IllustrationA SMALL CHIP IN THE WINDSHIELD RESULTED IN BIG CRACKS SPREADING ACROSS THE WINDSHIELD IN THE WINTER WHEN THE TEMPERATURE DROPPED TO FREEZING.
1994 Chevrolet Chevy Van
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Limited comparison data
There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Chevy Van years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
Limited mileage data: 3 of 5 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
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.
- Fuel System, Gasoline. Review the 1 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 1 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Tires. Review the 1 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
0 crash reports0 fire reports0 injury reports
What owners actually said
5 reportsFRONT TIRE DELAMINATED. TIRE HAD ABOUT 3000 MILES USAGE ON IT. *TR
GM WIPER RECALL. MY VEHICLE IS A 94 CHEVROLET VAN AND IS NOT LISTED IN THE WIPER RECALL. HOWEVER IT IS NOW SHOWING THE SAME SIGNS OF A FAILURE AS THE RECALLED VEHICLES. ( I ALSO HAD A 95 GMC WITH THE FAILURE) MY DEALERS SAYS IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. *JB
ABS (ANTILOCK BRAKES) COMPUTER & SENSORS STOPPED WORKING. *JB
THE CONSUMER STATES THAT THE PROBLEM IS THE DESIGN AND/OR FIT OF THE TANK, WHICH CAUSES CONTINUAL CRACKING AT THE CONNECTION AT THE TOP OF THE FUEL TANK NECK TO THE FUEL TANK ITSELF. WHICH CAUSE A CONTNUAL LEAK OF FUEL AND A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF FIRE AND EXPLOSION. THE HAD ALREADY BEEN REPLACED AT 54147K MILES AND NOW AT 123484…
Read full complaint
THE CONSUMER STATES THAT THE PROBLEM IS THE DESIGN AND/OR FIT OF THE TANK, WHICH CAUSES CONTINUAL CRACKING AT THE CONNECTION AT THE TOP OF THE FUEL TANK NECK TO THE FUEL TANK ITSELF. WHICH CAUSE A CONTNUAL LEAK OF FUEL AND A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF FIRE AND EXPLOSION. THE HAD ALREADY BEEN REPLACED AT 54147K MILES AND NOW AT 123484K MILES ON THE NECK AREA IS CRACKED ON THE SAME PLACE AS THE FIRST ONE AND NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AGAIN. *SCC
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
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
0No exact-year investigations in this snapshot.