- December 30: Chevy Shake Class Action Says Driveshaft Is The Problem news | 28 days ago
- December 20: Chevy Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 Recalled After Fire recalls | 38 days ago
- December 19: Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Cadillac CT6 and GMC Sierra 1500 Recalled recalls | 39 days ago
- December 17: GM Windshield Wiper Recall Investigation: 1,900 Complaints investigations | 41 days ago
- December 10: GM Fuel Pump Recall Ordered To Prevent Fires recalls | 48 days ago
2002 Chevrolet Avalanche
10 Defect Investigations from the NHTSA
NHTSA Defect Investigations for the 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche
The Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) is an office within the NHTSA which investigates serious safety problems in the design, construction or performance of vehicles. The NHTSA is authorized to order manufacturers to recall and repair vehicles, if the ODI finds a safety issue. NHTSA investigations for the 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche, both ongoing and closed, are listed below:
INVESTIGATION: CRANK POSITION SENSOR FAILURE - STALL
NHTSA Preliminary Evaluation #PE06016
Component(s): Engine And Engine Cooling
Engine And Engine Cooling:Engine
Summary: The Office Of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation (PE06-016) on May 4, 2006 based on eleven vehicle owner questionnaires (voqs) and early warning (EWR) data alleging sudden engine shutdown while driving as a result of crank position sensor failures in MY 2001-2002 General Motors C/K platform vehicles equipped with 8.1L engines.in response to an information request letter sent by ODI, General Motors (GM) provided owner complaint information, field reports and warranty claim data based on a population of 108,338 vehicles. The data was categorized by engine stalls while driving, engine stalls with an unknown driving condition, no start conditions and claims where it was indeterminate if an engine stall occurred while driving.general motor's response included 1,213 owner complaints and field reports of which 289 were categorized as engine stalls while driving allegedly caused by crank position sensor failures. General Motors also submitted warranty claims from its regular warranty (5 years/50,000 miles) and from its extended warranty database. From the regular warranty database there were 3,140 claims of crank position sensor replacement of which 147 claims were from consumers alleging engine stall while driving.GM stated that 2,841 of the claims were indeterminate if an engine stall occurred while driving.from its extended warranty database, GM submitted 1,561 claims of crank position sensor failure that it also stated were indeterminate as to whether an engine stall occurred while driving.in total, GM reports 4,701 claims of crank position sensor failure combining regular warranty and extended warranty.similar to GM's statistical analysis, ODI's analysis showed that the failure rate for warranty claims of engine stall while driving at three years in service is low (less than 1%).however, further analysis determined that the MY 2001 vehicle build period from May 2000 through October 2000 had significantly higher (more than four times) crank position failure rates in both consumer complaint data and warranty claim data than in the build period from November 2000 through July 2001.adding the claims of known engine stall while driving and claims where engine stall was indeterminate, the failure rate at three years in service for this population is over 6%.an engineering analysis (EA06-016) has been opened to further assess the frequency and potential safety consequences associated with the alleged defect in vehicles built from May 2000 through October 2000.
INVESTIGATION: PARKING BRAKE FAILURE
NHTSA Defect Investigation #DP05009
Component(s): Parking Brake
Summary: ODI's review of complaint data received since the close of EA04-011 revealed no indication that the investigation should be re-opened.more details can be found in the federal register notice enclosed in the DP05-009 public file.ODI reserves the right to reopen the investigation in the future should conditions warrant.
