NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Suspension complaints
191 reportsClear category filter28,745 miles · Aug 16, 2009
Suspension
STRUT RUBBING ON INNER WALL OF FRONT TIRES. MY 2006 PONTIAC GTO HAS 28K MILES AND I HAD TO REPLACE ALL FOUR TIRES. EVEN THOUGH I HAD THE CAR SERVICED DIRECTLY AT THE DEALER SINCE THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE, THEY ONLY REPORTED A CONCERN WITH ALIGNMENT. COME TO FIND OUT THE ROOT CAUSE WAS A RUB ON THE STRUTS WHICH NOW REQUIRES ME TO…
Read full complaint
STRUT RUBBING ON INNER WALL OF FRONT TIRES. MY 2006 PONTIAC GTO HAS 28K MILES AND I HAD TO REPLACE ALL FOUR TIRES. EVEN THOUGH I HAD THE CAR SERVICED DIRECTLY AT THE DEALER SINCE THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE, THEY ONLY REPORTED A CONCERN WITH ALIGNMENT. COME TO FIND OUT THE ROOT CAUSE WAS A RUB ON THE STRUTS WHICH NOW REQUIRES ME TO REPLACE ALL FOUR TIRES. I HAD TO PARK THE VEHICLE FOR MONTHS TO SAVE ENOUGH FOR THE $900 REPLACEMENT. HAD THIS DONE TODAY ONLY TO BE TOLD THEY STILL RUB. I PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS WITH THE DEALER BIT DON'T EXPECT POSITIVE RESULTS. AFTER READING UP ON THIS FROM THE INTERNET IT SOUNDS LIKE I'LL NEED TO PURCHASE A CAMBER KIT ($350.00 RETAIL) PLUS INSTALLATION FEES AND RE-ALIGNMENT. THIS DESIGN FLAW SHOULD BE COMPENSATED BY THE VEHICLE'S MANUFACTURER NOT THE BUYER. APPRECIATE ANY ADVICE OR ASSISTANCE YOU CAN OFFER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10280584
20,000 miles · Jul 11, 2009
Suspension
NO ABNORMAL EVENT LED TO FAILURES; CONTEXT WAS NORMAL DRIVING. FAILURES WERE FRONT SUSPENSION COMPONENTS; PREMATURELY WORN (1) STRUT ROD BUSHINGS (I.E., RADIUS ROD BUSHINGS), (2) STRUT MOUNT BUSHINGS, (3) LOWER CONTROL ARM BUSHINGS, & (4) END LINK BUSHINGS. THE CONSEQUENCES OF (I.E., SYMPTOMS CAUSED BY) COMBINATION OF 1, 2 & 3 W…
Read full complaint
NO ABNORMAL EVENT LED TO FAILURES; CONTEXT WAS NORMAL DRIVING. FAILURES WERE FRONT SUSPENSION COMPONENTS; PREMATURELY WORN (1) STRUT ROD BUSHINGS (I.E., RADIUS ROD BUSHINGS), (2) STRUT MOUNT BUSHINGS, (3) LOWER CONTROL ARM BUSHINGS, & (4) END LINK BUSHINGS. THE CONSEQUENCES OF (I.E., SYMPTOMS CAUSED BY) COMBINATION OF 1, 2 & 3 WERE EXCESSIVE, IRREGULAR, OUT-OF-SPEC MOVEMENTS IN, & WANDERING OF, FRONT SUSPENSION & STEERING COMPONENTS & FRONT TIRES (WHICH ARE CONNECTED TO SUSPENSION/STEERING COMPONENTS)--BOTH IN CAMBER & CASTOR--AS EVIDENCED BY (A) EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER, WHICH CAUSED (A1) PREMATURE INNER TIRE WEAR, (B) EXCESSIVE MOVEMENT OR VIBRATION IN FRONT WHEELS, WHICH CAUSED (B1) SOME INNER FRONT TIRE CONTACT WITH FRONT STRUTS, & (C) SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED CONTROL, & INCREASED INSTABILITY, OF CAR ON ROAD. FRONT TIRES ARE SECURED TO CAR BY TRIANGULATION OF THREE MAJOR SUSPENSION COMPONENTS: FRONT STRUT (SECURED TO STRUT TOWER THROUGH STRUT MOUNT BUSHING & BEARING), STRUT ROD (SECURED TO FRONT OF ENGINE CRADLE THROUGH STRUT ROD BUSHINGS), & LOWER CONTROL ARM (SECURED TO SIDE OF ENGINE CRADLE THROUGH LOWER CONTROL ARM BUSHINGS), EACH OF WHICH EXPERIENCED FAILURE. SERVICING DEALER REPLACED, UNDER MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY, STRUT ROD BUSHINGS, STRUT MOUNT BUSHINGS, BEARINGS, & HARDWARE, LOWER CONTROL ARM BUSHINGS (& LOWER CONTROL ARMS, SINCE COMES AS AN ASSEMBLY), & END LINK BUSHINGS (HAVE PHOTOS OF COLLAPSED, CROWNED STRUT MOUNT BUSHINGS). NOT REPLACE TIRES OR PRO-RATE. HOWEVER, GM'S REPLACEMENT WITH OEM PARTS DOES NOT CORRECT UNDERLYING PROBLEM OF POOR QUALITY/DESIGN OEM SUSPENSION PARTS. SUBSTANTIAL OUT-OF-SPEC MOVEMENTS IN GEOMETRY OF FRONT SUSPENSION COMPONENTS IN 04-06 GTOS SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE NOT APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED BY GM OR NTSB (NTSB ACTION #PE07010). APPROPRIATE SOLUTION IS SAFETY RECALL 04-06 GTOS TO REPLACE FRONT STRUT MOUNT BUSHINGS & RADIUS ROD BUSHINGS W/HIGH QUALITY, HEAVY-DUTY PARTS (E.G., $350 PART NUMBER GTOTIRERUBPACK AT WWW.PEDDERSUSA.COM).
NHTSA ODI #10276426
18,000 miles · Jun 15, 2009
SteeringSuspensionCrash
I TOOK MY 2006 GTO INTO THE DEALER IN JAN. 2009 FOR SOME WARRANTY REPAIR WORK ON THE FAN SWITCH. WHILE PERFORMING A SAFETY INSPECTION THE DEALER NOTICED THE RIGHT FRONT STRUT WAS RUBBING ON THE TIRE AND CAUSING SIGNIFICANT WEAR ON THE INNER TREAD. I HAD NOTICED A CLUNKING SOUND AS I WENT OVER SPEED BUMPS OR TURNED TIGHT LIKE Y…
Read full complaint
I TOOK MY 2006 GTO INTO THE DEALER IN JAN. 2009 FOR SOME WARRANTY REPAIR WORK ON THE FAN SWITCH. WHILE PERFORMING A SAFETY INSPECTION THE DEALER NOTICED THE RIGHT FRONT STRUT WAS RUBBING ON THE TIRE AND CAUSING SIGNIFICANT WEAR ON THE INNER TREAD. I HAD NOTICED A CLUNKING SOUND AS I WENT OVER SPEED BUMPS OR TURNED TIGHT LIKE YOU WOULD IN A PARKING LOT FOR APPROXIMATELY 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO THAT. I ASKED IF THEY WERE RELATED AND THE SERVICE ATTENDANT SAID POSSIBLY, BUT THAT ALL THE GTOS MADE NOISE WHEN CRANKING THE WHEEL BECAUSE OF THE WIDE TIRES. I ASKED IF THE STRUT WAS COVERED UNDER THE WARRANTY AND THEY SAID NO, IT WAS SOME TYPE OF FRONT END DAMAGE THAT CAUSED IT. THE CAR HAD A FENDER BENDER IN NOV. 2006, BUT IT WAS RE-ALIGNED IN DEC. 2006. NO MENTION WAS MADE AT THE TIME THAT THE STRUT RUBBED ON THE TIRE. I DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO HAVE IT REPAIRED RIGHT AWAY SO I WASN'T DRIVING IT UNTIL I APRIL 2009 WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES MADE IT MY ONLY VEHICLE. AFTER A FEW DAYS OF DRIVING, I NOTICED THE CAR WOULD SOMETIMES SUDDENLY SHUDDER IN THE FRONT SUSPENSION AND PULL VERY HARD TO THE RIGHT. ON MAY 8, 2009 AFTER MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN FROM A STOP, AS I STARTED TO STRAIGHTEN THE WHEEL THE CAR JERKED TO THE RIGHT ONTO THE SHOULDER. I TRIED TO STEER IT BACK ONTO THE ROAD AND THE CAR CONTINUED TO SLIDE INTO THE DITCH. A PASSERBY PULLED THE CAR OUT OF THE DITCH AND I LIMPED IT BACK TO A FRIENDS HOUSE WHERE WE JACKED IT UP AND INSPECTED IT. IT SEEMED TO DRIVE FINE AND OTHER THAN THE UNUSUALLY WORN TIRE EVERYTHING APPEARED FINE. I'M NOW AFRAID TO DRIVE IT AND STILL DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO GET IT REPAIRED, SO IT IS PARKED IN MY DRIVEWAY. AFTER DOING SOME ONLINE RESEARCH, IT SEEMS THAT I AM NOT ALONE IN THIS DILEMMA. IS PONTIAC, GM OR MACPHERSON LOOKING INTO THIS? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10273773
23,700 miles · May 18, 2009
Suspension
I HAVE A 2006 PONTIAC GTO WITH JUST UNDER 24,000 MILES. WHILE DOING A BRAKE JOB I NOTICED THAT I HAD MAJOR WEAR ON THE INNER SIDEWALLS OF MY TIRES DUE TO CONTACT WITH THE STRUTS. THE DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT TIRE HAD MAJOR WEAR ON THE INNER EDGE AS WELL AS SHREDDING ALONG THE SIDEWALL DIAMETER. THE PASSENGER SIDE WAS NOT AS BAD ON TH…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2006 PONTIAC GTO WITH JUST UNDER 24,000 MILES. WHILE DOING A BRAKE JOB I NOTICED THAT I HAD MAJOR WEAR ON THE INNER SIDEWALLS OF MY TIRES DUE TO CONTACT WITH THE STRUTS. THE DRIVER'S SIDE FRONT TIRE HAD MAJOR WEAR ON THE INNER EDGE AS WELL AS SHREDDING ALONG THE SIDEWALL DIAMETER. THE PASSENGER SIDE WAS NOT AS BAD ON THE SIDEWALL, BUT THERE WAS STILL WEARING OF THE SIDEWALL. THE INNER EDGE OF THE TREAD HAD ALSO WORN GREATLY. THE DEALERSHIP REFUSED TO DO ANY REPAIR WORK FOR THIS STATING THAT I WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE FRONT TIRES AND TO GET AN ALIGNMENT. I HAVE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH REGARDING THIS SUBJECT AND HAVE FOUND MANY OTHER GTO OWNERS HAVING THE SAME ISSUE OR WORSE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10269303
15,500 miles · Apr 14, 2009
Suspension
2006 PONTIAC GTO HAD TO HAVE ALL 4 TIRES REPLACED AS THE CAR HAS THE STRUT RUB PROBLEM THAT I HAVE HEARD AND READ ABOUT SINCE I BOUGHT THE CAR. ONE OF TIRES DEVELOPED A SLOW LEAK AND I TOOK IT TO THE LOCAL DEALER WHERE IT HAS HAD ITS REGULAR SERVICE DONE. THEY CALLED ME OUT TO LOOK AND SHOWED ME HOW ALL OF THE TIRES HAD WEAR ON …
Read full complaint
2006 PONTIAC GTO HAD TO HAVE ALL 4 TIRES REPLACED AS THE CAR HAS THE STRUT RUB PROBLEM THAT I HAVE HEARD AND READ ABOUT SINCE I BOUGHT THE CAR. ONE OF TIRES DEVELOPED A SLOW LEAK AND I TOOK IT TO THE LOCAL DEALER WHERE IT HAS HAD ITS REGULAR SERVICE DONE. THEY CALLED ME OUT TO LOOK AND SHOWED ME HOW ALL OF THE TIRES HAD WEAR ON THE INSIDE AND ONE IN PARTICULAR WAS VIRTUALLY SHREDDED. I HAVE HAD FREQUENT ROTATIONS DONE ON THIS CAR AS A PRECAUTION SINCE LEARNING OF THIS PROBLEM. ALTHOUGH WITH EACH ROTATION I WOULD ASK THE DEALER IF THERE WERE ANY SIGNS OF THIS ABNORMAL TIRE WEAR AND THEY ALWAYS ACTED LIKE THEY NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING. IT IS OBVIOUSLY A DESIGN FLAW AS WHAT VEHICLE NEEDS ALL NEW TIRES EVERY 10-15 THOUSAND MILES BECAUSE OF INNER TIRE SHREDDING? I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A RECALL ON THIS AUTOMOBILE TO FIX THIS PROBLEM. I AM JUST THANKFUL THAT I DID NOT EXPERIENCE A BLOW OUT ON THE HIGHWAY BECAUSE OF THIS OBVIOUS DESIGN FLAW. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10265284
30,000 miles · Apr 14, 2009
SuspensionTires
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 PONTIAC GTO. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS PREMATURE WEAR ON THE INNER SHOULDERS OF HIS TWO FRONT TIRES. THE FAILURE CAUSES BOTH FRONT TIRE BELTS TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STRUTS. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT NOTICED SPARKS COMING FROM THE FRONT TIRES WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 PONTIAC GTO. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS PREMATURE WEAR ON THE INNER SHOULDERS OF HIS TWO FRONT TIRES. THE FAILURE CAUSES BOTH FRONT TIRE BELTS TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STRUTS. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT NOTICED SPARKS COMING FROM THE FRONT TIRES WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT THEY COULD NOT DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE REPAIR WILL COST $1,000. THE VEHICLE IS STILL UNDER WARRANTY; HOWEVER, THE DEALER WILL NOT HONOR THE WARRANTY. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 30,000.
NHTSA ODI #10265236
27,000 miles · Apr 9, 2009
SteeringSuspension
2006 PONTIAC GTO ENGINE FAILURE AT 15,000 MILES. FRONT SUSPENSION PULLS TO THE LEFT, WITH TREMENDOUS VIBRATION FROM THE STEERING WHEEL AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, VEHICLE WILL NOT HOLD AN ALIGNMENT. BRAKING IS HARSH WITH FURTHER FRONT END VIBRATIONS, OCCASIONAL SQUEALING AND DRIFTING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT BEFORE COMING TO A COMPLETE STOP…
Read full complaint
2006 PONTIAC GTO ENGINE FAILURE AT 15,000 MILES. FRONT SUSPENSION PULLS TO THE LEFT, WITH TREMENDOUS VIBRATION FROM THE STEERING WHEEL AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, VEHICLE WILL NOT HOLD AN ALIGNMENT. BRAKING IS HARSH WITH FURTHER FRONT END VIBRATIONS, OCCASIONAL SQUEALING AND DRIFTING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT BEFORE COMING TO A COMPLETE STOP. CAN HEAR THE COLLAPSING NOISE OF THE COMPRESSED STRUT TOWERS, ALONG WITH SOME INNER WHEEL STRUT RUB. THE PRESENCE OF MECHANICAL KNOCKING AND POPPING NOISE WITH THE VEHICLE SITTING STILL AND JUST TURNING THE STEERING WHEEL FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AND LEFT TO RIGHT. REAR SUSPENSION SAGGING ON THE PASSENGER SIDE, ROLLING OVER UNEVEN ROAD SURFACES CAUSES COLLAPSING OF RIGHT REAR SHOCKS AND SPRING TO RUB THE RIGHT REAR TIRE. NORMAL ACCELERATION FROM A STOP WITH A FULL TANK OF FUEL, THE REAR END BOTTOMS OUT RUBBING THE RIGHT REAR TIRE. PLACING THE VEHICLE IN GEAR FROM A STOP, CAUSES THE REAR END TO DROP SOME 2 - 3 INCHES. CAN HEAR THE SOUND OF A BLOWN SHOCK KNOCKING AND CLANKING ON CERTAIN ROAD SURFACES, HARD TO DUPLICATE FOR SERVICE MANAGER AT DEALERSHIP. VEHICLE HAS BEEN WITH THE DEALERSHIP FOR SEVEN DAYS STRAIGHT, DEALERSHIP REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. GM CUSTOMER SERVICE REGIONAL MANAGER HAS BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN SEEKING OUT A RESOLUTION TO FIX THE PROBLEM. NO ACCIDENTS AS OF YET? DEALERSHIP STANDS BY LEAD MECHANIC, STATING THAT THE VEHICLES SUSPENSION IS WITHIN GM SPECIFICATION, AND THAT THE FAULT IS WITH THE FITMENT OF AFTERMARKET WHEELS AND TIRES. I BEGAN COMPLAINING ABOUT THE ISSUE AT ABOUT 18,000 MI, WITH FACTORY SETUP STILL INSTALLED. THE VEHICLE KNOW IS AT 27,000 MI WITH AFTER MARKET WHEELS AND TIRES ON FOR 1,200 MI. DEALERSHIP IS COMPLETELY AWARE OF THIS CHANGE AND WHEN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10264839
Mileage unknown · Nov 28, 2008
Suspension
I OWN A 2006 GTO - PURCHASED MAY 2007. APPROX 8,000 MILES THE FRONT PASSENGER STRUT WENT OUT. DEALERSHIP REPLACED. APPROX 11,000 MILES, DRIVERS SIDE STRUT WENT OUT. DEALERSHIP ALSO REPLACED. NOW @ 31,000 MILES OUR REAR TIRES NEEDED REPLACING. WHEN WE TOOK THE OLD TIRE OFF, WE NOTICED THAT THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE HAD WORN OUT. …
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2006 GTO - PURCHASED MAY 2007. APPROX 8,000 MILES THE FRONT PASSENGER STRUT WENT OUT. DEALERSHIP REPLACED. APPROX 11,000 MILES, DRIVERS SIDE STRUT WENT OUT. DEALERSHIP ALSO REPLACED. NOW @ 31,000 MILES OUR REAR TIRES NEEDED REPLACING. WHEN WE TOOK THE OLD TIRE OFF, WE NOTICED THAT THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE HAD WORN OUT. THE DEALERSHIP SAID THAT THEY WOULD CHECK INTO THE PROBLEM. WE KNOW THAT THE FRONT TIRES WILL PROBABLY NEED TO BE REPLACED. WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE DEALERSHIP IN 4 WEEKS FROM THE DATE WE PURCHASED THE NEW TIRES. THEY DID DO A FRONT WHEEL ALIGNMENT @ NO CHARGE. WE DO PLAN ON GOING TO THE DEALERSHIP TO SEE ABOUT THEM REPLACING OUR FRONT TIRES @ NO CHARGE. PLEASE NOTE THAT I RELY ON MY DEALERSHIP TO ADVISE ME THAT I SHOULD HAVE PURCHASED NEW TIRES. I HAVE THEM ROTATED EVERY OTHER OIL CHANGE SINCE WE PURCHASED THE VEHICLE. AFTER RESEARCHING THRU THE NAFTA REPORTS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS PROBLEM HAS ALWAYS PERSISTED. PLEASE ADVISE IF THERE IS ANOTHER WAY THAT WE SHOULD RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU *TR
NHTSA ODI #10250101
29,000 miles · Nov 25, 2008
Suspension
WHEN REMOVING MY SUMMER TIRES, AND INSTALLING MY WINTER TIRES I NOTICED THAT MY FRONT RIGHT TIRES INNER SHOULDER WAS WORN DOWN TO THE STEEL BELT. I WAS VERY CONCERNED, AS THE CAR HAS BEEN ALIGNED BY THE MFG REGULARLY, AND THE TIRES HAD LOW MILEAGE ON THEM. THE TIRE WAS IN A CONDITION SUCH THAT IT COULD LOSE PRESSURE AT ANY MOM…
Read full complaint
WHEN REMOVING MY SUMMER TIRES, AND INSTALLING MY WINTER TIRES I NOTICED THAT MY FRONT RIGHT TIRES INNER SHOULDER WAS WORN DOWN TO THE STEEL BELT. I WAS VERY CONCERNED, AS THE CAR HAS BEEN ALIGNED BY THE MFG REGULARLY, AND THE TIRES HAD LOW MILEAGE ON THEM. THE TIRE WAS IN A CONDITION SUCH THAT IT COULD LOSE PRESSURE AT ANY MOMENT. AFTER RESEARCH, IT APPEARS AS IF THE FRONT RADIUS ROD BUSHINGS AND FRONT STRUT MOUNTS HAVE FAILED. A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS FAILURE WAS THE FACT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS MADE IN AUSTRALIA AND SHIPPED TO THE US FOR DISTRIBUTION/SALES. DURING THE SHIPPING PROCESS, THE VEHICLES WERE STRAPPED DOWN SUCH THAT THEIR SUSPENSIONS WERE FULLY COMPRESSED. THIS EXTENDED LOAD ALLOWED FOR KEY SUSPENSION COMPONENTS TO FAIL PREMATURELY. ANOTHER CONTRIBUTOR TO THE FAILURE IS THE FACT THAT THE TIRES MOUNTED TO THE VEHICLE IN THE US ARE WIDER THAN THE TIRES INCLUDED WITH THE VEHICLE IN AUSTRALIA. THE WIDER TIRES INFRINGE UPON THE CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE TIRES AND FRONT STRUTS. THE EARLY FAILURE ALLOWS THE TIRES TO WEAR UNEVENLY, AND PERMITS THE TIRE TO CONTACT THE STRUT MOUNT DURING CORNERING, BREAKING AND ACCELERATION. COUNTLESS OTHER OWNERS OF THIS VEHICLE HAVE SEEN THE SAME ISSUE, AND THE MFG "FIX" IS TO ALIGN THE FRONT TIRES SUCH THAT THE CAMBER IS SO LARGE THAT IT SPACES THE TIRE AWAY FROM THE STRUT. THIS IS A BAND AID REPAIR, AS THE FRONT SUSPENSION PERFORMANCE IS NOW LIMITED, AND THE TIRES WEAR THE OUTSIDE SHOULDERS PREMATURELY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10249852
16,800 miles · Nov 24, 2008
SuspensionTires
THE CAR HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER IN MARCH 2008 REGARDING AN ISSUE OF THE FRONT TIRES RUBBING AGAINST THE STRUTS. THE DEALER IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM AS AN ALIGNMENT ISSUE AND MADE A CORRECTION, HOWEVER THE EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE INSIDE EDGES OF THE TIRES WAS NOT ADDRESSED. THE EXCESSIVE WEAR IS NOT A TIRE DEFECT AND IS A DIRECT…
Read full complaint
THE CAR HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER IN MARCH 2008 REGARDING AN ISSUE OF THE FRONT TIRES RUBBING AGAINST THE STRUTS. THE DEALER IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM AS AN ALIGNMENT ISSUE AND MADE A CORRECTION, HOWEVER THE EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE INSIDE EDGES OF THE TIRES WAS NOT ADDRESSED. THE EXCESSIVE WEAR IS NOT A TIRE DEFECT AND IS A DIRECT RESULT OF STRUT RUB AND ALIGNMENT. EVEN WHEN WITHIN ALIGNMENT SPECS THE EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE INSIDE EDGES OF THE TIRES CONTINUES. AT THE TIME, IN MARCH, THE FRONT TIRES WERE ROTATED TO THE REAR. IN NOVEMBER THE RIGHT REAR TIRE, PREVIOUSLY LEFT FRONT WHICH HAD RUBBED THE STRUT, BEGAN TO SHRED WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH. THE TIRE DID NOT GO FLAT. THE INSIDE EDGE OF THE RUBBER PEELED AWAY FROM THE TIRE IN A 1/2 INCH WIDE STRIP, EXPOSING THE STEEL BELT. I AM CONCERNED THAT THE OTHER REAR TIRE, PREVIOUSLY RIGHT FRONT, IS ABOUT TO DO THE SAME. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER AGAIN AND THE DEALER ACKNOWLEDGED THE PROBLEM BUT SAID THAT BECAUSE THE ALIGNMENT IS WITHIN SPECS IT IS NOT A WARRANTY ISSUE. THE DEALER DID OFFER TO REPLACE THE ONE SHREDDED TIRE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE DEALERSHIP, BUT WOULD NOT REPLACE THE OTHER WORN TIRE. THE DEALER ALSO OFFERED TO RECHECK AND ADJUST THE FRONT ALIGNMENT BECAUSE THE FRONT TIRES WERE AGAIN SHOWING SIGNS OF PREMATURE WEAR ON THE INSIDE EDGES. THIS IS NOT A TIRE DEFECT AND IS NOT NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR. THIS IS A MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY GM AS MANY PEOPLE ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE A CAR THAT I FEEL SAFE IN, AND THIS CAR HAS AN INCREASED RISK OF BLOWOUTS DUE TO THIS PROBLEM. GM NOT ONLY NEEDS TO REPLACE TIRES, IT NEEDS TO DETERMINE HOW TO SOLVE THE ALIGNMENT/STRUT RUB PROBLEM TO PREVENT NEW TIRES FROM EXCESSIVE AND PREMATURE WEAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10249671
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