← 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
23,033 miles · Sep 8, 2005
Suspension

I BOUGHT A 2004 PONTIAC GTO IN DECEMBER AND FROM THE DAY I BOUGHT IT UNTIL NOW I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE FRONT WHEELS HAD A NEGATIVE CAMBER TO THEM. THE PROBLEM I AM HAVING I STARTED TO NOTICE THE AFFECTS IN APRIL OR MAY. THE PROBLEM IS THE FRONT TIRES ARE RUBBING AGAINST THE FRONT STRUTS. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP I BOUGHT…

Read full complaint

I BOUGHT A 2004 PONTIAC GTO IN DECEMBER AND FROM THE DAY I BOUGHT IT UNTIL NOW I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE FRONT WHEELS HAD A NEGATIVE CAMBER TO THEM. THE PROBLEM I AM HAVING I STARTED TO NOTICE THE AFFECTS IN APRIL OR MAY. THE PROBLEM IS THE FRONT TIRES ARE RUBBING AGAINST THE FRONT STRUTS. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP I BOUGHT IT FROM VAUGHN MOTORS IN OTTUMWA, IOWA. I TOOK THE CAR INTO THEM IN MID JULY THE CAR HAD 19,700 MILES ON IT I TOOK IT IN TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT SINCE I HAD TO REPLACE A SET OF TIRES DUE TO THE INSIDES OF THE TIRES WEARING DOWN TO THE CORDS, THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT TOLD ME THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH MY CAR AND THEY SENT ME DOWN THE ROAD WITH NO WORK DONE TO THE CAR TO FIX THE PROBLEM, ON THE SERVICE REPORT THEY WROTE UP FOR ME IT STATES "NOTED RUB MARKS ON STRUTS FROM TIRE SIDEWALL DEFLECTION NO BULLETINS FROM PONTIAC AT THIS TIME". I NOW HAVE 23,033 MILES ON THE CAR AND THE TIRES THAT ARE ON THE FRONT OF THE CAR ARE AGAIN WORE DOWN TO THE CORDS. I CALLED PONTIAC CUSTOMER SERVICE AND THEY TOLD ME TO HAVE THE CAR TAKEN TO VAUGHN MOTORS, CAR HAD TO BE TOWED SINCE THE TIRES ARE SHOT. DEALER HAD THE CAR FOR A FEW HOURS AND SAID THEY HAD TO ADJUST THE CAMBER CAUSE IT WAS TOO NEGATIVE AND THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE REPLACING ANY TIRES. DEALER THEN STATED TO ME THAT THERE WERE NO RUB MARKS ON THE STRUT AND THE TIRES WHERE LIKE THAT BECAUSE I WAS NOT ROTATING THEM ENOUGH. I ROTATED THE TIRES AROUND EVERY 4,000 MILES GTO MANUAL STATES TO ROTATE EVERY 6,000. I CALLED PONTIAC BACK AND REQUESTED THEY HAVE THE CAR FIXED THE RIGHT WAS AND HAVE THE TIRES REPLACED. CAR IS STILL AT THE DEALERSHIP UNTIL PONTIAC GIVES ME THERE DECISION. THERE IS A CASE OPENED BY A PERSON I KNOW WITH THE SAME TYPE OF CAR AND THE SAME PROBLEM THE CASE # IS 10116796. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10135819

Mileage unknown · Sep 1, 2005
Suspension

I REFERENCE CLAIM OID#10116796. I AM HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM. MY TIRES ARE RUBBING ON MY FRONT STRUTS. I OWN AN 2004 PONTIAC GTO. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10135110

Mileage unknown · Aug 31, 2005
Tires

I REFERENCE CLAIM ODI#10116796. I AM HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10134876

Mileage unknown · Aug 31, 2005
SuspensionTires

I REFERENCE CLAIM ODI#10116796. I AM HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM. MY TIRES ARE RUBBING ON MY FRONT STRUT. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10134852

