IllustrationI WAS DRIVING MY CLUTCH AND GAS WENT TO THE FLOOR AND MY STEERING WHEEL BROKE AND I RAN THROUGH THE WOODS. *TR
2004 Pontiac Gto
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2004 Pontiac Gto do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 154.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Gto years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
1250–25K
5125–50K
950–75K
175–100K
3100–150K
1150K+
190 reports with mileage · 55 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Suspension. Review the 169 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Tires. Review the 65 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
7 crash reports1 fire reports6 injury reports
Power Train complaints
17 reportsI GOT NEW TIRES PUT ON YESTERDAY. THEY ARE THE STOCK SIZED TIRES. SHORTLY AFTER I HEARD A LOUD SOUND COMING FROM THE BACK RIGHT SIDE. I NOTICED THE TIRE WAS RUBBING ON THE FENDER. THE CAR SAGS MORE AND MORE EACH DAY. THEN YESTERDAY, I WAS JUST DRIVING NORMALLY FROM STOP LIGHT TO STOP LIGHT, AND MY CAR WOULD WOULDN'T GO INTO 3RD …
Read full complaint
I GOT NEW TIRES PUT ON YESTERDAY. THEY ARE THE STOCK SIZED TIRES. SHORTLY AFTER I HEARD A LOUD SOUND COMING FROM THE BACK RIGHT SIDE. I NOTICED THE TIRE WAS RUBBING ON THE FENDER. THE CAR SAGS MORE AND MORE EACH DAY. THEN YESTERDAY, I WAS JUST DRIVING NORMALLY FROM STOP LIGHT TO STOP LIGHT, AND MY CAR WOULD WOULDN'T GO INTO 3RD OR 4TH GEAR. SO I CHECKED FLUIDS AND IT WAS OK ON THAT. I HAD TO DRIVE 30MPH BACK HOME. *TR
MY PROBLEM WAS WITH THE 6 SPEED MANUAL TRANSMISSION WHICH WOULD CAUSE A GRINDING SOUND WHILE SHIFTING AND "POPPING" OUT OF GEAR WHILE DRIVING. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS THE CLUTCH. THEY REPLACED THE CLUTCH BUT THE PROBLEM NOT ONLY STILL EXISTED BUT IT GOT WORSE. IT BECAME SO BAD THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE …
Read full complaint
MY PROBLEM WAS WITH THE 6 SPEED MANUAL TRANSMISSION WHICH WOULD CAUSE A GRINDING SOUND WHILE SHIFTING AND "POPPING" OUT OF GEAR WHILE DRIVING. I TOOK IT TO THE DEALER WHO DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS THE CLUTCH. THEY REPLACED THE CLUTCH BUT THE PROBLEM NOT ONLY STILL EXISTED BUT IT GOT WORSE. IT BECAME SO BAD THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO SHIFT INTO ANY GEAR AT ANY SPEED. I HAD THE CAR TOWED BACK TO THE DEALER ABOUT A WEEK LATER. NOW THEY TOLD ME THAT IT WAS THE TRANSMISSION. OK. SO I TOLD THEM TO REPLACE IT BUT IT TOOK 4 WEEKS UNTIL GM COULD SUPPLY ONE. IT CAME WITH A 3 YEAR, 100K WARRANTY AT A COST OF $4000. THIS PLUS THE $1200 FOR A NEW CLUTCH MADE FOR A VERY EXPENSIVE OUT-OF-WARRANTY REPAIR. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED IN AUSTRALIA, AND THAT THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO SHIP THE 2004 DEFECTIVE MODELS TO THE UNITED STATED. HE IS EXPERIENCING SUSPENSION FAILURE, IN WHICH THE VEHICLE DOES NOT DRIVE IN A STRAIGHT LINE. THE VEHICLE VEERS FROM L…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED IN AUSTRALIA, AND THAT THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO SHIP THE 2004 DEFECTIVE MODELS TO THE UNITED STATED. HE IS EXPERIENCING SUSPENSION FAILURE, IN WHICH THE VEHICLE DOES NOT DRIVE IN A STRAIGHT LINE. THE VEHICLE VEERS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. THE CONTACT MUST USE BOTH HANDS TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE. HE STATED THAT THE SUSPENSION AND MOTOR WERE CHANGED. THE MOTOR WAS CHANGED BECAUSE IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO SHIFT AND IT WOULD SLIP AND MAKE NOISE. THERE WAS ALSO TRANSMISSION FAILURE WITH THE VEHICLE. WHILE DRIVING OVER A MINOR BUMP AT ANY SPEED, THE VEHICLE WOULD BREAK DOWN. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD PISTON SLAP. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS IDLING, HE COULD HEAR A TICKING NOISE. THE NOISE WAS CAUSED BY THE PISTON STRIKING THE TOP OF THE MOTOR HEAD. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WITH THESE CONCERNS, THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE VEHICLE. THE MILEAGE WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TRADED IN WAS 3,600. UPDATED 07/29/08 *BF UPDATED 07/29/08. *JB
PURCHASED 2004 GTO WITH 37,500 MILES HAD THE CAR A WEEK,SON WAS DRIVING AND HEARD AND FELT A LOUD CLANGING NOISE. HAD CAR TOWED TO DEALER. THEY FIXED UNDER GM CERTIFICATION. IT WAS MISSING LEFT SIDE AXLE BOLTS AND ALL THE RIGHT SIDE WERE VERY LOOSE. *TR
MANUAL TRANSMISSION IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT INTO REVERSE. TRANSMISSION WILL ALSO OCCASIONALLY POP OUT OF A GEAR WHILE DRIVING. IN ORDER TO PUT TRANSMISSION INTO REVERSE I HAVE TO PUT THE TRANSMISSION INTO ANOTHER GEAR FIRST, THIS WORKS OVER HALF OF THE TIME, SOMETIMES I HAVE TO PUT IT IN 3RD, 4TH, THEN GO UP TO REVERSE. THIS H…
Read full complaint
MANUAL TRANSMISSION IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT INTO REVERSE. TRANSMISSION WILL ALSO OCCASIONALLY POP OUT OF A GEAR WHILE DRIVING. IN ORDER TO PUT TRANSMISSION INTO REVERSE I HAVE TO PUT THE TRANSMISSION INTO ANOTHER GEAR FIRST, THIS WORKS OVER HALF OF THE TIME, SOMETIMES I HAVE TO PUT IT IN 3RD, 4TH, THEN GO UP TO REVERSE. THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE I FIRST PICKED UP THE CAR. HAD DEALER LOOK AT IT, THEY CLAIMED THERE WERE NO TSB'S OR RECALLS FOR THE 2004 GTO SO THEY FLUSHED THE TRANSMISSION FLUID AND SENT ME ON MY WAY SAYING "AT LEAST YOU HAVE REPORTED IT, THAT MAY COVER YOU IN THE FUTURE IF IT FAILS." ALSO, DEALER DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY GM TELLS THEM TO USE THE SAME FLUID THAT GOES INTO FRONT DRIVE AUTOMATICS, THIS COULD CAUSE GTO MANUAL TRANSMISSION TO BURN OUT FASTER.*JB
I HAVE HAD TO REPLACE BOTH FRONT TIRES TWICE DUE TO INSIDE TIRE WEAR/PREMATURE WEAR/STRUT RUB (ALL INSIDE WEAR NEAR STRUT). THE INTERMITTENT WIPERS DO NOT FUNCTION PROPERLY (ALL THE TIME). GIVE A FALSE ERROR OF OVERHEATING WITHIN MINUTES OF START-UP (HAPPENED ABOUT A DOZEN TIMES). ANALOG SPEEDOMETER WAS VERY ERRATIC, MOVED ALL A…
Read full complaint
