Skip to content
FaultCrate
日本語

This is an open preview: every record can be read without an account.

GMC Yukon XL 2000–2006

GMC Yukon XLModel years 2000–2006

Change vehicle →
Clear the search
1 conditions added

Common on this vehicle:Warning lightNoiseReduced brakingParking brake

causeElectronic Brake Control ModuleRemove

Possible causes

ABS light8 records
Brakes
Suspension, wheels and tires
1Parking brake linings worn out prematurely, parking brake does not hold (PBR single-shoe drum-in-hat)1500 only0ABS lamp with DTC C0265 (EBCM motor relay circuit) after EBCM replacement0ABS light with C0265/C0201/U1041 or no communication with brake module (EBCM ground G110)0Aftermarket part (not the vehicle as built): Federal-Mogul National / Carquest replacement wheel hub assembly retention nut - recall 07E-1062WD only
Causes with no correction stated (3)

Causes the records name for which no check or repair is stated, in a technical document or in a record. Press one for the records that name it.

Brakes
Electronic Brake Control Module: failed (8)
Engine
Throttle Body: failed (1)
Electrical, wiring and power
Intermittent no start with Service Stability, ABS light, 'Unknown Driver' and multiple DTCs / no module communication (0)

The documents say what to doOnly records name itThe size of a node, the width of a link and the numbers are records matching this search, not likelihoods.

FaultCrate・GMC Yukon XL 2000–2006・ABS light

Candidate cause (the documents say what to do)

Parking brake linings worn out prematurely, parking brake does not hold (PBR single-shoe drum-in-hat)

Applies to: 1500 only

ODI is aware of over 600 complaints of premature parking brake wear-out in all MY 1999-2002 C/K 1500 trucks, regardless of transmission type; most involved vehicles with 20,000-60,000 miles (= 32,187–96,561 km), or 15-41 months in service.

Most complaints (over 90%) concerned a worn out or inoperative parking brake system, usually discovered during a service visit or mandatory state safety inspection.

What to do

  1. On complaint vehicles examined in the field, wear occurred earlier and to a greater extent on the driver's side parking brake unit and was largely localized at the tip of one of the linings.
  2. Bulletin 01-05-26-001 "Park Brake - Low Effort Apply System Description" (Mar 2001) describes a park brake test procedure.
  3. A revised clip designed to exert less force on the shoe went into MY 2003 production and into the service part stream. Installing the newer clip and replacing worn linings has been shown to remedy the defect.
  4. The closing report lists a bulletin of Aug 2004 as 02-05-26-001B "Brakes - Parking Brake Shoe Retainer Clip Availability", announcing a new retainer clip service kit for DIH-equipped vehicles.
  5. In the recall, dealers install a low-force spring clip retainer on vehicles with the PBR parking brake system and a redesigned parking brake cable assembly on vehicles with the TRW parking brake system.
  6. That bulletin releases a rear parking brake retaining spring clip kit for service: two parking brake hold down spring clips and bolts.
Read the remaining 3 steps

Caution: The vehicles warn the operator with a chime if driven over 3 mph (= 4.83 km/h) with the parking brake engaged.

What is needed

Parts and materials
  • Revised clip (designed to exert less force on the shoe)
  • Parking brake shoe kit
  • Rear parking brake retaining spring clip kit (when the clips need replacing but the parking brake shoes do not)
  • Parking brake retainer spring clip kit 88982879 (for C/K, M/L and G models)

Part numbers printed in the document

The numbers are as the document prints them. The name and the replacing number are what the pages of GMPartsGiant, a reseller of genuine parts and not GM, state. Aftermarket equivalents are not checked here (the links only search by number). Confirm the fit for the vehicle (VIN) before ordering.

Labor time
Not stated
Special tools
  • J 46277 Rotor Removal Tool (to remove the rotor)
  • J 6125-B Slide Hammer (used with J 46277)
Scan tool
Not stated

Only what the technical documents state. "Not stated" does not mean not needed.

In the records

No record states work done for this cause.

Outside the documents and the records

The four pages read are one on a 2001 Tahoe, one each on a 2001 and a 2002 Silverado, and one that names no vehicle; none is a record of a Yukon or Yukon XL. All are questions and answers on Q&A sites, not repair records that report what was found on teardown.

  • The clearance between the shoe and the rotor is given as 0.6604 mm (0.026 in) both in a 2CarPros answer (2002 Silverado) and in a Car Talk post (2001 Silverado, quoting a GM bulletin). 2CarProsCar Talk Community
  • The asker on 2CarPros with a 2002 Silverado (55,000 miles (= 88,514 km)) writes that the parking brake kept getting worse although the brake pads had half their life left, and that on a steep driveway the truck was parked next to a tree so that it would not roll. 2CarPros
  • In a 2CarPros question on a 2001 Tahoe whose parking brake would not quite hold with the adjustment used up, the responder answers that if the pedal reaches the floor he would suspect a stretched cable or worn shoes (including wear from a sticking rear cable leaving the brake partly applied), and if it does not, glazed shoes and braking surface or a lining that has come off its frame. 2CarPros

The sentences above were written by FaultCrate from what shops' public pages and Q&A sites state as fact (none of the pages' wording is shown; a second reader checked each against its pages). A record of another vehicle says which vehicle. A Q&A thread is a question and advice, and may not say how the repair ended. The links below are places to look; the contents of pages not read were not checked.

The pages read, and other places to look (12)

Repair videos

Forums and Q&A

See the evidence (1 technical documents, 1 records)

Passages of the technical documents

  • ODI collected data on the manual-transmission Silverado/Sierra 1500 pickups (the subject vehicles) and on peer vehicles, including all MY 1999-2004 automatic-transmission GM C/K pickups and sport-utility vehicles based on the same platform.

    During the investigation, ODI collected data concerning the manual transmission-equipped Silverado/Sierra 1500 pickups (subject vehicles) and millions of peer vehicles that included ½ ton pickup trucks manufactured by Ford and Dodge, as well as all MY 1999 - 2004 automatic transmission-equipped GM C/K pickups and sport-utility vehicles based on the same platform as that used in the subject vehicles.

    NHTSA ODI 2005-05-10

  • The subject brake system is used in over 4 million MY 1999 - 2004 C/K 1500 vehicles; field data and manufacturing changes indicate that the defect is present only in the MY 1999 - 2002 vehicles.

    The subject brake system is used in over 4 million MY 1999 - 2004 C/K 1500 vehicles. Field data and manufacturing changes indicate that the defect is present only in the MY 1999 - 2002 vehicles.

    NHTSA ODI 2005-05-10

  • Bulletin 02-05-26-002 "Brakes - Scraping Noises from Rear of Vehicle" (Oct 2002) announced the low-force clip for certain ½ ton GMT800s; 02-05-26-002A (Feb 2003) added Suburban and Yukon XL.

    Oct-2002 02-05-26-002 "Brakes- Scraping Noises from Rear of Vehicle" Announced the availability of the low-force clip in certain ½ ton GMT800s Feb-2003 02-05-26-002A "Brakes- Scraping Noises from Rear of Vehicle" Adds Suburban and Yukon XL to earlier models

    NHTSA ODI 2005-05-10

  • ODI is aware of over 600 complaints of premature parking brake wear-out in all MY 1999-2002 C/K 1500 trucks, regardless of transmission type; most involved vehicles with 20,000-60,000 miles (= 32,187–96,561 km), or 15-41 months in service.

    To date, ODI is aware of over 600 nonduplicative consumer complaints³ reporting premature parking brake wear-out in all MY 1999-2002 C/K 1500 trucks, regardless of transmission type. The majority of complaints involved vehicles that had accumulated 20,000 - 60,000 miles, or 15 - 41 months in service.

    NHTSA ODI 2005-05-10

Read every statement and its source →

A cause or a result a complaint states is the owner’s view or what a dealer told them, not an established fact.

Put together by FaultCrate from public records and technical documents. The cause and the repair are for the workshop to decide with the vehicle in front of it. Counts are records, not failure rates.