IllustrationBROKEN K-MEMBER /477-03540. *TR
2000 Chevrolet Cavalier
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Cavalier years
Owner complaints for the 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier are substantially higher than the model-year median of 140.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Cavalier years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
220–25K
2125–50K
3050–75K
2375–100K
16100–150K
8150K+
120 reports with mileage · 195 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Electrical System. Review the 69 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 54 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 41 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
25 crash reports8 fire reports13 injury reports
Suspension complaints
21 reportsTHERE WERE NO WARNINGS OR EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE FAILURE OF MY VEHICLE. ON MAY 29, 2006 WHILE DRIVING ON A BUSY MAJOR ROAD THE AXLE AND BALL JOINT ON MY 2000 CHEVY CAVALIER BROKE CAUSING THE TIRE ON THE RIGHT FRONT PASSENGER SIDE TO BEND OUTWARD AND CAUSING BODY DAMAGE TO THE FENDER ABOVE THE TIRE. THIS INCIDENT ALMOST CAUSE…
Read full complaint
THERE WERE NO WARNINGS OR EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE FAILURE OF MY VEHICLE. ON MAY 29, 2006 WHILE DRIVING ON A BUSY MAJOR ROAD THE AXLE AND BALL JOINT ON MY 2000 CHEVY CAVALIER BROKE CAUSING THE TIRE ON THE RIGHT FRONT PASSENGER SIDE TO BEND OUTWARD AND CAUSING BODY DAMAGE TO THE FENDER ABOVE THE TIRE. THIS INCIDENT ALMOST CAUSED A MAJOR ACCIDENT IF I HAD NOT GAINED CONTROL OF THE CAR. I WAS LEFT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS BUSY ROAD UNTIL A TOW TRUCK ARRIVED. MY CAR IS CURRENTLY AT A REPAIR SHOP. *JB
BOUGHT 2000 CHEVY CAVALIER FROM BAY POINT TOWING IN CONCORD ON 4/8/06 AFTER ONE WEEK OF DRIVING VEHICLE THE FRONT STARTED TO MAKE A CLUNKING NOISE AND THE FRONT WHEEL JUST LOCKED UP MAKE IT HARD TO STEER. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO TWO DIFFERENT REPAIR SHOPS AND BOTH DECLINED WORKING ON THE VEHICLE DUE TO TOO MANY PARTS MISSING FROM …
Read full complaint
BOUGHT 2000 CHEVY CAVALIER FROM BAY POINT TOWING IN CONCORD ON 4/8/06 AFTER ONE WEEK OF DRIVING VEHICLE THE FRONT STARTED TO MAKE A CLUNKING NOISE AND THE FRONT WHEEL JUST LOCKED UP MAKE IT HARD TO STEER. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO TWO DIFFERENT REPAIR SHOPS AND BOTH DECLINED WORKING ON THE VEHICLE DUE TO TOO MANY PARTS MISSING FROM UNDERNEATH THE CAR IN THE FRONT SUSPENSION. ONE MECHANIC STATED THAT I WAS VERY LUCKY I DID NOT GET INTO AN ACCIDENT WHEN DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY. *JB
WHILE STEERING THE VEHICLE, A LOUD POPPING NOISE STARTED COMING FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THE DRIVER NOTICED THAT THE VEHICLE VIBRATED UNCONTROLLABLY. THE CONSUMER DROVE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. THE MECHANIC COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE CONSUMER INFORMED THE MECHANIC THAT THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED MORE THAN ONCE AN…
Read full complaint
WHILE STEERING THE VEHICLE, A LOUD POPPING NOISE STARTED COMING FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THE DRIVER NOTICED THAT THE VEHICLE VIBRATED UNCONTROLLABLY. THE CONSUMER DROVE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. THE MECHANIC COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE CONSUMER INFORMED THE MECHANIC THAT THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED MORE THAN ONCE AND HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED. *JB THE REAR DRIVERS SIDE WOULD DISPLAY A LOUD RUMBLE AT TIMES AND WOULD LESSEN AFTER DRIVING. THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE WOULD SHIMMY WHEN THE BRAKES WERE APPLIED. *SC *JB
