← New search

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

Other model years Selected 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

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 reports
30,000 miles · Oct 5, 2008
Suspension

2006 PONTIAC GTO TIRES WORN DOWN TO CHORD ON INBARD SIDES - DESPITE ALIGNMENT AND REGULAR TIRE ROTATION. SUSPENSION BUSHINGS THE CONSISTENCIES OF "GUMMY BEARS" WERE REPLACED WITH AFTERMARKET REPLACEMENTS ALONG WITH NEW TIRES. RADIUS ROD BUSHINGS HAVE NOT BEEN REPLACED AT THIS TIME. THIS ALLOWS THE TIRES TO VARY ALIGNMENT DUR…

Read full complaint

2006 PONTIAC GTO TIRES WORN DOWN TO CHORD ON INBARD SIDES - DESPITE ALIGNMENT AND REGULAR TIRE ROTATION. SUSPENSION BUSHINGS THE CONSISTENCIES OF "GUMMY BEARS" WERE REPLACED WITH AFTERMARKET REPLACEMENTS ALONG WITH NEW TIRES. RADIUS ROD BUSHINGS HAVE NOT BEEN REPLACED AT THIS TIME. THIS ALLOWS THE TIRES TO VARY ALIGNMENT DURING BRAKING. BUSHINGS AND ONE PAIR OF TIRES ARE AVAILABLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10244395

7,000 miles · Oct 4, 2008
SuspensionTires

MY CAR HAS WORN OUT THREE SETS OF TIRES SINCE 8/7/2006 WHEN I PURCHASED IT NEW. I HAD A FLAT TIRE TODAY. WHEN I TOOK THE TIRE OFF THE DRIVER REAR SIDE OF THE CAR IT WAS BADLY WORN ON THE INNER THREADS AGAIN. IT LOOKED TO ME THAT THE TIRE HAD ACTUALLY RUBBED SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO TIRE WEAR. I WAS SO AGGRAVATED WHEN I FINALLY GO…

Read full complaint

MY CAR HAS WORN OUT THREE SETS OF TIRES SINCE 8/7/2006 WHEN I PURCHASED IT NEW. I HAD A FLAT TIRE TODAY. WHEN I TOOK THE TIRE OFF THE DRIVER REAR SIDE OF THE CAR IT WAS BADLY WORN ON THE INNER THREADS AGAIN. IT LOOKED TO ME THAT THE TIRE HAD ACTUALLY RUBBED SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO TIRE WEAR. I WAS SO AGGRAVATED WHEN I FINALLY GOT HOME I WENT ON LS1@GTO.COM AND WAS ADVISED BY OTHER MEMBERS THAT THE ISSUE IS CALLED STRUT RUB. I WILL BE CONTACTING GM WHEN THEY OPEN TODAY. I AM IN THE PROCESS OF FINDING OUT WHAT PARTS WILL CORRECT THE PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10244357

Mileage unknown · Oct 3, 2008
Tires

I PURCHASED A 2006 PONTIAC GTO IN AUGUST 2007. AFTER DRIVING FOR 1 MONTH, I PARKED THE CAR IN MY GARAGE AND WAS DEPLOYED OVERSEAS TO IRAQ FOR 3 MONTHS. AFTER RETURNING, AND DRIVING MY CAR FOR APPROXIMATELY 6 MONTHS, WITH A TOTAL CAR MILEAGE OF LESS THAN 20,000, MY FRONT TIRE UNEXPECTEDLY STARTED TO FRAY AND CAUGHT ON TO THE AXLE…

