Rusty brakelines
2002 Chevrolet Silverado brakes problems
350 complaints (49% of all complaints for this car). Typical mileage when it fails: 49,000. 40 crashes reported.
- owner complaints
- 350
- of this car's complaints
- 49%
- typical mileage
- 49,000
- crashes
- 40
- recalls
- 2
Which part fails
- Antilock/traction control/electronic limited slip133
- Foundation components: disc: rotor47
- Foundation components: disc: pads11
- Foundation components: hoses, lines/piping, and fittings10
- Antilock: wheel speed sensor8
- Antilock/traction control/electronic limited slip: control unit/module5
- Conventional4
- Foundation components: disc: caliper3
At what mileage
Complaints by mileage at the time of the problem.
Chevrolet Silverado brakes problems in other years
Specific symptoms reported on the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado brakes
Phrases found in the owners' own descriptions, so one complaint can mention several symptoms.
Related recalls
Service brakes, hydraulic: antilock/traction control/electronic limited slip
- 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 brake
- 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
Related investigations
Brake line corrosion failure
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 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.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
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.
DP05009
Unwanted low-speed ABS activation
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 failres
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 failure
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
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.
PE03057
What 2002 Chevrolet Silverado owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tl* the contact owns a 2002 chevrolet silverado. While slowing down at a stop light at approximately 5 MPH, the brake pedal failed to respond and the contact had to depress the brake pedal several times to stop the vehicle. Once the vehicle stopped, the ABS and brake warning indicators illuminated. The contact mentioned that the vehicle was recently repaired under the federal safety agency campaign number: 05v379000 (service brakes, hydraulic). The vehicle was taken to the dealer. The technician was unable to diagnose the failure. However, the brakes were replaced and the failure persisted. The failure recurred on several occasions. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 103,000. Updated 04/06/15*lj updated 9/27/2017
Tl*the contact owns a 2002 chevrolet silverado. The contact stated that while driving at approximately 10 MPH, the brakes failed. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, who diagnosed that the brake line was rusted and the ABS module needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 63,000. ...updated 03/31/15 *bf updated 6/22/2015
Questions about the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado brakes
Does the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado have brakes problems?
Owners have filed 350 complaints about the brakes of the 2002 Chevrolet Silverado, 49% of all its complaints, more than any other problem.
At what mileage do 2002 Chevrolet Silverado brakes problems start?
The typical (median) mileage in owner complaints is 49,000 miles.
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).
Other 2002 Chevrolet Silverado problems
Transmission 70Engine 62Steering 39Body 36Airbags 30Suspension 29Tires 27Electrical 25Fuel system 23Acceleration 22Visibility 19Seat belts 16Lights 12Locks 9Seats 7Wheels 4Driver assistance 1
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