THE VEHICLE ONLY HAD 2917 MILES ON IT WHEN THE STEERING RACK HAD TO BE REPLACED. *NM AT 6237 MILES THE DEALER HAD TO REPLACE A STRUT MOUNT AND A BEARING PLATE. THE ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE O2 SENSOR AND STARTER WAS REPLACED. THE INTERMEDIATE SHAFT WAS REPLACED TWICE AND THE HEADLAMP WAS REPLACED. *JB
WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH A FIRE STARTED ON THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. CONSUMER HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO DEALERSHIP, WHO DID NOT RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. *AK
BOUGHT 2000 CAVALIER 2/9/04. HAD 34,000 MILES. PROBLEM 1: CLUNKING NOISE FROM FRONT END WHEN TURNING. REPLACED RIGHT FRONT STRUT AND MOUNT. STILL HAD NOISE. REPLACED RIGHT FRONT STRUT AGAIN, MOUNTS ON BOTH SIDES, LEFT STRUT, RACK AND PINION, BALL JOINTS. STILL MAKES LOUD CLUNKING NOISE. 2 DAYS LATER RETURNED TO SHOP - 6…
Read full complaint
BOUGHT 2000 CAVALIER 2/9/04. HAD 34,000 MILES. PROBLEM 1: CLUNKING NOISE FROM FRONT END WHEN TURNING. REPLACED RIGHT FRONT STRUT AND MOUNT. STILL HAD NOISE. REPLACED RIGHT FRONT STRUT AGAIN, MOUNTS ON BOTH SIDES, LEFT STRUT, RACK AND PINION, BALL JOINTS. STILL MAKES LOUD CLUNKING NOISE. 2 DAYS LATER RETURNED TO SHOP - 6 WEEKS LATER AND CHEVY DEALERSHIP COULD NOT FIGURE IT OUT. STILL MAKES NOISE. PROBLEM 2: CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ON. REPLACED GAS CAP =LIGHT OFF 2 DAYS. LIGHT ON AGAIN=WIRING HARNESS=LIGHT OFF 2 DAYS. LIGHT IS ON AGAIN. I HAVE NEVER HAD THIS CAR IN WORKING CONDITION. EVERY ATTEMPT TO FIX IT HAS FAILED. I CAN NOT AFFORD TO KEEP BUYING PARTS AND LABOR AND IT NEVER BE FIXED. HALF OF THE TIME I HAVE OWNED IT HAS BEEN AT THE SHOP AND 100% OF THE TIME IT HAS BEEN BROKEN. *AK
WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH CHECK ENGINE LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD AND REMAINED ON. A LOUD NOISE WAS HEARD COMING FROM THE REAR. CONSUMER WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION, AND MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT WHEEL BEARING, CALIPER. AND BOTH FRONTAL ROTORS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. DEALER INFORMED THE DRIVER …
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH CHECK ENGINE LIGHT APPEARED ON THE DASHBOARD AND REMAINED ON. A LOUD NOISE WAS HEARD COMING FROM THE REAR. CONSUMER WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION, AND MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT WHEEL BEARING, CALIPER. AND BOTH FRONTAL ROTORS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. DEALER INFORMED THE DRIVER THAT THIS WAS THE TWELFTH SET OF WHEEL BEARINGS THAT HAD BEEN REPLACED THIS YEAR. *AK
WHEN THE CONSUMER TURNED THE STEERING WHEEL TO A 80 DEGREE ANGLE HEAR A LOUD KNOCKING NOISE COMING FROM THE STEERING WHEEL. DEALERSHIP WAS NOTIFIED, BUT DID NOT RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. *AK
CONSUMER COMPLAINED ABOUT A STEERING COLUMN PROBLEM. WHEN STEERING COLUMN TURNED IT MADE A NOISE, AND IT GOT LOUDER AND LOUDER. VEHICLE HAD BEEN IN REPAIR SHOP AT LEAST 5 TIMES. *AK THE NOISE COULD BE FELT IN THE FLOOR BOARD. THE LEFT FRONT COIL SPRING WAS MISPOSITIONED AND CAUSED NOISE AS WELL. THE ARM ASSEMBLY FRONT C…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER COMPLAINED ABOUT A STEERING COLUMN PROBLEM. WHEN STEERING COLUMN TURNED IT MADE A NOISE, AND IT GOT LOUDER AND LOUDER. VEHICLE HAD BEEN IN REPAIR SHOP AT LEAST 5 TIMES. *AK THE NOISE COULD BE FELT IN THE FLOOR BOARD. THE LEFT FRONT COIL SPRING WAS MISPOSITIONED AND CAUSED NOISE AS WELL. THE ARM ASSEMBLY FRONT CONTROL LOWER RIGHT AND THE STEERING SHAFT INTERMEDIATE WAS REPLACED. THE FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM WAS LOOSE AT THE CRADLE. *SC
Official recalls
204V036000 · Electrical System:ignition:switch
Jan 27, 2004
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES. IF THE ENGINE FAILS TO START AND THE DRIVER HOLDS THE KEY IN THE "START" POSITION FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD, HIGH CURRENT FLOWS THROUGH THE IGNITION SWITCH, AND SOMETIMES PRODUCES ENOUGH HEAT TO MELT INTERNAL SWITCH PARTS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE SWITCH IS DAMAGED, A FIRE COULD OCCUR IN THE STEERING COLUMN, EVEN WITH THE ENGINE OFF AND THE KEY REMOVED. THE FIRE COULD SPREAD TO THE INTERIOR OF THE CAR, WHICH COULD INJURE OCCUPANTS OR CAUSE DAMAGE TO ADJOINING STRUCTURES.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A RELAY KIT IN THESE VEHICLES TO PREVENT HIGH CURRENT FROM FLOWING THROUGH THE IGNITION SWITCH, AND CHECK THAT YOUR CAR WILL START WITH A PROPERLY CHARGED BATTERY AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE THE IGNITION SWITCH. OWNER NOTIFICATION WILL BEGIN ON MARCH 1, 2004. 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 1-800-630-2438, PONTIAC AT 1-800-620-7668, BUICK AT 1-866-608-8080, OR OLDSMOBILE AT 1-800-630-6537. CUSTOMERS CAN ALSO CHECK THEIR VEHICLE ONLINE BY GOING TO WWW.MYGMLINK.COM AND ENTERING THE VEHICLE'S IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.
00V201000 · Interior Lighting
Jul 20, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE BI-FUEL OPTION FAIL TO COMPLY WITH FMVSS NO. 101, "CONTROL LOCATION, IDENTIFICATION, AND ILLUMINATION." THE INSTRUMENT PANEL LIGHTS IN THESE VEHICLES ARE AT FULL ILLUMINATION LEVELS AND CANNOT BE ADJUSTED. THE STANDARD REQUIRES AT LEAST TWO LEVELS OF ILLUMINATION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO SEE OBJECTS OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE WHEN DRIVING AT NIGHT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FUEL TYPE INDICATOR SWITCH ASSEMBLY, WHICH INCLUDES THE INSTRUMENT PANEL ILLUMINATION CONTROL.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
3EA02028 · Erratic Fuel Gauge
Opened Sep 30, 2002 · Closed Dec 30, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline; Fuel System, Other:storage:fuel Gauge System
ODI OPENED EA 02-028 TO REVIEW COMPLAINTS OF CONSUMERS REPORTING THAT THEIR FUEL GAUGE WAS INCORRECTLY DISPLAYING THE AMOUNT OF FUEL IN THE GAS TANK.THE FUEL GAUGE RECEIVES AN ELECTRICAL SIGNAL FROM A FUEL TANK SENDING SENSOR CIRCUIT CARD.A FLOAT ARM IN THE TANK MOVES ELECTRICAL CONTACTS THAT RUB AGAINST THE CARD AS THE LEVEL OF FUEL RISES AND FALLS.DISRUPTION OF THE ELECTRICAL SIGNAL (SUCH AS CAUSED BY CORROSION OF THE CIRCUIT CARD) WILL CAUSE INCORRECT READINGS TO REGISTER ON THE FUEL GAUGE.GM REPORTED IN THEIR RESPONSE TO ODI DATED JANUARY 13, 2003 THAT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF ERRATIC FUEL GAUGE OPERATION IS EXCESS ELEMENTAL SULFUR IN FUEL.GM REPORTED THAT ABNORMAL LEVELS OF SULFUR SPORADICALLY