2000 Saturn LS problems

What is wrong

On certain sedans and wagons, the plastic housing in the rear tail lamp assembly can become distorted if the brake lamps remain on for an extended time.

Risk

This can cause (1) an intermittently inoperative brake/tail lamp bulb or (2) a short circuit that opens a fuse causing inoperative brake lamps (including the center high-mounted stop lamp) or tail lamps. A following driver may not know when the brakes have been applied, and a rear-end crash could occur without prior warning.

Remedy

Dealers will install two new tail lamp reinforcing socket adapters and sockets free of charge. The recall began on october 17, 2005. Owners may contact saturn at 1‑800‑972‑8876.

Recall number 05V245000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain passenger vehicles equipped with 2.2l l4 (l61) engines, a failure of the ignition control module may cause deterioration in idle quality, reduction in overall engine power, and the vehicle may be hard to start. Continued operation of the vehicle after such an ignition module failure will result in the "service engine soon" light flashing, and may lead to secondary failures of the catalytic converter, oxygen sensor, and exhaust resonator.

Risk

Failure of the resonator will cause increased exhaust noise. Prolonged operation of the vehicle following a resonator failure may lead to a fire.

Remedy

Dealers will (1) replace the ignition control module, (2) replace the ignition control module and spark plugs, or (3) replace the ignition control module, spark plugs, and update the powertrain control module calibration. Owner notification began on august 4, 2003. Owners should contact saturn at 1‑800‑553‑6000, prompt 3.

Recall number 03V231000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger vehicles, light duty trucks, sport utility vehicles, and mini vans equipped with trw seat belt buckle assemblies. The buckle base of these seat belt assemblies were not properly heat treated and therefore do not pass the load bearing requirement of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 209, "seat belt assemblies."

Risk

In the event of a vehicle crash, the occupant may not be properly restrained.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the vehicle's safety belt buckle assembly date codes and, if necessary, will replace any safety belt buckle assembly.

Recall number 00V228003 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. Fuel tank assemblies in these vehicles have an over pressure relief (opr) valve that can become stuck open in a frontal collision. If the vehicle rolls over, fuel spillage could occur.

Risk

If an ignition source is present, a fire could result.

Remedy

Dealers will permanently seal the outlet port of the opr valve.

Recall number 99V345000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. These vehicles do not comply with requirements of fmvss no. 301, "fuel system integrity." these vehicles may have been produced with an inoperative valve within the fuel tank assembly.

Risk

If a vehicle with an inoperative valve were involved in a rollover, fuel spillage could occur.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the vehicles to ensure that the fuel tank assembly valve is operating as intended. They will replace the fuel tank assembly if necessary.

Recall number 99V197000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger vehicles. These vehicles do not comply with requirements of fmvss no. 108, "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment." because of a problem in the hazard warning switch assembly, the turn signal lamps may not work or may work intermittently when the driver uses the turn signal lever or hazard warning switch. If the vehicle turn signal indicators are not flashing, then the turn signal lamps may not be flashing.

Risk

Other drivers may not be alerted that the vehicle is turning and a crash could occur.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the hazard warning switch assembly.

Recall number 99V199000 · Recall details

On may 22, 2008, theoffice of defects investigation (odi) was petitioned by the north carolina consumers council (nccc) to broaden the scope of safety recall 07v‑519, which was conducted by general motors corporation (gm) for model year (my) 2001 saturn l-series vehicles equipped with the l61 2.2l engine and built during a 4-month period from november 2000 through february 2001 (dp08-002). On october 16, 2008, odi granted dp08-002 and opened pe08-061 to investigate timing chain failures resulting in engine stall while driving (swd) in the saturn l-series vehicles equipped with l61 engines and that used the same design timing chain and timing chain lubrication system as the recalled vehicles.a redesigned timing chain and lubrication system were implemented late in my 2002 production (may 1, 2002).hence, the subject vehicles for this investigation are all my 2000 through 2002 saturn l-series vehicles equipped with 2.2l l61 engines and built prior to may 2002 that were not included in recall 07v‑519. In this investigation, odi analyzed updated complaint and warranty claims data for timing chain failures resulting in incidents of engine stall while driving, which comprise slightly over half of all timing chain failures occurring in the subject vehicle population.odi's analysis of complaint and warranty data shows that vehicles produced with the subject timing chain and lubrication system experienced elevated failure rates when compared with the my 2002 through 2003 vehicles using the revised components.however, the analysis also showed that the my 2001 saturn l-series vehicles recalled in 07v‑518 experienced a significantly higher rate of timing chain failures than the subject vehicles.the complaint rate for timing chain failures resulting in swd was approximately 5 times higher for the recalled vehicles,19.2 incidents per thousand vehicles (iptv), than for the subject vehicles, 3.7 iptv.the warranty claims rate for chain failures resulting in swd was over 3 times higher for the recalled vehicles, 2.4 percent, than for the subject vehicles, 0.7 percent.the complaint and warranty rates for the subject vehicles were similar to rates recorded in other recently closed investigations for conditions that could result in swd with no engine re-start, ea07-015 and ea07-018.analysis of all complaints, field reports and warranty claims found no allegations of crashes or injuries associated with the alleged defect in the subject vehicles after approximately 7 to 9 years in service. Odi's analysis of the stalling incidents that have resulted from timing chain failures in the subject vehicles found that they can occur at any speed and almost always result in a no restart condition.these are generally considered to be factors that increase the severity of stalling incidents.however, analysis of swd failure rates in the subject vehicles show that they have occurred at much lower rates than were observed in the recalled population.in addition, the swd complaint and warranty rates for the subject vehicles are similar to rates observed in prior investigations involving similar categories of engine stall consequences that were closed with no action.further investigation of this matter would not be an efficient allocation of agency resources.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 continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action if warranted.

PE08061

On june 6, 2006, odi opened an investigation of timing chain failure resulting in engine stall while driving with no restart in approximately 20,514 model year (my) 2001 saturn l-series vehicles equipped with 2.2l engines (l61) built from november 2000 through february 2001 (ea06-009).the vehicles built during those months exhibited higher failure rates than similarly equipped vehicles built before and after.gm introduced a new timing chain design in production in may 2002.odi closed its investigation after gm initiated a safety recall on november 7, 2007 (recall 07v‑519). On may 22, 2008, the north carolina consumers council (nccc) submitted a defect petition to odi requesting the expansion of recall 07v‑519 to include all my 1999 through 2003 saturn l-series vehicles with 2.2l engines using the same timing chain design as the recalled population.the petition states that the nccc continues to receive complaints from consumers that have had a timing chain fail in vehicles built outside the production range covered by the recall.the petition also notes that odi has continued to receive complaints.since the closing of ea06-009 odi has received 80 new complaints from consumers who had a timing chain fail in a my 2000 through 2002 saturn l-series with the 2.2l engine that were not covered by recall 07v‑519 and were built prior to the timing belt change in may 2002.the complaints describe the same failure mode as the recalled population where the timing chain can break suddenly and without warning, resulting in engine damage and loss of motive power.the defect petition has been granted. A preliminary evaluation (pe08-061) has been opened.

DP08002

On december 12, 2005, odi received a defect petition (dp05-008) requesting the investigation of timing chain failures that could cause stalling in saturn vehicles equipped with the 2.2l (l61) engine. Odi opened pe06-006 on january 24, 2006, with 24 vehicle owner complaints that alleged a broken timing chain caused the vehicle to stop operating.on april 12, 2006, odi received information from general motors (gm) concerning timing chain failures in approximately 412,000 model year (my) 2000 through 2003 saturn l-series and ion vehicles with 2.2l engines. Gm's response included 1,020 owner complaints and field reports concerning timing chain failure, including 228 that alleged the failure caused the vehicle to stall while driving.gm also provided warranty claim data that showed 1,902 subject vehicles receiving timing chain repairs, including 261 which indicated that a stall while driving resulted from the failure.the gm complaints, field reports and warranty claims that did not contain sufficient information to determine that a stall while driving occurred were provided in the category other.gm stated that the majority of these incidents probably occurred while the vehicles were parked since the timing chain is more likely to break during high chain load situations, such as engine startup.gm's data showed elevated failure rates in approximately 20,500 my 2001 l-series vehicles produced during a four month period from november 2000 through february 2001.over one-third of gm's total complaints and field reports (34.3%) and warranty claims (38.2%) involved l-series vehicles built during the 4-month period, which are only about 5% of subject vehicle production.the timing chain failure rate in the vehicles built during this range is over 10 times greater than the remaining subject vehicle population. For the my 2001 l-series vehicles built during the 4-month period, the 36-month failure rate for repairs involving stall while driving is slightly under one percent.however, if the incidents coded as other are added, the 36-month failure rate rises to nearly five percent for those vehicles.odi and gm are continuing to assess the number of complaints and warranty claims coded by gm as other that involve incidents of stall while driving.gm's statistical modeling of the failure data initially concluded that the failure rates were declining with age and mileage for any set of warranty data analyzed (e.g., stall while driving, other or combined).however, subsequent analysis showed that the failure rates are increasing. Based on the high complaint and warranty rates for timing chain failure in the 4-month production period for the my 2001 l-series vehicles, this investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis to further assess the frequency of stall incidents due to timing chain failures in those vehicles (ea06-009).

PE06006

Analysis undertaken in response to the petition identified 26 complaints alleging timing chain failures in my 2000-2003 saturn l-series vehicle equipped with the 2.2l l4 engine.most complaints of timing chain failure reportedly resulted in a sudden loss of engine power and stalling.odi also noted that certain my 2002-2003 saturn vue and my 2003 saturn ion model vehicles with the 2.2l engine vehiclescovered by a technical service bulletin (03-06-01-017) that addressed timing chain design and service procedure changes, exhibited no complaints of timing chain failure.odi will grant the petition and open a preliminary evaluation to assess the frequency, trend, scope and safety consequences associated with the alleged defect in the subject vehicles.refer to pe06-006.

DP05008

General motors has decided that a safety related defect exists on certain model saturn sedans and wagons.the plastic housing in the rear tail lamp assembly can become distorted if the brake lamps remain on for an extended time.this can cause (1) an intermittently inoperative brake/tail lamp bulb or (2) a short circuit that opens a fuse causing inoperative brake or tail lamps (including the center high-mounted stop lamp).gm will conduct a safety recall on an expanded scope of saturn vehicles to install a reinforcing socket adapter (and corresponding nw socket) to the back of the existing lamp assembly.general motors will recall 291,652 my 2000-2002 saturn ls sedans and my 2000-2004 saturn lw wagons.the recall is identified by the federal safety agency number 05v‑245.

PE05010

On january 25, 2005, a safety defect petition was received by the office of defects investigation (odi), requesting an investigation of inoperative tail lamps on my 2000-2002 saturn l-series vehicles.the petitioner alleges a defect in the design and assembly of the tail lamp assembly circuit board and light socket contact.the petitioner identified 47 vehicle owner questionnaire's (voq's) associated with the alleged defect, and odi concurs that 40 of those voq's satisfy the scope of this investigation.odi has found an additional 10 voq's related to the allegation.odi has granted the petition and opened a preliminary evaluation (pe05-010).

DP05001

Allege that the fuel tank over-pressure relief (opr) valve may leak fuel in excess of fmvss 301 allowances in a crash

PE99064