I HAVE HAD TO REPLACE BOTH FRONT TIRES TWICE DUE TO INSIDE TIRE WEAR/PREMATURE WEAR/STRUT RUB (ALL INSIDE WEAR NEAR STRUT). THE INTERMITTENT WIPERS DO NOT FUNCTION PROPERLY (ALL THE TIME). GIVE A FALSE ERROR OF OVERHEATING WITHIN MINUTES OF START-UP (HAPPENED ABOUT A DOZEN TIMES). ANALOG SPEEDOMETER WAS VERY ERRATIC, MOVED ALL AROUND FROM 0 TO 200 MPH WHILE CRUISING AT 65 MPH (2 TIMES) AND READ 140 MPH WHILE STOPPED. PAINT ON THE DOOR HANDLES STARTED PEELING OFF WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP (BOUGHT BRAND NEW). DAMPNESS BEHIND THE DRIVES SEAT ON THE FLOOR (OFTEN AFTER DRIVING IN RAIN). RADIO CONTROLS ON STEERING WHEEL DO NOT FUNCTION PROPERLY, A BUTTON HAS THE FUNCTION OF THE ONE ABOVE IT (OFF & ON ALL THE TIME). GAS CAP REPLACED DUE TO PREMATURE WEAR, CAUSED ENGINE LIGHT TO TURN ON (OFTEN, STILL HAPPENS ONCE IN A WHILE WITH THE NEW CAP). HARD TO SHIFT IN REVERSE AT TIMES, HELPS TO SHIFT IN ANOTHER GEAR FIRST. SHIFTER RATTLES OFTEN DURING ACCELERATION. POPS OUT OF 2ND GEAR (MOSTLY DURING COLD MORNINGS, ALSO HARD TO SHIFT INTO 2ND GEAR ON COLD MORNINGS. LIGHTS STAY ON AFTER CAR IS SHUT OFF WHILE IN AUTO-MODE; WORKED CORRECTLY AT FIRST, BUT NOW THEY ALWAYS STAY ON (ALWAYS OPERATE THEM MANUALLY NOW TO KEEP FROM DRAINING BATTERY). *NM
HAD TROUBLE WITH CLUTCH. POPPING OUT OF GEAR, HARD GOING INTO GEAR, LOSS OF CLUTCH PEDDLE, LOUD ROARING SOUND THAT WOULD GO AWAY WHEN TO PRESSED IN THE CLUTCH BUT WOULD RETURN WHEN THE CLUTCH PEDDLE WAS RELEASED. DEALER REPLACED CLUTCH, VEHICLE STILL POPS OUT OF GEAR ON 4 AND 5 GEAR. VEHICLE SHAKES SOME AND STILL HAS A LOUD RO…
Read full complaint
HAD TROUBLE WITH CLUTCH. POPPING OUT OF GEAR, HARD GOING INTO GEAR, LOSS OF CLUTCH PEDDLE, LOUD ROARING SOUND THAT WOULD GO AWAY WHEN TO PRESSED IN THE CLUTCH BUT WOULD RETURN WHEN THE CLUTCH PEDDLE WAS RELEASED. DEALER REPLACED CLUTCH, VEHICLE STILL POPS OUT OF GEAR ON 4 AND 5 GEAR. VEHICLE SHAKES SOME AND STILL HAS A LOUD ROARING SOUND THAT WILL GO AWAY WHEN THE CLUTCH IS PRESSED IN BUT STILL COMES BACK WHEN THE CLUTCH IS RELEASED. DEALER STATED THE DRIVE SHAFT WAS OUT OF ROUND. THEY REPLACED THE DRIVE SHAFT, BUT IT DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. STILL HAVING TROUBLE WITH CLUTCH, ROARING SOUND. *NM
I HAVE 29,222 MILES ON MY 04 PONTIAC GTO WHEN THIS HAPPENED THE FIRST TIME. OVER TIME ALL 6 BOLTS THAT HOLD MY HALF SHAFT TO THE RIGHT REAR WHEEL HAD BACKED OUT IT LEFT ME STRANDED IN A BUSY INTERSECTION RIGHT WHEN I GOT OFF THE FREEWAY. I5 AND 17TH ST. WITH NO BOLTS HOLDING THE HALF-SHAFT IN IT WAS FREE TO SPIN FREELY AND HIT…
Read full complaint
I HAVE 29,222 MILES ON MY 04 PONTIAC GTO WHEN THIS HAPPENED THE FIRST TIME. OVER TIME ALL 6 BOLTS THAT HOLD MY HALF SHAFT TO THE RIGHT REAR WHEEL HAD BACKED OUT IT LEFT ME STRANDED IN A BUSY INTERSECTION RIGHT WHEN I GOT OFF THE FREEWAY. I5 AND 17TH ST. WITH NO BOLTS HOLDING THE HALF-SHAFT IN IT WAS FREE TO SPIN FREELY AND HIT OTHER PARTS UNDERNEATH MY CAR, DAMAGING THE AXLE, AND RIPPING THE BOOT. I RESEARCHED, AND FOUND OUT THIS HAS BEEN A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE EARLY PRODUCTION 04 MODELS. I TOLD THE DEALER THIS AND THEY REFUSE TO REPLACE THE PARTS UNDER WARRANTY. THEY TRIED BLAMING ME BECAUSE I HAD INSTALLED DIFFERENT REAR SPRINGS, AND SAID I HAD REMOVED AND RE-INSTALLED THESE BOLTS FOR THE SPRING INSTALL. THESE BOLTS DID NOT NEED TO BE TOUCHED DURING THE SPRING INSTALL, I'VE TRIED EXPLAINING THE INSTALL TO THEM, BUT THEY WONT LISTEN... HORRIBLE SERVICE... *NM
VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A 1 CAR ACCIDENT. FOR NO KNOWN REASON THE VEHICLE WENT OUT OF CONTROL WHILE PULLING OUT OF A PARKING LOT. UPON REMOVAL OF THE DAMAGED FRONT FENDER IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE TIRES ON THIS VEHICLE WERE BALD ON THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE. THIS DAMAGE TO THE TIRES IT WAS ULTIMATELY CAUSED THE ACCIDENT. THIS …
Read full complaint
VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A 1 CAR ACCIDENT. FOR NO KNOWN REASON THE VEHICLE WENT OUT OF CONTROL WHILE PULLING OUT OF A PARKING LOT. UPON REMOVAL OF THE DAMAGED FRONT FENDER IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE TIRES ON THIS VEHICLE WERE BALD ON THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE. THIS DAMAGE TO THE TIRES IT WAS ULTIMATELY CAUSED THE ACCIDENT. THIS DEFECT IS WHAT IS KNOW AS STRUT RUB AND IS CAUSED BECAUSE OF A DESIGN FLAW IN THE PARTICULAR VEHICLE. PONTIAC 2004, GTO IN ADDITION TO THIS ISSUE MY VEHICLE HAS HAD NUMBER ISSUES WITH THE SHIFTER. IT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT BY THE DEALER 6 TO 7 TIMES AND SHIFTER WAS REPLACED ONCE. WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS THE SHIFTER STARTS RATTLING AGAIN. THIS VEHICLE IS DEFINITELY A LEMON AND SHOULD BE RECALLED. GM REFUSES TO BUY BACK THE VEHICLE BECAUSE IT WAS IN AN ACCIDENT, EVEN THOUGH THE ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY THE DEFECT IN THE SUSPENSION ON THIS VEHICLE. ALSO, EVEN THOUGH THIS VEHICLE IS STILL UNDER WARRANTY, THE MANUFACTURER STATES THAT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE VEHICLE AND HAS INSTRUCTED US TO DRIVE IT. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OCCURRENCES DOCUMENTED ON VARIOUS WEB SITES, SUCH AS GTO FORUM. I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PRINT OUT THIS INFORMATION FOR YOUR REVIEW!!! *JB
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
1PE07010 · Front Strut To Tire Interference
Opened Feb 16, 2007 · Closed Aug 8, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension; Suspension:front; Suspension:front:macpherson Strut; Tires; Tires:sidewall
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH
Additional source detail variants (5)
Suspension:front
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH
Suspension:front:macpherson Strut
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH
Suspension
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH
Tires
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH
Tires:sidewall
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH