59 problems related to brake disc rotor have been reported for the 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee. The most recently reported issues are listed below.
Nhtsa campaign 00v136000 dealer is stalling to delay making repairs.
Left front brake rotor seized. Had to have brake pads, rotors, lines, fluid replaced.
Vehicle has extended braking distance, mechanic noticed the rear rotors were disintegrating. Front rotors had to be replaced for the same problem 2 years ago. Front stabilizer defective.
Front tires had to constanly be replaced, because they wor out at a rapid pace, recently found out that the right front rotor were on recall.
Consumer received recall 00v136000 concerning front brake rotors. Upon examination by a private mechanic, rear brake rotors were in same condition as front brake rotors, excessively worn/warped. Please provide any additional information/attachments.
Consumer received recall notic e 00v136000. When she contacted manufacturer and dealership, service was refused because her vehicle was classified as salvaged.
Received recall notice 00v136000. Had recall repairs done after taking vehicle to dealership. One month later, received notice. Took vehicle to dealership, mechanic replaced rotors. Brakes were okay. At 73,000 miles had to take it back due to rotors shattering when brakes were applied. Informed ceramic, and rotors placed on vehicle with metallic pads. Mechanic refused to turn rotors unless paid for. Also, due to wear and tear on rotors after 8,000 miles.
Consumer took vehicle to a garage and had front rotors replaced, she later received recall 00v136 and is now requesting reimbursement.
Rotors replaced under recall July 2000. Currently, rotors need replacement again. Consumer states the condensor for the air conditioner failed.
Consumer had noticed corrosion on front brake rotors, and vehicle was registered in California. Corrosion of front brakes rotors was causing shimmying in front end upon braking. Has caused vehicle to be unbalanced.
Since purchasing vehicle brake rotors have been turned twice, and front rotors are currently being replaced for vibration occurring during normal braking at any speed. Dealership informed consumer that vehicle's history shows previous service for rotor problems. Please provide any additional information/attachments.
The brake rotors failed prior to recall notice 00v-136, the consumer requested reimbursement but was denied because the repair order did not show a separation of the rotor from the hub. Nlm (see odi #738156 for additional complant).
Since the brake disc rotor was recalled on my car I wondered whether any other owners had a problem with the rusting of front axle joints and calipers hanging up. Thank you!.
Consumer feels if manufacturer recalls brakes, they should also recall rotors.
One week prior to recieving recall notice 00v-136 the front brake rotors were replaced, consumer request reimbursement. Nlm.
Defective rear brake rotors corroded. There was recall for front rotors, and this vehicle was included for that recall. But, the problem also existed in the rear rotors, but they were not included in recall. Please provide further information.
Thr front brake rotors failed prior to recall notice 00v-136, consumer request reimbursement. Nlm.
This will be the third time that front rotors will be replaced due to grinding noise and shaking when applying brakes.
Recall # 00v136000 daimlerchrysler/front brake rotors; dealer had no parts to correct recall campaign. Consumer was told that part(s) were on national back order. Consumer was also told that their customers would be serviced first. Please provide any furhter information.
Vehicle experienced failure of the recall component (00v-136) prior to recall notification, owner requesting reimbursement.
Front disc pads and rotors failed prior to recall notice 00v-136, consumer request reimbursement. Nlm.
Consumer replaced brakes prior to recall 00v136 and is requesting reimbursement, she has since sold the vehicle.
Vehicle experienced failure of the recall component prior to recall notification and is requesting reimbursement (994-340).
The brake rotors cracked and fell off resulting in brake failure which caused vehicle collision and injury to consumer, recall (00v-136) was not compeleted prior to accident and consumer is requesting reimbursement for damages.
Vehicle experienced failure of the recall component prior to notification , rotors were replaced, owner requesting reimbursement. (00v-136).
Consumer states vehicle is experinceing the same problem with brake motor as mentioned in recall 00 v 136 000. Manufacturer refuses to apply recall repairs to vehicle because delaware was not listed in recall notice, consumer purchased and drove vehicle extensively in delaware, the first sign of corrosion caused consumer to have to replace the right front rotor and resurface the left front rotor, the second sign of corrosion required replacement of the resurfaced rotor, the rear rotors were also exhibiting corrosion damage.
Vehicle experienced failure of the recall component prior to recall notification and is requesting reimbursement. (00v-136).
Possible design flaw of brake rotors separated while driving approximately 20 to 35 mph causing failure which could have resulted in a collision.
Prior to recall notice 00v-136 the left front brake rotor broke while driving, the consumer is requesting reimbusement for the repairs made prior to notification. Nlm.
Vehicle experienced failure of the recall component (00v-136) on several occasions prior to recall notification, consumer is requesting reimbursement.
Consumer replaced front brake pads and rotor prior to recall notice 00v-136, consumer request reimbursement for repairs. Nlm.
Prior to second recall notification received, the second front rotor failed, however consumer previously had a front rotor replaced and was reimbursed, and now the manufacturer is denying consumer for the second rotor being repaired because they are stating that they have on file that consumer has already been reimbursed for both rotors, conumer is requesting reconsideration for the second rotor, consumer stated the vehicle would vibrate and pull to the left, the dealer replaced both calipers and replaced the rear brake shoes.
Prior to second recall notification received, the second front rotor failed, however consumer previously had a front rotor replaced and was reimbursed, and now the manufacturer is denying consumer for the second rotor being repaired because they are stating that they have on file that consumer has already been reimbursed for both rotors, conumer is requesting reconsideration for the second rotor, consumer stated the vehicle would vibrate and pull to the left, the dealer replaced both calipers and replaced the rear brake shoes.
While stepping on brakes and/or accelerating, consumer hears a grinding noise. It's the rear brake rotors.
Prior to recall notification #879 consumer was having problems with the vehicle pulling to the left or the vehicle would shake when applying the brakes, rotors and pads were replaced, mechanic took vehicle for test drive and after drivng for a few miles and returned the rotors were burned out and so dealership replaced rotors again each time consumer would go in with same problem rotors would be warped, consumer was advised when rotors were be changed that the wheel hub was damaged and that he would be responsible since it looked like the damaged was caused by him, consumer was denied reimbursement from manufacturer stating that his situation did not fit the criteria under the recall, because the information that was submitted did not show a separation of the rotor from the hub, or corrosion.