2001 GMC Sierra
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › GMC › Sierra › 2001
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2001 GMC Sierra. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
7 recalls name the 2001 GMC Sierra. 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.
On certain pickup trucks equipped with an 8.1L V8 engine, the crankshaft position can operate intermittently or fail completely. if the sensor operates intermittently, the ses light may illuminate and the vehicle may run rough. the engine may stall, and if so, may re-start immediately or after a cool down period.
If the sensor becomes completely inoperative, the engine will quit running and will not re-start. either of these failures can increase the risk of a crash.
Dealers will replace the crankshaft position sensor free of charge. the recall began on december 18, 2007. owners may contact chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438 and GMC at 1-866-996-9463.
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 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.
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.
05068A product safety recall front wheel speed sensor corrosion. my vehicle was serviced for this recall in 2006 which involved removing and cleaning the ABS sensor and reinstalling it. no redesign was created to improve this flawed design. I'm having the same failures described and covered in this recall. while moving at slow speeds in dry conditions ABS kicks in and increases my stopping distance. I hit a parked car in a parking lot due to this defect. my vehicle was in motion at <5MPH on dry pavement when the breaks went into 'ABS mode' and hit a stationary parked car. luckily no one was hurt. when I contacted GMC I was told that this would not be covered under the recall because it was already serviced for this recall in 2006 and that the issue was therefore closed. in my case the original recall was not adequate and my car breaks still failed even though serviced in 2006. I hope this doesn't start to occur with all of the vehicles that were serviced ~10 years ago which IS why I'm filing this complaint. link to recall: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/acm5671334/rcrit-05v379-9258.pdf
Went to stop at traffic light and experienced brake line rupture due to excessive rust. Had to use emergency brake to coast to a stop. Fortunate no cars were in lane.$1200.00 for repair of lines.
Brake pedal moved all the way to floor with no apparent hydraulic pressure which failed to engage brakes when shifting into drive. Inspection of brake lines beneath drivers side door revealed excessive rust and a hole in steel brake line leaking fluid.
TL* the contact owns a 2001 GMC sierra. While self-servicing the vehicle, the contact discovered that the subframe was corroded. the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 124,000. The vin was unavailable.
TL* the contact owns a 2001 GMC sierra. The contact stated that while attempting to stop, the ABS failed and the vehicle started to pull to the right. The contact determined that the cause of the failure was a defective wheel speed sensor. the vin was not affected by nhtsa campaign number: 05v379000 (service brakes, hydraulic). The manufacturer was not made aware of the problem. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was 105,000. ...updated 06-11-15 *bf updated 11/23/2015*js
Brake line failed and broke, upon inspection all brake lines were corroded and brittle, had to replace all brake lines. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2001 GMC sierra. While driving 15 mph, the brake pedal failed to depress. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic. The technician diagnosed that the sensors on the front of the vehicle failed. The vehicle was repaired, but the failure recurred on several occasions. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The contact was made aware of nhtsa campaign number: 05v379000 (service brakes, hydraulic); however, the vin was not included. The failure mileage was 70,000.
