2000 gmc yukon stalls when pulling out into traffic from a stationary position. This has happened numerous times in past 17 years. Gm dealer nor independent mechanic could repair nor what is causing problem.
The worst 2000 GMC Yukon 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.
- Brakes59
- Tires23
- Visibility18
- Airbags14
- Fuel system12
- Seats11
- Seat belts9
- Electrical8
- Steering8
- Transmission8
- Acceleration6
- Suspension4
- Engine3
- Body2
- Lights1
- Wheels1
Specific symptoms reported on the 2000 GMC Yukon
ABS 16Brake failure 16Tire blowout 11Airbag light 8Fuel pump 7Stalling 7Seat belt 5
Recalls 6
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
Structure
- What is wrong
- Certain pickup truck, van, and mini van conversions equipped with southern comfort built running boards that contain certain courtesy lights manufactured by american technology components, inc. These units contain a courtesy light or lights that might overheat when the wire harness is exposed to excessive moisture and road salt.
- Risk
- This overheating condition can cause the running board to melt or cause a fire.
- Remedy
- Dealers will replace the wiring harness on these running boards. Owner notification began march 7, 2003. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact southern comfort at 1‑800‑745‑6096.
Recall number 03V094000 · Recall details
Seats: front assembly: head restraint
- What is wrong
- On certain sport utility vehicles equipped with rearward folding head restraints on the second row seats, two potential pinch points exist on each of the folding head restraints when the restraints are folded rearward as the seatback is folded down.
- Risk
- If a person were to insert their finger(s) into the pinch point when the head restraint folds, it could trap and pinch the finger(s) causing injury.
- Remedy
- Dealers will install protective covers over the pinch points. Owner notification began november 8, 2002. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact chevrolet at 1‑800‑222‑1020, gmc at 1‑800‑462‑8782, or cadillac at 1‑800‑458‑8006.
Recall number 02V253000 · Recall details
Air bags: frontal: sensor/control module-inactive
- What is wrong
- On certain pickup and utility trucks, some of these vehicles have an air bag sensing diagnostic module (sdm) which contains an anomaly that could result in the driver and passenger's air bag failing to deploy during certain frontal crashes.
- Risk
- In a vehicle crash, front seat occupants may receive more severe injuries.
- Remedy
- Dealers will recalibrate the sdm on the affected vehicles. Owner notification began august 28, 2002. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact chevrolet at 1‑800‑222‑1020 or gmc at 1‑800‑462‑8782.
Recall number 02V178000 · Recall details
Service brakes, hydraulic: foundation components: hoses, lines/piping, and fittings
- What is wrong
- Vehicle description: light duty pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles. Some of these vehicles have a clearance condition between the front right-hand brake pipe and the body cross sill that could decrease to the point of allowing contact during the life of the vehicle. If contact occurs and the brake pipe becomes damaged, in half of the brake system there can be a loss of brake fluid and pressure. The brake warning lamp will be activated when the brake fluid level reaches the indicator limit.
- Risk
- During braking, the pedal will be lower than normal and stopping distances will be longer. If this occurs when stopping distance is limited, a crash could occur.
- Remedy
- Dealers will inspect the front right-hand brake pipe for wear. If there are signs of wear, this section of the brake pipe will be replaced with a new designed brake pipe section. If there are not signs of wear on the brake pipe, the dealer will install a spacer clip to ensure sufficient clearance between the brake pipe and the body cross sill.
Recall number 00V345000 · Recall details
Structure: body
- What is wrong
- Vehicle description: light duty pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles. Some of these vehicles have loose or missing rear wheelhouse plugs. Under certain vehicle operating conditions, exhaust gases can flow forward and accumulate in the rear wheelhouse.
- Risk
- These gases could flow into the passenger compartment if the plug is missing or loose and could cause possible illness, unconsciousness, or death.
- Remedy
- Dealers will inspect the vehicle for loose or missing wheelhouse plugs and install new plugs if necessary.
