2000 Saturn LS
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2000 Saturn LS. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
6 recalls name the 2000 Saturn LS. Newest first.
On certain sedans and wagons, the plastic housing in the rear tail lamp assembly can become distorted if the brake lamps remain on for an extended time.
This can cause (1) an intermittently inoperative brake/tail lamp bulb or (2) a short circuit that opens a fuse causing inoperative brake lamps (including the center high-mounted stop lamp) or tail lamps. a following driver may not know when the brakes have been applied, and a rear-end crash could occur without prior warning.
Dealers will install two new tail lamp reinforcing socket adapters and sockets free of charge. the recall began on october 17, 2005. owners may contact saturn at 1-800-972-8876.
On certain passenger vehicles equipped with 2.2L L4 (L61) engines, a failure of the ignition control module may cause deterioration in idle quality, reduction in overall engine power, and the vehicle may be hard to start. continued operation of the vehicle after such an ignition module failure will result in the "service engine soon" light flashing, and…
Failure of the resonator will cause increased exhaust noise. prolonged operation of the vehicle following a resonator failure may lead to a fire.
Dealers will (1) replace the ignition control module, (2) replace the ignition control module and spark plugs, or (3) replace the ignition control module, spark plugs, and update the powertrain control module calibration. owner notification began on august 4, 2003. owners should contact saturn at 1-800-553-6000, prompt 3.
Vehicle description: passenger vehicles, light duty trucks, sport utility vehicles, and MINI vans equipped with trw seat belt buckle assemblies. the buckle base of these seat belt assemblies were not properly heat treated and therefore do not pass the load bearing requirement of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 209, "seat belt assemblies."
In the event of a vehicle crash, the occupant may not be properly restrained.
Dealers will inspect the vehicle's safety belt buckle assembly date codes and, if necessary, will replace any safety belt buckle assembly.
Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. fuel tank assemblies in these vehicles have an over pressure relief (opr) valve that can become stuck open in a frontal collision. if the vehicle rolls over, fuel spillage could occur.
If an ignition source IS present, a fire could result.
Dealers will permanently seal the outlet port of the opr valve.
Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. these vehicles do not comply with requirements of fmvss no. 301, "fuel system integrity." these vehicles may have been produced with an inoperative valve within the fuel tank assembly.
If a vehicle with an inoperative valve were involved in a rollover, fuel spillage could occur.
Dealers will inspect the vehicles to ensure that the fuel tank assembly valve IS operating as intended. they will replace the fuel tank assembly if necessary.
Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. These vehicles do not comply with requirements of fmvss no. 108, "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment." because of a problem in the hazard warning switch assembly, the turn signal lamps may not work or may work intermittently when the driver uses the turn signal lever or hazard warning switch. if…
Other drivers may not be alerted that the vehicle IS turning and a crash could occur.
Dealers will replace the hazard warning switch assembly.
I am listing this vehicle identification number to fulfill your request on the safety complaint form, however I believe what I am about to share is an issue that applies to all vehicles on the road today, regardless of their source of motive power, if they have a hydraulic-brake system. I believe the current federal specifications for brake lines are too susceptible to corrosion, and although the materials brake lines are made of on most vehicles, probably meet Federal standards. Federal standards for this and other vehicle parts should evolve more frequently, sensitive to modernization and field experience. Corrosion-resistant brake lines are available and Federal statutes should be upgraded to specify they be constructed of more durable material and also be positioned in vehicles to increase their ease of replacement. Replacement of just the rusted sections of my rear brake lines cost me approximately $3000, and most of that cost was driven by brake line inaccessibility. Brake lines are typically one of the first components installed during vehicle assembly and several layers of components are then placed over them. Given the difficulty of replacement they should be one of the most durable components in the vehicle and calculated to last an appropriate multiple of the vehicle’s service life that is economically feasible.
The whole subframe on my 2000 saturn LS IS rotted so bad that I can't even drive the vehicle. It started with my car not starting and putting it up on a lift to see what the problem was. That not starting problem IS a bad resonator, but in the process the subframe was found to be seriously rotted away. *tr
Car leaking oil - now engine trouble
Nothing, thank god had happened yet, but it will in a matter of time, how much time I have no idea. The problem IS the motor cradle or frame IS rusting out, the front where the motor sets had wholes rusted in it, the whole thing IS rusting away.
