Bulletins
| Bulletin | Bulletin date | Replacement Bulletin | Item no. | Summary | Added |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PARKING BRAKE | |||||
| 010526001 | 04/01/2005 | 010526001A | 619514 | Low effort parking brake apply system. *tt | 06/04/2001 |
Investigations
| NHTSA ID | Manufacturer | Date open | Date close | Subject | Recall campaign | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PARKING BRAKE | ||||||
| DP05009 | GENERAL MOTORS CORP. | 12/20/2005 | 05/31/2006 | PARKING BRAKE FAILURE | ||
| 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. | ||||||
| PARKING BRAKE - CONVENTIONAL | ||||||
| DP05009 | GENERAL MOTORS CORP. | 12/20/2005 | 05/31/2006 | PARKING BRAKE FAILURE | ||
| 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. | ||||||
| PARKING BRAKE - CONVENTIONAL - MECHANICAL | ||||||
| DP05009 | GENERAL MOTORS CORP. | 12/20/2005 | 05/31/2006 | PARKING BRAKE FAILURE | ||
| 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. | ||||||
Consumer Complaints
| Fail date | miles | occurences | Purchase date |
|---|---|---|---|
| PARKING BRAKE | |||
| 08/27/2002 | 0 | 6 | 08/22/2000 |
| My parking brake has been defective since i purchased it. i did not know this until the first inspection. it did not pass and i had to pay $150.00 to fix it. every year after that is has failed. i have called my dealer with the problem but have not had any luck. i sure hope someone does not die because of this problem. *jb | |||
| 08/28/2006 | 83000 | 1 | 02/05/2001 |
| Dt*: the contact stated the vehicle's parking brake was not working. the contact never used the parking brake. the vehicle was inspected by the dealership, who informed the contact that the parking brake would go bad if it was never used. updated 9/13/2006 -the vehicle failed state inspection because the parking brake did not work. *nm | |||
| 05/19/2004 | 36157 | 770 | 11/20/2001 |
| Multiple locations will not inspect vehicle due to faulty emergency brake design. dealership will not cover and manufacturer will not warranty. $600 dealership repair or $400 at local repair facility. *jb | |||
| 04/07/2006 | 1 | 10/15/2005 | |
| Parking brake failure. appears parking brake system defective which has caused brake to be inoperable and triggered a failed state inspection on 4/7/06. this will have to be fixed in the next 15 days in order to obtain inspection. have been told the defect in the parking brake system will necessitate another repair at the 15k mark from the date of original repair, as the system eats the brake shoes due to the defect. this problem is in no way related to use of the parking brake. *jb | |||
| 11/02/2005 | 80000 | 1 | 10/01/2001 |
| Went to get my 2001 chevy suburban inspected and it failed because the emergency brake would not hold. the inspector said this is a extremely common problem in these vehicles and if he got 100 suburbans in to be inspected 90 would fail because of this problem. *nm | |||
| 08/17/2005 | 69000 | 3 | 12/19/2000 |
| The parking brake on our 2001 suburban has failed for the 3rd time in 4 years. from discussions with repair shops and other suburban owners, it is apparent that gm has a real design flaw in the parking brake mechanism for the 2000 plus suburbans. we live in a very hilly part of the state of texas and a good parking break would normally be considered essential. i hope that the nhtsa opens an investigation and gets this bad design recalled before one of these large suv's accidentally breaks loose when parked on a hill and kills some child. *nm | |||
| 04/01/2005 | 385000 | 1 | |
| I have a 2001 chevrolet suburban 1/2 ton with 39,000 miles on it. the emergency (parking) brake is defective. it will not hold the vehicle. i have never used my emergency brake, and was told by various repair people that it was a known defect and a recall should be ordered. this is a safety issue, as i am sure there are many unknowing owners with an unusable emergency brake. there was a service bulletin issued: # 02-05-26-002a. *nm | |||
| 08/09/2005 | 1 | 1 | 11/09/2000 |
| 2001 chevrolet suburban, parking brake (emergency brake) has never worked. i thought this was a simple adjustment and since this vehicle is normally driven only on long trips--rather than daily use i was not too concerned. did not bother to report to dealer because too much hassle over other defects under warranty. recently consulted my mechanic friend (former gm) and have found this is a significant manufacturing flaw--wrong parts installed at date of manufacturer. a service bulletin was issued to dealers on this problem. because the vehicle now is four years old and has approximately 58000 miles the dealer will not address the problem without significant expenditure on my part. i believe this is a problem that should be addressed at the manufacturers expense. i have talked to other owners of similar vehicles experiencing the same problem. time and mileage should not discharge the manufacture from this safety issue. *jb | |||
