Gmc Silverado 2000

• Recall 60778 [USA]: Without the amber reflectors, the vehicle will be poorly illuminated, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash without warning.
  Certain pro-a motors corner lamps, turn signals, and headlights sold as replacement lamps for use on certain passenger vehicles listed above. Some combination lamps that are not equipped with amber side reflectors fail to conform to federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.
  pro-a motors will notify owners and offer to repurchase the lamps. The recall began on april 3, 2006. Owners may contact pro-a motors at 323-838-2988.
  this recall only pertains to pro-a motors aftermarket lamps and has no relation to any original equipment installed on the listed passenger vehicles.For more information on the lamp model numbers, click on document search and view document titled "lamp model numbers."customers may contact the national highway traffic safety administration's vehicle safety hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (tty: 1-800-424-9153); or go to http://www.Safercar.Gov.

  Show Content

To ensure accuracy and for your safety, it is recommended to do a free VIN recall check here or here [USA] - UK - Canada.

Bulletins are notices put out by manufacturers in conjunction with the NHTSA to notify the public of manufacturing issues or changes.

• Parking brake failure investigation # DP05009

  There is no summary currently available
  

  Show Content

• Unwanted low-speed abs activation investigation # PE05020

  In a letter dated august 29, 2005, gm notified odi that it was recalling certain model year 1999 through 2002 c/k pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles to correct a problem with anti-lock brake system (abs) wheel speed sensor corrosion that may result in unwanted abs activation and extended stopping distances during low-speed braking (recall 05v-379).Gms recall covers approximately 804,000 vehicles currently registered in the following 14 salt-belt states:connecticut, illinois, indiana, massachusetts, maine, michigan, new hampshire, new jersey, new york, ohio, pennsylvania, rhode island, vermont, and west virginia.The recall procedure will involve removing the sensor, cleaning the mounting surface, applying a rust inhibitor (zinc-x) to the surface, and reinstalling the sensor.If necessary, the sensor will be replaced. The population and failure report data given in this resume are for the full region that has been considered by odi as the salt-belt.That includes delaware, iowa, maryland, minnesota, missouri, wisconsin and the district of columbia in addition to the 14 states included in 05v-379.The states covered by gms recall have the highest incident rates for the subject condition, accounting for 91% of the incidents, but only 24% of subject vehicle sales in the united states.Odis analysis determined that 840 of the complaints, 244 of the crashes, and 16 of the injuries identified in this investigation occurred in those states.The resulting incident and crash rates are 96.2 and 28.0 per 100,000 vehicles respectively (note:rates are based on vehicle sales, not registered vehicles). The corresponding numbers in the excluded portions of the salt-belt are 399,000 vehicles, 81 incidents (20.3 per 100,000 vehicles), 3 crashes, and no injuries.The statistics in the remaining 30 states are 2,406,000 vehicles, 168 incidents (7.0 per 100,000 vehicles), 31 crashes, and one injury.Gm and odi are continuing to monitor the problem experience in states that are not included in the recall.Gm will provide odi with updated complaint, field report, and warranty data in november 2005.Odi and gm will review that data and assess the appropriateness of the current scope of the recall at that time.
  

  Show Content

• Tailgate support cables investigation # EA05007

  General motors is conducting a safety recall to remove and replace the tailgate support cables installed in 805,368 model year 1999 and 2000 gmt 800 model vehicles.The model year 1999 and 2000 gmt-800 series vehicles that will be campaigned had contributed a significant majority of the total complaints (87%) and injuries (79%) associated with the tailgate support cable breakage in the model year 1998 - 2000 c/k series vehicles addressed by this investigation.
  