While driving down the interstate my timing chain snapped. Car lost power and put me and my family at risk of an accident.
Ref: 07v519 I am filling this complaint concerning my 2000 saturn LS1 2.2L engine. While driving on a southern california freeway in july 2008 my timing chain broke. This caused us to try and get to the side of the freeway from the left side of the freeway, a very nerve-racking situation. After talking to the dealership and several independent repair shops I elected to replace the engine instead of fixing the timing chain and the other damage that was caused in the broken timing chain. The repair was completed by claremont auto center in pomona ca on 14/july/2008. If necessary I should be able to get a copy of the repair bill.
TL* the contact owns a 2000 saturn LS. While driving 70 mph, the vehicle randomly stalled without warning. The contact had to coast the vehicle to the side of the road. The vehicle was towed to the contact's residence. An independent mechanic diagnosed the vehicle and stated that that there was an internal failure where the timing belt prematurely fractured into the motor and fractured the valves. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was not available.
TL* the contact owns a 2000 saturn LS. While driving at any speed, the turn signal did not automatically disengage. The contact had to manually disengage the signal. There was no warning indicator. The vehicle was taken to a local mechanic who diagnosed that the turn signal cancel cam assembly needed to be replaced. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was 7,704.
TL* the contact owns a 2000 saturn LS. while driving approximately 25 mph, the contact noticed an abnormal noise from both the front passenger and driver sides of the vehicle. In addition, the contact stated that the steering wheel was difficult to turn. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic who diagnosed that there was corrosion around all of the wheel wells and the subframe needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The vin was unknown. The failure mileage was 150,000.
TL* the contact owns a 2000 saturn LS. While driving at approximately 65 mph, there was smoke coming from the steering wheel into the vehicle and the high beams activated without being prompted. The high beams failed to turn off causing the contact to detach the headlights. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 152,680.
Took car to have struts replaced and was told the sub frame had rusted away to make the car unsafe to drive,always checked the body and frame yearly for rust on chassis and uni body so there would not be any potential problem s. I live in the northeast part of the USA.. The problem with the sub frame IS it rusts from the inside out so it makes inspection extremely hard to see. *tr
Tl*the contact owns a 2000 saturn LS. The contact stated that the rear tail lights failed to illuminate. The contact mentioned that there was an electrical malfunction that burned the sockets and wires causing the bulbs to short. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic. The technician replaced the rear tail lights three times and the failure recurred. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact was not included in nhtsa campaign ID number: 05v245000 (electrical system). The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was not available.
TL* the contact owns a 2000 saturn l series. The contact stated that while operating the vehicle the driver inadvertently pulled the key out of the ignition and the vehicle continued to operate. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the problem. The vin was not available. The failure mileage was 30,000.
I was driving a 98 toyota tacoma on a 45 mph highway when a pedestrian in the road caused all lanes of traffic to suddenly stop. I was unable to stop in time and went into the median to avoid an accident. I was unable to keep my vehicle in the median and struck the 2000 saturn coupe drivers side fender to drivers side fender. upon impact the body of the saturn burst into 12 to 14 inch shards of whatever the body IS made of, (perhaps fiberglass or something similar). one such shard shattered the drivers window and impaled me through my left shoulder and lodged itself protruding slightly from my back. the emergency responders were unable to stop the bleeding so I was airlifted to ormc for emergency surgery, and am lucky to have survived. the surgeon stated that another inch would have meant me bleeding out in the road. that vehicle should not have shot deadly projectiles upon impact. *tr
Please note that our saturn 2000 LS "key can be removed from the ignition when the ignition IS not in the "off" position. we have not received a recall notice regarding our saturn LS. we have received a recall notice on our saturn vue SUV regarding "key to be removed from the ignition when the ignition IS not in the "off" position. thank you, *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2000 saturn LS. the contact stated that the key failed to turn in the ignition switch. the failure has occurred on several occasions. The key would turn after several attempts. the vehicle was not taken to the dealer for a diagnostic testing. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the vin was not available. The approximate failure mileage was 23,000.
TL * the contact owns a 2000 saturn LS. The contact stated that while idling, the vehicle shook, the engine roared as the rpms decreased. The dealer reprogrammed the body control module, but the failure recurred. The vehicle was taken to the dealer again and the timing chain, tensioner, and guides were replaced. The failure appeared to be remedied, but recurred a year later. The dealer stated that the timing chain could not be properly adjusted and was striking the guides, which produced the roaring sound in the engine. The vehicle was not repaired and the manufacturer was notified. The approximate failure mileage was 99,000.
I took my car in for a tune up and found out the timing belt tensioner had gone bad destroying my motor. *tr
I have a 2000 saturn LS 1 that I had bought in june 14 2012 @ the us truck & auto on us. 31 south here in traverse city michigan 49685. the salesperson's name is[xxx]. I was on craigs list looking for a reliable car and I came upon us truck & auto and wyane would not let me test drive the car and that the car IS in perfect running condition until march 14,2014 my wheel came off at a stoplight getting to go on green but didn't move far. And when I got the car the dome light wasn't working and a wire had been disconnected from the daytime head lamp and burned out tail lights. since I purchased it at a car dealership I took they had the vehicle inspected but learned later that wayne does not always have the vehicles inspected that he puts on his lots but sells lemons. he would rather sale a lemon or a vehicle that will in danger a person then to follow the laws and make sure the vehicles are road safe before he sells them. I needed a car because I have a friend that has issues with her back and legs plus we live 7 to 8 miles out of traverse city, mi and don't have much money to do much of anything right now. my friend and I love this car the engine and transmission are fairly new. we have tried to ask for help getting the car fixed from churches and other organizations but even they barely have the money to help. the buses here refuse to work for us and taxis are way to much money to take us shopping for food or doctor's appointments. please help us get our car fixed or maybe even a different 4 cylinder car. thank you for your time! [xxx] information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(B)(6). *tr
Car runs ok and after 1 hour of running and you shut it down it wont start. I've replace ignition switch, neutral safety switch, crank sensor. And problem remains' have to jump out the starter it order to start it. I think the ignition housing and key switch IS defective. I got no indication the pass lock sensor IS defective. *tr
My car drives like its coughing and sometimes it cuts off on me, and my brake lights work sometime, I have had people honk to tell me my lights not working then they will pop on when they get ready. *tr
When I went to get new tires for this car I was told there was a problem with my frame and should go right to a dealership. I contacted saturn and they authorized it for me to go to my nearest dealership, at the dealers convenience and my expense for a review of the problem. I made the appointment but in the mean time the front wheels stated to shake and shimmy. I was losing control of the car, so I pulled into the nearest repair shop and was given the advice to leave this car parked. do not drive it at all. contacting saturn at this point they refused to even look into this problem. never have I heard of a frame supporting the engine, and front wheels ever rusting through on a car before. they said it was my choice to have it fixed, therefore they had no obligation to look into this any longer. I believe I had no choice other than to get it fixed right there and then. Not only because it had to be done but for the safety of my family. *tr
Driving down the road the vehicle started making noise and steering was uncontrollable. I trailered the vehicle back home. closer inspection revealed the front subframe/engine cradle was completely rusted through in multiple spots, very dangerous!!! I contacted the dealer to get a new subframe and I was advised the subframe IS no longer available and to try finding one in a salvage yard. I contacted a salvage yard and they said they had a few and it would be no problem to pull one. I got the call today saying they were sorry but all of the front subframes on the saturn l series they have are rusted through and are not usable. I contacted other yards with the same response. I ended up having to find a salvage yard down south that had a usable subframe. I went online to find numerous forum posts discussing this topic and I'm finding it IS very common on this vehicle. why was there never a recall for this with such a widespread safety hazard? from what I can tell it happens on all model years of the l series. the irony IS the rest of the car IS very clean, no rust on the rest of the undercarriage. there IS no clear explanation why the subframe would have corrosion perforation at such low mileage with no other rust/corrosion on the rest of the vehicle. at a higher rate of speed this could have had a bad outcome. thank you. *tr
Just read the recall on gm cars due to faulty ignition. my daughter owned a 2000 saturn LS until july 2012 (when she traded it in) and on 2 different occasions, it also stopped running as she was driving. luckily it did not result in an accident. *tr
I wasn't in a accident thank god but I bought this car going on a year from a auction and in about 4 months ago noticed the back tail lights kept going out and then just wouldn't come back on I tried everything. Ad of 10/6/2013. I change the fuses the brake. Lights came on for one night and then went out again. So I don't know what's going on.so noticed that it was a recall on this. And I wanted.to see if I could still get it fixed on the recall because I cant drive my car like this and it need to be fixed. And didn't have this car at the time of the recall and this IS serious and any other recalls on this car that need to be fixed I need it. *tr
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
On may 22, 2008, theoffice of defects investigation (odi) was petitioned by the north carolina consumers council (nccc) to broaden the scope of safety recall 07v-519, which was conducted by general motors corporation (gm) for model year (my) 2001 saturn l-series vehicles equipped with the L61 2.2L engine and built during a 4-month period from november 2000 through february 2001 (dp08-002). On october 16, 2008, odi granted dp08-002 and opened pe08-061 to investigate timing chain failures resulting in engine stall while driving (swd) in the saturn l-series vehicles equipped with L61 engines and that used the same design timing chain and timing chain lubrication system as the recalled vehicles.a redesigned timing chain and lubrication system were implemented late in my 2002 production (may 1, 2002).hence, the subject vehicles for this investigation are all my 2000 through 2002 saturn l-series vehicles equipped with 2.2L L61 engines and built prior to may 2002 that were not included in recall 07v-519. In this investigation, odi analyzed updated complaint and warranty claims data for timing chain failures resulting in incidents of engine stall while driving, which comprise slightly over half of all timing chain failures occurring in the subject vehicle population.odi's analysis of complaint and warranty data shows that vehicles produced with the subject timing chain and lubrication system experienced elevated failure rates when compared with the my 2002 through 2003 vehicles using the revised components.however, the analysis also showed that the my 2001 saturn l-series vehicles recalled in 07v-518 experienced a significantly higher rate of timing chain failures than the subject vehicles.the complaint rate for timing chain failures resulting in swd was approximately 5 times higher for the recalled vehicles,19.2 incidents per thousand vehicles (iptv), than for the subject vehicles, 3.7 iptv.the warranty claims rate for chain failures resulting in swd was over 3 times higher for the recalled vehicles, 2.4 percent, than for the subject vehicles, 0.7 percent.the complaint and warranty rates for the subject vehicles were similar to rates recorded in other recently closed investigations for conditions that could result in swd with no engine re-start, ea07-015 and ea07-018.analysis of all complaints, field reports and warranty claims found no allegations of crashes or injuries associated with the alleged defect in the subject vehicles after approximately 7 to 9 years in service. Odi's analysis of the stalling incidents that have resulted from timing chain failures in the subject vehicles found that they can occur at any speed and almost always result in a no restart condition.these are generally considered to be factors that increase the severity of stalling incidents.however, analysis of swd failure rates in the subject vehicles show that they have occurred at much lower rates than were observed in the recalled population.in addition, the swd complaint and warranty rates for the subject vehicles are similar to rates observed in prior investigations involving similar categories of engine stall consequences that were closed with no action.further investigation of this matter would not be an efficient allocation of agency resources.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 continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action if warranted.
On june 6, 2006, odi opened an investigation of timing chain failure resulting in engine stall while driving with no restart in approximately 20,514 model year (my) 2001 saturn l-series vehicles equipped with 2.2L engines (L61) built from november 2000 through february 2001 (ea06-009).the vehicles built during those months exhibited higher failure rates than similarly equipped vehicles built before and after.gm introduced a new timing chain design in production in may 2002.odi closed its investigation after gm initiated a safety recall on november 7, 2007 (recall 07v-519). On may 22, 2008, the north carolina consumers council (nccc) submitted a defect petition to odi requesting the expansion of recall 07v-519 to include all my 1999 through 2003 saturn l-series vehicles with 2.2L engines using the same timing chain design as the recalled population.the petition states that the nccc continues to receive complaints from consumers that have had a timing chain fail in vehicles built outside the production range covered by the recall.the petition also notes that odi has continued to receive complaints.since the closing of ea06-009 odi has received 80 new complaints from consumers who had a timing chain fail in a my 2000 through 2002 saturn l-series with the 2.2L engine that were not covered by recall 07v-519 and were built prior to the timing belt change in may 2002.the complaints describe the same failure mode as the recalled population where the timing chain can break suddenly and without warning, resulting in engine damage and loss of motive power.the defect petition has been granted. A preliminary evaluation (pe08-061) has been opened.
