Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
380–25K
3125–50K
6850–75K
7275–100K
57100–150K
4150K+
270 reports with mileage · 146 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.
Exterior Lighting. Review the 233 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Service Brakes. Review the 42 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Suspension. Review the 41 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
32 crash reports4 fire reports23 injury reports
What owners actually said
416 reports
98,000 miles · Oct 3, 2020
Electrical SystemExterior LightingUnknown Or Other
AFTER A HEAVY STORM, I ATTEMPTED TO START MY CAR THAT WAS PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY, BUT NOTHING IN THE CAR WOULD RESPOND TO THE KEY FOB OR PUSH TO START. AFTER JUMPING THE BATTERY, WE WERE ABLE TO START THE VEHICLE, HOWEVER, THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS WERE ERRATICALLY SHUTTING OFF AND RESTARTING. THE GAUGES AND SYSTEM LIGHTS KEPT B…
Read full complaint
AFTER A HEAVY STORM, I ATTEMPTED TO START MY CAR THAT WAS PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY, BUT NOTHING IN THE CAR WOULD RESPOND TO THE KEY FOB OR PUSH TO START. AFTER JUMPING THE BATTERY, WE WERE ABLE TO START THE VEHICLE, HOWEVER, THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS WERE ERRATICALLY SHUTTING OFF AND RESTARTING. THE GAUGES AND SYSTEM LIGHTS KEPT BLINKING AND TURNING OFF. THE ENGINE BEGAN TO SMOKE, SO I TURNED THE VEHICLE OFF. THERE WAS A MUSTY SMELL WHICH PROVOKED ME TO SEARCH FOR WATER INTRUSION. THE FRONT FLOORBOARDS WERE SOAKING WET. I COULDN'T GET THE LIFTGATE OPEN, SO I CLIMBED INTO THE REAR AREA AND FOUND COMPARTMENTS THAT HAD STANDING WATER. THE REAR CARPETS WERE ALSO WET. I HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP, AND THEY INFORMED ME THAT THE STORM CAUSED DEBRI TO CLOG THE SUNROOF DRAINS CAUSING THE OVERFLOW PANS TO POUR INTO THE VEHICLE. THIS CAUSED THE LIFTGATE MODULE TO INITIATE A PERPETUAL SIGNAL TO THE BATTERY CAUSING IT TO DIE. I ALSO HAD WATER AND FOGGING BUILT UP IN THE HEADLIGHT COVERS REDUCING THE LAMP OUTPUT. AFTER RESEARCHING THIS ISSUE, I FOUND THAT IT IS A VERY COMMON DESIGN FLAW THAT GM REFUSES TO ADMIT OR EVEN COVER REPAIRS BEYOND THE INITIAL MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY. THIS IS VERY DISCONCERTING BECAUSE I'M SURE THE ISSUE WILL HAPPEN AGAIN WHEN THERE'S A RAIN DOWNPOUR, AND IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THE WATER CORRODES THE LIFTGATE MODULE OR OTHER ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS. WATER AVOIDANCE IS NOT AN OPTION. I FEEL THAT GM SHOULD OWN THIS PROBLEM THEY CREATED AND PROVIDE A PERMANENT SOLUTION TO THE ISSUE.
NHTSA ODI #11362544
80,000 miles · Sep 29, 2020
Exterior Lighting
HEADLIGHTS GOT VERY DIM OVER TIME. REACHED THE POINT THAT I HAD TO DRIVE WITH THE UPPER BEAMS ON AT NIGHT. ALSO HAD MOISTURE IN ONE HEADLAMP ASSEMBLY.
NHTSA ODI #11361776
114,000 miles · Sep 24, 2020
Unknown Or Other
LOW VISION HEAD LIGHTS ARE NOT BRIGHT ENOUGH FOR NIGHT DRIVING HAVE TO USE HIGH BEAMS?