INVESTIGATION: Brake line corrosion failure
NHTSA Engineering Analysis #EA11001
Component(s): Service Brakes, Hydraulic
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:Foundation Components:Hoses, Lines/Piping, And Fittings
Summary: On January 11, 2011, ODI opened EA11-001 to investigate allegations of premature brake line corrosion failure in model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 General Motors (GM) full-size pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles sold or registered in the following region of the United States that NHTSA has viewed as salt states for investigations of corrosion related issues:Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.The subject vehicles represent the first five MY's of GM's GMT800 platform production, of which approximately 2,038,504 vehicles were sold in salt states (the subject vehicles).The GMT800 platform includes the following vehicles:1999-2007 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 1500, 2500 and 3500 series pick-up trucks; 2000-2006 Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon sport utility vehicles; and 2002-2006 Cadillac Escalade and Chevrolet Avalanche sport-utility vehicles.General Motors produced a total of approximately 10,427,062 GMT800 vehicles for sales in the United States, including almost 5 million that were sold in salt states.Although there are over 60 different brake pipe routing configuration used in GMT800 vehicles, with the exception of the rear crossover pipes in MY 200x-2007 vehicles that changed from rear disc to drum brakes, all of the vehicles use brake pipes from the same supplier with a common double-wall, brazed steel pipe design with a combination of hot dip Zinc-Aluminum corrosion protection coating and Aluminum paint outer layer known in the industry as AlGal (ASTM-B750). ODI analysis of field data regarding GMT800 vehicles identified a total of 3,645 complaints of brake pipe corrosion failures, including 107 alleging crashes, and 40 injuries.Though only 20% of total GMT800 production, due to age and region the subject vehicles account for a disproportionate share of the failure experience; with 2,702 of the complaints (75%), 88 of the crashes (82%) and 20 of the injuries (50%) reported in those vehicles.Analysis of the complaints showed strong correlations to vehicle age and region.For vehicles with less than 8 years of service, the complaint rates were minimal for all regions.In the salt states the failure rates begin to climb as the vehicles advance in age, particularly in the Northeast corner of the United States.The complaint rates in the salt states go from less than 0.1 incident per thousand vehicles (IPTV) at 7 years in service to over 1.0 IPTV after the 12th year of service for the subject pickup trucks and utility vehicles.Most of the failures reported to ODI occurred in vehicles with more than 10 years in service.ODI-€™s investigation did not identify any specific defect conditions that were causing or contributing to the brake pipe failures.Nor did the analysis isolate the problem to any subject vehicle sub-populations when analyzed by vehicle type or production range.The investigation found that vehicles experiencing brake pipe corrosion failures were likely to have general patterns of excessive corrosion on the majority of the brake pipe assembly and appear to be occurring due to expected wear out for the brake pipe coating material used in the subject vehicles and the environmental conditions in severe corrosion states.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For additional information, see the closing report in the investigation document file.
INVESTIGATION: Brake line corrosion failure
NHTSA Preliminary Evaluation #PE10010
Component(s): Service Brakes, Hydraulic
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:Power Assist:Hydraulic:Hoses, Lines/Piping, And Fittings
Summary: The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received Defect Petition DP10-003 on March 2, 2010, requesting the investigation of model year (MY) 2003 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 4WD pickup trucks for corrosion failures of the vehicle brake lines.DP10-003 was granted and on March 30, 2010, Preliminary Evaluation PE10-010 was opened on more than six million model year 1999 through 2003 light trucks and sport utility vehicles manufactured and sold by General Motors Corporation (GM).On July 2, 2010, ODI received GM's response to an information request, which included GM's assessment of the frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect. GM stated that:(1) the brake system of the subject vehicles is split front/rear and should a brake pipe suddenly fail for any reason, the affected vehicle would be capable of stopping with the pressure supplied by the remaining circuit; (2) the subject vehicles were designed to meet the hydraulic circuit partial failure requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 105 and 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems; and (3) should a brake fluid leak occur for any reason, the brake system malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) would illuminate and warn the driver before the brake fluid level was low enough to cause a loss of line pressure.ODI's and GM's analysis indicates that 85 percent of the complaints occurred on vehicles used primarily in States that use salt on the roads during Winter months (Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin).Overall the complaint rates per 100,000 vehicles for Salt Belt States is 43.0 and Non-Salt Belt is 3.0.In approximately 25 percent of the complaints the brake pipe failure occurred suddenly, with no warning (i.e., no MIL, Brake Fluid Loss Warning), and resulted in extended stopping distances.In 30 of these the increase in stopping distance that resulted was a factor in the crash and in 10 others the vehicle was intentionally steered off the road or into another lane of travel in order to avoid a crash.This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA11-001) for subject vehicles sold or currently registered in Salt Belt States to further assess the scope, frequency and safety risks associated with sudden failures of corroded brake pipes that can result in decreased brake effectiveness. ODI will continue to gather information on subject vehicles outside the Salt Belt as well.
INVESTIGATION: UNWANTED LOW-SPEED ABS ACTIVATION
NHTSA Preliminary Evaluation #PE05020
Component(s): Service Brakes, Hydraulic:Antilock
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:Antilock:Control Unit/Module
Summary: 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).GM's 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 GM's 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.ODI's 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.