Recall number 00V343000 · Recall details
See all 6 recalls for the 2000 GMC Yukon
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
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
Alleged failure of 2nd row seatbelt alr
The automatic locking retractor (alr) is a feature incorporated in the subject vehicle for locking the webbing to properly secure a child safety seat into a vehicle.this pe was opened based on a gm technical service bulletin stating that with certain child safety seats the webbing may not remain locked.there are no complaints in the odi database and only two complaints to gm.gm's instructions state for the final step in using the webbing lock feature to push and pull the child restraint to be sure it is secure. If the alr is not locked, the user would be fully aware of this condition prior to completing proper installation of the child safety seat in this vehicle.this investigation did not uncover any complaints of the alr inadvertently unlocking while the vehicle is in motion.the emergency locking retractor (elr) feature remains available to lock the retractor in a crash.a safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.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 reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.see attached summary for additional information.
PE02067
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 2000 GMC Yukon 457
Bulletins tell dealers how to fix known problems. A warranty extension means the manufacturer pays for that repair for longer.
- This Preliminary Information communicates to the dealer the process for downloading or updating operating...
- This Preliminary Information communication provides information to the technician about vehicles that the...
- Vehicle Wide Programming (VWP) is a new process to update software on GM Vehicles
- GM is receiving damaged (cracked or broken) transmission cores returned to the reman facilities
- This service bulletin advises of a new fuel injection cleaner kit used for decarbonizing the intake valves...
- This bulletin provides information for use on a Product Assistance Claim (PAC), which is formerly known as...
- This service bulletin provides information for dealers/technicians on Service Programming System (SPS)...
- This technical bulletin advises of a new fuel injection cleaner kit used for decarbonizing the intake...
- This service bulletin provides service information to technicians on guidelines to replace Oil Cooler, Oil...
- This PI bulletin advises the technician on the proper way to install the pistons in an engine.
2000 GMC Yukon 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.8L 8‑cyl | RWD | 13 | 17-18 | 14-15 |
| 5.7L 8‑cyl | RWD | 12 | 16-17 | 14 |
| 4.8L 8‑cyl | 4WD | 13 | 16 | 14 |
| 5.3L 8‑cyl | 4WD | 12-13 | 15-16 | 13-14 |
| 5.7L 8‑cyl | 4WD | 11 | 15 | 13 |
What 2000 GMC Yukon owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
The second row seating in my SUV is supposed to have the option to lay down or sit up like normal. When I tried to lift the seat of the large section to lay the seat flat.
The second row seating in my SUV is supposed to have the option to lay down or sit up like normal. When I tried to lift the seat of the large section to lay the seat flat, the cable broke as if it had been ready to snap for quite some time. The smaller side hasn't snapped yet but I am sure it is only a matter of time.
Tl* the contact owns a 2000 gmc yukon. The contact experienced failures related to the federal safety agency campaign number: 05v379000 (service brakes, hydraulic). The contact stated that while driving 5-10 MPH while inititating a turn, the brakes failed to respond. The vehicle was not taken to a dealer. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was 149,000.
Coming to a stop and brake pedal went to floor....my vehicle then rolled into intersection causing an accident when the other vehicle collided with the front of my vehicle. Further investigation found brake line burst. To remedy situation I replaced all brake lines.
Vehicle was shipped with heads that would crack over time. The car has been leaking coolant for over a year and caused major engine failure. This is happening to many hundreds of thousand vehicles and should be a recall/compensation from gm.
Brought yukon in to koons gmc in manassas, virginia in 2012 for two recalls which I was told were both done along with getting an estimate for $3300 for largely an intake manifold. I have called gm corp and been told many times over that past two years as more cars have been added to recall lists that there were no remaining recalls for my vehicle; now gm corporate says the wheel sensor recall (necessary to avoid low speed crashes) was actually never performed and gm corporate cannot explain why I have been told by both dealerships in the dc area and gm corporate over the past two years (exceeding 10 total calls) since that there were no remaining recalls left to perform on this yukon. Presumably the headrest recall I brought it into koons in manassas, va as a second afterthought to the wheel sensor recall was the only thing they ended up doing other than giving me an estimate for over $3300 for work that has never needed to be done. My unanswered question to gm corporate was "I's this how your going to handle the ignition recalls?" additionally, gm claims to be unable to answer the question of whether my ignition switch is the same in design as any of those that have been recalled. Do americans citizens not have the right to at least that much "proprietary"-protected information from gm? Gm corporate's specialist claimed to object to my mentioning that I, too, might record the call. Koons also never noticed that the previous owner had broken out the ABS light because prior to the recall (which should have later tipped me off that they did not actually clean the wheel sensor and check the ABS light since it was not on the $3300 estimate of necessary repairs), because nobody really knew then why the ABS light would stay on. I believe this was a retaliatory act. I mentioned to koons snd gm corporate before service that I was disabled.
I was driving around town when the brakes felt a little soft. The next morning there was a puddle of brake fluid under the vehicle. I put in a half a bottle of brake fluid into the reservoir. I drove to the house and parked it. Several minutes after parking there was the beginning of a puddle of brake fluid. I made several other stops and at each stop brake fluid was beginning to leak when vehicle was turned off. Took vehicle to shop and was told that the brake lines all needed to be replaced.
Tl* the contact owns a 2000 gmc yukon. The contact stated that while driving approximately 5 MPH, the brakes failed to engage when depressed and the brake pedal abnormally traveled to the floor board. The contact mentioned that the ABS system activated independently . The vehicle was taken to a dealer where it was discovered that the brake line was corroded. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The approximate failure and current mileage was 157,500. Updated 02/24/14*lj the consumer stated the recalls were never done. The recalls were falsely reported as being complete. The front bearing assemblies had to be replaced, at the consumers expense. Updated 02/25/14
Driving on south on route 95 through connecticut at approximately 65 MPH on 17aug12. Had to stop suddenly due to traffic incident ahead. Applied brakes but line burst and peddle went to floor. Car would not stop but fortunately was able to move into breakdown lane to allow longer stopping distance. Narrowly avoided rear ending car in front of me at high speed. Brought vehicle to dealer for repair. They found the left rear brake line had ruptured due to rust. Dealer replaced 40" of brake line. A similar event occurred during may of 2013 on route 3 in massachusetts. A collision was narrowly avoided.
Compare the 2000 GMC Yukon
Yukon vs Chevrolet TahoeYukon vs Ford ExpeditionYukon vs Chevrolet SuburbanYukon vs Toyota SequoiaYukon vs Nissan Armada
Other model years
199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027
Questions about the 2000 GMC Yukon
Is the 2000 GMC Yukon reliable?
Owners have filed 166 complaints about the 2000 GMC Yukon, close to a typical Yukon model year.
What is the most common problem with the 2000 GMC Yukon?
Brakes, with 59 complaints, typically around 83,383 miles. Next is tires (23).
How many recalls does the 2000 GMC Yukon have?
6 recalls, covering service brakes, hydraulic, structure and seats.
Was there a recall on the 2000 GMC Yukon brakes?
Yes, 2 recalls: 05V379000, 00V345000. Check your VIN to see if your car still needs the free repair.
What year does the GMC Yukon have bad brakes?
The GMC Yukon model years with the most brakes complaints are 1999 (113 complaints), 2001 (92 complaints) and 2015 (90 complaints).
What gas mileage does the 2000 GMC Yukon get?
Official estimates for the 2000 GMC Yukon range from 13 to 15 mpg combined. The most efficient version (4.8L 8-cyl, RWD) gets 13 city and 17-18 highway.
VIN decoder
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Buying a used 2000 GMC Yukon?
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history