2002 Chevrolet Avalanche problems

What is wrong

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, new hampshire, new jersey, new york, ohio, pennsylvania, rhode island, vermont, west virginia, wisconsin and the district of columbia only.

Risk

This can cause increased stopping distances during low-speed brake applications, which could result in a crash.

Remedy

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.

Recall number 05V379000 · Recall details

What is wrong

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.

Risk

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.

Remedy

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.

Recall number 04V129000 · Recall details

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.

PE10010

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.

PE06016

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.

DP05009

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.

PE05020

Gm is conducting a recall on all subject vehicles build between may 1999 and october 14, 1999.significant changes were incorporated into production in early october 1999, and vehicles built after that date have lower warranty failure rates.the complaint and warranty data appear to support the effectiveness of these changes. Gm made additional changes in november 1999, february 2000, may 2001, and february 2004.odi will continue to monitor this problem and will take further action, if warranted, in the future.for further technical details see the attached engineering analysis report.

EA04012

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.

EA04005

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 federal safety agency, 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 the federal safety agency that a safety-related defect does not exist.for a detailed discussion of the tb component and testing, please see the attached report.

EA02015