on february 7, 2008. owners can contact federal-mogul toll-free at 877-489-6659.
Certain cequent 90 degree 7-WAY right angle adaptors sold by distributors in tow packages for aftermarket sales to tow 5TH wheel rv travel trailers. due to incorrect wiring of the harness, the trailer lights may not operate properly.
If the trailer lights are not working properly, a vehicle crash can occur.
All of the defective tow packages are still at the distributor level and have not been sold to any consumers.
Certain guide replacement headlamps, p/nos. 16526133 and 16526134, manufactured from january 1 to july 11, 2006, sold for use on my 1999-2002 chevrolet silverado pickup trucks. the headlamp fail to comply with the photometry requirement of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.
Too much light in certain points of the headlamp could create a distraction, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash.
Guide corporation will notify owners and replace the headlamps free of charge. the recall began on august 31, 2006. owners may contact guide at 248-874-0355.
Certain aai motorsports combination lamps sold as replacement lamps for use on the above list passenger vehicles. combination lamps not equipped with amber side reflectors fail to conform with the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment."
Lack of amber side reflectors in the lamps will decrease lighting visibility to other drivers and may possibly result in a vehicle crash
Aai motorsports will notify owners and replace the lamps free of charge. the recall began on august 1, 2006. owners may contact aai motorsports at 909-923-9188.
Certain maxzone headlight assemblies, depo brand, p/nos. 332-1182L-as and 332-1182r-as, sold for use as aftermarket equipment for 1999-2000 chevrolet silverados. these headlamps fail to conform to the photometric requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.
Decreased lighting visibility may result in a vehicle crash.
Maxzone will notify owners and offer for reimbursement any noncompliant headlights. the recall began on july 10, 2006. owners may contact maxzone at 909-822-3288.
Certain eagle eyes replacement headlamps, model nos. Gm159-b001l and gm159-b001r, sold for use on 1999-2002 chevrolet silverado model vehicles. the headlamps fail to conform to the photometric requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.
The headlamps have decreased lighting visibility which could result in a vehicle crash.
Sabry lee will notify owners and issue full credit. the recall began on may 10, 2006. owners may contact sabry lee at 1-866-467-2279.
Certain pro-a motors corner lamps, turn signals, and headlights sold as replacement lamps for use on certain passenger vehicles listed above. some combination lamps that are not equipped with amber side reflectors fail to conform to federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.
Without the amber reflectors, the vehicle will be poorly illuminated, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash without warning.
Pro-a motors will notify owners and offer to repurchase the lamps. the recall began on april 3, 2006. owners may contact pro-a motors at 323-838-2988.
Certain pickup trucks have galvanized-braided-steel tailgate support cables used to support the tailgate in the full open (horizontal) position. over time these cables can corrode and fracture when loads are applied to them.
If one cable fractures, the remaining cable may retain the tailgate in a horizontal position. if both cables fracture, the tailgate would drop and strike the top surface of the rear bumper. if anyone IS sitting or standing on the horizontal surface of the tailgate when both cables fractured, they could fall and be injured. on vehicles without a bumper, the tailgate may drop to a lower position.
Dealers will replace the galvanized support cables with stainless steel support cables. in addition, dealers are to inspect the tailgate hinge and replace it, if necessary. the recall IS expected to begin during april 2006. owners may contact chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438 or GMC at 1-866-996-9463.
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…
This can cause increased stopping distances during low-speed brake applications, which could result in a crash.
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.
On certain pickup trucks equipped with manual transmissions and built with either pbr parking brake systems or trw parking brake systems, the parking brake friction linings may wear to an extent where the parking brake can become ineffective in immobilizing a parked vehicle.
If the parking brake does not hold, unintended vehicle movement could occur, which could result in a crash.
Dealers will install a low-force spring clip retainer for vehicles equipped with a pbr parking brake system. on vehicles equipped with the trw parking brake system, dealers will install a redesigned parking brake cable assembly. the recall began on july 29, 2005. owners may contact chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438 or GMC at 1-866-996-9463.
