NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
245 reports2,000 miles · Apr 12, 2005
SuspensionTires
HISTORY: THE 2004-2005 PONTIAC GTO IS AN IMPORTED VERSION OF THE AUSTRALIA HOLDEN MONARO. THE HOLDEN MANARO COMES FROM THE FACTORY WITH 235/45R17 TIRES, TIRES THAT ARE GENERALLY 235MM (9.25") WIDE. HOWEVER, WHEN PONTIAC SPECS THE GTO FOR THE US, THEY FINALLY DECIDED ON A 10MM WIDER TIRE, A 245/45R17 BF GOODRICH G-FORCE KDWS TIRE…
Read full complaint
HISTORY: THE 2004-2005 PONTIAC GTO IS AN IMPORTED VERSION OF THE AUSTRALIA HOLDEN MONARO. THE HOLDEN MANARO COMES FROM THE FACTORY WITH 235/45R17 TIRES, TIRES THAT ARE GENERALLY 235MM (9.25") WIDE. HOWEVER, WHEN PONTIAC SPECS THE GTO FOR THE US, THEY FINALLY DECIDED ON A 10MM WIDER 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. IN SOME CASES, FRONT SUSPENSION BINDING HAS OCCURRED. IN OTHER CASES, TIRE REPLACEMENT WAS NECESSARY. THIS IS DUE, IN FACT, TO THE INCREASE IN SIZE OF THE TIRE THAT PONTIAC HAS CHOSEN TO PUT ON THE IMPORTED VERSION. SEVERAL PONTIAC DEALERSHIPS ARE AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM, AND IT HAS BEEN SPECULATED THAT PONTIAC IS AWARE AS WELL. FUTURE PROBLEMS: TIRES ARE NOT ALL THE SAME SIZE. ONE 245/45R17 TIRE CAN BE SMALLER OR LARGER DEPENDING ON THE MANUFACTURER OF THE TIRE. THERE IS A STRONG POSIBILITY THAT WHEN A CONSUMER REPLACES HIS/HER WORN FACTORY TIRES WITH ANOTHER SET OF TIRES, OF THE SAME "SIZE", THAT THEY WOULD BE EVEN LARGER AND COULD CAUSE SERIOUS PROBLEMS. IN LIGHT OF THE FORD-FIRESTONE TIRE PROBLEMS, I BELIEVE THIS IS A SITUATION THAT SHOULD BE RESEARCHED. PLEASE NOTE: DEALERSHIP LOT CARS WOULD MOST LIKELY NOT DEMONSTRATE THIS PROBLEM AS THEY WILL NOT HAVE BEEN DRIVEN ENOUGH TO CAUSE THE RUBBING.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10116796
6,000 miles · Mar 4, 2005
Tires
I HAVE 6,000 MILES ON MY GTO. I CAN NOT ROTATIE MY TIRES BECAUSE THE INNER TIRE IN THE REAR OF MY CAR ARE BOLD. PONTIAC DEALER IS GIVING ME HARD TIME ABOUT THE REAR. MY TIRE ARE TOWED IN ON THE TOP SO I GOT UNEVEN WEAR THEY TOLD ME NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THE REAR.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10112537
4,023 miles · Feb 27, 2005
Engine And Engine Cooling
TEMPERATURE GAUGE FAULTY. DRIVING AT 50 MPH AND TEMPERATURE GAUGE WENT TO HOT FOR 10 SECONDS THEN SLOWLY WENT BACK DOWN TO NORMAL. ENGINE ISN'T OVERHEATING BECAUSE ALL FLUIDS HAVE BEEN CHECKED. BELIEVE PROBLEM TO BE ELECTRONIC RELATED. THIS HAS OCCURRED ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS. FIRST INCIDENT ENGINE WAS COLD AND CAR WAS STATI…
Read full complaint
TEMPERATURE GAUGE FAULTY. DRIVING AT 50 MPH AND TEMPERATURE GAUGE WENT TO HOT FOR 10 SECONDS THEN SLOWLY WENT BACK DOWN TO NORMAL. ENGINE ISN'T OVERHEATING BECAUSE ALL FLUIDS HAVE BEEN CHECKED. BELIEVE PROBLEM TO BE ELECTRONIC RELATED. THIS HAS OCCURRED ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS. FIRST INCIDENT ENGINE WAS COLD AND CAR WAS STATIONARY. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10112233
2,800 miles · Feb 17, 2005
StructureInjury
THE DESIGN OF THE ROOF PUTS IT INTO TOO CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE DRIVER AND PASSENGERS HEADS. THE COVERING OF THIS AREA IS ALSO EXTREMELY HARD. I HAVE ENCOUNTERED BUMPS THAT CAUSE THE CAR TO ROCK SIDEWAYS, AND HAVE CONSEQUENTLY STRUCK MY HEAD ON THIS AREA OF THE ROOF THAT CONNECTS THE "A" AND "B" PILLARS. I'VE HAD TO PULL OFF THE …
Read full complaint
THE DESIGN OF THE ROOF PUTS IT INTO TOO CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE DRIVER AND PASSENGERS HEADS. THE COVERING OF THIS AREA IS ALSO EXTREMELY HARD. I HAVE ENCOUNTERED BUMPS THAT CAUSE THE CAR TO ROCK SIDEWAYS, AND HAVE CONSEQUENTLY STRUCK MY HEAD ON THIS AREA OF THE ROOF THAT CONNECTS THE "A" AND "B" PILLARS. I'VE HAD TO PULL OFF THE ROAD TO REGAIN MY SENSES BEFORE CONTINUING ON. ALSO THIS ROOF AREA DESIGN PREVENTS THE USE OF THE SUN VISOR TO BLOCK BRIGHT SUNLIGHT FROM THE SIDE WINDOW. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN ONES HEAD AND THE ROOF IS INSUFFICIENT TO PLACE THE VISOR BETWEEN ONES HEAD AND THE SIDE WINDOW. I FEEL THIS IS A SERIOUS DESIGN DEFECT AND IT CANNOT BE FIXED. A SOFTER COVERING WOULD HAVE HELPED LESSEN THE BLOWS TO MY HEAD THAT I RECEIVE DAILY IN THIS AUTOMOBILE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10110720
4,500 miles · Dec 12, 2004
Structure
I RECENTLY PURCHASED A GM CERTIFIED SLIGHTLY USED (4,500 MILES )2004 PONTIAC GTO I WAS GIVEN A 110 POINT INSPECTION CHECK LIST THAT NOTED ITEMS THAT HAD PASSED INSPECTION AND OTHER DETAILS ABOUT THE CONDITION OF VEHICLE. AFTER LOOKING OVER THE LIST I NEGOTIATED A PRICE AND BOUGHT THE CAR. WITHIN 10 DAYS OF PURCHASE I FOUND OUT W…
Read full complaint
I RECENTLY PURCHASED A GM CERTIFIED SLIGHTLY USED (4,500 MILES )2004 PONTIAC GTO I WAS GIVEN A 110 POINT INSPECTION CHECK LIST THAT NOTED ITEMS THAT HAD PASSED INSPECTION AND OTHER DETAILS ABOUT THE CONDITION OF VEHICLE. AFTER LOOKING OVER THE LIST I NEGOTIATED A PRICE AND BOUGHT THE CAR. WITHIN 10 DAYS OF PURCHASE I FOUND OUT WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE CAR. THE HOOD HAD NOT BEEN FULLY PAINTED AND IN CERTAIN LIGHT YOU COULD SEE THE PRIMER GRAY. WHEN I NOTIFIED THE DEALER ANDERSON CHEV. LOS GATOS CA THEY SAID THIS WAS A WARRANTY ISSUE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD INSPECTED AND PASSED THE HOOD. WHEN I TOOK IT TO A PONTIAC DEALER THE SERVICE MANAGER AND BODY SHOP MGR. INFORMED ME