NHTSA ODI #11360993
70,000 miles · Sep 18, 2020
Exterior Lighting
HEADLIGHTS ON NORMAL USE SETTING (NOT HI-BEAM) ARE ON BUT SO LOW BRIGHTNESS WISE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRIVE AT NIGHT USING THEM. YOU HAVE TO USE HI-BEAM ALL THE TIME WHICH IS A LARGER HAZARD FOR US AND OTHERS ON THE ROAD. IN LOOKING CLOSELY AT THE HEADLIGHTS, THE SILVER PART TO MAKE THE REFLECTION WORK, IS ALL BLACK. REPLACING…
Read full complaint
HEADLIGHTS ON NORMAL USE SETTING (NOT HI-BEAM) ARE ON BUT SO LOW BRIGHTNESS WISE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRIVE AT NIGHT USING THEM. YOU HAVE TO USE HI-BEAM ALL THE TIME WHICH IS A LARGER HAZARD FOR US AND OTHERS ON THE ROAD. IN LOOKING CLOSELY AT THE HEADLIGHTS, THE SILVER PART TO MAKE THE REFLECTION WORK, IS ALL BLACK. REPLACING THE BULBS DOES NOTHING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF VISION WHEN USING THE LIGHTS ON THE NORMAL SETTING. A LETTER WAS SENT TO REIMBURSE FOR REPLACEMENTS, HOWEVER, IT HAD TO BE USED IN A SHORT TIME FRAME AND WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO COME UP WITH MORE MONEY THAN WAS GOING TO BE REIMBURSED ACCORDING TO THE DEALER. THIS SHOULD BE A FULL BLOWN RECALL WITH ZERO OUT OF POCKET. IT IS DANGEROUS!
NHTSA ODI #11359841
66,878 miles · Sep 17, 2020
Exterior LightingSeats
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 CADILLAC SRX. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT, THE HEADLIGHTS WERE DIM. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO PENSKE CADILLAC OF SOUTH BAY SERVICE (18600 HAWTHORNE BLVD SUITE #101, TORRANCE, CA 90504) WHERE SHE WAS INFORMED THAT MOISTURE ENTERED THE HEADLIGHTS WHICH HAD CAUSED THEM TO DIM. TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 CADILLAC SRX. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT, THE HEADLIGHTS WERE DIM. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO PENSKE CADILLAC OF SOUTH BAY SERVICE (18600 HAWTHORNE BLVD SUITE #101, TORRANCE, CA 90504) WHERE SHE WAS INFORMED THAT MOISTURE ENTERED THE HEADLIGHTS WHICH HAD CAUSED THEM TO DIM. THE CONTACT THEN RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM CADILLAC IN REGARDS TO THE HEADLIGHTS, THAT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER WAS AWARE OF THE ISSUE WITH THE HEADLIGHTS. THE LETTER GAVE THE CONTACT INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO RECEIVE A REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE HEADLIGHTS IF THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED OUT OF POCKET. THE CONTACT THEN TOOK THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALER WHERE SHE HAD THE HEADLIGHTS REPAIRED. THE CONTACT ALSO HAD THE DRIVER'S SEAT REPAIRED OUT OF POCKET DUE TO THE SEAT MOVING BACK IN FORTH WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION. THE MANUFACTURER WAS THEN NOTIFIED OF THE REPAIR THAT WAS MADE TO HER HEADLIGHTS. THE MANUFACTURER THEN INFORMED HER THAT HER VEHICLE WAS NOT UNDER RECALL AND THAT SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A REIMBURSEMENT. UPON INVESTIGATION, THE CONTACT ALSO DISCOVERED NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 14V447000 (SEATS) WHICH SHE LINKED TO THE SEAT FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 66,878.
