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.
2000 GMC Yukon brakes problems
59 complaints (36% of all complaints for this car). Typical mileage when it fails: 83,383. 9 crashes reported.
- owner complaints
- 59
- of this car's complaints
- 36%
- typical mileage
- 83,383
- crashes
- 9
- recalls
- 2
Which part fails
- Antilock/traction control/electronic limited slip22
- Conventional4
- Pedals and linkages2
- Foundation components: hoses, lines/piping, and fittings2
- Foundation components2
- Power assist: vacuum1
- Power assist1
- Foundation components: disc: rotor1
At what mileage
Complaints by mileage at the time of the problem.
0k-25k
25k-50k
50k-75k
75k-100k
100k-125k
125k-150k
150k-175k
175k-200k
200k+
GMC Yukon brakes problems in other years
Specific symptoms reported on the 2000 GMC Yukon 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
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
Related 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
What 2000 GMC Yukon owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
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.
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.
Tl* the contact owns a 2000 gmc yukon. The contact stated that while driving approximately 30-40 MPH, the brakes failed to engage when depressed. The brake pedal abnormally traveled to the floorboard and became stuck in position. The contact inspected the vehicle and discovered that the brake line was corroded, causing brake fluid to leak from the vehicle. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacture was not made aware of the failure. The failure and current mileage was 130,000.
I was just backing up to hitch a trailer when the brake pedal went to the floor, thankfuly it happened before I hooked the trailer as I would certainly have had an accident towing a trailer with no brakes! *tr I looked under the vehicle and saw it was leaking brake fluid toward the driver side rear door, brake line had burst.
Brake line from ABS module to rear brakes failed due to corrosion.
When slowing down at an intersection stop light, at the speed of under 10 MPH, the ABS brakes suddenly kicked in and pulsated, not allowing the truck to stop. This almost resulted in a rear end collision with a stopped vehicle in front of me. After pulling into a parking lot the same issue happened again, causing me to panic and stump on the brakes hard before running into the parking blocks in front of a business. After taking the vehicle to the mechanics they could not diagnose a problem. Even though there was no ABS warning light or error code, we elected to replace both ABS speed sensors as a precaution. The problem still existed. I decided to have both front and rear brakes including rotors replaced as a precaution. The problem still accures with every slower speed attemp to stop. I am very reluctant to drive the vehicle and when I due, I have to begin my braking well in advance and at a increased distance from where I would like to stop.
Questions about the 2000 GMC Yukon brakes
Does the 2000 GMC Yukon have brakes problems?
Owners have filed 59 complaints about the brakes of the 2000 GMC Yukon, 36% of all its complaints, more than any other problem.
At what mileage do 2000 GMC Yukon brakes problems start?
The typical (median) mileage in owner complaints is 83,383 miles.
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).
Other 2000 GMC Yukon problems
Tires 23Visibility 18Airbags 14Fuel system 12Seats 11Seat belts 9Electrical 8Steering 8Transmission 8Acceleration 6Suspension 4Engine 3Body 2Lights 1Wheels 1
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