Some pickup trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles equipped with a hydraulic pump driveshaft that can fracture, resulting in immediate loss of hydraulic power steering assist. on certain vehicles equipped with hydro-boost power brakes, the same condition can result in loss of power assist for braking after the reserve pressure IS depleted.
An inoperative pump can cause increased steering effort, and in hydro-boost equipped vehicles also increased braking effort, but does not completely eliminate the ability to steer or slow the vehicle.
Dealers will replace the hydraulic pump. the campaign began on february 14, 2005. owners may contact chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438 or GMC at 1-866-996-9463.
Aftermarket pickup truck over-the-rail bedliners manufactured for installation on 1999-2004 chevrolet silverado and GMC sierra pickup trucks. the toggle wing assembly used to attach the bedliner to the truck bed IS not engaging fully in the stake pocket of the pickup truck.
The bedliner can become detached from the pickup while it IS motion, possibly endangering following motorists or pedestrians.
Durakon will issue a press release in attempt to notify customers that could have purchased the defective bedliner. if you purchased either a durakon allstar of patriot overrail bedliner since august 1, 2003, for 1999 to 2004 chevrolet silverado or GMC sierra trucks, or purchased one of these pickup trucks with either brand bedliner already installed, you should return to an authorized durakon dealer so that the bedliner can be inspected and, if necessary, repaired with a newly designed toggle wing fastening system, or if required, replaced with a new bedliner free of charge. please call the durakon hotline at 1-800-933-4200 to find the nearest authorized durakon dealer.
On certain pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, the galvanized steel tailgate support cables that retain the tailgate in the full open (horizontal) position may corrode, weaken, and eventually fracture. if both cables fractured, the tailgate would suddenly drop and strike the top surface of the rear bumper.
Anyone sitting or standing on the horizontal surface of the tailgate when both cables fractured could be injured by falling from the tailgate. on vehicles that have had the bumper removed, the tailgate may drop even lower. additionally, if there IS cargo on the tailgate the cargo may fall off if the support cables fracture.
Dealers will replace the cables. interim owner notification began on april 7, 20004. the recall began on september 24, 2004, when replacement parts were available, and will continue through october 29, 2004. owners should contact cadillac at 1-866-982-2339, chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438 or GMC at 1-866-996-9463, or visit www.mygmlink.com, and enter your vehicle identification number.
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.
In a vehicle crash, front seat occupants may receive more severe injuries.
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.
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…
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.
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.
This IS not a safety recall in accordance with the safety act. however, it IS deemed a safety improvement campaign by the agency. vehicle description: 1/2 ton light duty pickup trucks. on certain trucks, failure to follow the service procedure set forth in the service manual for removal of the front brake caliper can result in movement of the front…
This contact with the wheel rim could, in time, cause the brake hose to become worn to the point that brake fluid leakage could occur. if this occurred, loss of front brakes IS possible.
Dealers will attach a notice label to the front brake hoses stating that the calipers must be supported when removed.
Vehicle description: light duty pickup trucks equipped with 4-wheel disc brakes. some of these vehicles have an antilock brake system (ABS) motor containing an out-of-specification spring clip. this clip could allow the motor bearing to become misaligned. if misalignment occurs, eventually the ABS would be non-functional.
The base brakes would remain fully functional, but the dynamic rear proportioning (drp) system, which optimizes front to rear brake balance, would become inoperative.
Dealers will replace the brake pressure module valve assembly.
Took vehical to get inspected shop said vehical IS unsafe to drive and refused to inspect under futher inseption there IS exsesive rust on frame that IS not normal wear and tear gm needs to step up like toyota did and replace these frames pls look in to this . This was my only vehical and now I dont have one to drive and cant afford to buy a new one
TL* the contact owns a 2000 chevrolet silverado. While the vehicle was stopped with the air conditioner engaged, the vehicle began to overheat. In addition, the contact stated that the temperature gauge displayed a high reading. The failure recurred on numerous occasions. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic who diagnosed that the water pump and anti-freeze needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired; however, the failure recurred. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was unknown.
"Dash boards".... My 2000 chevrolet silverado dashboard IS cracking and crumbling everyday. It IS to the point now that I am adding duck tape just to keep it up. Chevrolet should take responsibility for this and repair my dashboard and issue a recall. This problem began 1 year ago, and I have never been in any accident with this truck.