Heading into parking spot at walmart , applied brakes would not stop , heading head on into parked car , slammed emergency brake , put into neutral , finally stopped . Had to have towed to mechanic brake lines all burst due to rust , mechanic said cost to fix , approx. $1000 or more ? Which I don't have . Thank god I was going slow and didn't cause any injury , pour design and pour quality parts per mechanic on gm's part , notice a lot of complaints on these era of trucks. *tr
I pulled into my driveway and approached the garage, applied brakes and all they did was vibrate and make that pulse noise. No mater how hard I pushed the pedal, the truck would not stop and I went through the garage door and also knocked over my harley that was in the garage. I cant believe the amount of common story's about this brake issue. There should be a class action lawsuit. *tr
I was traveling on I-95 south in virginia on the hov lanes at about 1:30 pm approaching the route 1 exit. Traffic was dead stopped in front of a moderate flow of traffic and everyone quickly slammed the brakes (including me) to slow and stop to prevent rear ending the stopped cars. traffic was flowing at approximately 75 mph when I slammed my brakes. The brakes grabbed momentarily and then I heard a loud pop and the brake pedal went to the floor; the vehicle brakes were gone. No pressure was at the pedal even as I pumped it. the only way out was to hit the should and berm and take the route 1 exit to coast to a stop; which I did. no fluid loss was evident at the master cylinder reservoir and I couldn't see evidence of a blown line or brake caliper until I got the vehicle home and noticed the metal (steel) brake line between the master cylinder and the anti-lock brake control valve/module was leaking at a pit in the line caused by rust. the point was under the driver side floor pan on the outside of the frame and parallel with the frame. it blew a rusted pitted spot on the line under pressure.. *Js
TL* the contact owns a 2001 GMC sierra. The contact stated that while at a stop light, the brake pedal was entirely depressed and the vehicle rolled into an intersection. The contact stated that the emergency brake was applied in order to stop the vehicle. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was 227,570.
TL* the contact owns a 2001 GMC sierra. The contact stated that while driving 65 mph, the brake pedal was depressed and the brakes failed to respond. The contact had to use the emergency brake to stop the vehicle. The independent mechanic diagnosed that the brake lines had rust build up. The independent mechanic repaired one brake line. The manufacturer had not been notified. The approximate failure mileage was 170,000.
I was on my way home from an event this past saturday heading to drop off my son. After dropping him off I continued home. I was traveling about 35 mph when the light turned red and I depressed the brake and was terrified when it went down to the floor. Although I have as able to come to a stop without incident I have as still terrified. I am a disabled veteran with a heart condition and could have had a heart attack. I had my truck looked at by my certified mechanic and he told me that my brake line ruptured due to rust and it will cost me around $1000.00 for repairs. I have had many many cars and trucks in my lifetime and never ever experienced any problems of this nature. It seems to me the manufacture would allow for these northern conditions with the parts they use in production. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2001 GMC sierra. The contact was driving approximately 2 mph when the brakes failed. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not notified. The approximate failure mileage was 120,000.
Experienced complete failure of the braking system. Fortunately the vehicle was only traveling 15mph and in an area that wasn't congested with traffic. I was able to stop by using the roadside berm banking and avoided any further damage. Vehicle was towed to a nearby gm dealership where it was determined that both brake lines had corroded so badly it caused the lines to rupture resulting in an immediate loss of pressure and complete brake failure. Just days earlier I had the brakes serviced at a different gm dealership near my home and there was no mention of this condition nor the previous reports of this problem from other owners as noted on this web site. Even if gm or the nhtsa does not deem this issue frequent enough to issue a tsb, at minimum a service warning/recommendation should be issued to gm dealerships and other registered service providers alerting them to inspect for this condition while servicing the braking systems for these model years. Death or serious injury can and most likely will occur as there are many vehicles from these model years still on the road. *tr
Brake pedal went to flood, had difficulty stopping truck, leaking brake fluid. *tr
When my issues started, I would fill my gas tank and the gas gauge would plummet to empty. While driving, it would go to full, back to empty or be anywhere in between. At that time, there no no mechanical issues, just the annoying fact that you had no idea how much fuel you actually had. This went on until this spring, when I had the first potentially dangerous incident. I was driving down a county highway at approximately the speed limit and the truck's engine just shut off. No power steering, nothing. It happened just as I was coming to a stop sign thankfully. I was about 50 miles from home and was able to call a friend that manages the collision center of a local car dealership to see about getting a tow or his opinion as to what was wrong. After about ten minutes and after numerous attempts, it restarted. I talked to several mechanics and got the same answer from all of them: the fuel pump and sending unit fail in GMC trucks around the mileage, 95,000 miles, that I currently have on the truck. The gas gauge IS still erratic, I have had two episodes of the vehicle stalling and now the service engine soon light IS coming on and when it IS put on an analyzer it says emissions, but there IS nothing wrong with the emissions system. I have also talked to owners who have had theirs replaced and everyone says to get a factory made pump because the cheap aftermarkets break down even quicker. I googled the information and the problem appears to be widespread. *tr
I have a 2001 GMC sierra that has been losing coolant for about 2 years now. I was told it was a common problem with these trucks just wandering why nothing has been done. *tr
It was snowing and icy outside. I attempted to brake for an upcoming red light. The brake pedal went completely to the floor. I had very little braking power. I steered to the curb to avoid traffic in the intersection. I jumped the curb and came to a stop against a power pole. Damage to the power pole and to the front of my truck. One of the steel brake lines ruptured. Upon closer inspection, all the brake and fuel lines were severely corroded. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2001 GMC sierra. The contact stated that the brake pedal became stuck to the floor board while attempting to depress the brakes. The contact was able to stop the vehicle with an abnormal increase in stopping distance. The contact inspected the vehicle and found that the rear brake line was leaking fluid due to corrosion. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure and current mileage was 115,000.