OCCURRED IN CERTAIN PARTS OF CANADA AND THE U.S. RESULTING IN REPORTS OF FUEL GAUGE MALFUNCTION.GM MODIFIED THE SENDING SENSOR FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER OCTOBER 2000.IT MADE A SECOND SENSOR MODIFICATION FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER JANUARY 2003.GM ALSO ISSUED A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION CAMPAIGN (GM NUMBER 00101) IN DECEMBER 2000 FOR U.S. CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF MAINE AND ISSUED SEVERAL SERVICE BULLETINS INFORMING DEALERS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF SENSORS WITH IMPROVED CORROSION RESISTANCE.THE COMPLAINT TREND INDICATES THAT COMPLAINTS PEAKED IN LATE 2000 TO EARLY 2001.WARRANTY CLAIMS DECLINED SINCE PEAKING IN APRIL 2002.BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AND THE INDICATION OF A DECLINING TREND, FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Fuel System, Gasoline
ODI OPENED EA 02-028 TO REVIEW COMPLAINTS OF CONSUMERS REPORTING THAT THEIR FUEL GAUGE WAS INCORRECTLY DISPLAYING THE AMOUNT OF FUEL IN THE GAS TANK.THE FUEL GAUGE RECEIVES AN ELECTRICAL SIGNAL FROM A FUEL TANK SENDING SENSOR CIRCUIT CARD.A FLOAT ARM IN THE TANK MOVES ELECTRICAL CONTACTS THAT RUB AGAINST THE CARD AS THE LEVEL OF FUEL RISES AND FALLS.DISRUPTION OF THE ELECTRICAL SIGNAL (SUCH AS CAUSED BY CORROSION OF THE CIRCUIT CARD) WILL CAUSE INCORRECT READINGS TO REGISTER ON THE FUEL GAUGE.GM REPORTED IN THEIR RESPONSE TO ODI DATED JANUARY 13, 2003 THAT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF ERRATIC FUEL GAUGE OPERATION IS EXCESS ELEMENTAL SULFUR IN FUEL.GM REPORTED THAT ABNORMAL LEVELS OF SULFUR SPORADICALLY OCCURRED IN CERTAIN PARTS OF CANADA AND THE U.S. RESULTING IN REPORTS OF FUEL GAUGE MALFUNCTION.GM MODIFIED THE SENDING SENSOR FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER OCTOBER 2000.IT MADE A SECOND SENSOR MODIFICATION FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER JANUARY 2003.GM ALSO ISSUED A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION CAMPAIGN (GM NUMBER 00101) IN DECEMBER 2000 FOR U.S. CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF MAINE AND ISSUED SEVERAL SERVICE BULLETINS INFORMING DEALERS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF SENSORS WITH IMPROVED CORROSION RESISTANCE.THE COMPLAINT TREND INDICATES THAT COMPLAINTS PEAKED IN LATE 2000 TO EARLY 2001.WARRANTY CLAIMS DECLINED SINCE PEAKING IN APRIL 2002.BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AND THE INDICATION OF A DECLINING TREND, FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fuel System, Other:storage:fuel Gauge System
ODI OPENED EA 02-028 TO REVIEW COMPLAINTS OF CONSUMERS REPORTING THAT THEIR FUEL GAUGE WAS INCORRECTLY DISPLAYING THE AMOUNT OF FUEL IN THE GAS TANK.THE FUEL GAUGE RECEIVES AN ELECTRICAL SIGNAL FROM A FUEL TANK SENDING SENSOR CIRCUIT CARD.A FLOAT ARM IN THE TANK MOVES ELECTRICAL CONTACTS THAT RUB AGAINST THE CARD AS THE LEVEL OF FUEL RISES AND FALLS.DISRUPTION OF THE ELECTRICAL SIGNAL (SUCH AS CAUSED BY CORROSION OF THE CIRCUIT CARD) WILL CAUSE INCORRECT READINGS TO REGISTER ON THE FUEL GAUGE.GM REPORTED IN THEIR RESPONSE TO ODI DATED JANUARY 13, 2003 THAT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF ERRATIC FUEL GAUGE OPERATION IS EXCESS ELEMENTAL SULFUR IN FUEL.GM REPORTED THAT ABNORMAL LEVELS OF SULFUR SPORADICALLY OCCURRED IN CERTAIN PARTS OF CANADA AND THE U.S. RESULTING IN REPORTS OF FUEL GAUGE MALFUNCTION.GM MODIFIED THE SENDING SENSOR FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER OCTOBER 2000.IT MADE A SECOND SENSOR MODIFICATION FOR VEHICLES BUILT AFTER JANUARY 2003.GM ALSO ISSUED A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION CAMPAIGN (GM NUMBER 00101) IN DECEMBER 2000 FOR U.S. CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF MAINE AND ISSUED SEVERAL SERVICE BULLETINS INFORMING DEALERS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF SENSORS WITH IMPROVED CORROSION RESISTANCE.THE COMPLAINT TREND INDICATES THAT COMPLAINTS PEAKED IN LATE 2000 TO EARLY 2001.WARRANTY CLAIMS DECLINED SINCE PEAKING IN APRIL 2002.BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AND THE INDICATION OF A DECLINING TREND, FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
PE02066 · Engine Stall Due To Fuel Starvation
Opened Sep 6, 2002 · Closed Nov 3, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline; Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump; Fuel System, Other; Fuel System, Other:delivery:fuel Pump
ODI OPENED PE02-066 TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCE OF ENGINE POWER-LOSS DUE TO FUEL STARVATION INDUCED BY IN-TANK MODULAR FUEL PUMP STRAINER RESTRICTION.THE SUBJECT PUMPS USE AN EXTERNAL ?SOCK? STRAINER TO FILTER FUEL FLOWING TO THE PUMP INLET.THIS FILTER CAN SOMETIMES BECOME CLOGGED, RESULTING IN A REDUCED FLOW OF FUEL TO THE ENGINE.GM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED THE STRAINERS TO REDUCE THIS RESTRICTION.ANALYSIS OF THE ODI COMPLAINT DATABASE SHOWS THAT DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES STALL AT A RATE THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF MANY PEER VEHICLES.ADDITIONALLY, NONE OF THE RELEVANT WARRANTY REPAIR RATES EXCEED 1% AT 36 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE.ONE RELATED CRASH INVOLVES A STALLED VEHICLE THAT WAS REAR-ENDED ON THE ROADWAY, WHILE THE REMAINDER INVOLVED MINOR COLLISIONS OR SCRAPES.THE SOLE INJURY CONSISTED OF BRUISING FROM A LOW SPEED FRONTAL CRASH. GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY RESOURCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS MATTER.THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION IS THEREFORE CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump
ODI OPENED PE02-066 TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCE OF ENGINE POWER-LOSS DUE TO FUEL STARVATION INDUCED BY IN-TANK MODULAR FUEL PUMP STRAINER RESTRICTION.THE SUBJECT PUMPS USE AN EXTERNAL ?SOCK? STRAINER TO FILTER FUEL FLOWING TO THE PUMP INLET.THIS FILTER CAN SOMETIMES BECOME CLOGGED, RESULTING IN A REDUCED FLOW OF FUEL TO THE ENGINE.GM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED THE STRAINERS TO REDUCE THIS RESTRICTION.ANALYSIS OF THE ODI COMPLAINT DATABASE SHOWS THAT DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES STALL AT A RATE THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF MANY PEER VEHICLES.ADDITIONALLY, NONE OF THE RELEVANT WARRANTY REPAIR RATES EXCEED 1% AT 36 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE.ONE RELATED CRASH INVOLVES A STALLED VEHICLE THAT WAS REAR-ENDED ON THE ROADWAY, WHILE THE REMAINDER INVOLVED MINOR COLLISIONS OR SCRAPES.THE SOLE INJURY CONSISTED OF BRUISING FROM A LOW SPEED FRONTAL CRASH. GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY RESOURCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS MATTER.THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION IS THEREFORE CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.