I was having the exhaust changed when I was notified that one of the cross members for the frame had rusted completely through and needed to be repaired. it has been repaired, but I was informed that excessive rust IS in various locations on the rear of the frame and will need to be watched closely. keep in mind that these cross members support the fuel tank and if one would break, it looks like it could cassette fuel tank to fall off. the truck has 100,500 miles on it, which IS not excessive for the year. the truck spent most of its life in michigan, but now resides in illinois. I have read several forums having the same complaints for the 99-2007 model year vehicles. there are several holes placed on these cross members by the manufacturer that allow moisture in, with no place for the moisture to go once it IS place. I am sure there IS also a lack of proper paint application and even poor steel that IS likely causing the issue. just as toyota has done, chevy should offer a recall for excessive rust on the frame. the toyota tundra recall offers a new frame for any tundra with a rust hole 10MM or larger. why isn't the nhtsa investigating this further? this a serious safety concern and also considerably lowers the value of the vehicle. gm and chevy need to be held accountable for their decisions when designing and manufacturing these vehicles, just as toyota took accountability for their decisions.
TL* the contact owns a 2000 chevrolet silverado. While driving at approximately 15 mph, the brakes failed when the brake pedal was depressed. The failure recurred several times. The vehicle was taken to a dealer where it was diagnosed that the ABS module needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 168,523.
TL* the contact owns a 2000 chevrolet silverado. The contact stated that water leaked into the driver and passenger side floorboards of the vehicle. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was unknown. ...Updated 02/04/16 *bf
As I attempted to brake to a stop on dry pavement, the brake pedal suddenly stiffened,preventing me from using the pedal to come to a controlled stop. Fortunately, I was going slow at the time and was in a parking lot, so was able to steer away from colliding with a parked car.. from all that I read ,the root cause of this problem involves the ABS system. About 3 years ago, I had the brake lines completely replaced with a better grade than came with the truck. I did this because, while the truck IS going on 15 years, the main components appear to have several more years. But not with this sort of fundamental safety issue. I'm angry that gm has not had to recall my truck for this obvious safety flaw in the brake system.
The ABS braking system goes stiff at low speeds. I have to jam on the brakes extremely hard in order for them to stop, the brakes eventually will stop after a 3 to five more feet.the ABS braking system IS extremely dangerous and serves no purpose.the vehicle works better after disabling the ABS brake system.please recall all chevy silverados and tahoes due to ABS braking system issues.
TL* the contact owns a 2000 chevrolet silverado. While driving at 35 mph, the ignition failed and caused the key to fall out of the ignition cylinder. The contact stated that the failure occurred on several occasions. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, but was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was notified and the contact was referred to nhtsa. The failure mileage was 150,000.
When returning home my brakes failed when entering my driveway causing me to strike a tree. There was minor damage to the grill of my vehicle. The cause was a ruptured brake line. There was no warning of the loss of brakes. *tr
As I was topping the curve of an entrance ramp, I felt the rear of the truck lose traction on the wet asphalt and the tail started to move. I let off the gas pedal to gain control, and the engine continued to propel the truck as if the gas pedal was stuck. This caused the rear of the truck to continue around and slammed the front of the truck into a guard rail and finally came to a stop with truck parallel to guard rail and facing in the opposite direction of traffic. I was holding the brakes as soon as I realized the truck was out of control. If not for the guard rail, my family and I would have been propelled over a steep embankment with fatal results. This IS the first time I've had this occur on this vehicle since I purchased it in 2001. This IS a major safety issue. *tr
Driving down interstate at 50mph was approaching a traffic light which turned yellow stepped on my brakes felt like I wasn't even pushing them pumped a few times the truck starts braking the once again with my foot still on brake pedal it felt like I wasn't stepping on the pedal so pumped again and I almost ended up running a red light with two small children in the truck. With all these complaints for the same problem there should be a recall!!! *tr
Driving on 4 lane business road coming to a red light pushed on brakes pedal went to floor and no brakes had to swerve into other lane to keep from hitting car in front of me ran red light downshifted into low gear and began rubbing tires on curb until I came to a stop.checked brake fluid level was empty looked under truck and brake line had rusted through under drivers door.walked 2 blocks to parts store and brought brake fluid filled master cylinder pumped brakes still had no brakes,i could not understand how one broken line left me with no brakes, I thought they were supposed two systems front and rear ? I have several vintage trucks from 67-72 era all still have original brake lines, I think gm skimped on materials and left us with a safety issue. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2000 chevrolet silverado. While driving approximately 15 mph, the contact applied excessive pressure to the brake pedal but the vehicle failed to stop. The contact had to shift into neutral in order for the vehicle to slow down. The failure recurred multiple times. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was not available.
Nhtsa campaign ID number: 05v379000 nhtsa action number: pe05020 past recall fix by general motors was done incorrectly. Front sensors for the ABS system become dirty because of bad seals in the hub assembly.original fix only provided maintenance to the problem not a permanent fix. At low speeds the ABS system kicks in when you put your foot on the brake pedal. *tr
Without any warning I was backing up and brake pedal went to floor,the curb stop the truck.truck was in chevy dealer service for a complete rear brake job,pad kit,rotor,and parking brake kit in 2013 which included a multi-point inspection, also in 2009,2012. At no time verbally or written on my receipts were brake lines needed replacing. Put truck in shop to have brake line replace by dealer recommendation and when I picked truck up 10/25/2014 found they didn't replace rusted brake line to rear brakes. *tr
While coming to a stop light going about 25 mile an hour I pressed on the brake pedal and it felt mushy then went all the way to the floor finally stopping before entering a highway with oncoming traffic traveling at 50 miles per hour. turned around and went home noticed brake fluid coming out under the drivers door. all the lines corroded just a few more feet to stop and it could have been very bad. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2000 chevrolet silverado. The contact stated that the rear upper shock mount and the fuel tank shocks were corroded, causing the fuel tank to become unstable. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where it was diagnosed that the upper shock mount needed to be replaced. The failure was not repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was unknown.
I pressed on the brakes and felt one set blow out, pressed harder to compensate and felt the remaining set blow out. The pedal then went to the floor resulting in a total loss of braking. The brake light did not come on (no reason for it to?). Luckily I had a trailer connected which had working electric brakes and I was able to manually activate those brakes. Later that day while moving the vehicle in my yard, I used the emergency brake which immediately failed. Inspection of the brake lines revealed massive corrosion on all of the lines and will require complete replacement. Inspection of the emergency brake revealed the line was coated in plastic except in some areas. Those areas were totally corroded resulting in the cable braking in one of those areas. So in one pedal action, both front and back brakes catastrophically failed. And in the same day, all 3 systems failed. The manufacturer was notified of the issue and they requested that the vehicle be towed in and have a diagnostic test run (at the vehicle owners expense), however chevrolet had no program in place and would not cover any of the repairs no matter what the outcome of the diagnostic test... I opted to repair all the break lines myself to avoid the the extra cost of a tow and diagnostic test that would have no outcome other than a report to chevrolet at a large expense to me. Approximate failure mileage was 190,000 miles.
TL* the contact owns a 2000 chevrolet silverado equipped with firestone tires, tire line firestone steel radial a/t tires, dot vn118ac030. The contact stated while driving at low mileage, the front passenger tired blew out. The tire was taken to a shop and replaced. the contact stated there was highway construction that may affected the tire. The manufacturer of the tire was notified of the issue. The approximate failure was 42,000.
Sudden brake failure due to rusted brake lines. *tr
All gauges erratic function. never know when I run out of fuel. only can reactive fuel reading, some of the time IS to be on the road, take foot off of accelerator, drop into neutral and drop it back into drive; fuel gauge may read for a while. hazard warning switch will not cancel to the home position and if it does cancel the relay keeps clicking. turn signal remains unaffected for signaling a turn. *tr
Brake pedal went to the floor, the vehicle did finally stop. Drove carefully home about 2 miles. I found a steel brake line that had rusted through and failed. Brake fluid was all over the under side of the truck. *tr
The metal brake line blew a hole in it causing me not to be able to stop. *tr
While driving I hit my brakes and the pressure went out and the brake pedal had to be pushed all the way to the floor before I was able to stop. Brake fluid was leaking from driver side just behind the front tire.
