2001 CHEVROLET TAHOE Complaints

DT: THE CONTACT STATES THERE NHTSA RECALL CAMPAIGN 05V379000 CONCERNING ANTILOCK BRAKES. THIS VEHICLE HAS THE SAME PROBLEMS AS INDICATED IN THE RECALL, BUT IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL DUE TO VIN. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED.*AK UPDATED 1/4/2006 - *NM

MY CHEVY 2001 TAHOES SUFFERED AN ABS MALFUNCTION AT LOW SPEEDS IN THE SUMMER OF 2004. IT WAS REPAIRED AT A DEALER. IN AUGUST OF 2005 I HEARD OF THE RECALL OF 2001 TAHOES IN 14 NORTHERN STATES FOR THE EXACT PROBLEM MY TAHOE WAS IN THE SHOP FOR, THE REMEDY FOR THE RECALL IS EXACTLY WHAT THE DEALER PERFORMED ON MY CAR IN JULY 2004. MY TAHOE WILL BE GOING BACK TO THE DEALER 11-25-05 FOR THE SAME PROBLEM AGAIN, GM HAS TOLD ME THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO SINCE I AM NOT IN ONE OF THE RECALL STATES. GM HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS MALFUNCTION CAN CAUSE ACCIDENTS SINCE IT INCREASES BRAKING DISTANCES. I HAVE ALREADY SPENT 300 DOLLARS ON THE FIRST REPAIR AND AM LOOKING AT SPENDING THE SAME AMOUNT AGAIN. *JB

CONSUMER 2001 CHEVY TAHOE PASSENGER SEAT WAS BURNING . *TS WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION THE CONSUMER SMELLED BURNING. THERE WAS A BLOWN BURN MARK IN THE LEATHER SEAT WHERE THERE WAS MELTING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHERE THEY SIMPLY DISCONNECTED THE SEAT WARMER. THE CONSUMER REQUESTED THAT THE VEHICLE BE PLACED BACK IN IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION AND BE REIMBURSED FOR THE CAR RENTAL. *SC

I BROUGHT MY TRUCK TO HAWTHORNE CHEVY FOR AN UNRELATED REPAIR. THEY ASKED ME IF I WANTED THEM TO DO THE ABS RECALL WHILE IT WAS THERE AT NO CHARGE. I AGREED. THE BRAKES WERE WORKING FINE WHEN IT WENT IN, BUT WHEN I GOT IT BACK THE ABS KICKS IN EVERY TIME I BRAKE. THEN THEY TOLD ME THAT I NEEDED NEW HUBS BECAUSE THE PROCEDURE RUINED THEM AND IT WILL COST $700.00! THIS REPAIR IS NOT COVERED, THEY SAY, UNDER THE RECALL. I TOLD THEM THAT I AM UNPREPARED FOR SUCH AN EMERGENCY REPAIR SO THEY SHOWED ME THE FUSE TO PULL SO THE ABS WOULD STOP. NOW IT DOES NOT FUNCTION AND I AM UNPROTECTED BY THIS FEATURE. NICE GOIN' GUYS! ONCE AGAIN YOU ONLY WENT HALF WAY AND FUMBLED THE BALL! I'M SO GLAD THAT A GOV'T. AGENCY IS LOOKING OUT FOR MY SAFETY. NICE FIX. NOW IT DOESN'T WORK AT ALL. I WILL TELL ANYONE WHO HAS A TRUCK LIKE MINE NOT TO HAVE THE RECALL DONE. *NM

UNWANTED ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYSTEM ACTIVATION ON A 2001 CHEVROLET TAHOE. IN REVIEWING THE DETAILS ON AN EXISTING RECALL (GM RECALL NO. 05068) MY TAHOE IS EXHIBITING THE CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIBED, WHERE UPON DECELERATION AT LOW SPEED BRAKE APPLICATIONS INTERMITTENTLY ACTIVATES THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYSTEM. UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY A LOCAL DEALER AS WELL AS CHEVROLET VIA THEIR RECALL HOTLINE THAT THE RECALL IS NOT APPLICABLE IN MY STATE. I BELIEVE THIS OMISSION OF DE FROM THE RECALL WHEN SEVERAL ADJACENT STATES ARE INCLUDED IS ARBITRARY AND DOES NOT ADEQUATELY RESOLVE THIS POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUE FOR ALL OF THOSE IMPACTED, INCLUDING MYSELF. ACCORDING TO THE EXISTING RECALL, THE CONDITION IS MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR IN ENVIRONMENTALLY CORROSIVE AREAS AND HAS RESULTED IN THE RECALL BEING LAUNCHED IN THE "SALT BELT" STATES WHICH FOR SOME REASON DOES NOT INCLUDE DE. I CAN SAY WITH THE UTMOST CERTAINTY THAT DE DOES RECEIVE SNOW, AND THAT THE DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION USES SALT DURING SNOW FIGHTING OPERATIONS EVERY WINTER, POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEM EXPERIENCED WITH MY TAHOE. FURTHERMORE, THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE VEHICLE RESIDED IN PA, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF RECALL STATES. TO DATE, NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE AS I DON'T FEEL THE REPAIRS SHOULD BE MADE OUT-OF-POCKET.*JB

DT: THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL CONCERNING THE BRAKES. SHE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A DEALER FOR E RECALL REPAIR, AND THE RECALL SERVICE WAS PERFORMED ACCORDINGLY. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE RECALL REPAIRS SHE DISCOVERED THAT WHEN APPLYING BRAKES AT SPEEDS OF 3 MPH OR LESS THE ABS WILL ACTIVATE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD NOISE. THE VEHICLE STOPS BUT AT EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE. SHE CONTACTED THE DEALERSHIP, BUT THEY COULD NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION. THE REGIONAL OFFICE WAS CONTACTED REGARDING THIS SITUATION AND SHE WAS WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. NO FURTHER REPAIRS OR CORRECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. *AK. THE CONTACT STATED THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OFF. *AK