Read full complaint

I PURCHASED A 2006 PONTIAC GTO IN AUGUST 2007. AFTER DRIVING FOR 1 MONTH, I PARKED THE CAR IN MY GARAGE AND WAS DEPLOYED OVERSEAS TO IRAQ FOR 3 MONTHS. AFTER RETURNING, AND DRIVING MY CAR FOR APPROXIMATELY 6 MONTHS, WITH A TOTAL CAR MILEAGE OF LESS THAN 20,000, MY FRONT TIRE UNEXPECTEDLY STARTED TO FRAY AND CAUGHT ON TO THE AXLE AS I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY IN MAY OF 2008. THE TIRE LITERALLY STARTED TO UNRAVEL LIKE A BALL OF YARN. I TOOK MY CAR INTO THE PONTIAC DEALERSHIP AT 16200 FREDERICK RD, GAITHERSBURG, MD 20898. THE SERVICE MECHANIC INFORMED ME THAT LOW TIRE PRESSURE CAUSED THE TIRE TO RUB AGAINST THE STRUT AND THAT IS WHAT CAUSED THE TIRE FAILURE. I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT BOTH FRONT TIRES NEEDED REPLACEMENT. AT THAT TIME, I JUST HAD THE ONE TIRE REPLACED AND THE TIRES ROTATED. ON OCTOBER 2, WHILE TAKING MY CAR IN FOR AN OIL CHANGE, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE DEALER SAYING I NEEDED TWO NEW FRONT TIRES, AS THE INNER TREAD HAD STARTED TO WEAR QUITE RAPIDLY AND WAS BECOMING DANGEROUS. MY CAR HAS LESS THAN 21,000 MILES ON IT, WITH TIRE PRESSURE INSPECTED, AND IF NEEDED, FILLED ON A BI-WEEKLY BASIS. I DID SOME RESEARCH AND IT APPEARS THIS IS A COMMON OCCURRENCE WITH MY VEHICLE MAKE. I FEEL THIS IS A DEFECT IN THE DESIGN OF THE CAR. ALL OF THE PARTS ON MY CAR ARE DIRECTLY FROM THE FACTORY AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN RACED OR ABUSED. I DRIVE MY CAR EACH DAY LESS THAN 5 MILES, AS I TAKE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO WORK. MY CAR IS MAINLY A WEEKEND CAR, WITH LITTLE USE DURING THE WEEK. I HAVE OWNED 2 SEPARATE CARS IN THE PAST AND HAVE NEVER HAD THIS PROBLEM. I REALIZE MY CAR IS A HIGH-PERFORMANCE VEHICLE, BUT OTHER CARS OF THE SAME CATEGORY DO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10244290

34,291 miles · Sep 26, 2008
Suspension

I WAS DOING AN OIL CHANGE AND NOTICED THAT THE INSIDE OF THE FRONT TIRES WERE WORN TO THE STEEL BELTS. I REMOVED THE WHEELS AND NOTICED THERE WAS BARE METAL SHOWING ON THE INSIDE OF THE STRUT TOWER BRACE. I REPLACED MY ENTIRE SET OF TIRES AND THE SAME THING IS OCCURRING. I BROUGHT MY CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY TELL ME IT I…

Read full complaint

I WAS DOING AN OIL CHANGE AND NOTICED THAT THE INSIDE OF THE FRONT TIRES WERE WORN TO THE STEEL BELTS. I REMOVED THE WHEELS AND NOTICED THERE WAS BARE METAL SHOWING ON THE INSIDE OF THE STRUT TOWER BRACE. I REPLACED MY ENTIRE SET OF TIRES AND THE SAME THING IS OCCURRING. I BROUGHT MY CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY TELL ME IT IS AN ALIGNMENT ISSUE. I JUST HAD MY ALIGNMENT DONE 5 MONTHS AGO AT PEP BOYS AUTO PARTS STORE. NOW THE DEALER TOLD ME THAT THEY DID IT WRONG. I AM BEING CHARGED FOR INSPECTION OF MY VEHICLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10243520

31,700 miles · Sep 10, 2008
Suspension

I TOOK MY 2006 PONTIAC GTO IN TO GET TIRES ROTATED AND BALANCED. AS THE MECHANICS TOOK THE TIRES OFF THE CAR TO BALANCE THEM THEY OBSERVED SEVERE TIRE DAMAGE ON THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE. THE MECHANICS STATED THAT THE FRONT TIRES HAVE BEEN RUBBING AGAINST THE STRUTS ON BOTH SIDE OF THE CAR. I HAVE REPLACED THE ORIGINAL TIRES ON THE…