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
On January 11, 2011, ODI opened EA11-001 to investigate allegations of premature brake line corrosion failure in model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 General Motors (GM) full-size pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles sold or registered in the following region of the United States that NHTSA has viewed as salt states for investigations of corrosion related issues: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.The subject vehicles represent the first five MY's of GM's GMT800 platform production, of which approximately 2,038,504 vehicles were sold in salt states (the subject vehicles).The GMT800 platform includes the following vehicles:1999-2007 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 1500, 2500 and 3500 series pick-up trucks; 2000-2006 Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon sport utility vehicles; and 2002-2006 Cadillac Escalade and Chevrolet Avalanche sport-utility vehicles.General Motors produced a total of approximately 10,427,062 GMT800 vehicles for sales in the United States, including almost 5 million that were sold in salt states.Although there are over 60 different brake pipe routing configuration used in GMT800 vehicles, with the exception of the rear crossover pipes in MY 200x-2007 vehicles that changed from rear disc to drum brakes, all of the vehicles use brake pipes from the same supplier with a common double-wall, brazed steel pipe design with a combination of hot dip Zinc-Aluminum corrosion protection coating and Aluminum paint outer layer known in the industry as AlGal (ASTM-B750). ODI analysis of field data regarding GMT800 vehicles identified a total of 3,645 complaints of brake pipe corrosion failures, including 107 alleging crashes, and 40 injuries.Though only 20% of total GMT800 production, due to age and region the subject vehicles account for a disproportionate share of the failure experience; with 2,702 of the complaints (75%), 88 of the crashes (82%) and 20 of the injuries (50%) reported in those vehicles.Analysis of the complaints showed strong correlations to vehicle age and region.For vehicles with less than 8 years of service, the complaint rates were minimal for all regions.In the salt states the failure rates begin to climb as the vehicles advance in age, particularly in the Northeast corner of the United States.The complaint rates in the salt states go from less than 0.1 incident per thousand vehicles (IPTV) at 7 years in service to over 1.0 IPTV after the 12th year of service for the subject pickup trucks and utility vehicles.Most of the failures reported to ODI occurred in vehicles with more than 10 years in service.ODI?s investigation did not identify any specific defect conditions that were causing or contributing to the brake pipe failures.Nor did the analysis isolate the problem to any subject vehicle sub-populations when analyzed by vehicle type or production range.The investigation found that vehicles experiencing brake pipe corrosion failures were likely to have general patterns of excessive corrosion on the majority of the brake pipe assembly and appear to be occurring due to expected wear out for the brake pipe coating material used in the subject vehicles and the environmental conditions in severe corrosion states.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time.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 monitor t
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.
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.
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.
General motors IS conducting a safety recall to remove and replace the tailgate support cables installed in 805,368 model year 1999 and 2000 gmt 800 model vehicles.the model year 1999 and 2000 gmt-800 series vehicles that will be campaigned had contributed a significant majority of the total complaints (87%) and injuries (79%) associated with the tailgate support cable breakage in the model year 1998 - 2000 c/k series vehicles addressed by this investigation.
Gm IS conducting a recall on all subject vehicles build between may 1999 and october 14, 1999.significant changes were incorporated into production in early october 1999, and vehicles built after that date have lower warranty failure rates.the complaint and warranty data appear to support the effectiveness of these changes. Gm made additional changes in november 1999, february 2000, may 2001, and february 2004.odi will continue to monitor this problem and will take further action, if warranted, in the future.for further technical details see the attached engineering analysis report.