  Show Content

• Parking brake failure investigation # EA04011

  In a letter dated april 20, 2005, gm notified nhtsa that it had decided that defects that relate to motor vehicle safety exist in certain model year (my) 1999-2002 c/k 1500 series (pbr parking brake system) and my 2001-2005 c/k 2500 and 3500 series (trw parking brake system) pickups with manual transmissions.According to gm, some of these vehicles may have conditions that cause the friction linings to wear to an extent where the parking brake can become ineffective in immobilizing a parked vehicle.Gms action covers an estimated total of 142,585 vehicles.Dealers will install a low-force spring clip retainer for vehicles equipped with the pbr parking brake system and install a redesigned parking brake cable assembly on vehicles equipped with the trw parking brake system. A total of 58 non-duplicative complaints were received by odi and gm concerning the approximately 59,000 my 1999-2002 c/k 1500 series pickup trucks with the pbr parking brake system.These included 22 alleged rollaway incidents, resulting in a rate of 38.5 rollaway incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Odi is aware of 24 complaints regarding the my 2001-2005 c/k 2500 and 3500 series manual transmission trucks recalled by gm, including 5 alleging rollaway incidents.Though the conditions described in gms letter are also present in the c/k trucks with automatic transmissions, the rollaway rate in those vehicles was similar to those observed in peer vehicles studied by odi in this investigation.This engineering analysis is closed. For additional information, see the attached closing report.
  

  Show Content

Tl* the contact owns a 2000 gmc silverado. While inspecting the vehicle, the contact observed corrosion around the cross member that supported the fuel tank. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage and vin were not available.

Dt*: the contact stated while the vehicle was being serviced, the brake line was observed wet and rear brake rotors were flaking apart. There was no warning signals prior to the incident. The vehicle was taken to a service dealer who determined that the brake lines were rusted and starting to leak. Also, the rear brake rotors were flaking apart, and the main brake line to the rear brakes rusted through which caused brake fluid leakage. The service dealer advised that the vehicle would need brake rotor backing plates and a rear brake line. The manufacturer was notified and approved replacing one brake line at no cost but would not approve replacing the rotors and 4 other brake lines that were badly rusted. The consumer stated he was unable to use the emergency brake, because the retaing clip that held the brake shoes in place had rusted. The consumer complained of a noise in the steering. The fuel pressure regulator was repalced.Updated 12/01/06. *jb

Rust on rotors!! - gmc 1500 1/2 ton pickup. 2000 yr. To make it short for now, was told by a gmc technician at 19000 miles that rust was forming on brake rotors. Dealership told me gm had a problem with the metal for the rotors. I have a case number with gm about the problem. But like i said i will make it short for now. February, while in florida ,brakes wouldn't work. Went into median strip. Nobody hurt, no damage, lucky!! Gmc dealer in florida had to replace the rotors due to the rust. They couldn't turn the rotors down, they were that bad. The truck has only 37000 miles on it, but the problem is the bad metal. I know there is other people who have had to do the same thing, new rotors for safety. By the way there isn't a speck of rust anywhere on that truck except the rotors. They had a recall on the anti-lock brakes for rust, dealer said mine was ok. Like i said no rust except for the rotors. This should have not happen we could have been injured or worse!!!! *jb

Dt; 2000 chevrolet k1500 silverado. The anti lock brakes engage under normal stopping. When pulling into a stop the brakes do not stop the vehicle, and the anti lock brakes are triggered, and this creates a slow stop. This happens at least 50% of the time, and this is unpredictable. It is progressively getting worse. Had not taken the vehicle to a mechanic, but done research and know that this is a common complaint and concern. Had the vehicle to the mechanic for other things ,and they have not told me about any recalls. This has been happening for the past 4 months. No accidents or crashes. *ak

Abs sensor problems on 2000 gm 2500. Abs engages at low speed and prevents stopping. Sensors have ben replaced or cleaned at least three time under warranty. Now at 55,000 miles abs has again failed. For safty reasons i have disconnected the abs system.

While braking anti lock brakes failed. This caused the pedal to go to the floor. Dealership was notified, but did not resolve the problem. *ak *sc

Consumer stated that about 2 weeks ago while backing out of the garage, the power brakes and power steering failed. Consumer shut off the vehicle off and then restarted it. Vehicle worked properly afterwards. *ak *jb

Consumer states that while trying to park the anti-lock system activated and the consumer could not stop and ran into a building. *mr

Prior to vehicle warming up there is a noise coming from engine. Manufacturer has been aware of problem. *ak