Check a VIN

2002 Chevrolet Silverado problems

The most common problem on the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado is brakes, typically around 49,000 miles. It has 5.7 times the complaints of a typical Silverado model year.

Year to avoid5.7x the typical complaints
Year score
10/100
Owner complaints
710
Recalls
4
Service bulletins
470
Worst area
Brakes
Fuel economy
11-16mpg
Typical repair
$1,000

The worst 2002 Chevrolet Silverado problems

Ranked by number of owner complaints. Mileage and cost come from what owners wrote.

Problems by type

Tap a problem to see which part fails, at what mileage and in which other years.

Specific symptoms reported on the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado

ABS 117Brake failure 83Knocking 23No deployment 22Harsh shifting 21Grinding brakes 14Transmission failure 14Seat belt 12Headlights 11Stalling 11Steering noise 11Tire blowout 11Check engine light 8Jerking 8Wipers 8Loss of power 6Spongy pedal 6Pulling 6

Recalls 4

Service brakes, hydraulic: antilock/traction control/electronic limited slipReported August 29, 2005 · 1,353,718 vehicles affected
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

Parking brakeReported April 22, 2005 · 90,242 vehicles affected
What is wrong
On certain pickup trucks equipped with manual transmissions and built with either pbr parking brake systems or trw parking brake systems, the parking brake friction linings may wear to an extent where the parking brake can become ineffective in immobilizing a parked vehicle.
Risk
If the parking brake does not hold, unintended vehicle movement could occur, which could result in a crash.
Remedy
Dealers will install a low-force spring clip retainer for vehicles equipped with a pbr parking brake system. On vehicles equipped with the trw parking brake system, dealers will install a redesigned parking brake cable assembly. The recall began on july 29, 2005. Owners may contact chevrolet at 1‑800‑630‑2438 or gmc at 1‑866‑996‑9463.

Recall number 05V161000 · Recall details

Structure: body: tailgate: hinge and attachmentsReported March 17, 2004 · 3,662,211 vehicles affected
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

Fuel system, other: deliveryReported November 3, 2003 · 395 vehicles affected
What is wrong
Some 2wd and 4wd pickup trucks, converted to either dedicated or bi-fuel compressed natural gas (cng) fuel usage, were assembled with a throttle cable that can contact and rub through the flexible pressurized fuel line creating a pinhole leak of natural gas to the atmosphere.
Risk
A strong odor of natural gas may be detected from inside the vehicle, possibly accompanied by a hissing noise. If the natural gas were accidentally ignited, serious injury could result.
Remedy
Dealers will secure the throttle cable to eliminate the possibility of contact with the cng fuel line. The cng fuel line, throttle cable, and cruise control cable are also to be inspected and replaced if necessary. Owner notification began on december 11, 2003. Owners should contact chevrolet at 1‑800‑630‑2438 or gmc at 1‑866‑996‑9463.

Recall number 03V435000 · Recall details

See all 4 recalls for the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado

Defect investigations

Brake line corrosion failureOpened January 5, 2011, closed April 8, 2015

On January 11, 2011, ODI opened EA11-001 to investigate allegations of premature brake line corrosion failure in model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 General Motors (GM) full-size pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles sold or registered in the following region of the United States that the federal safety agency has viewed as salt states for investigations of corrosion related issues: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 subject vehicles represent the first five MY's of GM's GMT800 platform production, of which approximately 2,038,504 vehicles were sold in salt states (the subject vehicles).The GMT800 platform includes the following vehicles:1999-2007 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 1500, 2500 and 3500 series pick-up trucks; 2000-2006 Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon sport utility vehicles; and 2002-2006 Cadillac Escalade and Chevrolet Avalanche sport-utility vehicles.General Motors produced a total of approximately 10,427,062 GMT800 vehicles for sales in the United States, including almost 5 million that were sold in salt states.Although there are over 60 different brake pipe routing configuration used in GMT800 vehicles, with the exception of the rear crossover pipes in MY 200x-2007 vehicles that changed from rear disc to drum brakes, all of the vehicles use brake pipes from the same supplier with a common double-wall, brazed steel pipe design with a combination of hot dip Zinc-Aluminum corrosion protection coating and Aluminum paint outer layer known in the industry as AlGal (ASTM-B750). ODI analysis of field data regarding GMT800 vehicles identified a total of 3,645 complaints of brake pipe corrosion failures, including 107 alleging crashes, and 40 injuries.Though only 20% of total GMT800 production, due to age and region the subject vehicles account for a disproportionate share of the failure experience; with 2,702 of the complaints (75%), 88 of the crashes (82%) and 20 of the injuries (50%) reported in those vehicles.Analysis of the complaints showed strong correlations to vehicle age and region.For vehicles with less than 8 years of service, the complaint rates were minimal for all regions.In the salt states the failure rates begin to climb as the vehicles advance in age, particularly in the Northeast corner of the United States.The complaint rates in the salt states go from less than 0.1 incident per thousand vehicles (IPTV) at 7 years in service to over 1.0 IPTV after the 12th year of service for the subject pickup trucks and utility vehicles.Most of the failures reported to ODI occurred in vehicles with more than 10 years in service.ODI?s investigation did not identify any specific defect conditions that were causing or contributing to the brake pipe failures.Nor did the analysis isolate the problem to any subject vehicle sub-populations when analyzed by vehicle type or production range.The investigation found that vehicles experiencing brake pipe corrosion failures were likely to have general patterns of excessive corrosion on the majority of the brake pipe assembly and appear to be occurring due to expected wear out for the brake pipe coating material used in the subject vehicles and the environmental conditions in severe corrosion states.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by the federal safety agency that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor t

EA11001

Brake line corrosion failureOpened March 30, 2010, closed January 5, 2011

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

Crank position sensor failure - stallOpened May 4, 2006, closed September 14, 2006

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

Parking brake failureOpened December 20, 2005, closed May 31, 2006

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

Unwanted low-speed ABS activationOpened April 28, 2005, closed September 13, 2005

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

Hydraulic pump failresOpened April 30, 2004, closed February 28, 2005

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

Parking brake failureOpened April 9, 2004, closed May 10, 2005

In a letter dated april 20, 2005, gm notified the federal safety agency that it had decided that defects that relate to motor vehicle safety exist in certain model year (my) 1999-2002 c/k 1500 series (pbr parking brake system) and my 2001-2005 c/k 2500 and 3500 series (trw parking brake system) pickups with manual transmissions.according to gm, some of these vehicles may have conditions that cause the friction linings to wear to an extent where the parking brake can become ineffective in immobilizing a parked vehicle.gm's action covers an estimated total of 142,585 vehicles.dealers will install a low-force spring clip retainer for vehicles equipped with the pbr parking brake system and install a redesigned parking brake cable assembly on vehicles equipped with the trw parking brake system. A total of 58 non-duplicative complaints were received by odi and gm concerning the approximately 59,000 my 1999-2002 c/k 1500 series pickup trucks with the pbr parking brake system.these included 22 alleged rollaway incidents, resulting in a rate of 38.5 rollaway incidents per 100,000 vehicles.odi is aware of 24 complaints regarding the my 2001-2005 c/k 2500 and 3500 series manual transmission trucks recalled by gm, including 5 alleging rollaway incidents.though the conditions described in gm's letter are also present in the c/k trucks with automatic transmissions, the rollaway rate in those vehicles was similar to those observed in peer vehicles studied by odi in this investigation.this engineering analysis is closed. For additional information, see the attached closing report.

EA04011

Tailgate cable breakageOpened February 19, 2004, closed September 28, 2004

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

Parking brake failureOpened December 8, 2003, closed April 9, 2004

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.

PE03057

Tailgate cable breakageOpened October 23, 2003, closed February 19, 2004

During the pe, odidiscovered that one or both of the tailgate support cables can break due to the effects of metal fatigue at the point where the cable flexes when the lift gate is opened and closed. Concurrently, the strength of the cable degrades over time due to corrosion of the wire strands in the support cables.when the vehicle is stationary and cargo is being loaded or unloaded, the tailgate can tip downward displacing cargo and/or people to the ground without warning.odi is also aware of one total separation of the tailgate from the vehicle.owners cannot easily detect whether the support cabes are damaged or corroded because they are covered by a protective sheath.odi is upgrading this preliminary evaluation for further appropriate action.model year 2003 vehicles will be added to the investigation.further, we will incude additional vehicles, those being the avalanche and cadillac ext, model years 2002-2003, and the sierra, model years 1999-2003.

PE03049

Steel wheel rim fractureOpened June 12, 2003, closed November 3, 2003

There have been less than 2 complaints per 100,000 subject vehicles related to the alleged defect.the oldest vehicles (my 1999) have only 2 complaints in over 140 thousand vehicles after over 4 years in service.the rate of warranty claims potentially related to the alleged defect is less than 0.1%.there are no known incidents involving rapid loss of tire pressure or loss of vehicle control. A defect trend has not been identified at this time.accordingly, this investigation is closed.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by the federal safety agency that no safety-related defect exists.the agency will take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

PE03026

Throttle sticking closedOpened August 1, 2002, closed January 12, 2004

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

Technical service bulletins for the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 470

Bulletins tell dealers how to fix known problems. A warranty extension means the manufacturer pays for that repair for longer.

See all 470 bulletins for the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado

2002 Chevrolet Silverado fuel economy

Official EPA estimates in miles per gallon (MPGe for electric). Ranges cover trims that share the same engine.

EngineDriveCityHighwayCombined
4.3L 6‑cylRWD14-1518-1916
4.8L 8‑cylRWD1418-1915-16
5.3L 8‑cylRWD131715
4.3L 6‑cyl4WD1316-1714-15
5.3L 8‑cyl4WD12-131614
4.8L 8‑cyl4WD12-131614
6.0L 8‑cyl2WD101311

What 2002 Chevrolet Silverado owners say

Most recent owner complaints, unedited.

Filed Feb 22, 2016 · Brakes · 110,000 miles · HI

Rusty brakelines

Filed Jan 29, 2016 · Body · 127,000 miles · MI

Tl* the contact owns a 2002 chevrolet silverado. The contact heard an abnormal noise coming from the front end of the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to the dealer where it was diagnosed that the frame was rusted and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 127,000.

Filed Jan 9, 2016 · Electrical · 200,000 miles · OR

While driving on the highway, the truck, for an unknown reason, shut down causing me to loose power steering and brake capability. I was able to shift into neutral and turn the key off and then back on again to re-start the truck. It has now happened several times and I have done the same thing each time to correct the problem. It happened once in 2002 then constantly 4-5 times a year and again today. Gm has told me in the past that they don't know what would cause that issue. I could not get my local chevrolet shop manager to give me a straight yes or no answer regarding whether my problem is consistent with the issues being experienced by effected gm models with ignition problems. I believe it may be due to the recalled ignition switches as I have had the electrical system looked at and no one can seem to find an issue that would cause the truck to shut off randomly at highway speeds and then turn right back over after shifting to neutral!! I believe that the current recall does not cover all of the vehicles that are truly affected. I have had my family in the truck on several occasions when this has happened and have been fortunate to not have had an accident to this point.

Filed Dec 13, 2015 · Brakes · 165,000 miles · PA

About 165,000 miles brake pedal started to pulsate at low speed when stopping.started out only when I would be turning left,now does it going staight,about 170,000 miles now.had new caliper on driver side,new hub assemblie and sensor on passenger side,brake system flushed,still have problems with brake pedal pulsating,does not matter what kind of road I'm on.

Filed Sep 24, 2015 · Brakes, Suspension · 90,000 miles · ME

Tl* the contact owns a 2002 chevrolet silverado. While driving at a low speed, the contact applied the brake pedal and the ABS kicked in; however, there was a loss of brake function. The stopping distance of the vehicle was dramatically reduced. The vehicle was taken to a mechanic who stated that there was a wheel bearing sensor failure. The entire wheel bearing with the sensor was replaced, but the failure recurred multiple times. The contact researched and found the federal safety agency campaign number: 05v379000. The manufacturer was notified of the issue. The approximate failure mileage was 90,000.