In a letter dated april 20, 2005, gm notified nhtsa that it had decided that defects that relate to motor vehicle safety exist in certain model year (my) 1999-2002 c/k 1500 series (pbr parking brake system) and my 2001-2005 c/k 2500 and 3500 series (trw parking brake system) pickups with manual transmissions.according to gm, some of these vehicles may have conditions that cause the friction linings to wear to an extent where the parking brake can become ineffective in immobilizing a parked vehicle.gm's action covers an estimated total of 142,585 vehicles.dealers will install a low-force spring clip retainer for vehicles equipped with the pbr parking brake system and install a redesigned parking brake cable assembly on vehicles equipped with the trw parking brake system. A total of 58 non-duplicative complaints were received by odi and gm concerning the approximately 59,000 my 1999-2002 c/k 1500 series pickup trucks with the pbr parking brake system.these included 22 alleged rollaway incidents, resulting in a rate of 38.5 rollaway incidents per 100,000 vehicles.odi IS aware of 24 complaints regarding the my 2001-2005 c/k 2500 and 3500 series manual transmission trucks recalled by gm, including 5 alleging rollaway incidents.though the conditions described in gm's letter are also present in the c/k trucks with automatic transmissions, the rollaway rate in those vehicles was similar to those observed in peer vehicles studied by odi in this investigation.this engineering analysis IS closed. For additional information, see the attached closing report.
General motors filed a defect notice 04v-129 on march 17, 2004, which outlines a program to replace the tailgate cables installed in affected model year 2000-2004 vehicles.refer to odi's closing report for ea04-005 for additional information.odi IS aware of reports of tailgate cable breakage occurring in model year 1999 and earlier vehicles.these vehicles were equipped with similar tailgate cables as addressed by 04v-129, but are not being addressed by campaign o4v-129.odi IS initiating a separate investigation to address these vehicles.the complaint-injury-fatality statistics summarized above pertain to model year 2000-2004 vehicles. The complaint-injury statistics for model year 1999 and earlier vehicles are summarized on the opening resume for that investigation.
Odi opened pe03-057 to assess parking brake ineffectiveness in the subject vehicles.these vehicles are equipped with four wheel disc brakes that incorporate a single-shoe drum-in-hat parking brake independent of the service brakes.complaint and warranty data indicate that the parking brake linings tend to wear out early in the life of the vehicle (at an average of 24 months in service), reducing the parking brake system's torque below that needed to immobilize the vehicle.gm has attributed this accelerated wear to foreign material intrusion and a failure of the brake shoe to properly self-center within its brake drum.effective with the start of my 2003 production, a newer reduced force hold-down clip was introduced to facilitate brake shoe disengagement from the drum surface.this part IS also available at the service level for the my 1999-2002 vehicles.gm has indicated that the paking brake IS intended to operate in conjunction with the transmission to immobilze parked vehicles, and that in many cases, accelerated parking brake lining wear IS caused by rough use, vehicle modifications, and driving with the parking engaged. Odi has upgraded the preliminary evaluation to an engineering analysis to gather further information concerning parking brake usage factors and the circumstances surrounding the seventeen reported vehicle crashes.
During the pe, odidiscovered that one or both of the tailgate support cables can break due to the effects of metal fatigue at the point where the cable flexes when the lift gate IS opened and closed. Concurrently, the strength of the cable degrades over time due to corrosion of the wire strands in the support cables.when the vehicle IS stationary and cargo IS being loaded or unloaded, the tailgate can tip downward displacing cargo and/or people to the ground without warning.odi IS also aware of one total separation of the tailgate from the vehicle.owners cannot easily detect whether the support cabes are damaged or corroded because they are covered by a protective sheath.odi IS upgrading this preliminary evaluation for further appropriate action.model year 2003 vehicles will be added to the investigation.further, we will incude additional vehicles, those being the avalanche and cadillac ext, model years 2002-2003, and the sierra, model years 1999-2003.
There have been less than 2 complaints per 100,000 subject vehicles related to the alleged defect.the oldest vehicles (my 1999) have only 2 complaints in over 140 thousand vehicles after over 4 years in service.the rate of warranty claims potentially related to the alleged defect IS less than 0.1%.there are no known incidents involving rapid loss of tire pressure or loss of vehicle control. A defect trend has not been identified at this time.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 will take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
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.
There is no summary currently available
Technical service bulletins and other communications the manufacturer sent dealers about this vehicle. Ask a dealer for the full document by its number.
Bars are owner complaints, dots mark years with recalls. Select a year to open its report.