IllustrationAIRBAG LIGHT ON AFTER MINOR IMPACT WHILE PARKING
2005 Pontiac Gto
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2005 Pontiac Gto do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 154.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Gto years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
870–25K
1925–50K
650–75K
475–100K
4100–150K
2150K+
122 reports with mileage · 32 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 100 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Tires. Review the 44 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 14 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
4 crash reports2 fire reports4 injury reports
What owners actually said
154 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 PONTIAC GTO. AFTER STARTING THE VEHICLE, THE AIR BAG SENSOR ILLUMINATED AND THE AIR BAG FAULT MESSAGE DISPLAYED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE SENSOR FOR THE PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT RETRACTOR WAS FAULTY. THE CONTACT NOTIFIED THE MANUFACTURER OF THE FAILURE A…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 PONTIAC GTO. AFTER STARTING THE VEHICLE, THE AIR BAG SENSOR ILLUMINATED AND THE AIR BAG FAULT MESSAGE DISPLAYED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE SENSOR FOR THE PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT RETRACTOR WAS FAULTY. THE CONTACT NOTIFIED THE MANUFACTURER OF THE FAILURE AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE PARTS NEEDED TO REPAIR THE FAILURE WERE PERMANENTLY NO LONGER AVAILABLE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 85,000.
IGNITION LOCKED UP HAD HAVE CAR TOWED NEW IGNITION SWITCH INSTALLED $400.00. *TR
DROVE OFF A MOUNTAIN IN WESTERN N.C. DUE TO LOOSE GRAVEL. WENT DOWN OVER 300 YARDS PLUS. THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. I RECEIVED TWO SKULL FRACTURES AND TWO BROKEN NECK BONES. ALSO, THE SKIN ON MY LEFT ARM, WAS SCRAPED TO THE BONE. NUMEROUS CUTS AND MY ENTIRE BODY WAS SORE. ...UPDATED 10/22/14 *BF
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 PONTIAC GTO. THE CONTACT STATED WHEN THAT THE NO AIR BAG WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED ONCE THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER AND THE DIAGNOSIS WAS THAT THE SEAT BELT PRETENSIONERS WERE DEFECTIVE. THE CONTACT WAS TOLD THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE, AND THAT MODEL WAS NO LONGER…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 PONTIAC GTO. THE CONTACT STATED WHEN THAT THE NO AIR BAG WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED ONCE THE VEHICLE WAS STARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER AND THE DIAGNOSIS WAS THAT THE SEAT BELT PRETENSIONERS WERE DEFECTIVE. THE CONTACT WAS TOLD THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE, AND THAT MODEL WAS NO LONGER BEING MADE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WERE 106,000.
HAD THE CAR FOR LESS THAN A YEAR. PARKED IT AND WENT TO REMOVE MY KEY AND THE KEY FROZE IN THE IGNITION SWITCH. WAS TOLD BY DEALER SERVICE DEPARTMENT THAT IT WAS A KNOWN PROBLEM AND THAT THE PARTS WERE ON BACK ORDER. SIX WEEKS LATER I FINALLY GOT MY CAR BACK. SINCE THEN, REMOVING THE KEY FROM THE IGNITION SWITCH REQUIRES THE…
Read full complaint
HAD THE CAR FOR LESS THAN A YEAR. PARKED IT AND WENT TO REMOVE MY KEY AND THE KEY FROZE IN THE IGNITION SWITCH. WAS TOLD BY DEALER SERVICE DEPARTMENT THAT IT WAS A KNOWN PROBLEM AND THAT THE PARTS WERE ON BACK ORDER. SIX WEEKS LATER I FINALLY GOT MY CAR BACK. SINCE THEN, REMOVING THE KEY FROM THE IGNITION SWITCH REQUIRES THE STEERING WHEEL BE PERFECTLY STRAIGHT AND JIGGLING THE KEY AS YOU ARE REMOVING IT. IT HAS GOTTEN WORSE IN THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS AND THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF PLAY IN THE IGNITION SWITCH. MY MECHANIC ADVISED ME THAT IT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AND THAT THE KEY AND IGNITION SWITCH ARE NO LONGER MANUFACTURED. I'M CONCERNED THAT AT SOME POINT SOON THE SWITCH WILL LOCK UP AGAIN WHILE THE CAR IS MOVING AND I WON'T BE ABLE TO TURN THE STEERING WHEEL. *TR
WHEN I PUT MY KEY INTO THE IGNITION, IT FROZE. I COULDN'T TURN THE KEY. I COULDN'T MOVE THE CAR. THE IGNITION WAS LOCKED UP. I TRIED JUST REPLACING THE IGNITION CYLINDER, BUT THAT DID NOT WORK. I HAD TO HAVE THE ENTIRE STEERING COLUMN REPLACED. IT COST $1371.67 TO GET THIS CAR FIXED DUE TO NO FAULT OF MY OWN. I HAVE RESEARCHED T…
Read full complaint
