NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
154 reports18,100 miles · May 9, 2007
SuspensionTires
THE 2005 PONTIAC GTO WITH 18,000 MILES WAS TAKEN TO TIRE SERVICE STATION FOR INSPECTION AND REPAIRS OF POTENTIAL NAIL PENETRATION TO FRONT PASSENGER TIRE ON APRIL 14, 2007. SLOW LEAK IN TIRE AFTER WINTER STORAGE IN GARAGE CAUSED THE TIRE TO BE FLAT. UPON REMOVAL FROM CAR THE DEFECTIVE TIRE DETERMINED THE ENTIRE INNER RI…
Read full complaint
THE 2005 PONTIAC GTO WITH 18,000 MILES WAS TAKEN TO TIRE SERVICE STATION FOR INSPECTION AND REPAIRS OF POTENTIAL NAIL PENETRATION TO FRONT PASSENGER TIRE ON APRIL 14, 2007. SLOW LEAK IN TIRE AFTER WINTER STORAGE IN GARAGE CAUSED THE TIRE TO BE FLAT. UPON REMOVAL FROM CAR THE DEFECTIVE TIRE DETERMINED THE ENTIRE INNER RIM WAS WORN OUT, EXPOSING WIRES. STATED I WAS LUCKY THE TIRE DID NOT BLOW,OUT AND RIP MY FENDER OFF, AND CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. I WAS INFORMED THAT THE DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE WAS DAMAGED AS WELL, NOT SAFE TO DRIVE ON, BUT NOT AS BAD AS THE PASSENGER FRONT TIRE. SOMETHING WAS SEVERELY WRONG WITH CAR TO CAUSE THAT MUCH DAMAGE. PAID FOR A REPLACEMENT TIRE TO DRIVE TO DEALERSHIP. RESEARCHED INFORMATION ON INTERNET THROUGH FORUMS IN REGARD TO STRUT RUB ISSUE. DROPPED CAR OFF AT MOORMANS PONTIAC IN DAYTON, OHIO ON 05-07-07, AND SHARED STRUT RUB INFORMATION WITH THEM, AT WHICH TIME THEY INFORMED ME THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM. THEY INSPECTED THE CAR AND INFORMED ME THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF TIRE RUBBING ON THE STRUTS, AND THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR ALIGNMENT AND NEW TIRES SINCE I HAD EVIDENTLY CAUSED THE PROBLEM MYSELF DUE TO MY DRIVING HABITS. QUOTED COST OF REPAIRS WOULD BE $881 PLUS TAX. ACTUAL INFORMATION ENTERED IN SERVICE TICKET READ CUSTOMER STATED TIRES WERE RUBBING FRONT STRUTS AND WEARING OUT THE TIRES. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10190324
14,000 miles · May 6, 2007
Suspension
NOTICED BOTH FRONT TIRES WEARING BADLY ON THE INSIDE EDGE. AT 14K MILES, I ROTATED THE TIRES. WHEN I REMOVED THE FRONT TIRES, I NOTICED THE TIRE WAS HITTING THE STRUT ASSEMBLY. THERE WERE VISIBLE RUB MARKS ON BOTH FRONT STRUTS. NOW, AT 20K MILES I REMOVED THE TIRES FOR INSPECTION. THE FRONT 2 TIRES HAD ONLY BEEN ON FOR APPROX 6K…
Read full complaint
NOTICED BOTH FRONT TIRES WEARING BADLY ON THE INSIDE EDGE. AT 14K MILES, I ROTATED THE TIRES. WHEN I REMOVED THE FRONT TIRES, I NOTICED THE TIRE WAS HITTING THE STRUT ASSEMBLY. THERE WERE VISIBLE RUB MARKS ON BOTH FRONT STRUTS. NOW, AT 20K MILES I REMOVED THE TIRES FOR INSPECTION. THE FRONT 2 TIRES HAD ONLY BEEN ON FOR APPROX 6K MILES (SINCE ROTATION). BOTH FRONT TIRES WERE SEVERELY WORN ON THE INSIDE TO THE POINT THAT THE TREAD HAD SEPARATED/SPLIT AND YOU COULD SEE THE INNER CONSTRUCTION OF THE TIRE! I'M AFRAID IF I HADN'T CHECKED THESE TIRES WHEN I DID, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A BLOWOUT ON THE HIGHWAY WHICH COULD HAVE CAUSED SEVERE INJURY.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10189931
15,351 miles · May 2, 2007
Suspension
FRONT TIRES RUBBING STRUTS. CAUSING SIGNIFICANT TIRE DAMAGE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10189493
18,000 miles · Apr 30, 2007
SuspensionTires
STOCK TIRE ONE (FRONT RIGHT) FAILED ON INTERSTATE DUE TO EXTREME TIRE WEAR ON THE INSIDE SECTION OF TREAD. THIS HAPPENED AROUND 18,000 MI ON THE GTO. I REPLACED THE TIRE. THE TWO ON FRONT LEFT FAILED VIA A SLOW LEAK AT 21,000 MI. WHEN REPLACING THE SECOND TIRE I NOTICED THE SAME EXTREME WEAR ON INSIDE PART OF THE TIRE(INTERNA…
Read full complaint
STOCK TIRE ONE (FRONT RIGHT) FAILED ON INTERSTATE DUE TO EXTREME TIRE WEAR ON THE INSIDE SECTION OF TREAD. THIS HAPPENED AROUND 18,000 MI ON THE GTO. I REPLACED THE TIRE. THE TWO ON FRONT LEFT FAILED VIA A SLOW LEAK AT 21,000 MI. WHEN REPLACING THE SECOND TIRE I NOTICED THE SAME EXTREME WEAR ON INSIDE PART OF THE TIRE(INTERNAL WIRE BELT SHOWING. I INSPECTED THE REAR TIRES , RECENTLY ROTATED, AND FOUND SAME EXCESSIVE INSIDE TREAD WEAR. AFTER INSPECTING THE WHEEL WELLS, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE TIRES ARE CONSISTENTLY RUBBING INSIDE AGAINST THE FRONT STRUTS DUE TO LACK OF CLEARANCE. I HAD TO PURCHASE A COMPLETE SET OF 4 NEW TIRES AND I ALSO PHOTOGRAPHED THE USED/WORN TIRES AND THE WORN/SCRATCHED FRONT STRUTS. THIS VEHICLE IS STILL UNDER THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY AND I HAVE NOT YET REPORTED THIS PROBLEM TO MY LOCAL DEALERSHIP. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10189311
18,640 miles · Apr 29, 2007
Suspension
I NOTICED THE INNER TREAD ON BOTH OF MY FRONT TIRES ON MY 2005 PONTIAC GTO WERE EXCESSIVELY WORN. THE CAR HAS APPROX. 18,500 MILES ON IT. I BROUGHT THIS TO THE DEALERS ATTENTION. THE DEALER ACKNOWLEDGED A PROBLEM AND TOLD ME THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN UPDATE TO THE ALIGNMENT SPECS FOR THE CAR. THEY OFFERED TO REPLACE BOTH FRONT …
Read full complaint
I NOTICED THE INNER TREAD ON BOTH OF MY FRONT TIRES ON MY 2005 PONTIAC GTO WERE EXCESSIVELY WORN. THE CAR HAS APPROX. 18,500 MILES ON IT. I BROUGHT THIS TO THE DEALERS ATTENTION. THE DEALER ACKNOWLEDGED A PROBLEM AND TOLD ME THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN UPDATE TO THE ALIGNMENT SPECS FOR THE CAR. THEY OFFERED TO REPLACE BOTH FRONT TIRES IF I PAYED FOR AN ALIGNMENT (APPROX $90). I WENT AHEAD WITH THE SERVICE. I HAVE NOT DRIVEN THE CAR MUCH SINCE THE CHANGES WERE MADE SO I DO NOT KNOW IF OR WHEN THE PROBLEM WILL OCCUR AGAIN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10189223
18,250 miles · Apr 29, 2007
SuspensionTires
THE MANUFACTURER OF THE 2005 PONTIAC GTO HAS CHOSEN A STANDARD WHEEL/TIRE COMBINATION AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT SPECIFICATIONS THAT CAUSE EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO THE FRONT PASSENGER AND DRIVER'S SIDE TIRES. THE PROPER ALIGNMENT AS SET BY THE MANUFACTURER'S STANDARDS IS IN NEGLIGENCE TO POTENTIAL SAFETY STANDARDS AND GOOD PRACTICE FOR …
Read full complaint