4,000 miles · Aug 14, 2005
Suspension

I REFERENCE CLAIM ODI#10116796. I AM HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM. MY TIRES ARE RUBBING ON MY FRONT STRUTS. DEALERSHIP HAS SAID THAT PONTIAC HAS ADMITTED THE PROBLEM BUT SAYS THERE IS NO FIX. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10132766

Mileage unknown · Aug 14, 2005
Suspension

I REFERENCE CLAIM ODI#10116796. I AM HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM. MY TIRES ARE RUBBING ON MY FRONT STRUT. HISTORY: THE 2004-2005 PONTIAC GTO IS AN IMPORTED VERSION OF THE AUSTRALIAN HOLDEN MONARO. THE HOLDEN MONARO COMES FROM THE FACTORY WITH 235/45R17 TIRES, TIRES THAT ARE GENERALLY 235MM (9.25") WIDE. HOWEVER, WHEN PONTIAC SPEC'…

Read full complaint

I REFERENCE CLAIM ODI#10116796. I AM HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM. MY TIRES ARE RUBBING ON MY FRONT STRUT. HISTORY: THE 2004-2005 PONTIAC GTO IS AN IMPORTED VERSION OF THE AUSTRALIAN HOLDEN MONARO. THE HOLDEN MONARO COMES FROM THE FACTORY WITH 235/45R17 TIRES, TIRES THAT ARE GENERALLY 235MM (9.25") WIDE. HOWEVER, WHEN PONTIAC SPEC'D THE GTO FOR THE US, THEY FINALLY DECIDED ON A WIDER 10MM TIRE; A 245/45R17 BF GOODRICH G-FORCE KDWS TIRE. NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE SUSPENSION OF THE VEHICLE FOR US IMPORT THOUGH. CURRENT PROBLEM: THE LARGER TIRE CAUSES RUBBING ON THE FRONT STRUT, NAMELY AND MORE COMMONLY THE PASSENGER SIDE STRUT. THIS IS EVIDENCED BY A RUBBING MARK ON THE STRUT BODY AND MANY TIMES WEAR MARKS ON THE TIRES THEMSELVES. AFTER PURCHASING THE CAR AND DRIVING IT, I NOTICED RUB MARKS ON THE STRUT BUT THE DEALER WAS UNAWARE OF THE STRUT RUB PROBLEM AT THE TIME AND CLAIMED IT WAS NORMAL. THEY DID NOT RECOMMEND ANY ACTION TO BE TAKEN. RECENTLY, I NOTICED THE TREAD ON MY FRONT PASSENGER SIDE WAS WEARING UNUSUALLY (INSIDE WAS WEARING QUICKLY) AND I ASSUMED IT WAS DUE TO AN ALIGNMENT PROBLEM. I HAD PLANNED ON GETTING NEW TIRES AND AN ALIGNMENT TO REMEDY THIS PROBLEM BUT ON AUGUST 13TH, A SECTION OF THE TIRE CAME LOOSE AND WAS MAKING A "THWAP" NOISE DUE TO SOME OF THE TIRE HITTING THE CAR. I ARRIVED HOME SHORTLY AFTER AND TOOK THE WHEEL OFF TO PUT ON A SPARE TIRE. WHEN I TOOK THE WHEEL OFF, I NOTICED THE RUB MARKS ON THE STRUT HAD ACTUALLY GOTTEN DEEPER. I REALIZED THAT THE UNUSUAL TIRE WEAR WAS DUE TO THE TIRE ACTUALLY RUBBING ON THE STRUT. I TOOK SOME PICTURES OF THE TIRE AND SOME OF THE STRUT WHERE THE TIRE WAS RUBBING. HERE ARE THE LINKS FOR THE PICTURES. HTTP://I6.PHOTOBUCKET.COM/ALBUMS/Y221/JLEE72/DSCF0880.JPG HTTP://I6.PHOTOBUCKET.COM/ALBUMS/Y221/JLEE72/DSCF0881.JPG HTTP://I6.PHOTOBUCKET.COM/ALBUMS/Y221/JLEE72/DSCF0282.JPG. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10132746

