IllustrationTHE CONSUMER STATED THAT THE CONSOLE/ARM REST (IN THE OPEN POSITION) WILL EXPEL THE CONTENTS FROM THE CAVITY ONTO THE REAR FLOOR OF THE VEHICLE. SCC
2002 Chevrolet S10
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most S10 years
Owner complaints for the 2002 Chevrolet S10 are substantially higher than the model-year median of 42.5.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all S10 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
350–25K
3925–50K
3250–75K
1675–100K
10100–150K
7150K+
139 reports with mileage · 75 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.
- Structure. Review the 73 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Latches/locks/linkages. Review the 21 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
17 crash reports2 fire reports16 injury reports
What owners actually said
214 reportsINITIAL COMPLAINT STARTED AT APPROX 17,100 MILES. THERE WAS WATER REPORTED IN THE REAR END DIFFERENTIAL. DEALER (LUCAS CHEVROLET) REFUSED TO REPAIR UNDER WARRANTY AND TO GIVE SUGGESTIONS ON HOW WATER GOT INTO SEALED UNIT. WE PAID TO HAVE THE FLUID CHANGED AND DEALER ASSURED THAT THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO REAR END DIFFERENTIAL. S…
Read full complaint
INITIAL COMPLAINT STARTED AT APPROX 17,100 MILES. THERE WAS WATER REPORTED IN THE REAR END DIFFERENTIAL. DEALER (LUCAS CHEVROLET) REFUSED TO REPAIR UNDER WARRANTY AND TO GIVE SUGGESTIONS ON HOW WATER GOT INTO SEALED UNIT. WE PAID TO HAVE THE FLUID CHANGED AND DEALER ASSURED THAT THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO REAR END DIFFERENTIAL. SECOND COMPLAINT WAS THAT THERE WAS A WHINING NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR END AT APPROXIMATELY 20,000 MILES. THE NOISE OCCURED BETWEEN 50 & 70 MPH AND WOULD QUIT WHEN THE GAS PEDAL WAS LET OFF. A DIFFERENT DEALER (JIM REED CHEVROLET) "REBUILT" THE REAR END DIFFERENTIAL. NOTE: DEALER WAS VERY HELPFUL IN FIXING PROBLEM. THE NEXT COMPLAINT WAS THAT AT APPROXIMATELY 23,000 MILES, AFTER THE REAR END DIFFERENTIAL FLUID WAS CHANGED, THE WHINING NOISE CAME BACK. THE DRIVING CONDITIONS WERE THE SAME AS THE SECOND COMPLAINT. THE DEALER (JIM REED CHEVROLET) AGAIN "REBUILT" THE REAR END DIFFERENTIAL. ON THE WAY HOME FROM THE DEALER (JIM REED CHEVROLET) THE REAR END IS STILL WHINING.
PUSHING THE DOME LIGHT OVER RIDE BUTTON, TWICE, TURNS OFF THE HEADLIGHTS. THIS CAN MAKE YOU PANIC UNTILL YOU SWITCH HEAD LIGHTS ON MANUALLY. ON A DARK ROAD THIS CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS.
CONSUMER HAS BROUGHT VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP THREE TIMES FOR A CREAKING NOISE HEARD IN THE FRONT END. ALSO, CONSUMER COMPLAINED THAT WHEN TAKING FOOT OFF THROTTLE VEHICLE WILL NOT SLOW DOWN FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. WHEN DRIVING WITH THE AIR CONDITIONER ON, VEHICLE WILL NOT SLOW DOWN. VEHICLE OVERRUNS THE CRUISE CONTROL…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER HAS BROUGHT VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP THREE TIMES FOR A CREAKING NOISE HEARD IN THE FRONT END. ALSO, CONSUMER COMPLAINED THAT WHEN TAKING FOOT OFF THROTTLE VEHICLE WILL NOT SLOW DOWN FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. WHEN DRIVING WITH THE AIR CONDITIONER ON, VEHICLE WILL NOT SLOW DOWN. VEHICLE OVERRUNS THE CRUISE CONTROL FROM 3 TO 6 MILES PER HOUR. *JG *JB *NLM. *AK
REPORTING INTERMITTENTLEY PROBLEM WITH A POPPING NOISE FROM THE RIGHT FRONT SUPENSION DEALER IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. TS
RIGHT REAR BRAKE WOULD NOT RELEASE COMPLETELY, CAUSE BRAKEING AND WARNING LIGHT TO ILLUMINATE, DEALER NOTIFIED AND UNABLE TO DETERMINED THE PROBLEM. TS
COMPUTER CHIP CONSTANTLY FAILS WHICH CAUSES A CHAIN REACTION OF FAILURES TO OCCUR. THE TRUCK IS UNRELIABLE WITH VARIOUS BRAKE FAILURES AND CONSTANT TOWING BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP. THE DEALERSHIP IS PATCHING THE TRUCK WITH MINOR REPAIRS INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY DOING A THOROUGH INSPECTION. PLEASE DESCRIBE DETAILS. TS
