1995 GMC C35 problems

What is wrong

Vehicle description: extended cab and 2-door utility vehicles equipped with reclining seats and the easy-entry feature. These vehicles exhibit a condition in which a pinch point exists in the recliner mechanism that can trap and pinch a person's hand or finger(s) when the easy-entry feature is activated.

Risk

This pinching can cut the hand or possibly sever the finger(s) without prior warning.

Remedy

Dealers will install a protector cover over the recliner mechanism.

Recall number 97V037000 · Recall details

What is wrong

These tires have bead damage which occured during tire mounting.

Risk

This damage to the tire reinforcing structure in the bead "toe" area causes a bulge in the sidewall after the tire is inflated. This condition will result in a slow air loss causing the tire to go flat. However, it is possible for the damage to result in a rapid air loss causing injuries to anyone if they were handling the tire when this occurred.

Remedy

Dealers will demount each tire and inspect for bead damage. If bead damage is found, the tire will be replaced.

Recall number 96V117000 · Recall details

What is wrong

These vehicles were assembled with the throttle cable contacting the dash mat which could bind the throttle. This does not meet with the maximum return times required by federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 124, "accelerator control systems."

Risk

Consequence of non-compliance: the engine speed may not return to idle increasing the potential for a vehicle accident.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect for adequate throttle cable to dash mat clearance, and if there is insufficient clearance, cut out a portion of the dash mat to provide proper clearance.

Recall number 96V057000 · Recall details

What is wrong

The steering column upper intermediate-shaft nut may not be torqued to proper specifications. The nut could loosen and detach allowing the through-bolt that secures the upper intermediate-shaft to the lower steering column shaft joint to fall out.

Risk

This loose engagement can provide noticeable noise and abnormal steering feeling to the driver and, if left unattended, the steering shafts can separate resulting in a loss of steering control.

Remedy

Dealers will torque the suspect fasteners to the proper specifications.

Recall number 96V004000 · Recall details

What is wrong

If both the lap-belt and shoulder-belt energy management loops on the front seat belt assemblies release at or near the same time, acceleration forces can cause the buckle release mechanism to activate and allow the buckle to separate from the latch.

Risk

If the buckle released, the system would fail to provide adequate occupant restraint protection.

Remedy

Dealers will remove the stitching that creates the energy management loop in the shoulder belt(s).

Recall number 95V241000 · Recall details

What is wrong

These vehicles were built with front seat belt systems with no energy management loops and may not meet the head injury criteria requirements of fmvss no. 208, "occupant crash protection."

Risk

In the event of a vehicle crash, the occupants of these seats may not be properly restrained.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the retractor portion of the seat belt assembly(s) with one having the newly designed energy-management twin-loop system.

Recall number 95V242000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Due to a thin case casting, an external transmission leak can occur.

Risk

This condition can cause transmission oil to sprayonto the exhaust system and result in a possible vehicle fire.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the transmission case assembly for the involved case casting. If the assembly is involved, the transmission will be replaced.

Recall number 95V026000 · Recall details

Odi opened this pe on november 13, 1995 based on an owner complaint concerning a september 1995 accident involving a 1995 1/2 ton gm pickup truck.the vehicle owner alleged the bolt used to join the 2-piece steering shaft was missing.the shafts then separated and steering control was lost. During the course of this investigation, odi has gathered information from staff at the following: auto collision insurance companies, third-party products liability industry, independent repair shops, involved vehicle operators, general motors corporation. According to gm, the steering column and shafts were changed for the 1995 c/k models at the start of the 1995 model year.the change was made to incorporate driver air bag systems for the c/k10/20 with gvwr of less than 8500 lbs.however the change was made for all c/ks. For the 1995 model year, the steering column shaft was connected to the upper intermediate shaft with a bolt through the column shaft and the universal joint coupling.no nut was required.this connection was made at the steering column assembly facility and the steering column is shipped to the vehicle assembly plant.this joint is located inside the vehicle cab.the upper intermediate shaft was connected to the lower intermediate shaft assembly is also connected to the steering gear at the vehicle assembly plant. The configuration of the upper intermediate shaft was changed at the start of the 1996 model year, with a small number of 1996 steering columns pulled ahead in the 1995 models assembled at the oshawa and ft. Wayne assembly plants.the universal joint of the upper intermediate shaft was replaced with a pot joint.this change was made to utilize a joint manufactured internally instead of externally supplied universal joint.the pot joint style connection to the steering column shaft was made with a through bolt and nut.this change was effective for 1995 vehicles assembled at ft. Wayne and oshawa in october 1995 and for all 1996 vehicles. Odi's analysis found that, of the 24 field reports, 14 involve vehicles produced at the ft. Wayne assembly plant.all 7 of the accidents involve trucks built there, as well.however, because the ft. Wayne assembly plant produces approximately the same number of vehicles as the other subject vehicle assembly plants, this finding can not be explained on the basis of vehicle population and exposure.odi, with the information currently available, is unable to explain this phenomenon.odi does have information indicating that the problem occurs infrequently and very early in the life of the vehicle.for the 24 field reports, including those reporting accidents, a failure occurred, on average, 129 days and 3900 miles after the truck was built.based on information from all sources, current through november 1995, odi has found that one incident has occurred involving a subject vehicle built since july 8, 1995, - a period of 257 days.the data reviewed indicates accidents, allegedly due to the subject failure, occur even earlier in accidents, allegedly due to the subject failure, occur even earlier in the life of a subject truck, at an average of approximately 103 days. Finally, based on the 115 warranty and filed reports combined, the incident rate is 12/100,000 vehicles.of the 115 reports, 69 involve vehicles built at the janesville and ft. Wayne assembly plants (35 and 34 respectively).the janesville failure rate is 15/100,000 and the ft. Wayne rate is slightly lower at 14/100,000. A safety-related defect has not been indentified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear warranted.accordingly, this investigation is closed.the closing of t

PE95052