Mileage unknown · Aug 4, 2005
Electrical System

MY 2004 GTO HAS PLENTY OF ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS. FROM THE FUEL GAUGE NOT REGISTERING WHEN I PUT GAS IN, TO WHILE I START AND DRIVE MY CAR THE MILES UNTIL EMPTY AND LOW FUEL AND VERY LOW FUEL WARNINGS GO ON AND OFF. TO ALL MY GAUGES ON THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER DO WHAT THEY WANT. THE RPM NEEDLE WENT CRAZY IN PARK BEFORE AND WHILE DRI…

Read full complaint

MY 2004 GTO HAS PLENTY OF ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS. FROM THE FUEL GAUGE NOT REGISTERING WHEN I PUT GAS IN, TO WHILE I START AND DRIVE MY CAR THE MILES UNTIL EMPTY AND LOW FUEL AND VERY LOW FUEL WARNINGS GO ON AND OFF. TO ALL MY GAUGES ON THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER DO WHAT THEY WANT. THE RPM NEEDLE WENT CRAZY IN PARK BEFORE AND WHILE DRIVING. MY TEMPERATURE NEEDLE WHILE ONLY DRIVING FOR A FEW MILES AS SOMEONE ELSE HAS THE SAME PROBLEMS IN HERE THE FLUIDS ALL BEING FULL WENT TO HOT AND WARNINGS CAME ON AND WENT OFF WITH TEMPERATURE NEEDLE GOING BACK TO NORMAL. WELL NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE THE DEALERSHIP CLAIMS THEY CANNOT DUPLICATE ANY OF MY PROBLEMS. ALTHOUGH I BROUGHT THE CAR IN WHILE IT WAS DOING THIS. SO I WENT TO LAWYERS FOR LEMON LAW TO SUE PONTIAC WHICH OF COURSE WITH MANY TRIPS TO THE DEALERSHIP WITH A NEW CAR DIDN'T BUY THE CAR BACK BECAUSE OF THE DEALERSHIPS INABILITY TO "DUPLICATE MY CONCERN" SO THEY OFFERED ME MONEY AND I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS LEMON CAR. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10131617

2,556 miles · Aug 4, 2005
Seats

PASSENGERS SEAT BECOMES INOPERATIVE. WILL NOT MOVE FORWARD OR BACKWARD, CAUSING THE PASSENGERS IN THE REAR SEAT NOT TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE CAR IF THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY.

NHTSA ODI #10131552

Mileage unknown · Aug 2, 2005
Air BagsCrashInjury

THE FIRST COMPLAINT PROMPTED ME TO DO RESEARCH AND I FIND MORE COMPLAINTS OF 2004 PONTIAC GTO'S ON VARIOUS FORUMS AND WEBSITES WITH MAJOR FRONT DAMAGE AND NO AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT THAT RESULTED IN INJURY, INCLUDING A HAIRLINE CRACK IN A LADIES SKULL. ONE SPECIFICALLY A SILVER 2004 GTO WHICH WAS TOTALED FROM THE FRONT AND THE DRIVE…

Read full complaint

THE FIRST COMPLAINT PROMPTED ME TO DO RESEARCH AND I FIND MORE COMPLAINTS OF 2004 PONTIAC GTO'S ON VARIOUS FORUMS AND WEBSITES WITH MAJOR FRONT DAMAGE AND NO AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT THAT RESULTED IN INJURY, INCLUDING A HAIRLINE CRACK IN A LADIES SKULL. ONE SPECIFICALLY A SILVER 2004 GTO WHICH WAS TOTALED FROM THE FRONT AND THE DRIVER SUFFERED A BROKEN NOSE AS PER HIS POST. AS I CONTINUED I FOUND SEVERAL OTHERS. THEN THERE WERE OTHERS THAT HAD MINOR TO MODERATE FRONT END CRASHES WITH A 2004 GTO AND THE AIRBAGS DID DEPLOY. WHERE THE BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY IT WAS REPORTED TO BE TRAVELING AT SPEEDS FROM 25 - 40 MPH AND THE SAME WITH DEPLOYMENT. THEY NEVER MENTIONED A COMPLAINT TO NHTSA BUT MAYBE ITS BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THERE WERE MULTIPLE OCCURRENCES. THE POINT OF THIS COMPLAINT IS TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF THE OPERATORS AND PASSENGERS OF THESE VEHICLES. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10130950

950 miles · Jul 31, 2005
Air BagsCrashInjury

I BOUGHT A BRAND NEW 2004 PONTIAC GTO IN JUNE 2004. IN AUGUST 2004 I WAS IN AN ACCIDENT. I WAS DRIVING WHEN HIT AND AS PER MY PASSENGER(FRONT SEAT) WE HIT A TREE HEAD ON DEAD CENTER AT ABOUT 35 MPH. WE WERE WEARING SEAT BELTS. THE BRAKE PEDAL BENT AND NEITHER AIRBAG DEPLOYED. THE INSIDE OF THE CAR WAS TWISTED AND CRACKED. THE…

Read full complaint

I BOUGHT A BRAND NEW 2004 PONTIAC GTO IN JUNE 2004. IN AUGUST 2004 I WAS IN AN ACCIDENT. I WAS DRIVING WHEN HIT AND AS PER MY PASSENGER(FRONT SEAT) WE HIT A TREE HEAD ON DEAD CENTER AT ABOUT 35 MPH. WE WERE WEARING SEAT BELTS. THE BRAKE PEDAL BENT AND NEITHER AIRBAG DEPLOYED. THE INSIDE OF THE CAR WAS TWISTED AND CRACKED. THE CAR WAS DEEMED A TOTAL LOSS. I WAS KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS AND SUFFERED INJURIES TO MY UPPER EXTREMITIES INCLUDING MY HEAD AND FACE. AND CONTINUE TO SUFFER SERIOUS DEFICITS IN MEMORY AND THOUGHT ETC. I SUFFER FROM SEVERE MIGRAINES MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY AND HAVE SINCE BEEN ON PAIN MEDICATION FOR IT. ALSO SUFFER FROM STRONG PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPAIRMENT AND TILL THIS DAY I AM STILL IN WEEKLY TREATMENT. MY PASSENGER NEEDED KNEE SURGERY AND SUFFERED FROM A DISLOCATED THUMB. GENERAL MOTORS WAS CONTACTED ABOUT 15 DAYS LATER THEY PROMISED AN INVESTIGATION BUT NO WORD FROM THEM SINCE. THERE HAVE BEEN NO RECALLS OR TSB ABOUT THIS. MY VEHICLE HAS YET TO BE REPLACED AND NO OWNERS OF THE SAME CAR HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS. (NOTE:)- THE PONTIAC GTO WAS BUILT IN AUSTRALIA AS THE HOLDEN MANARO AND SOLD IN THE US AS THE PONTIAC GTO. IN AUSTRALIA IT HAS A RITE SIDE DRIVERS POSITION. AND SIDE AIRBAGS. IT WAS CRASH TESTED BY AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE MANUFACTURER. EVEN THOUGH THE VEHICLE HAD CHANGED ITS STRUCTURE AND DELETED ITS SIDE AIRBAGS IT WAS NOT TESTED BY THE US GOVERNMENT OR BY THE MANUFACTURER OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE US AS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT VEHICLE THAT REACTS DIFFERENT IN SITUATIONS THAN IT DOES IN THE MANARO. THE RESULT OF THESE INJURIES WAS A RESULT OF MANUFACTURER NEGLIGENCE. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10130721

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