← New search

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

Other model years Selected 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

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

What owners actually said

245 reports
132,000 miles · Oct 25, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE ENTERED THE VEHICLE AND SMELLED GASOLINE FUEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THE EVAPORATED CANISTER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER FO…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE ENTERED THE VEHICLE AND SMELLED GASOLINE FUEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THE EVAPORATED CANISTER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THE FUEL TANK NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED A SECOND TIME. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 132,000. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE.

NHTSA ODI #10549477

91,250 miles · Apr 1, 2013
Power TrainSuspension

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 …

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

NHTSA ODI #10505238

110,110 miles · Mar 28, 2012
Air BagsSeat Belts

THE PASSENGER RESTRAINT SYSTEM (SAFETY BELT) DOES NOT RETRACT AND INSTEAD IS FULLY EXTENDED PROVIDING NO SECURITY OR RESTRAINT IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT,. I HAVE REVIEWED SIMILAR COMPLAINTS FILED AND I CAN ASSURE THIS AGENCY THAT MY BELTS HAVE NO "SOFT DRINK SPILLS CAUSING THE SYSTEM TO BECOME INOPERABLE". INSTEAD THE INTERNAL…

Read full complaint

THE PASSENGER RESTRAINT SYSTEM (SAFETY BELT) DOES NOT RETRACT AND INSTEAD IS FULLY EXTENDED PROVIDING NO SECURITY OR RESTRAINT IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT,. I HAVE REVIEWED SIMILAR COMPLAINTS FILED AND I CAN ASSURE THIS AGENCY THAT MY BELTS HAVE NO "SOFT DRINK SPILLS CAUSING THE SYSTEM TO BECOME INOPERABLE". INSTEAD THE INTERNAL SPRING LOCK DEVICE OF THE BELT ITSELF IS RETAINED IN PLACE BY A PLASTIC DISK AND IS, IN MY OPINION, A FAULTY AND INFERIOR DESIGN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10453393

11,000 miles · Jul 18, 2011
Suspension

I OWN 2004 PONTIAC GTO THAT HAS HAD 2 FRONT END ALIGNMENTS AND HAS BEEN THROUGH 3 SETS OF FRONT TIRES IN 55K MILES. GM STATED TO ME THAT IT HAS TO BE MY DRIVING HABITS AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A DEFECT ON THEIR PART. AFTER CLOSER INSPECTION DURING MY LAST TIRE SWAP OUT. I NOTICED TIRE DAMAGE TO INSIDE OF TIRE ON SIDEWALL,DUE T…

Read full complaint

I OWN 2004 PONTIAC GTO THAT HAS HAD 2 FRONT END ALIGNMENTS AND HAS BEEN THROUGH 3 SETS OF FRONT TIRES IN 55K MILES. GM STATED TO ME THAT IT HAS TO BE MY DRIVING HABITS AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A DEFECT ON THEIR PART. AFTER CLOSER INSPECTION DURING MY LAST TIRE SWAP OUT. I NOTICED TIRE DAMAGE TO INSIDE OF TIRE ON SIDEWALL,DUE TO TIRE RUBBING STRUT ASSEMBLY. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF THE TIRE HAD I NOT BEEN LOOKING. WHO WILL DIE BEFORE GM FIXES THIS ISSUE? THE VEHICLE WILL NOT STAY ALIGNED NO MATTER WHAT I DO,CONSTANTLY LOOSING POSITIVE CAMBER TO THE POINT OF STRUT-TIRE CONTACT. *KB

NHTSA ODI #10413435

44,985 miles · Jun 16, 2010
SuspensionTiresWheels

2004 PONTIAC GTO TIRE BLOW OUT WE PURCHASED OUR 2004 PONTIAC GTO NEW, AND HAVE HAD ISSUES WITH RUBBING SOUNDS AND VIBRATIONS SINCE IT WAS NEW. THE CAR CURRENTLY HAS 45,000 MILES AND WE HAD A BLOW OUT. APPARENTLY THE TIRES ON 2004 GTO'S RUB THE SPRING POCKET OF THE STRUT CAUSING THE INNER SIDE WALL OF THE TIRES TO FAIL PREMATURE…

Read full complaint

2004 PONTIAC GTO TIRE BLOW OUT WE PURCHASED OUR 2004 PONTIAC GTO NEW, AND HAVE HAD ISSUES WITH RUBBING SOUNDS AND VIBRATIONS SINCE IT WAS NEW. THE CAR CURRENTLY HAS 45,000 MILES AND WE HAD A BLOW OUT. APPARENTLY THE TIRES ON 2004 GTO'S RUB THE SPRING POCKET OF THE STRUT CAUSING THE INNER SIDE WALL OF THE TIRES TO FAIL PREMATURELY. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THE WEAR UNLESS THE TIRE IS REMOVED FROM THE VEHICLE. PONTIAC HAS REPLACED THE TIRES ONCE UNDER WARRANTY DUE TO THIS ISSUE, BUT WHEN I RETURNED TO GM TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE PREVIOUS "FIX" DID NOT WORK - THEY DISMISSED ME STATING THE VEHICLE WAS OUT OF WARRANTY. THIS IS OUR THIRD SET OF TIRES WITHIN 45,000 MILES AND MY WIFE FEELS THAT THE CAR IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE BECAUSE OF HER BLOWOUT EXPERIENCE. I NEED GM TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. I HAVE RESEARCHED AND SPOKEN TO MANY GTO OWNERS ONLY TO FIND THAT THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME ISSUE, AND SOME DEALERS HAVE RETROFITTED GTO'S WITH THE APPROPRIATE 18" WHEEL AND TIRE COMBINATION, BUT CARL BLACK IN ROSWELL GA AND THE DISTRICT MANAGER "ROD" WILL DO NOTHING TO HELP US. PLEASE - CAN YOU HELP? *TR

NHTSA ODI #10336689

32,754 miles · May 21, 2010
Service Brakes, HydraulicSuspensionTires

1. MY WIFE WAS COMPLAINING OF A SQUEAKING SOUND WHENEVER SHE PUT ON THE BRAKES. WHEN RESEARCHING BRAKE PADS AND ROTORS ONLINE I NOTICED NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS FOR 2004 AND 2005 GTO'S REGARDING TIRES RUBBING ON THE FRONT STRUTS. SINCE I WAS GOING TO REMOVE THE TIRES TO GET A BETTER LOOK AT THE BRAKE PADS I ALSO CHECKED FOR THE…

Read full complaint

1. MY WIFE WAS COMPLAINING OF A SQUEAKING SOUND WHENEVER SHE PUT ON THE BRAKES. WHEN RESEARCHING BRAKE PADS AND ROTORS ONLINE I NOTICED NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS FOR 2004 AND 2005 GTO'S REGARDING TIRES RUBBING ON THE FRONT STRUTS. SINCE I WAS GOING TO REMOVE THE TIRES TO GET A BETTER LOOK AT THE BRAKE PADS I ALSO CHECKED FOR THE TIRE RUB PROBLEM. SURE ENOUGH THE RIGHT SIDE TIRE AND STRUT BOTH SHOWED SIGNS OF WEAR. THE TIRES INSIDE TREAD WAS WORN AND THERE WERE AREAS ON THE TIRES WHERE SMALL CRACKS HAD STARTED AND ONE 3 INCH LONG CRACK THROUGH THE SIDEWALL. LEFT SIDE TIRE TREAD WAS NOT WORN YET THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE RUB ON THE STRUT. 2. SINCE I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO RUN ACROSS THE INFORMATION ONLINE, I WILL BE ABLE TO AVOID A FAILURE. THE FAILURE IF I WERE TO LET IT GO WOULD MOST CERTAINLY BE EATHER A GRADUAL LOSS OF AIR PRESSURE OR IF RUNNING FREEWAY SPEEDS A SUDDEN BLOWOUT. SIMPLY REPLACING THE TIRES (WITH OEM REPLACEMENTS) AND ADJUSTING THE FRONT END ALIGNMENT WILL NOT PREVENT THE PROBLEM FROM OCCURRING AGAIN. 3. I'M CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF RESEARCHING OPTIONS TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM. WE PURCHASED THE CAR USED BUT WITH VERY LOW MILES AND GOT AN EXTENDED WARRANTY. SINCE OTHER ITEMS CONTRIBUTE TO THE TIRE RUB SUCH AS PREMATURE FAILURE OF BUSHINGS AND BREARNGS I HOPE TO GET AT LEAST THOSE REPLACED SINCE THEY ARE COVERED. A FORMAL RECALL HAS NOT YET BEEN REQUIRED, SO ANY REPLACEMENT PARTS WOULD BE THE SAME AS THOSE THAT FAILED IN THE FIRSTPLACE. I'M STRONGLY LOOKING AT INSTALLING AN AFTERMARKET KIT DESIGNED TO CORRECT ALL THE PROBLEMS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10331653

28,000 miles · May 21, 2010
EquipmentSuspensionTires

2004 PONTIAC GTO, STRUT RUB. THE TIRES RUB THE FRONT TIRES AND WERE RIGHT THREW THE TIRES, WENT TO THE DEALER, AND SAID I NEED A ALIGNMENT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID, KNOW MY TIRES ARE WORN DOWN ON THE OUT SIDE OF THE TIRES, WAS TOLD THE BUSHINGS ARE ALL BAD BY OTHER GTO OWNERS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10331501

Mileage unknown · Apr 25, 2010
SuspensionWheels

NEAR MISS - AT LEAST THUS FAR. . . 2004 PONTIAC GTO FOUND BOTH FRONT TIRES TO BE WORN THROUGH ON INSIDE OF TIRE SUCH THAT CORD WAS SHOWING THROUGH. LUCKY I FOUND THE WEAR AS IT WAS ON THE FAR INSIDE OF A VERY WIDE TIRE WITH LOW CLEARANCES ALL AROUND. FORTUNATELY I PARKED THE CAR THE OTHER DAY WITH THE TIRES TURNED ALL THE…

Read full complaint

NEAR MISS - AT LEAST THUS FAR. . . 2004 PONTIAC GTO FOUND BOTH FRONT TIRES TO BE WORN THROUGH ON INSIDE OF TIRE SUCH THAT CORD WAS SHOWING THROUGH. LUCKY I FOUND THE WEAR AS IT WAS ON THE FAR INSIDE OF A VERY WIDE TIRE WITH LOW CLEARANCES ALL AROUND. FORTUNATELY I PARKED THE CAR THE OTHER DAY WITH THE TIRES TURNED ALL THE WAY ONE DIRECTION, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS SPOTTED BEFORE A BLOW OUT ON THE INTERSTATE. I HAD THE TIRES REPLACED AT 20K MILES WITH SIMILAR WEAR AND WAS TOLD IT WAS AN ALIGNMENT ISSUE. SO I BOUGHT THE NEW TIRES AND HAD ALL THE WHEELS ALIGNED. AFTER APPROXIMATELY 20K MORE MILE THE TIRES ARE IN A WORSE CONDITION THAN THE PREVIOUS ONES. LOOKS LIKE THE STRUTS MAY BE WEARING THE TIRES. THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF A DESIGN FLAW IF THERE EVER WAS ONE, WHICH IS WHY I FEEL I MUST REPORT IT. I WILL PROBABLY TRY TO HAVE SHORTER TIRES (EITHER WIDTH OR HEIGHT) INSTALLED TO CORRECT IT. SHAME I AM HAVING TO PAY FOR THIS PROBLEM AGAIN, BUT I AM THANKFUL THAT I FOUND THE PROBLEM BEFORE SOMEONE GOT HURT. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10327333

72,000 miles · Mar 17, 2010
Power Train

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

NHTSA ODI #10320434

35,000 miles · Feb 26, 2010
Suspension

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH THE STRUTS BEGAN TO RUB ON THE REAR DRIVER SIDE TIRE CAUSING THE TIRE TO BLOW OUT. THE CONTACT REPLACED THE TIRE AND DROVE THE VEHICLE TO A DEALER REGARDING THE STRUTS. THE DEALER REFUSED TO LOOK AT THE VEHICLE BUT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE STRUTS WERE A CONCERN. THE CONT…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH THE STRUTS BEGAN TO RUB ON THE REAR DRIVER SIDE TIRE CAUSING THE TIRE TO BLOW OUT. THE CONTACT REPLACED THE TIRE AND DROVE THE VEHICLE TO A DEALER REGARDING THE STRUTS. THE DEALER REFUSED TO LOOK AT THE VEHICLE BUT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE STRUTS WERE A CONCERN. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER TO HAVE ANOTHER DEALER DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BLOW OUT COULD HAVE CAUSED A CRASH TO OCCUR. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 35,000.

NHTSA ODI #10314704

Official recalls

0

No 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

1

PE07010 · 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