2000 Chevrolet Camaro: problems, recalls and reliability
4 recalls and 76 owner complaints on record; the weakest area is service brakes, hydraulic (17% of complaints).
Data updated weekly · latest recall May 2009
All counts are reports filed with NHTSA in the United States - US market only, not worldwide totals.
Common problems
Computed from 76 owner complaints filed with NHTSA for this exact model year.
“The contact owns a 2000 Chevrolet Camaro. The contact stated that upon leaning down to clean the floorboard of the vehicle, a sharp piece of the front driver's side window weather stripping cut him across the left eye. The contact did not receive medical assistance. The dealer and the manufacturer were not notified of the failure. The vehicle was not diagnosed nor repaired. The failure mileage was 278,363.”Owner report · Structure · Mar 2023
“Tl* the contact owns a 2000 chevrolet camaro z28. The contact stated that when trying to refuel, fuel would overflow onto the ground due to a faulty roll-over ball. In order to prevent the malfunction, the fuel could only be dispensed during cool weather temperatures. Two years prior, an authorized dealer replaced the fuel tank and the similar defect recurred. The vehicle had not been repaired for the most recent failure. The manufacturer was notified of the problem. The approximate failure mileage was 50,000. Updated 03/14/12*lj updated 03/23/12”Owner report · Fuel System, Gasoline · Nov 2010
“Tl*the contact owns a 2000 chevrolet camaro. The contact attempted to start the vehicle, but was unsuccessful. A local mechanic performed a diagnostic test and informed her that the security system needed to be reset. The dealer and the manufacturer have not been notified. The vehicle has not been repaired. The VIN was unknown. The current and failure mileages were 120,000.”Owner report · Electrical System · Oct 2008
Show 7 more owner reports
“The catalytic converter has failed on the vehicle. The car failed emissions testing. Found out the warranty was 8 years/80,000 miles, so took the car to the dealer to diagnosis. Vehicle has 21,000 miles on it and gm refused to pay for the repair because they said the converter was "rusted". Vehicle is 8 years old and only driven less than 3,000 miles annually and stored for 6 months out of the year. The problem with the converter has nothing to do with rust, the baffles are breaking up inside. Gm refuses to offer any assistance. Very costly repair, part alone is $750.00 and that does include any labor. *tr”Owner report · Engine And Engine Cooling · Jul 2008
“The clutch pedal return spring on my 2000 camaro ss broke two years ago. I purchased another one from a local gm dealer. I could not believe the spring was so expensive. ($70.00). I installed the spring my self in 2006 and two years later 2008 the spring broke again. I only drive the car in the summer months. (26,000 kilometers). I do not abuse the car in any way. I believe this is a design defect. I think that a clutch pedal return spring should last longer than two years at $70 a pop. *tr”Owner report · Power Train · Jul 2008
“The vehicles check engine light came on. The catalytic converter failed per the diagnostic check at the dealership. The catalytic converter is covered by special 10 year or 120,000 mile warranty. The dealership says the good oxygen sensor is probably seized and it will break due to age when they replace the catalytic converter. They want us to pay $208 for a new oxygen sensor. *tr”Owner report · Engine And Engine Cooling · Jun 2008
“I was only the highway going about 60mph when my car lost control. I hit the median head on which then led to another car hitting mine. My airbags did not deploy which caused me to hit my head on the steering wheel. I had a knot the size of a baseball and 2 black eyes. I am 8 months pregnant and had to be rushed to the hospital. *tr”Owner report · Air Bags · Jun 2008
“Tread separated from cooper tire (98 t 225/60r16 m+s lifeliner ste dot 30 x k c4m3300 eo6r) on camaro on interstate 35, causing fatal collision. Submitted by attorney mark bonner, oklahoma city. *tr”Owner report · Tires · Sep 2007
“Design flaw. E-brake dragging constantly which eventually warps the rotor and if left alone makes a horrible clunking noise that almost sounds like your differential spit a tooth. A little difficult to explain exactly what's happening but find it hard to believe chevrolet hasn't figured it out. Yes, of course they have! It's just that hundreds of people haven't died. *tr”Owner report · Service Brakes, Hydraulic · May 2007
“The steering wheel broke while pulling out of a parking space. The vehicle was towed to the dealer for repairs. *jb the consumer stated that the steering wheel snapped at the t bar. It was held together with duct tape. The dealer allowed the consumers son to drive home with the broken steering wheel because it was not under warranty. The lock fell out of the driver side door. Parking lights and lens leaking. *tc”Owner report · Exterior Lighting · Jan 2005
When filing, owners marked a crash in 6 of these complaints and injuries in 9 - self-reported to NHTSA, not verified accident statistics.
Recalls - 4 campaigns
DOPE, INC. IS RECALLING 42,540 COMBINATION CORNER AND BUMPER LAMP ASSEMBLIES OF VARIOUS PART NUMBERS SOLD FOR USE AS AFTERMARKET EQUIPMENT FOR VARIOUS PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE HEADLAMPS FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THESE LAMPS DO NOT CONTAIN THE REQUIRED AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS.
Remedy: DOPE, INC. WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND OFFER A FULL REFUND FOR THE NONCOMPLIANT COMBINATION LAMPS. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 28, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT DOPE, INC. AT 1-626-272-1798.
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.
Remedy: 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.
CERTAIN AJ MOTORSPORT COMBINATION LAMPS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON THE ABOVE LISTED PASSENGER VEHICLES. COMBINATION LAMPS NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
Remedy: AJ MOTORSPORT WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND OFFER REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE LAMPS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 31, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT AJ MOTORSPORT AT 626-618-2026.
SABERSPORT IS RECALLING 16,270 COMBINATION CORNER AND BUMPER LAMP ASSEMBLIES OF VARIOUS PART NUMBERS SOLD FOR USE AS AFTERMARKET EQUIPMENT FOR VARIOUS PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE HEADLAMPS FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THESE LAMPS DO NOT CONTAIN THE REQUIRED AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS.
Remedy: SABERSPORT WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND OFFER A FULL REFUND FOR THE NONCOMPLIANT COMBINATION LAMPS. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 11, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT SABERSPORT AT 1-909-598-7589.
How other years compare
Check your exact Camaro by VIN
Recalls and equipment differ between individual vehicles. Decode your VIN to see what applies to yours.
Open VIN decoderFrequently asked questions
Is the 2000 Chevrolet Camaro reliable?
NHTSA has 76 owner complaints and 4 recall campaigns on record for the 2000 Chevrolet Camaro. The most complained-about area is service brakes, hydraulic (17% of complaints).
At what mileage do 2000 Chevrolet Camaro problems usually appear?
Half of the complaints that mention mileage were filed at 52,000 miles or less.
Does the 2000 Chevrolet Camaro have open recalls?
4 recall campaigns have been issued, the latest concerning exterior lighting:headlights. Check your specific vehicle by VIN - recall repairs are free at franchised dealers.
Source: NHTSA recall campaigns and owner complaints (public domain). Counts reflect reports on file and are not a defect rate.