Tl* the contact owns a 2002 gmc sierra. While driving 45 MPH, the brake pedal was depressed, but the vehicle failed to stop. The contact veered into a ditch to avoid a collision. The vehicle was towed to an independent mechanic who diagnosed that the brake lines were corroded and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 100,000.
The worst 2002 GMC Sierra 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.
- Brakes145
- Engine25
- Transmission18
- Body17
- Steering12
- Suspension12
- Tires10
- Electrical6
- Visibility6
- Acceleration4
- Seat belts4
- Airbags3
- Fuel system3
- Locks3
- Seats3
- Wheels3
- Lights2
Specific symptoms reported on the 2002 GMC Sierra
Brake failure 36ABS 27Stalling 10Grinding brakes 7Knocking 5
Recalls 4
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
Structure: body: tailgate: hinge and attachments
- 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: delivery
- 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 GMC Sierra
Defect investigations
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
Crank position sensor failure - stall
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 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
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
Tailgate cable breakage
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 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
Throttle sticking closed
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 GMC Sierra 462
Bulletins tell dealers how to fix known problems. A warranty extension means the manufacturer pays for that repair for longer.
- This technical bulletin provides a procedure to lube the rear leaf springs on vehicles with the condition...
- This Preliminary Information communication provides information to the technician about vehicles that may...
- This Preliminary Information communication advises the technician that the Hydro-Boost is not serviceable...
- This Preliminary Information communication provides information to the technician about vehicles that may...
- This informational bulletin provides information on Part Restriction and Ordering Process Information for...
- This informational bulletin provides dealership personnel with information on flexible fuel vehicles...
- This informational bulletin provides information on a GM of Canada OnStar® cellular communication upgrade.
- This Preliminary Information communication provides information to the technician about vehicle that may...
- This informational bulletin provides information on communication with OnStar® module after Canadian...
- This Preliminary Information communication provides information to the technician about vehicles that are...
2002 GMC Sierra fuel economy
Official EPA estimates in miles per gallon (MPGe for electric). Ranges cover trims that share the same engine.
| Engine | Drive | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.3L 6‑cyl | RWD | 14-15 | 18-19 | 16 |
| 4.8L 8‑cyl | RWD | 14 | 18-19 | 15-16 |
| 5.3L 8‑cyl | RWD | 13 | 17 | 15 |
| 4.3L 6‑cyl | 4WD | 13 | 16-17 | 14-15 |
| 5.3L 8‑cyl | 4WD | 12-13 | 16 | 14 |
| 4.8L 8‑cyl | 4WD | 12-13 | 16 | 14 |
| 6.0L 8‑cyl | 4WD | 11 | 14 | 12 |
What 2002 GMC Sierra owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
Tl* the contact owns a 2002 gmc sierria. The contact received notification of the federal safety agency campaign number: 15v201000 (engine and engine cooling); however, the part needed to perform the repair was unavailable. The contact stated that the manufacturer exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was notified of the issue. The contact had not experienced a failure. Vin tool confirms parts not available.
On two separate occasions over the past few years, this truck has had frame damage caused by rust / corrosion to the extent that it either would not pass inspection or it compromised the operation of the vehicle. More specifically, the frame cross-members have had holes rotted through them and the shock mounts have rotted from the frame. Presently, the two cross-members that go over the fuel tank have large rust holes over the fuel tank. Also, the rear crossmember has rotted areas on the top left side.
On the morning of friday august 21, 2015, my wife went to move my 2002 gmc sierra. She pulled out of our driveway and proceeded up-hill about 300-400 feet, and then turned around in a neighbor's driveway, when coming back down the hill she tried to brake to stop in front of our house, but the brakes totally failed without any warning. She then went up a slight hill on the other side of our house, but still couldn't stop, and didn't think to put the truck in park as she slowed. She rolled backwards down the hill and was able to steer into a neighbor's yard where the truck came to rest on a berm. At the time she said there were cars parked on both sides of the street and had a car been coming the opposite direction she would have crashed into it. Had there been pedestrians they could have been hit as well. When I came home that afternoon, I added brake fluid to the reservoir, and then pushed on the brake pedal. I saw a huge stream of fluid pour from below the driver's side door. I looked under the truck and found the brake lines surprisingly corroded. If sudden, immediate loss of brakes without any warning is not cause for a recall I do not know what is.
