2002 Saturn Vue problems

What is wrong

General Motors LLC (GM) is recalling certain model year 2002-2004 Saturn Vue vehicles manufactured September 11, 2001, to April 6, 2004. In the affected vehicles, it may be possible for the key to be removed from the ignition when the ignition is not in the "Off" position.

Risk

If the key can be removed from the ignition when the ignition is not in the "off" position, the vehicle could roll away: (a) for an automatic transmission, if the transmission is not in the "Park" position; or (b) for a manual transmission, if the parking brake is not engaged and the transmission is not in the "Reverse" position. This potential for rollaway increases the risk for a crash and occupant or pedestrian injuries.

Remedy

GM will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the vehicle to see if the key can be pulled out when the ignition is off. If it can, dealers will replace the ignition cylinder and keys, free of charge. The recall began in October 2014. Owners may contact Saturn customer service at 1‑800‑553‑6000. GM's number for this recall is 14506. Note: Until a vehicle has been remedied, owners and operators are advised that when exiting, to be sure that the vehicle is in "Park," or in the case of a manual transmission, that the vehicle is in the "Reverse" position and the parking brake is engaged.

Recall number 14V490000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: certain sport utility vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of fmvss no. 210, "seat belt assembly anchorages." some vehicles were produced with rear outer seat belt shoulder guide anchor bolts that were incorrectly installed.

Risk

If these bolts were incorrectly installed, they would not withstand the load requirements of the standard. If an anchorage failed in a crash, the occupant would not be properly restrained and could have an increased risk of injury.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the rear shoulder guide anchor bolts. Owner notification began december 19, 2001. 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 saturn at 1‑800‑553‑6000.

Recall number 01V386000 · Recall details

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

The office of defects investigation (odi) opened this preliminary evaluation to investigate allegations of rear suspension failure in the subject vehicles during certain severe driving maneuvers.the investigation was prompted by the federal safety agency-conducted ncap dynamic rollover test incidents involving my 2004 saturn vue vehicles and one consumer complaint that alleged when recovering from a road edge departure, the left-rear wheel of a my 2003 saturn vue ?bent underneath the vehicle,? Resulting in a rollover crash.odi analysis indicates that rear suspension failure during the ncap tests was the result of wheel rim-pavement contact transmitting significant compressive forces to the toe control link, thus causing it to buckle.this failure occurred at low speed during a severe test used to assess roll stability.the forces generated during this type of wheel-rim pavement contact are more than six times the greatest forces measured during gm?s most severe vehicle development and validation testing.odi inspection and analysis of consumer complaint vehicles showed that damage to the toe control link appeared to be the result of vehicle crashes and did not precipitate the crashes.to date, odi is aware of no vehicle crashes or rollover incidents related to the alleged defect.additionally, the manufacturer has notified the agency that it is conducting a voluntary customer satisfaction service campaign to strengthen the rear suspension of the subject vehicles.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 a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency will take further action if warranted by the circumstances.see summary report attached for further detail.

PE04052