| 07/05/2005 | 81000 | ||
| Parking brake on 2001 chevrolet suburban won't hold. when pedal is depressed to the floor, the vehicle can still roll. | |||
| 08/09/2001 | 1 | 08/08/2001 | |
| Dt: consumer states that his 2001 chevrolet suburban parking brake has never worked in his vehicle. he has taken vehicle to the dealer and they have told him it's a faulty design and there's nothing they can do about it. the transmission won't stay in park due to the problem. *tt | |||
| 05/01/2004 | 12/15/2000 | ||
| Parking brake on 2001 chevrolet suburban 1500 does not hold. this is a known problem on chevrolet silverado pickups which have the same type parking brake. i am having to pay to have the brake repaired in order to pass state inspection. the design and functionality of the parking brake is apparently a known problem. | |||
| 11/01/2004 | 2 | 07/30/2001 | |
| The parking brake was inoperable. the dealer would not fix because the brake was not under warranty. the brake shoes were replaced. *bf the parking brake had never been used, yet the parking shoes were worn out. the lower left cowl cover was broken and was being held together by putty. *sc *jb | |||
| 10/25/2004 | 24445 | 3 | 08/27/2001 |
| On 2/12/04, i took my 2001 chevy suburban in to the dealer because the emergency/parking brake did not work. being the first time i tried to use it and it did not work, i assumed it would be a warranty repair. the dealer said no, this is common and a normal wear and tear adjustment. i said i have never used it, how can it be! not being safe w/out a emergency parking brake, i had to pay! after their adjustment the brakes or something squealed. upon returning to the dealer, i asked them to check their adjustment and mentioned where i had seen on the nhtsa site about parking brakes wearing all the time. they adjusted again to spec and when i got it back, brakes still did not hold the vehicle well - it would never have held on a hill! i took it back again to the chevy dealer on 7/13/04 and asked them to check it again, and they said it was to spec and it was not an emergency brake, just a parking brake. i told them it would never hold a vehicle this size and weight on a hill! on 10/25/04, the vehicle was making a grinding/scraping sound when moving, so i took it to a tire store and they determined that the parking brakes were totally worn out and needed to be replaced ($160). i think there is a engineering design defect with this system in these vehicles. first the brakes do not appear to hold the vehicle well and second the way they are designed they fail without ever using them! you don't know they don't work until it's too late! very dangerous!!! please look into this asap - i think brake failure is a very dangerous problem. *jb | |||
| 12/07/2004 | 63967 | 1 | |
| Consumer was told that because of normal driving emergency brake wore out, even if the emergency brake was never being used. consumer decided to call dealer because he felt that it was a safety factor, knowing that the emergency brake was not effective. *ak | |||
| 07/21/2004 | 48000 | 1 | 07/31/2001 |
| Parking brake does not hold when depressed. pedal goes completely to the floor. removed rear rotor and pads were very thin with only 48000 miles, and the only time the brake is used is during inspection one time each year. there are numerous reports on this problem and it is puzzling that chevrolet does not fix this problem. *ak | |||
| 09/08/2004 | 1 | ||
| Bought 2001 suburban new. never used emergency brake, but brake has failed and worn into my rotor to a point that both rotors now need replacing. this seems to be a very common problem and have found a number of complaints throughout the internet. also have a family member that works for gm as a mechanic and says they have a defective system. he does these jobs all the time.*ak | |||
| 01/17/2004 | 55000 | 1 | |
| 2001 chevrolet suburban - parking brake has failed. we did not realize failure until pointed out to us by mechanic; thought it normal that the brake goes to the floor.*ak | |||
| 11/28/2003 | 1 | ||
| Complaint regarding manufacturing defect- parking brake.*mr (nar) *cb | |||
| 05/31/2004 | 1 | 03/01/2000 | |
| Parking brake fails to hold. *ak | |||
| 04/29/2004 | 05/18/2001 | ||
