Huge win for car owners! All TSBs to be made public. The Center for Auto Safety just made the NHTSA (US Government) make public the full text of all TSBs from now on. They are the same organization that has petitioned the NHTSA & filed lawsuits to protect car owners over exploding gas tanks & other major safety issues. Whenever you drive in your car, you are safer thanks in part to a lot of work over the years by this small but very effective consumer advocacy group.

Please take a moment & say thank you by donating $5 or whatever you can to the Center for Auto Safety.

Print this page Notes: The first year for Chevrolet's replacement for the S-10.


definitely annoying
Crashes / Fires:
0 / 0
Injuries / Deaths:
0 / 0
Average Mileage:
31,413 miles

About These NHTSA Complaints:

This data is from the NHTSA — the US gov't agency tasked with vehicle safety. Complaints are spread across multiple & redundant categories, & are not organized by problem.

So how do you find out what problems are occurring? For this NHTSA complaint data, the only way is to read through the comments below. Any duplicates or errors? It's not us.

2004 Chevrolet Colorado suspension problems

suspension problem

Find something helpful? Spread the word.
Get notified about new defects, investigations, recalls & lawsuits for the 2004 Chevrolet Colorado:

Unsubscribe any time. We don't sell/share your email.

2004 Chevrolet Colorado Owner Comments

problem #1

May 112006

Colorado 5-cyl

  • Automatic transmission
  • 31,413 miles


(1) intermittent noise from rear suspension: May be relevant (2) while driving at freeway speed on I-15 South, North of san diego, ca, heard noise; managed to drive truck (2004 Chevy Colorado) to nearest exit, coasted to a stop. All the while, the truck vibrated violently and I barely avoided crashing into other vehicles. A Chevy dealership located nearby inspected the truck, determined that rear right side leaf-spring broke at eye and entire drivetrain suffered subsequent damage as the truck was driven for several miles with the leaf spring broken (3) GM area service manager refused to cover the repair under warranty, stating that "usual cause is impact related". GM and dealership categorically refused to advise the owner in writing reason for warranty coverage denial. Owner requested in writing, before authorizing repair, that old parts be returned for the specific purpose of failure analysis as owner suspected manufacturer or installation defect. Dealer promised to save old parts but when owner was advised that repair was completed on 5/31/06, the dealer advised that old parts were lost. Owner suspects foul play, intentional destruction of evidence. Later, dealer's employee mislead small claims court judge about destruction of old parts. California department of Consumer Affairs cited dealership for failure to return old parts, case mr-2006015137, phone: 951-782-4263. Updated 03/13/07.

- Fallbrook, CA, USA

Search for these popular complaint phrases...

Not what you are looking for?