THAT THE ONLY THING THEY COULD DO WAS TO REPAINT THE HOOD. HOWEVER IT WAS ADVISED THAT IF THE HOOD WAS REPAINTED IT WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO CHIP AND FADE IN TIME DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY CANNOT DUPLICATE THE FACTORY PAINT JOB. I AM NOW STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE, LIVE WITH THE DEFECTIVE PAINT JOB OR HAVE IT REPAINTED AND WAIT FOR PAINT PROBLEMS TO HAPPEN. THIS IS NOT WHAT I BARGAINED FOR AND IS NOT A PROBLEM THAT I WANT TO LIVE WITH. A DEFECT THAT CANNOT BE FIXED CORRECTLY. THE DEALER,AND PONTIAC ARE TRYING TO HOLD ME TO THIS CAR. IS THERE ANY HELP FOR ME IN THIS CASE? *JB
NHTSA ODI #10102775
5,550 miles · Oct 9, 2004
Power Train
WHILE DRIVING MY NEW PONTIAC GTO THE BOLTS THAT HOLD DRIVERS SIDE HALF SHAFT IN FELL OUT CAUSING THE HALF SHAFT TO FALL OUT IF I WOULD OF BEEN GOING FASTER THEN 20 MPH IT COULD OF CAUSED SERIOUS DAMAGE AND OR INJURY. WHEN I SHIFTED FROM FIRST TO SECOND THAT'S WHEN IT FELL OUT. IT IS AT DEALER CURRENTLY WILL CALL TO SEE WHAT'S GO…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING MY NEW PONTIAC GTO THE BOLTS THAT HOLD DRIVERS SIDE HALF SHAFT IN FELL OUT CAUSING THE HALF SHAFT TO FALL OUT IF I WOULD OF BEEN GOING FASTER THEN 20 MPH IT COULD OF CAUSED SERIOUS DAMAGE AND OR INJURY. WHEN I SHIFTED FROM FIRST TO SECOND THAT'S WHEN IT FELL OUT. IT IS AT DEALER CURRENTLY WILL CALL TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. DO NOT KNOW WHY THEY WERE NOT TIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE AS I WAS ON WWW.LS1GTO.COM AND FOUND PEOPLE WITH SIMILAR PROBLEMS I DO BELIEVE SIX OF THEM ALL HAD THE DRIVER'S SIDE INNER HALF SHAFT BOLTS FALL OUT! *NM
NHTSA ODI #10093855
4,392 miles · Aug 30, 2004
Power Train
DRIVING IN 2ND GEAR (MANUAL TRANSMISSION), 25MPH, I HEARD A LOUD CLUNK AND THE CAR NO LONGER ACCELERATED. GOT OUT AND FOUND 6 BOLTS THAT HOLD THE DRIVERS SIDE HALF SHAFT TO THE DIFFERENTIAL WERE LYING IN THE ROAD. HAD THE CAR TOWED TO ULTIMATE PONTIAC,FREDERICKSBURG, VA. IT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE AUGUST 9TH WITH PARTS ON BACK ORDE…
Read full complaint
DRIVING IN 2ND GEAR (MANUAL TRANSMISSION), 25MPH, I HEARD A LOUD CLUNK AND THE CAR NO LONGER ACCELERATED. GOT OUT AND FOUND 6 BOLTS THAT HOLD THE DRIVERS SIDE HALF SHAFT TO THE DIFFERENTIAL WERE LYING IN THE ROAD. HAD THE CAR TOWED TO ULTIMATE PONTIAC,FREDERICKSBURG, VA. IT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE AUGUST 9TH WITH PARTS ON BACK ORDER.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10088798
4,300 miles · Aug 29, 2004
Power Train