Read full complaint

I TOOK MY 2006 PONTIAC GTO IN TO GET TIRES ROTATED AND BALANCED. AS THE MECHANICS TOOK THE TIRES OFF THE CAR TO BALANCE THEM THEY OBSERVED SEVERE TIRE DAMAGE ON THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE. THE MECHANICS STATED THAT THE FRONT TIRES HAVE BEEN RUBBING AGAINST THE STRUTS ON BOTH SIDE OF THE CAR. I HAVE REPLACED THE ORIGINAL TIRES ON THE CAR PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT DUE TO THE MECHANIC STATING TIRE FAILURE BECAUSE OF IMPROPER ALIGNMENT. THIS IS RIDICULOUS MY CAR IS CURRENTLY AT THE DEALERSHIP AS THEY LOOK FOR A REASON TO NOT WARRANTY THE PROBLEM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10241728

24,000 miles · Aug 27, 2008
Suspension

I AM THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF A 2006 PONTIAC GTO WITH 17" WHEELS. THE STRUTS RUBBED THE FRONT TIRES UNTIL A CHUNK OF RUBBER AND METAL COILS WERE LOOSE SWINGING AROUND BEHIND MY TIRES. BOTH OF MY FRONT TIRES HAVE TO BE REPLACED, EVEN THOUGH THE RIGHT TIRE HAS A LOT OF TREAD LEFT, BECAUSE THE STRUT RUB HAS EATEN ALMOST ALL THE WAY …

Read full complaint

I AM THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF A 2006 PONTIAC GTO WITH 17" WHEELS. THE STRUTS RUBBED THE FRONT TIRES UNTIL A CHUNK OF RUBBER AND METAL COILS WERE LOOSE SWINGING AROUND BEHIND MY TIRES. BOTH OF MY FRONT TIRES HAVE TO BE REPLACED, EVEN THOUGH THE RIGHT TIRE HAS A LOT OF TREAD LEFT, BECAUSE THE STRUT RUB HAS EATEN ALMOST ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE TIRE. I WAS LUCKY I DIDN'T HAVE A BLOWOUT, BUT I NOTICED IT IN TIME. PONTIAC WILL NOT WARRANTY ANYTHING, ONLY OFFERING ME A FREE ALIGNMENT IN WHICH THEY TOLD ME THEY WERE GOING TO ADJUST TO THE MAXIMUM NEGATIVE CAMBER TO TRY TO MOVE THE TIRES AS FAR AWAY FROM THE STRUT AS POSSIBLE. I HAVE LESS THAN 24 THOUSAND MILES. I HAVE HAD STRUT PROBLEMS BEFORE. ONE SIDE HAS BEEN REPLACED 2 TIMES AND THE OTHER SIDE ONCE, NOT FOR STRUT RUB. THIS SUCKS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10240018

7,100 miles · Aug 19, 2008
Suspension

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 PONTIAC GTO. WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH, THE CONTACT TRAVELED A DISTANCE OF ONLY 200 MILES. AFTER RETURNING HOME DOWN A DIRT ROAD, HE HEARD SCRATCHING AND RATTLING NOISES. THE CONTACT LOOKED UNDER THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED OIL LEAKING. HE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND THEY STATED THAT THE STRUTS FAILE…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 PONTIAC GTO. WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH, THE CONTACT TRAVELED A DISTANCE OF ONLY 200 MILES. AFTER RETURNING HOME DOWN A DIRT ROAD, HE HEARD SCRATCHING AND RATTLING NOISES. THE CONTACT LOOKED UNDER THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED OIL LEAKING. HE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER AND THEY STATED THAT THE STRUTS FAILED. THE CONTACT SEARCHED GMC'S WEBSITE AND DISCOVERED THAT THE STRUTS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE REPLACED BEFORE THE VEHICLE WAS SOLD DUE TO A RECALL ON BOTH FRONT STRUTS. HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE STRUTS REPLACED. THE CONTACT FEELS THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE A SERIOUS CRASH COULD HAVE OCCURRED DUE TO THE FAULTY STRUTS. THE RECALL NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 7,100.