WHEN I PUT MY KEY INTO THE IGNITION, IT FROZE. I COULDN'T TURN THE KEY. I COULDN'T MOVE THE CAR. THE IGNITION WAS LOCKED UP. I TRIED JUST REPLACING THE IGNITION CYLINDER, BUT THAT DID NOT WORK. I HAD TO HAVE THE ENTIRE STEERING COLUMN REPLACED. IT COST $1371.67 TO GET THIS CAR FIXED DUE TO NO FAULT OF MY OWN. I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS ISSUE AND IT SEEMS THAT ON THE WEEK MY VEHICLE WAS IN THE SHOP, 3 OTHER PONTIACS WERE IN THE SAME SHOP, FOR THE EXACT SAME ISSUE. UPON DOING MORE RESEARCH ONLINE, I HAVE FOUND THAT NUMEROUS PEOPLE ARE EXPERIENCING THIS EXACT ISSUE. DUE TO NO FAULT OF MY OWN AND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT FAULTY PARTS IN THE IGNITION, I HAD TO HAVE THIS REPAIRED. I HAD TO HAVE MY CAR TOWED BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT MOVE THIS CAR OR PUT IT IN NEUTRAL TO GET THE VEHICLE TO MOVE OTHERWISE. FUNNY HOW IT FAILED 2 MONTHS AFTER MY WARRANTY EXPIRED! HOW IS THIS FAIR THAT THEIR PART FAILED AND YET THEY ARE TAKING TO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS? THIS WAS A VERY EXPENSIVE FIX! PLEASE RECALL THE PONTIAC IGNITIONS! SO I AM OUT ALMOST $1500. BAD CALL GM! *TR
WHILE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW IS BEING LOWERED, WINDOW CONTACTS DOOR LATCH MECHANISM CAUSING DOOR TO BECOME AJAR AND WINDOW GETS STUCK IN PLACE OFF CENTER. AFTER RETURNING WINDOW TO UP POSITION AND ATTEMPTING TO LOWER WINDOW AGAIN, DOOR NOW BECOMES COMPLETELY UNLATCHED AND SWINGS FREELY AFTER WINDOW HITS MECHANISM. ISSUE WAS NOTICE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW IS BEING LOWERED, WINDOW CONTACTS DOOR LATCH MECHANISM CAUSING DOOR TO BECOME AJAR AND WINDOW GETS STUCK IN PLACE OFF CENTER. AFTER RETURNING WINDOW TO UP POSITION AND ATTEMPTING TO LOWER WINDOW AGAIN, DOOR NOW BECOMES COMPLETELY UNLATCHED AND SWINGS FREELY AFTER WINDOW HITS MECHANISM. ISSUE WAS NOTICED PRIOR TO DOOR BECOMING COMPLETELY UNLATCHED. MAJOR SAFETY HAZARD IF WINDOW IS LOWERED AND DOOR BECOMES UNLATCHED WHILE DRIVING (TO OTHER OWNERS). *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 PONTIAC GTO. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE PARKED, HE NOTICED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER'S SIDE WINDOW WAS NOT ALIGNED PROPERLY, CAUSING THE DOOR TO BE OPENED INADVERTENTLY. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 150,000. *TR
FEB 16TH 2013 CASE # [XXX] MY CAR WAS IN FOR THIS SERVICE FOR A AIRBAG FAULT LIGHT I WAS TOLD THAT "FOUND LOW VOLTAGE TO VARIOUS SRS COMPONENTS" AND THAT ACCORDING TO A GM SERVICES BULLETIN INSPECTION OF THE SRS WIRING SYSTEM BEHIND THE DASH IS NEEDED. ACCORDING TO THE DEALER THERE IS A GM SERVICE BULLETIN ON FAULTY WIRING HARN…
Read full complaint
FEB 16TH 2013 CASE # [XXX] MY CAR WAS IN FOR THIS SERVICE FOR A AIRBAG FAULT LIGHT I WAS TOLD THAT "FOUND LOW VOLTAGE TO VARIOUS SRS COMPONENTS" AND THAT ACCORDING TO A GM SERVICES BULLETIN INSPECTION OF THE SRS WIRING SYSTEM BEHIND THE DASH IS NEEDED. ACCORDING TO THE DEALER THERE IS A GM SERVICE BULLETIN ON FAULTY WIRING HARNESS BEING THE CAUSE. THE AIRBAG SYSTEM COULD BE NOT WORKING. MY CONCERN IS WITH SAID SERVICES BULLETIN I COULD NOT FIND ANYONE IN THE NETWORK OF GTO OWNERS CLUBS THAT WERE GIVIN ANY NOTICE OF THIS. BUT I DID FIND ON THESE FORUMS THAT ONE PARTICULAR WIRING HARNESS COMES IN CONTACT WITH A METAL BRACE WHEN THE CARS WAS CONVERTED TO LEFT HAND DRIVE FOR SALE HERE THAT HAS CAUSED FIRES. WOULD NOT THIS BE A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE FOR WHICH EITHER GM OR NHTSA WOULD BE INVOLVED IN? GM ACKNOWLEDGED THE PROBLEM TO ME IN MY MANY EMAILS AND CONVERSATIONS WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE REPS ON THE PHONE BUT HAS NOT NOTIFIED OWNERS NOR WANTS TO FIX THE ISSUES. THE ISSUE OF THE AIRBAG FAILURE IS ANOTHER SAFETY CONCERN. GIVEN THE NATURE OF THESE FAILURES WHY WOULD NOT THIS BE HANDLED AS PART OF A SAFETY RECALL? HERE IS JUST ONE LINK TO THE BOARD WHERE THIS IS SHOWN HTTP://WWW.LS1GTO.COM/FORUMS/SHOWTHREAD.PHP?T=377773&HIGHLIGHT=WIRE+HARNESS+GLOVE+BOX&PAGE=9 INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
Official recalls
0No recalls in this snapshot.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
1PE07010 · Front Strut To Tire Interference
Opened Feb 16, 2007 · Closed Aug 8, 2007
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension; Suspension:front; Suspension:front:macpherson Strut; Tires; Tires:sidewall
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH
Additional source detail variants (5)
Suspension:front
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH
Suspension:front:macpherson Strut
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH
Suspension
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH
Tires
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH
Tires:sidewall
NOTE: THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS GIVEN IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME INCLUDE ALL RECORDS RELATED TO TIRE WEAR AND WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ARE NOT LIMITED TO TIRE-STRUT CONTACT.GENERAL MOTORS (GM) IDENTIFIED TWO CONTRIBUTORS TO PREMATURE FRONT TIRE WEAR IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS CAUSING THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR WAS OUT OF SPECIFICATION NEGATIVE CAMBER.GM STATED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD BE CAUSED BY IMPROPER CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY OR BENDING OF THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES DUE TO SHARP ROAD IMPACT (I.E., SEVERE POT HOLES).TO IMPROVE CAMBER SETTINGS FROM THE FACTORY, GM STATED THAT FROM FEBRUARY OF 2005 THROUGH MAY OF 2006 SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE CAMBER SETTING FIXTURE.GM ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER COULD RESULT IN FRONT TIRE TO STRUT CONTACT, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CAUSED BY USE OF NON-ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT (OE) TIRES AND/OR WHEELS.GM STATED THAT CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRE AND FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY CAN CAUSE A POLISHING ON THE TIRE SIDEWALL AND/OR STRUT ASSEMBLY; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN LOSS OF AIR. GENERAL MOTORS PROVIDED ODI WITH THE FINAL FACTORY FRONT CAMBER SETTINGS WHERE AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM VEHICLES.APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF THESE VEHICLES HAD RIGHT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF DESIGN SPECIFICATION.FOUR PERCENT OF THE VEHICLES HAD LEFT WHEEL CAMBER SETTINGS THAT WERE OUT OF SPECIFICATION.IN A REVIEW OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, MOST NOTED EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR TO VARYING DEGREES TO BOTH FRONT TIRES.FOR COMPLAINTS INDICATING EXCESSIVE WEAR TO A SINGLE FRONT TIRE, 90 PERCENT INVOLVED THE RIGHT SIDE. ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, ANALYSIS OF TIRE WEAR PATTERNS IN PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE GREATEST WEAR OCCURRING ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE FROM ROAD WEAR AND NOT ON THE AREA OF THE TIRE ON THE UPPER SHOULDER THAT CONTACTS THE STRUT.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN TIRE WEAR PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WITH OR WITHOUT STRUT CONTACT.THIS IS MOST APPARENT IN SOME PICTURES, WHICH SHOW MINOR TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WHILE EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT WEAR OF THE INNER TREAD SURFACE OF THE TIRES.BASED ON DATA REVIEWED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, WHILE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER IS AN APPARENT ISSUE, THE PREMATURE TIRE WEAR APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY CAUSED BY TIRE TO ROAD SURFACE CONTACT AS OPPOSED TO CONTACT OF THE FRONT TIRES TO THE FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLIES.ODI REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 1,400 TOTAL COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE REPORTS RELATE TO UNEVEN/EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR OR SOME AWARENESS OF THE TIRE-STRUT CONTACT ISSUE.ODI WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY 9 TIRE AIR LOSS INCIDENTS ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY TIRE-STRUT CONTACT, WITH5 OF THESE DESCRIBING A SLOW AIR LOSS.WHILE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF TIRE-STRUT CONTACT IN SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, ODI'S ANALYSIS DID NOT FIND THAT THIS CONTACT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE AIR LOSS BUT RATHER A SECONDARY SYMPTOM OF THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER CONDITION THAT RESULTS IN RAPID ROAD WEAR ON THE INBOARD TREAD SURFACE. ODI IS AWARE OF ONE CRASH ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED BY CONTACT OF THE FRONT STRUT TO FRONT TIRE.HOWEVER, ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSUMER, GM AND A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATOR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT TIRE-STRUT CONTACT WAS A FACTOR IN THE CRASH.ODI IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES OR FATALITIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT. ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF TH