TRANSMISSION IS DIFFICULT TO PUT INTO REVERSE. DOUBLE CLUTCHING DOES NOT REMEDY AND YOU ALMOST HAVE TO FORCE THE GEAR SHIFT INTO REVERSE. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE IT TAKES AN UNACCEPTABLE AMOUNT OF FORCE (IN LBS OR NEWTONS) TO FORCE VEHICLE INTO GEAR. TRANSMISSION ALSO OCCASIONALLY "POPS" OUT OF GEAR. GEARS ALSO GRIND …
Read full complaint
TRANSMISSION IS DIFFICULT TO PUT INTO REVERSE. DOUBLE CLUTCHING DOES NOT REMEDY AND YOU ALMOST HAVE TO FORCE THE GEAR SHIFT INTO REVERSE. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE IT TAKES AN UNACCEPTABLE AMOUNT OF FORCE (IN LBS OR NEWTONS) TO FORCE VEHICLE INTO GEAR. TRANSMISSION ALSO OCCASIONALLY "POPS" OUT OF GEAR. GEARS ALSO GRIND SOMETIMES WHEN CLUTCH IS FULLY ENGAGED. VEHICLE HAS ONLY 7000 MILES. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10088787
4,300 miles · Aug 29, 2004
Engine And Engine Cooling
WHILE WASHING MY NEW VEHICLE FOR THE FIRST TIME, I DISCOVERED ON MY GTO THAT THE RIGHT HEAD WAS LEAKING ANTIFREEZE ON THE LS-1 ENGINE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10088786
4,300 miles · Aug 29, 2004
Visibility
WHILE WASHING MY NEW VEHICLE FOR THE FIRST TIME, I DISCOVERED ON MY GTO THAT THE DRIVERS SIDE, REAR VIEW MIRROR IS SEVERELY SCRATCHED. THIS WAS REPORTED TO THE DEALER AND DEALER SAID THAT THEY WOULD FIX WHILE VEHICLE WAS BEING REPAIRED FOR A LEAKING HEAD, AND A BENT STRUT (BOTH GM WARRANTY ISSUES). DEALER CLAIMED THAT THEY WOU…
Read full complaint
WHILE WASHING MY NEW VEHICLE FOR THE FIRST TIME, I DISCOVERED ON MY GTO THAT THE DRIVERS SIDE, REAR VIEW MIRROR IS SEVERELY SCRATCHED. THIS WAS REPORTED TO THE DEALER AND DEALER SAID THAT THEY WOULD FIX WHILE VEHICLE WAS BEING REPAIRED FOR A LEAKING HEAD, AND A BENT STRUT (BOTH GM WARRANTY ISSUES). DEALER CLAIMED THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO "BUFF'" THIS OUT WITH A PROCESS THEY HAD AND THAT IT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO ME AND PROBLEM WAS NOT FIXED, IN FACT IT WAS WORSE. WORSE TO THE POINT THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE OUT OF THE MIRROR AT CERTAIN TIMES BECAUSE THE SUNLIGHT CAN "HIGH LIGHT" THE MANY SCRATCHES, MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT AND DISTRACTING TO SEE OUT OF THE MIRROR. A BRAND NEW $30000 VEHICLE AND THEY CAN'T GET A $40 REAR VIEW MIRROR RIGHT EVEN AFTER A SECOND CHANCE. THIS IS A SAFETY HAZARD GM NEEDS TO CERTIFY FIXED AND REPAIR SUSPECT AND DAMAGED VEHICLES. AFTER INFORMING PONTIAC CUSTOMER SERVICE OF THIS ISSUE. THE HAVE DECIDED TO TAKE NO ACTION TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM AND HAVE CLOSED MY CASE AND SAID THAT THEIR IS NOTHING MORE THEY CAN DO. CUSTOMER SERVICE AND GM WERE VERY HOSTILE AND UNCOOPERATIVE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10088785
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
Illustration