Bulletins
| Bulletin | Bulletin date | Replacement Bulletin | Item no. | Summary | Added |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC | |||||
| 100401 | 04/10/2001 | 619408 | Subject regarding campaign 0093a - front brake pipe in contact with the body cross sill. *tt | 05/30/2001 | |
| SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC - ANTILOCK | |||||
| 220101 | 01/22/2001 | 618187 | On some vehicles, after turning off the vehicle, the abs motor continues to run. *tt | 04/06/2001 | |
Investigations
| NHTSA ID | Manufacturer | Date open | Date close | Subject | Recall campaign | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC | ||||||
| EA11001 | GENERAL MOTORS CORP. | 01/05/2011 | Brake line corrosion failure | |||
| 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. of the890 total complaints for brake pipe corrosion identified, 761 were located in salt belt states (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 complaint rate per 100,000 vehicles sold is significantly higher in the salt belt, 43.0, compared with 3.0 for the remaining states.in approximately 25 percent of the complaints, the brake pipe failure has allegedly occurred suddenly, with no warning to the driver (i.e., no brake warning light), and resulted in extended stopping distances.in 26 of these incidents, the increase in stopping distance that resulted was alleged as a factor in a 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.an engineering analysis has been opened 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. | ||||||
| SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC - ANTILOCK | ||||||
| PE05020 | GENERAL MOTORS CORP. | 04/28/2005 | 09/13/2005 | UNWANTED LOW-SPEED ABS ACTIVATION | 05V379000 | |
| 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. | ||||||
| SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC - ANTILOCK - CONTROL UNIT/MODULE | ||||||
| PE05020 | GENERAL MOTORS CORP. | 04/28/2005 | 09/13/2005 | UNWANTED LOW-SPEED ABS ACTIVATION | 05V379000 | |
| 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. | ||||||
| SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC - FOUNDATION COMPONENTS - HOSES, LINES/PIPING, AND FITTINGS | ||||||
| EA11001 | GENERAL MOTORS CORP. | 01/05/2011 | Brake line corrosion failure | |||
| 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. of the890 total complaints for brake pipe corrosion identified, 761 were located in salt belt states (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 complaint rate per 100,000 vehicles sold is significantly higher in the salt belt, 43.0, compared with 3.0 for the remaining states.in approximately 25 percent of the complaints, the brake pipe failure has allegedly occurred suddenly, with no warning to the driver (i.e., no brake warning light), and resulted in extended stopping distances.in 26 of these incidents, the increase in stopping distance that resulted was alleged as a factor in a 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.an engineering analysis has been opened 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. | ||||||
Consumer Complaints
| Fail date | miles | occurences | Purchase date |
|---|---|---|---|
| SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC | |||
| 08/01/2003 | 11 | ||
| The dealer replaced the front seat belts at a very low mileage. cost $100 deductible to the consumer. the alr caused the retractor to constantly lock up. the dealer replaced the retractors when the vehicle was brand new without the consumer bringing the vehicle in for this issue. consumer states that it was handled like a recall but was not aware the retractors were recalled. also stated he thinks the buckles were replaced at that time. *ak the positive battery post broke and the battery leaked acid all over the engine compartment. the post broke around 8/01/03. it was an ac delco battery. abs motor constantly ran and killed the battery. the abs light had come on , the pump kept running, the abs cable had broke. the torque bolts were rusted out, the steering and suspension when turning left or right, there was a thumping noise that had come from the front end, when turning right there was a bouncing and binding sound, the vehicle would not crank, the brakes made an abnormal noise, and the front were worn. the steering column was removed and replaced. *scc *jb | |||
| SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC - ANTILOCK | |||
| 09/09/2005 | 33000 | 1 | 12/11/2001 |
| Dt: the brakes failed on september 8, 2005, causing the vehicle to hit a concrete pole. the consumer was not injured. there was recall 05v379000 concerning abs brakes. when the consumer contacted the dealer, they told him that they had no recall information as of yet. *ak | |||
| 07/28/2005 | 60000 | 1 | 12/05/2004 |
| Dt: contact stated abs brakes were not working correctly. while traveling under 10 mph they were activating, making the braking very hard, almost causing an accident. contact noticed a problem with the brakes almost one year and a half ago. he pulled the fuse. has been waiting on a recall. he could not get an inspection sticker because the abs light was on.*ak | |||
| 04/16/2002 | 1 | ||
| Consumer states that the abs module shorted out and when turning off the vehicle the abs motor will continue to run. contacted dealer and the dealer is not willing to do anything. nlm | |||
| 10/23/1999 | 1 | 08/01/1999 | |
| Consumer states the abs is highly sensitive when applied and kicks in at inappropriate times, vehicle is difficult to stop.*ak consumer was informed by dealer that the condition is normal.*slc | |||
| SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC - ANTILOCK - ABS WARNING LIGHT | |||
| 08/01/2003 | 1 | ||
| Dealer replaced the abs brake cable at very low mileage. cost $100, deductible to the consumer.*ak | |||
| SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC - ANTILOCK - CONTROL UNIT/MODULE | |||
| 08/01/2003 | 11 | ||
| The dealer replaced the front seat belts at a very low mileage. cost $100 deductible to the consumer. the alr caused the retractor to constantly lock up. the dealer replaced the retractors when the vehicle was brand new without the consumer bringing the vehicle in for this issue. consumer states that it was handled like a recall but was not aware the retractors were recalled. also stated he thinks the buckles were replaced at that time. *ak the positive battery post broke and the battery leaked acid all over the engine compartment. the post broke around 8/01/03. it was an ac delco battery. abs motor constantly ran and killed the battery. the abs light had come on , the pump kept running, the abs cable had broke. the torque bolts were rusted out, the steering and suspension when turning left or right, there was a thumping noise that had come from the front end, when turning right there was a bouncing and binding sound, the vehicle would not crank, the brakes made an abnormal noise, and the front were worn. the steering column was removed and replaced. *scc *jb | |||
| SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC - FOUNDATION COMPONENTS | |||
| 3 | |||
| The first set of brakes went out at 35000 miles. then after approximately 4000 miles consumer took the truck in again and the brakes and drums were replaced for a second time, consumer states vehicle now needs another set of brakes. *yd | |||