NHTSA ODI #10238944

35,991 miles · Aug 16, 2008
Suspension

WHILE DRIVING ON A LOCAL HIGHWAY, THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE BLEW OUT. THE BLOW OUT WAS CAUSED BY TIRE CONTACT WITH THE STRUT. THIS IS THE SECOND OCCURRENCE OF BLOW OUTS ON THIS CAR DUE TO THE SAME ISSUE. THE LAST FIX WAS TO REPLACE THE TIRES AND REALIGN THE CAR PER UPDATED SPECIFICATIONS. THE FIRST BLOW OUTS OCCURRED AT 17,00…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING ON A LOCAL HIGHWAY, THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE BLEW OUT. THE BLOW OUT WAS CAUSED BY TIRE CONTACT WITH THE STRUT. THIS IS THE SECOND OCCURRENCE OF BLOW OUTS ON THIS CAR DUE TO THE SAME ISSUE. THE LAST FIX WAS TO REPLACE THE TIRES AND REALIGN THE CAR PER UPDATED SPECIFICATIONS. THE FIRST BLOW OUTS OCCURRED AT 17,000 MILES. THIS ONE WAS AT 35,991 MILES (18,991 MILES AFTER NEW TIRES). THIS "FIX" OF REALIGNING THE VEHICLE IS INADEQUATE, AND SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO FIX THIS ISSUE FROM GM. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10238517

16,000 miles · Aug 5, 2008
SuspensionTires

PONTIAC GTO 2006. 1ST INCIDENT HAPPENED WITH APPROX 4,950 MILES ON CAR. FRONT PASSENGER TIRE BLEW OUT WHEN I HAD JUST GOT OFF INTERSTATE (THANK GOD). THAT WAS "FIXED" BY DEALERSHIP AFTER MY CAR WAS PARKED IN MY DRIVEWAY FOR APPROX 3 WEEKS WHILE DEALERSHIP GOT THE SPECS FROM GM TO RE-ALIGN THE FRONT OF MY CAR. 2ND INCIDENT HA…

Read full complaint

PONTIAC GTO 2006. 1ST INCIDENT HAPPENED WITH APPROX 4,950 MILES ON CAR. FRONT PASSENGER TIRE BLEW OUT WHEN I HAD JUST GOT OFF INTERSTATE (THANK GOD). THAT WAS "FIXED" BY DEALERSHIP AFTER MY CAR WAS PARKED IN MY DRIVEWAY FOR APPROX 3 WEEKS WHILE DEALERSHIP GOT THE SPECS FROM GM TO RE-ALIGN THE FRONT OF MY CAR. 2ND INCIDENT HAPPENED AT OVER 16,000 MILES. PULLED OVER AFTER HEARING A NOISE. BACK PASSENGER TIRE WAS SEVERED AND A LONG PIECE HAD HIT MY FENDER WHEEL ALERTING ME TO THE FACT BEFORE THE TIRE BLEW OUT COMPLETELY. AFTER LOOKING AT THE OTHER BACK TIRE - I FOUND IT HAD SIMILAR WEAR PATTERN. BOTH WERE WARN ON THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE. DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THIS WAS CAUSED FROM A ALIGNMENT PROBLEM THAT HAD BEEN THERE SINCE THE BEGINNING. I AM NOW SCARED TO DRIVE MY CAR! WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN ANOTHER 16,000 MILES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10237059

28,500 miles · Jul 21, 2008
Tires

I WAS DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH AND THE TIRE BLEW OUT. I WENT HOME AND PUT ON MY "DONUT" TO FIND OUT THAT THE BLOW OUT OCCURRED ON THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE CLOSE TO THE TIRE WHEEL INTERFACE. I CALLED MY SERVICEMAN AND HAD MY TWO BACK WHEELS REPLACED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10235117

Official recalls

0

No 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

1

PE07010 · 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