Fuel System, Gasoline
ODI OPENED PE02-066 TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCE OF ENGINE POWER-LOSS DUE TO FUEL STARVATION INDUCED BY IN-TANK MODULAR FUEL PUMP STRAINER RESTRICTION.THE SUBJECT PUMPS USE AN EXTERNAL ?SOCK? STRAINER TO FILTER FUEL FLOWING TO THE PUMP INLET.THIS FILTER CAN SOMETIMES BECOME CLOGGED, RESULTING IN A REDUCED FLOW OF FUEL TO THE ENGINE.GM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED THE STRAINERS TO REDUCE THIS RESTRICTION.ANALYSIS OF THE ODI COMPLAINT DATABASE SHOWS THAT DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES STALL AT A RATE THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF MANY PEER VEHICLES.ADDITIONALLY, NONE OF THE RELEVANT WARRANTY REPAIR RATES EXCEED 1% AT 36 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE.ONE RELATED CRASH INVOLVES A STALLED VEHICLE THAT WAS REAR-ENDED ON THE ROADWAY, WHILE THE REMAINDER INVOLVED MINOR COLLISIONS OR SCRAPES.THE SOLE INJURY CONSISTED OF BRUISING FROM A LOW SPEED FRONTAL CRASH. GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY RESOURCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS MATTER.THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION IS THEREFORE CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.
Fuel System, Other:delivery:fuel Pump
ODI OPENED PE02-066 TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCE OF ENGINE POWER-LOSS DUE TO FUEL STARVATION INDUCED BY IN-TANK MODULAR FUEL PUMP STRAINER RESTRICTION.THE SUBJECT PUMPS USE AN EXTERNAL ?SOCK? STRAINER TO FILTER FUEL FLOWING TO THE PUMP INLET.THIS FILTER CAN SOMETIMES BECOME CLOGGED, RESULTING IN A REDUCED FLOW OF FUEL TO THE ENGINE.GM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED THE STRAINERS TO REDUCE THIS RESTRICTION.ANALYSIS OF THE ODI COMPLAINT DATABASE SHOWS THAT DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES STALL AT A RATE THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF MANY PEER VEHICLES.ADDITIONALLY, NONE OF THE RELEVANT WARRANTY REPAIR RATES EXCEED 1% AT 36 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE.ONE RELATED CRASH INVOLVES A STALLED VEHICLE THAT WAS REAR-ENDED ON THE ROADWAY, WHILE THE REMAINDER INVOLVED MINOR COLLISIONS OR SCRAPES.THE SOLE INJURY CONSISTED OF BRUISING FROM A LOW SPEED FRONTAL CRASH. GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY RESOURCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS MATTER.THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION IS THEREFORE CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.
Fuel System, Other
ODI OPENED PE02-066 TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND CONSEQUENCE OF ENGINE POWER-LOSS DUE TO FUEL STARVATION INDUCED BY IN-TANK MODULAR FUEL PUMP STRAINER RESTRICTION.THE SUBJECT PUMPS USE AN EXTERNAL ?SOCK? STRAINER TO FILTER FUEL FLOWING TO THE PUMP INLET.THIS FILTER CAN SOMETIMES BECOME CLOGGED, RESULTING IN A REDUCED FLOW OF FUEL TO THE ENGINE.GM HAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED THE STRAINERS TO REDUCE THIS RESTRICTION.ANALYSIS OF THE ODI COMPLAINT DATABASE SHOWS THAT DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES STALL AT A RATE THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF MANY PEER VEHICLES.ADDITIONALLY, NONE OF THE RELEVANT WARRANTY REPAIR RATES EXCEED 1% AT 36 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE.ONE RELATED CRASH INVOLVES A STALLED VEHICLE THAT WAS REAR-ENDED ON THE ROADWAY, WHILE THE REMAINDER INVOLVED MINOR COLLISIONS OR SCRAPES.THE SOLE INJURY CONSISTED OF BRUISING FROM A LOW SPEED FRONTAL CRASH. GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY RESOURCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS MATTER.THE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION IS THEREFORE CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.
SQ01002 · Erratic Fuel Gauge
Opened Jan 26, 2001 · Closed Sep 30, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
There is no summary currently available