| I took my 2001 suburban for the annual inspection. the shop called to say it did not pass due to the parking brake not holding. there is never a need to use the parking brake in houston, therefore i have never used it. there are 4 people in my office that have had the exact problem and had to pay to repair this problem because it is considered normal wear. i called chevrolet zone to report this, but of course they claim to know nothing about any problems with the emergency brake. the shop removed the tires and found that the brake pads were ripped to shreads and the rotor was so badly etched that it had to be replaced. total cost to repair the problem on a vehicle with 37,000 miles was 350.00 per side. please investigate this problem so hopefully chevrolet will have to announce the clear defect in the new suburban/tahoe design. the mechanic told me he sees this problem on a regular basis. *mr | |||
| 05/19/2004 | 50000 | 2 | |
| Consumer took vehicle to have a state inspection done and found that the parking brake was not holding the vehicle. it was taken to the chevrolet dealer, and they found that the parking brake shoes were worn out, and both brake rotors needed to be replaced. *ak | |||
| 03/22/2004 | 54000 | 06/20/2001 | |
| Parking brake failure - 2001 chevrolet suburban during state inspection (texas) apparent cause of parking brake failure is due to misalignment of parking brake shoe. chevrolet has redesigned their the retaining clip which holds the parking brake shoe in place. the redesigned clip does not allow the parking brake shoe to float or move inside the rotor of the rear parking brake assembly. in this case there was abnormal wear to the inside of the parking brake rotor on the driver's side as well as abnormal wear on the parking brake shoe. there was no noticeable wear on the passenger's side rear brake rotor of parking brake shoe. chevrolet has issued a technical bulletin to its dealers which addresses the parking brake shoe coming into contact with the rotor when the parking brake is not engaged or set. the fix is the redesigned clip which replaces the old clip. in our case, we do not use the parking brake on a regular basis (if at all) and the problem was found during a normal routine state inspection (texas) - as it failed to pass the test due to the parking brake not holding. | |||
| 02/12/2004 | 18900 | 1 | 08/27/2001 |
| I recently tokk my 2001 chev suburban to the dealership for misc repairs. one of which was that the emergency/parking brake no longer held the vehicle at all. either in forward or reverse. one day i went to use it and it didn't work at all. how long had it been this way? i rarely, if ever, use the parking brake so i assumed it was broken and would be covered under warranty since the vehicle is only 2.5 years old and only has 18,900 mi. the diagnosis was that the parking brake needed adjustment and this was a normal wear condition and would cost me $65. i felt i had no choice to not have my brakes work, so i complied. it was suggested by the service advisor to use it more often and that would keep it in adjustment? i feel there is something wrong with this brake or vehicle design, especially after reading others complaints on this website. i had my previous vehicle for 11 years and 90k miles and never had an issue with a parking brake. this is not something that you can afford to go to use and find out it doesn't work! based on the number of complaints i urge you to look into this dangerous situation - not to mention costly to the consumer for no reason at all.*ak | |||
| 12/23/2003 | 37000 | 16 | 11/15/2000 |
| I took my 2001 suburban to have a state inspection done and found that the parking brake was not holding. i then took the vehicle to the chevrolet dealer and they found that the parking brake shoes were worn all the way down and both rotors needed replacement because they were rusted inside and the parking bake shoes would not hold. i only have 37000 miles on the vehicle. the dealer was only willing to split the cost of the rotors and the installation of the rotors even though the parking bake wore out after only 37000 miles or even less. the dealer reported that the parking brake should last longer than 37000 miles. i am the only person who drives this vehicle and the parking brake was never left on while driving. there is a defect on the engineering of the parking brake system that it wears out this fast with only being used when the vehicle is parked. | |||
| 01/03/2004 | 29700 | 1 | 08/11/2001 |