CONSUMER 2001 TAHOE BRAKE DID NOT CATCH, TOOK VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND WAS TOLD THAT THE ROTORS WERE DAMAGED AND BRAKE PADS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *TS ***NAR RECEIVED 10-18-05*** THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD A CLIP THAT WAS USED TO HOLD THE PADS WAS NOT VERY STURDY WHICH CAUSED THE PADS TO SHAKE AND WEAR OUT PREMATURELY. THE EMERGENCY BRAKE WOULD NOT GRAB EVEN THOUGH THE CONSUMER HAD NEVER USED IT BEFORE. THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THE REASON WHY THE ROTORS WERE DAMAGED WAS BECAUSE THE EMERGENCY BRAKE WAS NEVER USED AND IT WAS CONSIDERED A WEAR AND TEAR ITEM. CUSTOMER SERVICE INFORMED THE CONSUMER THAT THE EMERGENCY BRAKE MUST BE USED PERIODICALLY SO THAT IT WOULD CENTER THE PADS AND KEEP THEM LASTING LONGER. *JB

BOTH SIDE-VIEW MIRROR CASINGS (NOT THE GLASS) BROKE WITHIN A MONTH OF ONE ANOTHER. MUST BE A DEFECT. IT IS DANGEROUS SINCE THEY CAN FALL OFF AT ANYTIME AND IF THAT OCCURS I AM UNABLE TO SEE MY SURROUNDINGS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE A SAFE DRIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR MYSELF, MY PASSENGERS, AND OTHER SURROUNDING VEHICLES OR PEDESTRIANS. THE FIRST MIRROR BROKE IN SEPTEMBER 2005 THE SECOND ON OCTOBER 5, 2005. *NM

I HAVE A 2001 CHEVY TAHOE I COULD NOT GET MY CAR INSPECTED BECAUSE THE PARKING BRAKE WOULD NOT WORK .I TOOK IT TO MY REPAIR SHOP AND FOUND THE FACTORY PARKING BRAKE CLIPS THAT HOLD THE BRAKE SHOE IN ALIGNMENT WERE NOT DESIGNED PROPERLY. THEY NOW HAVE AN UPGRADE CLIP AFTER THE FACT. THE BRAKE SHOE CAUSES $200 OR MORE IN DAMAGE TO THE ROTOR AND PADS AND MORE CONCERNING THAN THAT IS YOU DON'T KNOW YOU HAVE A PROBLEM UNTIL THE PARKING BRAKE DOESN'T WORK! GENERAL MOTORS DOES NOT TAKE THIS SERIOUS ENOUGH TO HAVE A RECALL OR WARRANTY THE REPAIR THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION. PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. THANK YOU DAVID. *NM

I OWN A 2001 CHEVY TAHOE. ON OCTOBER 5TH, 2005 I SMELLED SOMETHING BURNING. WHEN I PARKED MY CAR AND PULLED A FILE FOLDER OFF THE SEAT, IT WAS SINGED AND THERE WAS SMOKE COMING FROM THE PASSENGER SEAT. THERE WAS ALSO A BROWN BURN MARK AND THE LEATHER SEAT WAS MELTED. I WENT TO AN APPOINTMENT, MAKING SURE THERE WERE NO INDICATOR LIGHTS ON. TWO HOURS LATER I STARTED THE CAR AND THE SMOKE BEGAN AGAIN, THIS TIME MUCH WORSE. I WENT TO SANDBERG CADILLAC; THEY WERE GOING TO CHARGE ME $110 TO DISCONNECT THE SEAT. THE SERVICE MANAGER HAD GOTTEN INTO THE CAR TO MOVE IT AND SAID THE SEAT WAS STILL SMOLDERING. THEY TORE THE SEAT OUT OF THE CAR AND THERE WAS A FIRE UNDER THE LEATHER. AT THAT TIME THE $110 DISCUSSION WAS DROPPED. I MADE A COMMENT TO THE 5 GENTLEMAN THAT THIS IS UNDER WARRANTY, BUT ISN'T THIS SAFETY ISSUE ALL AGREED. STEVE AND I WENT BACK INSIDE AND HE ARRANGED FOR A LOANER CAR, THROUGH ENTERPRISE. SERGIO SAID THAT HE WOULD BE PUTTING A CALL INTO HIS GM REP AND THAT HE WOULD TALK TO THEM ABOUT COVERING THE EXPENSE OF THE SEAT AND GETTING MY CAR BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OF BEFORE THE FIRE. THERE WAS CHEMICAL SMOKE DAMAGE ON THE INTERIOR WHICH DAN; THE TECHNICIAN ASSURED ME THEY HAD A MACHINE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO GET RID OF THAT SMELL. OCTOBER 6TH, I SPEAK WITH SERGIO AND AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE GM REP HE IS NOT WILLING TO COVER THE DAMAGE AND THE EXTENDED WARRANTY WILL COVER THE HARDWARE, BUT NOT THE ACTUAL SEAT CUSHION OR COVER. AT THIS TIME WE ARE LOOKING AT $1000 WORTH OF DAMAGE NOT INCLUDING THE ANY RENTAL CAR EXPENSE. I AT THAT TIME REQUESTED A CORPORATE NUMBER AND REACHED A BRUCE MITCHELL. I GAVE HIM THE DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT AND HE ASSURED ME THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE IN CONTACT WITH ME BETWEEN 24 AND 48 HOURS. I AM NOW AT THE 48 HOUR MARK AND HAVE HEARD NOTHING. *JB