Stepped on brakes approaching yellow light ,sailed right though light. *tr
The wheels malfunction ending up hitting a covert the air bags did not deploy
Metal brake lines rusted causing brakes to fail and replacement of master cylinder and brake lines. *tr
The first day I noticed that the brake pedal went closer to the floor before the brakes activated. the second day the pedal nearly touched the floor and then the brake warning light came on. I took the vehicle to my neighborhood indy tire center where they quickly determined brake line failure near the left rear wheel. the brake line had rusted completely causing a hole and rapid loss of brake fluid. a new teflon coated main brake line and fittings was installed along with new brake fluid. other brake lines were examine and found to be rusted but not compromised. The total cost of repair was $461.38. *tr
Brakes hydraulics failed when trying to stop. truck IS in the shop now. the consumer stated the vehicle lost hydraulic pressure without warning. He was traveling 10 mph towards a busy intersection. Fortunately, he was able to turn into a parking lot and use the parking brake to stop. The rear brake lines on the vehicle rusted and leaked brake fluid, which resulted in the loss of pressure. *tr
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
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.
The office of defects investigation (odi) opened a preliminary evaluation (pe06-016) on may 4, 2006 based on eleven vehicle owner questionnaires (voqs) and early warning (ewr) data alleging sudden engine shutdown while driving as a result of crank position sensor failures in my 2001-2002 general motors c/k platform vehicles equipped with 8.1L engines.in response to an information request letter sent by odi, general motors (gm) provided owner complaint information, field reports and warranty claim data based on a population of 108,338 vehicles. The data was categorized by engine stalls while driving, engine stalls with an unknown driving condition, no start conditions and claims where it was indeterminate if an engine stall occurred while driving.general motor's response included 1,213 owner complaints and field reports of which 289 were categorized as engine stalls while driving allegedly caused by crank position sensor failures. General motors also submitted warranty claims from its regular warranty (5 years/50,000 miles) and from its extended warranty database. From the regular warranty database there were 3,140 claims of crank position sensor replacement of which 147 claims were from consumers alleging engine stall while driving.gm stated that 2,841 of the claims were indeterminate if an engine stall occurred while driving.from its extended warranty database, gm submitted 1,561 claims of crank position sensor failure that it also stated were indeterminate as to whether an engine stall occurred while driving.in total, gm reports 4,701 claims of crank position sensor failure combining regular warranty and extended warranty.similar to gm's statistical analysis, odi's analysis showed that the failure rate for warranty claims of engine stall while driving at three years in service IS low (less than 1%).however, further analysis determined that the my 2001 vehicle build period from may 2000 through october 2000 had significantly higher (more than four times) crank position failure rates in both consumer complaint data and warranty claim data than in the build period from november 2000 through july 2001.adding the claims of known engine stall while driving and claims where engine stall was indeterminate, the failure rate at three years in service for this population IS over 6%.AN engineering analysis (ea06-016) has been opened to further assess the frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect in vehicles built from may 2000 through october 2000.
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.
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.
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.