| I asked huffines chevrolet [plano, tx] to check my 2001 chevrolet suburban as the parking brake was not holding. the pedal would depress all the way to the floor and the vehicle would roll. their service department found that the emergency parking brake had caused premature wear on the brake pads and rotors. the dealer indicated that this was the result of the body style change in 2000. the new design of the emergency brake placed it in contact with the rotors which causes premature wear. this is not a repair that is covered under the 36 month/36,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty. despite that, the dealer replaced the pads and rotors at no charge. i am still not clear as to why, but the dealer told me that i would have incurred the expense of the repair if the vehicle has over 30,000 miles. i'm led to believe that this is an item, that due to the number of reported occurrences, that gm is repairing under warranty up to 30,000 miles. i consider myself fortunate in that i brought my vehicle to them at 29,700 miles. as a side note, i will point out that when this vehicle was purchased new from huffines chevrolet, the parking pedal would depress all the way to the floor. my wife and i both found that to be odd. we always use the parking brake and we never had one operate in that fashion. but the dealer said that was normal and that brake was holding the vehicle. the existence of a potential emergency brake mechanism defect is a very serious and dangerous case for all owners of the 2000-2004 chevrolet suburban. many households own and operate these vehicles and such a defect puts our wives and children at risk. i recommend, with extreme prejudice, that nhtsa conduct an investigation into this issue. *ak | |||
| 12/03/2003 | 50000 | 1 | |
| Parking brake failed. *ak | |||
| 08/27/2003 | 1 | ||
| The emergency brake is not hold properly while the vehicle was parked. the dealer stated that nothing could be done vehicle was out of warranty. *ak | |||
| 08/19/2003 | 1 | ||
| Emergency brake failed, and vehicle didn't pass the local inspection in texas. dealer stated , we were aware of the problem but we didnt know how to fix it. *ak | |||
| 07/21/2003 | 1 | ||
| Consumer stated that vehicle would not release the parking brake when driving. dealer notified. *ak | |||
| 10/01/2002 | 30000 | 1 | 10/01/2000 |
| Consumer stated the parking brake failed to hold. the dealer had been contacted. several other suburbans had failed inspection because of poor parking brakes. *ak *cb *jb | |||
| 06/11/2003 | 45700 | 05/01/2001 | |
| Parking brake not holding-- goes all the way to the floor. *nlm | |||
| 03/10/2003 | 50809 | 12/31/2000 | |
| I am concerned there is a chevrolet manufacturing defect, if what the lone star chevrolet representative told me is correct and an unused emergency brake in a 2001 suburban can destroy itself at any time making the vehicle unsafe to drive. on 3/10/2003 i took the vehicle to lone star chevrolet for its 50k mile routine maintenance. nothing was wrong with the vehicle, except for a squealing from the right side when the breaks were applied. i asked them to check the brakes. on their first call, the representative said the mechanic found the front brake rotors to be glazed over, causing the noise. i told them to fix it, a standard wear repair item. later, the representative called again to say the mechanic found the emergency brakes were broken,not holding against the drum, which caused, the car to be unsafe to the point it would not pass inspection. when i asked how that could be since i had not experienced any difficulty in stopping vehicle, he said the emergency brake was a totally separate system from the regular brakes. i pointed out several facts to him: 1)i purchased the car new and have been the only person to drive the car except when it was in their shop for repairs. 2)i have never (not once) activated the emergency brake on the vehicle and i always check to make certain its not on when its returned from repairs. 3)the car passed its annual inspection during 12/2002 with the inspection done by their facility. there was no mention about the emergency brake not working then. in light of these issues, i asked the representative to explain how a part that has never been activated got a drum that is so badly scored and worn that it no longer works and why the problem wasn't noticed during december. he then said normal road vibrations can cause the parts to slip out of alignment causing the damage at any time, and it was not damaged during december. he went so far as to say that their mechanics saw this problem all the time. *nlm | |||
| 03/20/2003 | 1 | ||
| The emergency parking brake experienced premature wear. *nlm | |||
| 03/12/2003 | 1 | ||
| The vehicle failed state inspection due to the emergency brake being inoperative. took vehicle to dealer who diagnosed a manufacturer's design flaw with the emergency brake. the design of the emergency brake placed it in contact with the rotors which caused premature wear. *jb | |||
| 10/08/2002 | |||
| Consumer noticed failure of the emergency brake retainer clip. dealer has been notified, please provide further information. *mr | |||