THE MANUFACTURER OF THE 2005 PONTIAC GTO HAS CHOSEN A STANDARD WHEEL/TIRE COMBINATION AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT SPECIFICATIONS THAT CAUSE EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO THE FRONT PASSENGER AND DRIVER'S SIDE TIRES. THE PROPER ALIGNMENT AS SET BY THE MANUFACTURER'S STANDARDS IS IN NEGLIGENCE TO POTENTIAL SAFETY STANDARDS AND GOOD PRACTICE FOR A PERFORMANCE TYPE CAR. DURING REGULAR DRIVING IT IS PROBABLE AND LIKELY THAT THE INSIDE OF BOTH FRONT TIRES WILL RUB IN A DANGEROUS FASHION ON THE SUSPENSIONS COMPONENTS (NAMELY STRUT) CAUSING THE TIRE TO FAIL PREMATURELY. THE FAILURE IS SUCH THAT THE TIRE BECOMES A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD SPECIFICALLY EXPOSING THE TIRE STEEL BELTS PRIOR TO THE VISIBLE "WEAR BAR" INDICATORS BEING EXPOSED. ONE PROPER CORRECTION TO LIMIT THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTINUED TIRE RUB WOULD BE TO ALIGN THE CAMBER IN A FASHION THAT IS MORE SPECIFIC THAN THE MANUFACTURER'S STANDARDS. AFTER HAVING AN ALIGNMENT AT THE MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFIED SERVICE CENTER, THIS CORRECTION WAS NOT PERFORMED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS FURTHER NEGLIGENT WHILE NOT PROPERLY INFORMING THE OWNER OR THE SERVICE CENTER STAFF ABOUT THIS TIRE RUB ISSUE. AFTER HAVING THE TIRES ROTATED AT THE AFOREMENTIONED SERVICE CENTER THE TIRES WERE NOT PROPERLY INSPECTED FOR SAFETY. THE EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR WAS VISIBLE AT APPROXIMATELY 18,000 MILES. AT THIS POINT, THE FRONT TIRES HAD FAILED AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED UNDER WARRANTY DUE TO THE FACTORY ALIGNMENT SETTINGS. DURING THE FIRST 12,000 MILES ON THE CAR THE ORIGINAL FRONT TIRES HAD BEEN DAMAGED IN SUCH A WAY THAT STEERING ALIGNMENT COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED. THIS WAS OBSERVED FROM THE SERVICE CENTER STAFF. AT THAT POINT ON THE SAID MENTIONED DAY, THE REAR TIRES WERE ALSO FAILED. THE SERVICE CENTER WAS NOT PROPERLY INFORMED ABOUT THESE ISSUES CAUSING AN UNSAFE SITUATION. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10189218
1,025 miles · Apr 23, 2007
Electrical System
PURCHASED VEHICLE NEW, WITH 13 MILES, ON APRIL 30, 2005. VEHICLE'S ECM FAILED AFTER 1025 MILES, AT END OF AUGUST, 2005. ECM REPLACED BY DEALER. FAILURE OF ECM PLACED UNDUE STRESS ON MOTOR. I BELIEVE THAT THIS LEAD TO THE VEHICLE'S ENGINE FAILURE REPORTED IN NHTSA CLAIM NUMBER 010188397. OLD ECM WAS RETURNED TO GM BY JIM ARM…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED VEHICLE NEW, WITH 13 MILES, ON APRIL 30, 2005. VEHICLE'S ECM FAILED AFTER 1025 MILES, AT END OF AUGUST, 2005. ECM REPLACED BY DEALER. FAILURE OF ECM PLACED UNDUE STRESS ON MOTOR. I BELIEVE THAT THIS LEAD TO THE VEHICLE'S ENGINE FAILURE REPORTED IN NHTSA CLAIM NUMBER 010188397. OLD ECM WAS RETURNED TO GM BY JIM ARMSTRONG PONTIAC. MOTOR FROM CLAIM NUMBER IS AVAILABLE UNTIL SERVICING DEALER COMPLETES WARRANTY WORK, AND RETURNS MOTOR TO GM. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10188675
6,555 miles · Apr 19, 2007
Engine And Engine CoolingFireInjury
VEHICLE PURCHASED NEW. MOTOR FAILED AT APPROX 6,555 MILES. LOUD POOF FOLLOWED BY FLAMES SHOOTING OUT OF BOTTOM END OF MOTOR. ENGINE FAILURE ALSO SPRAYED HOT MOTOR OIL OVER UNDERCARRIAGE AND BODY PANELS. BLACK SMOKE FILLED PASSENGER CABIN RESULTING IN ZERO VISIBILITY AND FOUL ODOR IN PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. LOST POWER STEERIN…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE PURCHASED NEW. MOTOR FAILED AT APPROX 6,555 MILES. LOUD POOF FOLLOWED BY FLAMES SHOOTING OUT OF BOTTOM END OF MOTOR. ENGINE FAILURE ALSO SPRAYED HOT MOTOR OIL OVER UNDERCARRIAGE AND BODY PANELS. BLACK SMOKE FILLED PASSENGER CABIN RESULTING IN ZERO VISIBILITY AND FOUL ODOR IN PASSENGER COMPARTMENT. LOST POWER STEERING AND BRAKING ABILITY. AFTER ENGINE FAILURE, APPLICATION OF BRAKES WOULD NOT SLOW VEHICLE, REQUIRING DRIVER TO COAST TO STOP WITH ZERO VISIBILITY. AFTER VEHICLE CAME TO STOP, DRIVER EXITED AND RECEIVED MINOR BURNS FROM HOT OIL ON BODY PANELS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10188397
7,500 miles · Apr 18, 2007
Suspension
ON A LONG ROAD TRIP I STARTED TO NOTICE WHAT SMELLED LIKE HOT RUBBER. I NOTICED THAT THE INSIDE TREAD OF THE TIRES WAS WORN, ALMOST COMPLETELY BALD WHILE THE REST OF THE TIRE HAD TREAD. UPON REMOVAL OF THE TIRE I FOUND A WEAR MARK ON THE FRONT STRUT WHERE THE TIRE HAD BEEN RUBBING. THE CAR IS AT THE DEALER NOW, BUT THEY ARE CLAI…
Read full complaint
ON A LONG ROAD TRIP I STARTED TO NOTICE WHAT SMELLED LIKE HOT RUBBER. I NOTICED THAT THE INSIDE TREAD OF THE TIRES WAS WORN, ALMOST COMPLETELY BALD WHILE THE REST OF THE TIRE HAD TREAD. UPON REMOVAL OF THE TIRE I FOUND A WEAR MARK ON THE FRONT STRUT WHERE THE TIRE HAD BEEN RUBBING. THE CAR IS AT THE DEALER NOW, BUT THEY ARE CLAIMING THIS IS NOT A COMMON ISSUE. AFTER SOME RESEARCH, HOWEVER, I HAVE FOUND MANY FROM 2004 TO 2006 GTO OWNERS REPORTING THE SAME PROBLEM, AND 3 OUT OF THE 4 GTO'S THAT I KNOW THE OWNERS OF LOCALLY ARE HAVING THE PROBLEM.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10188205
12,000 miles · Apr 11, 2007
Suspension
I OWN A 2005 PONTIAC GTO WITH THE FRONT TIRE STRUT RUB ISSUE. EVEN WITH ROTATING OF THE TIRES THE INSIDE EDGES OF ALL 4 OF TIRES WERE BALD AFTER ABOUT 12,000 MILES. I HAVE CALLED THE DEALER ABOUT THE PROBLEM, AND THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY FRONT SUSPENSION PROBLEMS, EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE 2 TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETINS, 040…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2005 PONTIAC GTO WITH THE FRONT TIRE STRUT RUB ISSUE. EVEN WITH ROTATING OF THE TIRES THE INSIDE EDGES OF ALL 4 OF TIRES WERE BALD AFTER ABOUT 12,000 MILES. I HAVE CALLED THE DEALER ABOUT THE PROBLEM, AND THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY FRONT SUSPENSION PROBLEMS, EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE 2 TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETINS, 040308014 AND 050308009, DEALING WITH THAT ISSUE. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10187542
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