Left house and ABS brake light came on, shut the truck off and ABS brake pump under truck would not stop running even with key off. So had to take fuse out. At that time I drove back home, but if you push down on brake it will go to the floor. June 2014 had truck in shop to have all brake lines replaced and fixed at auffenberg in carbondale illinois due to brakes all of a sudden going out and all lines rusted and now 2,500 miles later this happens also the emgerency brake is not working either. So was there more damage done from all this that should be on recall and us not paying the bill for these defects.
The passenger side rear exhaust manifold bolt broke off. This is a manufacturer defect. This is a very common problem with these trucks.
Applied brakes to stop and brake peddle went to floor do to rotted brake line.
Tl* the contact owns a 2002 gmc sierra. While driving 60 MPH, the wheels went in a different direction than the steering wheel. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the issue, but there was no response. The approximate failure mileage was 216,000. Updated 7/14/15*cn the consumer was informed the parts were no longer available to fix the problem. Updated 07/30/15
Made a left hand turn at a traffic light after it turned green. I was the only vehicle at the time making the turn, nobody in front or behind me. Drove about 1/10th a mile to the next light, when it turned yellow, I immediately hit the brakes to stop. At first the brakes worked then my foot went to the floor, I had no brakes. I came to a stop in the middle of the intersection. I then backed up, to get behind the light. As I stated at the beginning, there was nobody in front or behind me at the other light making the turn with me, so when I was approaching the next light, I had nobody in front of me, behind me or to my right. The roadway was four lanes, two in each direction, with a center medium. I was driving in the left lane. So I am looking to drive another day and someone else too. The cause of the problem is that the brake line that goes from the front to the rear, running along side the frame, on the driver side, rusted out and broke. I contacted gm about this, and after talking and complaining about what happened, they said there was nothing they could do for me. My problem is that, this is a safety issue, and they take no responsibility for it. I should have been at least notified in some way as an owner that my life may be in danger if I do not have my brake lines checked and replaced if needed. They no about the problem and are not contacting owners of my vehicle and others with the same problem. I am looking to have not been hurt or killed or hurting and killing someone else. I did not know of the problem until after it happened. I am now faced with doing the work myself, which is a major undertaking, or having the local gmc dealership doing it for 1500+, which is where it is right now, waiting for my call. Thank you.
Started vehicle and began driving on street. Brake pedal went to the floor and brakes were not normal. Stopped vehicle and saw large puddle of brake fluid under vehicle. Had vehicle towed to repair shop and was told brake line rusted and all brake lines were corroded and that gm has had problems with this in many vehicles. Fortunate that failure had not occurred at highway speeds. Repair estimate was $3200 for replacement of brake lines and associated parts.
Compare the 2002 GMC Sierra
Other model years
1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017
Questions about the 2002 GMC Sierra
Is the 2002 GMC Sierra reliable?
Owners have filed 249 complaints about the 2002 GMC Sierra, 4.2 times a typical Sierra model year. It is one of the years we flag to avoid.
What is the 2002 GMC Sierra year score?
The 2002 GMC Sierra scores 21 out of 100 (poor). The score compares it with the other model years of the GMC Sierra: 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 GMC Sierra?
Brakes, with 145 complaints, typically around 44,600 miles. Next is engine (25).
How many recalls does the 2002 GMC Sierra have?
4 recalls, covering service brakes, hydraulic, parking brake and structure.
What gas mileage does the 2002 GMC Sierra get?
Official estimates for the 2002 GMC Sierra range from 12 to 16 mpg combined. The most efficient version (4.3L 6-cyl, RWD) gets 14-15 city and 18-19 highway.
VIN decoder
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Buying a used 2002 GMC Sierra?
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history