| PARKING BRAKE - CONVENTIONAL | |||
| 10/18/2005 | 25300 | 1 | 10/15/2001 |
| Vehicle with 25,300 miles failed the annual virginia state inspection due to failure of the parking brake to hold. the dealer stated rust had formed on the rotors and they had to be replaced even though they and the brake linings were not worn out. the dealer service advisor stated the design had been changed on later models, but there was no recall for this defect and i would have to pay $980.00 to replace rotors, pads and park brake linings. i called gm's chevrolet division customer service and the customer service rep said she would investigate and call me back in a few days. i picked up the truck and paid $775.71 the dealer having given me a break on the labor nine days later, the gm rep called to tell me there was nothing they could do as the dealer diagnosed the problem as being due to the age and mileage of the vehicle (4 years and 25,300 miles) and she was closing the file indicating i was dissatisfied with the results. i pointed out to her the fact that the nhtsa web page has numerous complaints about parking brakes on chevy suburbans. she was not moved and restated her intent to close the file. i immediately called the dealer service advisor who stated that vehicle age and mileage was not the cause but. the problem was a durability issue with the parking brake system on chevy trucks. he refused to contact the gm service rep on my behalf so, i left a message on her voice mail for her to contact him to discuss the issue. i then filed this complaint.*jb | |||
| 12/16/2002 | 49346 | 1 | 12/16/2001 |
| Consumer stated had problems with the emergency brake. also stated that vehicle would not pass the inspection on his state. dealer and manufacture was contacted and also said that since their was no recall consumer will have to pay for it. ts dealer found park brake shoes worn to metal. dealer replaced park brake shoes and left rear rotor. *tt | |||
| 10/15/2001 | 08/01/2001 | ||
| Vehicle delivered with 305 miles. noticed parking brake would intermittently not hold vehicle when parked on slight incline after about 1000 miles. initially, parking brake pedal had a different feel to the last 2 to 3 inches of pedal travel, as if it were 'giving way' due to excessive pressure on pedal. however, whether the pedal was pushed all the way to floor or stopped before it had that strange 'give way' feel did not seem to affect the failure of the parking brake to hold vehicle when applied. eventually, after about 10000 miles, the strange 'give way' feeling ceased. also noticed that over time the parking brake would fail to hold the vehicle more often than not, and around 14000 miles, quit altogether. i took the vehicle to dealer and was adviced this problem was common with the new suburban body style (2000). service advisor said would have to disassemble parking brake unit to see if pads needed adjustment or replacement and more than likely would be needing replacement and thus not covered by warranty. i told him this was happening from the beginning and he said the pads for the parking brake on the new body styles were very small and wore out very quickly especially if used on an incline or driven with parking brakes applied. this being the case, it did not seem cost effective to bother replacing the pads as he was going to charge me about $150. is this a design defect or an intentional scheme to rip customers off with frequent brake pad changes?*ak | |||
| 05/02/2001 | 2 | 05/01/2001 | |
| # 1. the day after i first puchased and picked up my vehicle it smoke us out of the parking garage on our vacation in oceanside, ca. #2 the brakes were very spongy and not anything like the one i demoed when i found this vehicle. i almost had an accident on route to oceanside. the last two trips in this has not been fixed and i had to rent a car again. # 3 about the 3 rd. day into our new vehicle i noticed the parking brake wouldn,t always hold the vehicle, even after putting it in gear, with the brake fully applied it would fail but not all the time. # 4 after reporting the smoking problem, (still on-going) i had a no oil pressure warning and notice the gage didn't respond for about 10 seconds after starting the engine, then i had pressure but a constant low oil warning kept appearing on the message center. this is when it only had 1400 miles on it. i noticed some oil spots forming where i parked, i crawled under near the right rear side of the motor to find oil dripping from the engine and off the suspension near the engine. its now been in 3 times for smoking, leaks and various other engine noises (lifters, right bank). # 5 the vehicle has pulled to the right since new. i called them, they said wait till you get a few miles on it so everything breaks in. wrong answer. i checked the tire pressure. it was uneven on all tires, mind you they were supposed to check this before i purchased the vehicle. average psi 30, should be 40-44psi cold. it helped but still pulled to the right. at 5000 miles i personally rotated the tires, this still didn't fix it. upon bringing it in for all the formentioned and last problem which by the way required renting a car twice they finally took a look at it and know it pulls to the left and the steering wheel is no longer level. # 6 the right bucket seat won't lock in at the hinge point properly. they said there was a fix coming for the engine and the seat from the factory but as of yet nothing from chevy or the dealership.*ak | |||
| PARKING BRAKE - CONVENTIONAL - MECHANICAL | |||
| 10/20/2006 | 1 | ||
| Parking brake did not disengage on drivers side, removal of wheel and disc showed actuating mechanism not fully retracted, fixed by pushing actuating lever towards wheel to rest lever. extremely poor design. *jb | |||
| 03/22/2004 | 54000 | 06/20/2001 | |
| Parking brake failure - 2001 chevrolet suburban during state inspection (texas) apparent cause of parking brake failure is due to misalignment of parking brake shoe. chevrolet has redesigned their the retaining clip which holds the parking brake shoe in place. the redesigned clip does not allow the parking brake shoe to float or move inside the rotor of the rear parking brake assembly. in this case there was abnormal wear to the inside of the parking brake rotor on the driver's side as well as abnormal wear on the parking brake shoe. there was no noticeable wear on the passenger's side rear brake rotor of parking brake shoe. chevrolet has issued a technical bulletin to its dealers which addresses the parking brake shoe coming into contact with the rotor when the parking brake is not engaged or set. the fix is the redesigned clip which replaces the old clip. in our case, we do not use the parking brake on a regular basis (if at all) and the problem was found during a normal routine state inspection (texas) - as it failed to pass the test due to the parking brake not holding. | |||
| PARKING BRAKE - CONVENTIONAL - MECHANICAL - LINKAGE AND CABLE | |||
| 01/01/2003 | 20 | 11/15/2001 | |
| We bought a 2001 chevy suburban , brand new. since we owned it, the air conditioner motor failed the first month, front left shock pops when turning, driver's seat warmer doesn't work (possible faulty switch), the 5.3 liter engine knocks and pings like crazy even when using 93 octane fuel on a steady basis. the front passenger seat was found to have cracked seat rails but dealer had no replacement rails, have to order them. gas gauge doesn't read right (when on the red line it still has 6 gallons in the tank or 20% fuel left) the thing is a piece of crap! gm didn't give a darn either. if you call to complain you get the run around. this is their top of the line passenger truck (suburban lt) and definitely not something they should be proud of. i definitely will not buy another, my parents just bought a new ford expedition since they saw all the crap breaking on this thing. other friends have also not gm after seeing first hand my brand new lemon. another friend of mine is on his 3rd replacement motor for his camaro window. he bought ac delco motors each time and they all stopped working within one year. all of these products, including my suburban are being made in mexico i just found out. i think that they must have a big problem with quality control down there or their sampling size is nil. well i hope gm has made a bundle of profits off nafta because they've definitely lost at least 7 sales that i know of due to my $40,000 piece of crap. i wouldn't recommend this car to anyone. i have heard of others complaining of the same pings/knocks in their 5.3 liter gm engines. does anyone know of a class action lawsuit regarding this? oh and the emergency brake is way too loose. | |||
| PARKING BRAKE - INDICATOR LIGHT | |||
| 12/01/2005 | 30000 | 2 | 04/01/2001 |
| Tl*the contact owns a 2001 chevrolet suburban. when the contact started the vehicle, the light that indicates the parking brake is activated was not illuminated. the gear was shifted into drive and the vehicle began to drift while the emergency brake was still applied. the contact turned off the engine. prior to the failure, the contact heard the sound of metal coming from the rear of the vehicle whenever the brakes were applied. the parking brake was replaced by a repair shop; however, the failure continued. the failure mileage was 30,000 and current mileage was 90,000. | |||