INVESTIGATION: HYDRAULIC PUMP FAILRES
NHTSA Engineering Analysis #EA04012
Component(s): Service Brakes, Hydraulic:Power Assist
Steering:Hydraulic Power Assist System
Summary: GM is conducting a recall on all subject vehicles build between May 1999 and October 14, 1999.significant changes were incorporated into production in early October 1999, and vehicles built after that date have lower warranty failure rates.the complaint and warranty data appear to support the effectiveness of these changes. GM made additional changes in November 1999, February 2000, May 2001, and February 2004.ODI will continue to monitor this problem and will take further action, if warranted, in the future.for further technical details see the attached engineering analysis report.
INVESTIGATION: TAILGATE CABLE BREAKAGE
NHTSA Engineering Analysis #EA04005
Structure:Body:Tailgate:Hinge And Attachments
Summary: General Motors filed a defect notice 04V-129 on March 17, 2004, which outlines a program to replace the tailgate cables installed in affected model year 2000-2004 vehicles.refer to ODI's closing report for EA04-005 for additional information.ODI is aware of reports of tailgate cable breakage occurring in model year 1999 and earlier vehicles.these vehicles were equipped with similar tailgate cables as addressed by 04V-129, but are not being addressed by campaign O4V-129.ODI is initiating a separate investigation to address these vehicles.the complaint-injury-fatality statistics summarized above pertain to model year 2000-2004 vehicles. The complaint-injury statistics for model year 1999 and earlier vehicles are summarized on the opening resume for that investigation.
INVESTIGATION: TRAILER HITCH RECEIVER FAILURE
NHTSA Engineering Analysis #EA07013
Component(s): Trailer Hitches
Summary: Complaint reports allege poor weld quality and/or bending of the subject vehicle original equipment trailer hitch receiver.the Agency's investigation included analysis of manufacturer and Agency incident reports, review of police reports, analysis of the Agency's fatal analysis reporting system, a vehicle owner survey, inspection of tow vehicles/hitches and analysis of failed parts.incidents of weld failure were rare and associated with very low-speed driving (turning, backing and sudden stopping).incidents of bending were associated with improper trailer hitch adjustment or overloading. A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of Agency resources does not appear to be warranted.accordingly, this investigation is closed.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.the Agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.see document search file for addition information.
INVESTIGATION: TRAILER HITCH RECEIVER FAILURE
NHTSA Preliminary Evaluation #PE07025
Component(s): Trailer Hitches
Summary: GM provided additional data regarding allegations of failure of the trailer hitch.ODI reviewed that as well as other data provided by peer manufacturers.based on our review, ODI finds the need to further investigate this issue.this preliminary evaluation is upgraded to an engineering analysis (EA07-013) for further assessment and study of this issue.
INVESTIGATION: THROTTLE STICKING CLOSED
NHTSA Engineering Analysis #EA02015
Component(s): Vehicle Speed Control:Linkages
Summary: This investigation involves the General Motors corporation (GM)throttle body (TB) utilized in model year (MY) 1999-2002 Silverado, Sierra, Tahoe, Suburban, Avalanche and Yukon (subject vehicle(s)) with 4.8L, 5.3L, and 6.0L engines. The TB valve may intermittently stick in a closed position.in such a situation, an operator may apply additional accelerator pedal force to increase engine speed.the application of additional accelerator pedal force, to open a stuck throttle valve, may open the throttle valve more than intended and, in turn, accelerate the engine and vehicle more than intended and reasonably expected by the driver.on August 1, 2002, the Office Of Defects Investigation (ODI), of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), opened this engineering analysis.the investigation revealed that two factors may cause the defect: 1) TB manufacturing process problems; and 2) accumulation of deposits (a PCV system by-product) on or around the TB throttle valve and bore.ODI concludes that the TB performs in a defective manner after analyzing GM's data submissions, and test data collected by the Vehicle Research And Test Center (VRTC).fifty-nine crashes are alleged to have occurred as a result of GM's TB defect.the majority of the crashes involve a single vehicle, engaging in a close quarter vehicle maneuver (or low speed), and causing only minor property damage.four out of the fifty-nine crashes involve injury, and those injuries were minor.although GM's TB is defective, based on the evidence gathered, ODI has found that the accelerator pedal force required to open a stuck throttle valve is negligible, and the throttle valve does not stick in the open position.therefore this engineering analysis (EA02-015) will be closed at this time.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.for a detailed discussion of the TB component and testing, please see the attached report.