Investigations
| NHTSA ID | Manufacturer | Date open | Date close | Subject | Recall campaign | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PARKING BRAKE | ||||||
| PE03057 | GENERAL MOTORS CORP. | 12/08/2003 | 04/09/2004 | PARKING BRAKE FAILURE | ||
| 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. | ||||||
Consumer Complaints
| Fail date | miles | occurences | Purchase date |
|---|---|---|---|
| PARKING BRAKE | |||
| 10/15/2008 | 19000 | 1 | |
| I am writing regarding the very poor brake life and performance failure on my 2002 chevrolet pickup, 1500 series purchased new from a local dealer. at 19,500 miles the brakes were diagnosed (on 1-15-09) by the dealer as needing complete overhaul, a cost of $571.00. the problem was noticeable at 12,000 miles by excessive pedal travel, the same with the emergency brake. no action was taken or notice of brake wear indicated by the dealer when notified. by 17,000 miles the brakes were noisy and when informed the dealer said my rear rotors were rusty from low use and i should consider a replacement. unable to believe my brakes were worn out ( i'm 65 years old and have never had a vehicles' brakes wear out any where near this mileage) i decided to drive it more often to remove the rust. during this time my teenage daughter, with me as a passenger, nearly hit a semi unexpectedly blocking our lane, because the brakes worked very poorly. this was in the fall of 08. in november and december 08, i wrote to the dealer requesting cost sharing for brake repair. no response.. then, in late december i wrote to gm , customer affairs, in detroit,mi. requesting cost sharing due to premature wearout. they requested the cost estimate on 1-15-09 and then refused or denied any assistance based on low use. i am well aware of a broad problem with early brake wear on 2001 to 2004 (admitted by service reps at the dealer) light duty gm trucks, mostly due to rusty rotors, especially on the rears. this is further evidenced by the dealer estimate which showed expensive replacement ceramic pads, which were not original equipment. the dealer also admitted that at one time they tried to add a kit to shield the rear rotors from salt spray. these are all evidence of defective parts, something that should be covered by warranty regardless of the vehicles age or frequency of use. or covered by a recall. your website shows thousands of complaints on this item. please add mine. *tr | |||
| 07/10/2005 | 34757 | 1 | |
| Emergency brake stopped working on my 2002 chevrolet tahoe after 34,757 miles. a properly working emergency brake is critical, as my three small children ride in and play around this vehicle. | |||