DRIVER FEELS THAT THE DESIGN AND LOCATION OF THE HOOD RELEASE LEVER CAUSES FOOT TO MAKE CONTACT WITH LEVER WHEN ENTERING OR EXITING THE VEHICLE. THIS RESULTED IN THE HOOD RELEASING UNEXPECTEDLY. TS *NLM
IN COLD WEATHER THE RUBBER BOOT ON THE MANUAL TRANSMISSION SHIFT LEVER GETS SO STIFF THAT IT WILL FORCE THE SHIFT LEVER OUT OF GEAR IF IT IS ON A DIFFERENT SIDE OF THE SHIFT PATTERN FROM WHERE IT WAS FOR THE EXTENDED PERIOD OF COLD. FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT IS PARKED IN 1ST GEAR OVERNITE IN THE COLD, IT WILL POP OUT OF 2ND OR 4TH GEA…
Read full complaint
IN COLD WEATHER THE RUBBER BOOT ON THE MANUAL TRANSMISSION SHIFT LEVER GETS SO STIFF THAT IT WILL FORCE THE SHIFT LEVER OUT OF GEAR IF IT IS ON A DIFFERENT SIDE OF THE SHIFT PATTERN FROM WHERE IT WAS FOR THE EXTENDED PERIOD OF COLD. FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT IS PARKED IN 1ST GEAR OVERNITE IN THE COLD, IT WILL POP OUT OF 2ND OR 4TH GEAR WHILE UNDER POWER UNLESS I DRIVE WITH MY HAND ON THE SHIFT APPLYING PRESSURE TO KEEP IT IN GEAR. THIS MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO STEER AT TIMES AND IMPOSSIBLE TO ADJUST OTHER CONTROLS. DT
CONSUMER STATES THAT THE ABS SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING PROPERLY. CONTACTED DEALER. *MR
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
2EA05008 · Tailgate Support Cables
Opened Apr 14, 2005 · Closed May 19, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Latches/locks/linkages:tailgate:latch
GENERAL MOTORS IS CONDUCTING A SPECIAL POLICY PROGRAM FOR 903,464 OWNERS OF 2000 - 2003 MODEL S/T VEHICLES THROUGH WHICH OWNERS MAY, AT THEIR OPTION, EITHER (1) PERIODICALLY INSPECT THE TAILGATE SUPPORT CABLES INSTALLED IN THEIR VEHICLE AND HAVE THE CABLES REPLACED IF THE CABLE COATING EXHIBITS ANY INDICATIONS OF DAMAGE OR DETERIORATION OR (2) REQUEST THAT THE TAILGATE SUPPORT CABLES BE REPLACED FREE OF CHARGE. GM WILL HONOR ALL REQUESTS BY OWNERS WHO OPT FOR REPLACEMENT WITHOUT QUESTION REGARDLESS OF THE CONDITION OR APPEARANCE OF THE CABLES. GM HAS AGREED TO MAIL REMINDER NOTIFICATIONS TO OWNERS EVERY TWO YEARS UNTIL THE TAILGATE SUPPORT CABLES HAVE BEEN REPLACED OR UNTIL THE VEHICLE IS 12 YEARS OLD.ODI'S INVESTIGATION INDICATES THAT A SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY OF THE REPORTED COMPLAINTS (87%) AND INJURIES (94%) HAVE OCCURRED IN MY 2000 - 2003 S/T VEHICLES.
RQ04012 · Tailgate Support Cable(s) Break
Opened Nov 22, 2004 · Closed Apr 14, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut
ODI IS UPGRADING RQ04-012 AND OPENING AN EA TO INVESTIGATE THE TAILGATE SUPPORT CABLES INSTALLED IN 1998 - 2004 MODEL YEAR SONOMA AND S10 MODEL VEHICLES.GENERAL MOTORS IS CONDUCTING RECALL CAMPAIGN 04V-129 TO REPLACE THE TAILGATE SUPPORT CABLES ORIGINALLY INSTALLED IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2000-2004 SIERRAS AND SILVERADOS AND CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2002-2004 AVALANCHES AND ESCALADE EXTS (C/K MODELS).GENERAL MOTORS HAS ADVISED ODITHAT THE TAILGATE SUPPORT CABLES INSTALLED IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE FABRICATED USING IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR SHEATHING MATERIAL AS THE RECALLED VEHICLES.HOWEVER,GENERAL MOTORS HAS ADVISED ODI THAT SONOMA AND S-10 VEHICLES DIFFER FROM C/K MODELS IN SEVERAL WAYS: THE VEHICLE HEIGHT IS LOWER; THE TAILGATE DISPLACEMENT (DROP) WHEN NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CABLES IS SMALLER AND THE TAILGATE COMES TO REST AT A LESS SEVERE TIP ANGLE WHEN NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CABLES; THE TAILGATE MASS IS SMALLER; AND THE SIZE, PAYLOAD, AND USAGE CHARACTERISTCIS ARE LESS DEMANDING THAN C/K MODEL VEHICLES.GM ALSO STATED THAT SONOMA AND S-10 WARRANTY CLAIM INFORMATION INDICATES A LOWER CLAIM COUNT AND A LOWER CLAIM RATE THAN RECALLED C/K MODELS.NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE INFORMATION, ODI HAS RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL 73 NON-INJURY COMPLAINTS AND 10 INJURY COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES DURING RQ04-012 (SINCE NOVEMBER 2004 TO DATE), WHICH JUSTIFIES OPENING AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE.