IllustrationBRAKES SYSTEM FAILURE. *TR
2006 Pontiac Gto
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2006 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
1700–25K
2425–50K
150–75K
175–100K
1100–150K
1150K+
198 reports with mileage · 18 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 191 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Tires. Review the 19 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 6 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
3 crash reports0 fire reports1 injury reports
What owners actually said
216 reportsI HAVE A 2006 PONTIAC GTO WITH 24,000 MILES ON IT. IT HAS NEVER BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT. I HAS TO REPLACE 3 TIRES DUE TO THE INSIDE OF THE TIRES WERE WORN TO THE CORDS. I WENT TO THE DEALER AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS HAPPENED. THE DEALER SAY THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR A THE PROBLEM AND CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHY …
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2006 PONTIAC GTO WITH 24,000 MILES ON IT. IT HAS NEVER BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT. I HAS TO REPLACE 3 TIRES DUE TO THE INSIDE OF THE TIRES WERE WORN TO THE CORDS. I WENT TO THE DEALER AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS HAPPENED. THE DEALER SAY THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR A THE PROBLEM AND CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHY IT HAPPENED. AFTER TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE IT IS A PROBLEM THAT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN. *TR
THE EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CHAMBER AND THE INADEQUATE STRUT BUSHINGS CAUSED THE FRONT TIRES TO PREMATURELY WEAR OUT. THE CAR WAS UNDER WARRANTY BUT I WAS TOLD BY THE DEALER THIS WAS NOT COVERED. I HAD TO PURCHASE NEW TIRES AND PAY TO HAVE THE FRONT END ALIGNED. *TR
TIRE WEAR ON 2006 PONTIAC G.T.O. HITTING STRUTS CAUSING TIRES TO SEPARATE. TAKEN TO DEALERSHIP, OUT OF WARRANTY SO NO REPAIRS CAN BE DONE. CAR WAS IN FOR THE SAME REPAIRS DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD. ALL TIRES WERE REPLACED AT THAT TIME, BUT PROBLEM STILL REMAINS. *TR
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
I PURCHASED A 2006 PONTIAC GTO AND ITS BEEN IN THE SHOP EVER SINCE. I NOW HAVE REPLACED THE TIRES TWICE AND THE CAR ONLY HAS 38K MILES, IM A LADY DRIVER NEVER ABUSING THE CAR. THE INSIDE TIRES IN THE FRONT ARE CHEWED DOWN TO THE WIRE AFTER A 600 MILE TRIP NOTICED A SOUND, THANK GOD THEY BOTH DIDN'T GO OUT ,MY FAMILY WOULD HAVE B…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2006 PONTIAC GTO AND ITS BEEN IN THE SHOP EVER SINCE. I NOW HAVE REPLACED THE TIRES TWICE AND THE CAR ONLY HAS 38K MILES, IM A LADY DRIVER NEVER ABUSING THE CAR. THE INSIDE TIRES IN THE FRONT ARE CHEWED DOWN TO THE WIRE AFTER A 600 MILE TRIP NOTICED A SOUND, THANK GOD THEY BOTH DIDN'T GO OUT ,MY FAMILY WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED IN SUCH A WRECK! SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE,THIS CAR HAS BEEN FAULTY FROM DAY ONE, AND THE MANUFACTURER HAS TO BE THREATENED WITH A LAWSUIT EVERY TIME I TAKE IT IN AND THEY STILL WONT FIX THE SIMPLEST PROBLEMS. I THINK THEY DON'T WANT TO ADMIT THERE IS A PROBLEM. *TR
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).
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
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
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
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