Filed Aug 16, 2015 · Acceleration, Brakes · 120,000 miles · KY · crash · 1 injury

Abs stopped brake pedal from going down. By the time I lifted and pumped again vehicle struck young girl. Travel was about six feet. There is a recall in other states but not ky.

Filed Jul 31, 2015 · Brakes · 129,569 miles · KY

Was starting out of driveway on slight slope. Applied brakes and antilock system kicked in. Under 5mph. Rolled in front of oncoming traffic. A truck had to veer to avoid collision with us. Became aware there is a known problem but vehicle hadn't been recalled because it is in kentucky. #05v379000 recall should be extended to ky because of salt for snow and gravel roads.

Filed Jun 3, 2015 · Brakes · 99,610 miles · TX

Tl* the contact owns a 2002 chevrolet silverado. While driving 35 MPH, the vehicle would not stop when the brake pedal was depressed. The contact had to use the emergency brake to force the vehicle to stop. The dealer diagnosed that the brake lines were leaking. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 99,610.

Filed Apr 14, 2015 · Brakes · 96,000 miles · MN

When you are traveling real slow or parking the antilock brakes kick in making I difficult to stop. I talked to chevrolet customer service and they will do nothing for me. Although it is the same design issue that they have recalled on recall #05v37900, the say my truck is not covered.

Filed Mar 15, 2015 · Brakes · 139,000 miles · NH · crash

I own a 2002 chevy silverado, and I have had the brakes fail on me multiple times the first time I encountered this issue was in early january when I was driving to school and I approached a stop sign and when I went to slow down I had no brakes and my vehicle rolled into the street luckily I wasn't go very fast and there were no cars coming so I didn't get hit. The repairs cost me 175$, that was repairing the problem to bare minimum (single brake line replacement). After I fixed that issue I ran into another problem, the ABS brake system will now spontaneously turn on when I come to a stop, it resulted in a three car crash, I was going to back into a parking spot and when I pulled my truck forward I tried to stop and the ABS locked up my trucks brakes (not slippery out) and forced me to hit two other vehicles, one was majorly damaged and another with minor yet still severe damage, this accident ended with me paying more in insurance and having to fix the damages on my own vehicle out of pocket. I will also in the very near future need to replace all my brake lines because they are on the verge of failing and I am being priced near 900$ for the repairs, I am not sure how much the ABS problem is going to be because the truck has been parked ever since the incident, the brakes are costing me a lot of money and hardship.

Used buying checklistWhat to check on a 2002 Chevrolet Silverado before you buy

Compare the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado

Other model years

1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017

Questions about the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado

Is the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado reliable?

Owners have filed 710 complaints about the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado, 5.7 times a typical Silverado model year. It is one of the years we flag to avoid.

What is the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado year score?

The 2002 Chevrolet Silverado scores 10 out of 100 (poor). The score compares it with the other model years of the Chevrolet Silverado: 75 is a typical year, 50 means twice the usual complaints, and serious complaints and recalls lower it.

What is the most common problem with the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado?

Brakes, with 350 complaints, typically around 49,000 miles. Next is transmission (70).

How many recalls does the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado have?

4 recalls, covering service brakes, hydraulic, parking brake and structure.

Was there a recall on the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado brakes?

Yes, 2 recalls: 05V379000, 05V161000. Check your VIN to see if your car still needs the free repair.

What year does the Chevrolet Silverado have bad brakes?

The Chevrolet Silverado model years with the most brakes complaints are 1999 (1,003 complaints), 2000 (607 complaints) and 2001 (418 complaints).

What gas mileage does the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado get?

Official estimates for the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado range from 11 to 16 mpg combined. The most efficient version (4.3L 6-cyl, RWD) gets 14-15 city and 18-19 highway.

Share your experience with the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado

Tell other buyers what went wrong and what it cost. We review every report before it appears, and we never publish names, emails or VINs.

No names, contact details or links. Reports about a dealer or a person are not published.

VIN decoder

See the problems and recalls for an exact car

Buying a used 2002 Chevrolet Silverado?

Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.

Check its history
Is this car on a recall?Check VIN