On december 12, 2005, odi received a defect petition (dp05-008) requesting the investigation of timing chain failures that could cause stalling in saturn vehicles equipped with the 2.2L (L61) engine. Odi opened pe06-006 on january 24, 2006, with 24 vehicle owner complaints that alleged a broken timing chain caused the vehicle to stop operating.on april 12, 2006, odi received information from general motors (gm) concerning timing chain failures in approximately 412,000 model year (my) 2000 through 2003 saturn l-series and ion vehicles with 2.2L engines. Gm's response included 1,020 owner complaints and field reports concerning timing chain failure, including 228 that alleged the failure caused the vehicle to stall while driving.gm also provided warranty claim data that showed 1,902 subject vehicles receiving timing chain repairs, including 261 which indicated that a stall while driving resulted from the failure.the gm complaints, field reports and warranty claims that did not contain sufficient information to determine that a stall while driving occurred were provided in the category other.gm stated that the majority of these incidents probably occurred while the vehicles were parked since the timing chain IS more likely to break during high chain load situations, such as engine startup.gm's data showed elevated failure rates in approximately 20,500 my 2001 l-series vehicles produced during a four month period from november 2000 through february 2001.over one-third of gm's total complaints and field reports (34.3%) and warranty claims (38.2%) involved l-series vehicles built during the 4-month period, which are only about 5% of subject vehicle production.the timing chain failure rate in the vehicles built during this range IS over 10 times greater than the remaining subject vehicle population. For the my 2001 l-series vehicles built during the 4-month period, the 36-month failure rate for repairs involving stall while driving IS slightly under one percent.however, if the incidents coded as other are added, the 36-month failure rate rises to nearly five percent for those vehicles.odi and gm are continuing to assess the number of complaints and warranty claims coded by gm as other that involve incidents of stall while driving.gm's statistical modeling of the failure data initially concluded that the failure rates were declining with age and mileage for any set of warranty data analyzed (e.g., stall while driving, other or combined).however, subsequent analysis showed that the failure rates are increasing. Based on the high complaint and warranty rates for timing chain failure in the 4-month production period for the my 2001 l-series vehicles, this investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis to further assess the frequency of stall incidents due to timing chain failures in those vehicles (ea06-009).
Analysis undertaken in response to the petition identified 26 complaints alleging timing chain failures in my 2000-2003 saturn l-series vehicle equipped with the 2.2L L4 engine.most complaints of timing chain failure reportedly resulted in a sudden loss of engine power and stalling.odi also noted that certain my 2002-2003 saturn vue and my 2003 saturn ion model vehicles with the 2.2L engine vehiclescovered by a technical service bulletin (03-06-01-017) that addressed timing chain design and service procedure changes, exhibited no complaints of timing chain failure.odi will grant the petition and open a preliminary evaluation to assess the frequency, trend, scope and safety consequences associated with the alleged defect in the subject vehicles.refer to pe06-006.
General motors has decided that a safety related defect exists on certain model saturn sedans and wagons.the plastic housing in the rear tail lamp assembly can become distorted if the brake lamps remain on for an extended time.this can cause (1) an intermittently inoperative brake/tail lamp bulb or (2) a short circuit that opens a fuse causing inoperative brake or tail lamps (including the center high-mounted stop lamp).gm will conduct a safety recall on an expanded scope of saturn vehicles to install a reinforcing socket adapter (and corresponding nw socket) to the back of the existing lamp assembly.general motors will recall 291,652 my 2000-2002 saturn LS sedans and my 2000-2004 saturn lw wagons.the recall IS identified by nhtsa number 05v-245.
On january 25, 2005, a safety defect petition was received by the office of defects investigation (odi), requesting an investigation of inoperative tail lamps on my 2000-2002 saturn l-series vehicles.the petitioner alleges a defect in the design and assembly of the tail lamp assembly circuit board and light socket contact.the petitioner identified 47 vehicle owner questionnaire's (voq's) associated with the alleged defect, and odi concurs that 40 of those voq's satisfy the scope of this investigation.odi has found an additional 10 voq's related to the allegation.odi has granted the petition and opened a preliminary evaluation (pe05-010).
Allege that the fuel tank over-pressure relief (opr) valve may leak fuel in excess of fmvss 301 allowances in a crash
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.