NHTSA ODI #11355652
49,000 miles · Sep 12, 2020
Exterior Lighting
I WENT HELP A FAMILY MEMBER AT THEIR HOUSE. I GOT LATER IN THE DAY AND BY THE TIME I WAS READY TO LEAVE IT HAD BECOME DARK. BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY I NOTICED THE THE VISIBILITY WAS POOR DUE TO THE BACK WINDOW BEING MUCH HIGHER THAN I WAS USED TO. I ONLY HAD THE VEHICLE A WEEK SO I USED THE MIRRORS MOSTLY AND FIGURED I WASN'T…
Read full complaint
I WENT HELP A FAMILY MEMBER AT THEIR HOUSE. I GOT LATER IN THE DAY AND BY THE TIME I WAS READY TO LEAVE IT HAD BECOME DARK. BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY I NOTICED THE THE VISIBILITY WAS POOR DUE TO THE BACK WINDOW BEING MUCH HIGHER THAN I WAS USED TO. I ONLY HAD THE VEHICLE A WEEK SO I USED THE MIRRORS MOSTLY AND FIGURED I WASN'T USE TO IT YET. WHEN I NOTICED THE HEADLIGHTS WERE VERY DIM, I THOUGHT I DID SOMETHING WRONG AND DIDN'T TURN THEM ON AND MAYBE THEY WERE IN "DAYLIGHT" DRIVING MODE. NOT BEING FAMILIAR WITH THE DASH BOARDS BUTTONS I WAS SCRAMBLING PUSH THE RIGHT HEADLIGHT SETTING, IT WAS ALSO RAINING PRETTY HARD NOTHING SEEMED TO HELP SO I JUST DROVE HOME VERY SLOWLY AND NERVOUS WONDERING WHY A 55 THOUSAND DOLLAR SUV HAD SUCH CRAPPY HEADLIGHTS, I READ A LOT COMPLAINTS ABOUT THEM RECENTLY AND REALIZED THAT IT WASN'T ME. THE FRONT LIGHTS WERE A MAJOR ISSUE OF COMPLAINT. I LIVE IN FLORIDA AND IT RAINS VERY HARD AND FAST HERE AND I RARELY GO ANYWHERE AT NIGHT. BUT I CAN'T GO THE REST OF MY LIFE ONLY DRIVING DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS ONLY, HAD I HAVE READ THOSE COMPLAINTS BEFORE BUYING IT I WOULD HAVE PROBABLY DISMISSED IT AS OVER EXAGGERATED WHINER THAT COMPLAINS ABOUT SILLY THINGS .BUT THIS IS VERY MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE. I HAVE OWNED SEVERAL CADILLACS IN THE PAST AND HAVE ALWAYS HAD NOTHING BUT GOOD THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THEM. BUT THIS IS GOING TO KILL SOME PEOPLE, I'M VERY SURPRISED IT HASN'T ALREADY. ALL THE TALK ABOUT MOISTURE GETTING IN SIDE IS NOT THE CASE WITH MINE. I BOUGHT IT USED AND IT DREW MY ATTENTION BECAUSE THE HEADLIGHT LENSES' WERE SHOWROOM CLEAR AND NOT LIKE A LOT OF THE PLASTIC LENS THAT ARE SUN OF WATER DAMAGED. SO ITS NOT THE LENS ISSUE WITH MINE IT JUST CRAPPY LIGHT BULBS, DESIGN, OR SOMETHING, BUT CADILLAC NEEDS TO FIX IT. I AM SHOCKED THAT IT HAS GONE THIS MANY YEARS WITHOUT MULTIPLE DEATHS. I NEVER COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING BUT WOW! THIS IS BADDDD!!!
NHTSA ODI #11354567
83,000 miles · Sep 10, 2020
Exterior Lighting
HEADLAMPS ARE TO DIM TO SAFELY DRIVE AT NIGHT. THEY HAVE GOTTEN WORSE AS TIME WENT ON.
NHTSA ODI #11354268
Mileage unknown · Aug 25, 2020
Exterior LightingFire
RECEIVED A LETTER FROM CADILLAC/GMC REGARDING THE HEADLAMP CAPSULES AND/OR CAUSE HALOGEN HEADLIGHTS TO BECOME DIM OVER TIME, WELL MINE ARE LIKE NOT HAVING HEADLIGHTS DUE TO BE SO DIM. THEY WANT YOU TO PAY THEN THEY WILL REIMBURSE YOU IF THEY DETERMINE IT WAS DEFECTED. THE COST IS $800 PER HEADLIGHT. SO YOUR NOT GUARANTEED REIMB…
Read full complaint
RECEIVED A LETTER FROM CADILLAC/GMC REGARDING THE HEADLAMP CAPSULES AND/OR CAUSE HALOGEN HEADLIGHTS TO BECOME DIM OVER TIME, WELL MINE ARE LIKE NOT HAVING HEADLIGHTS DUE TO BE SO DIM. THEY WANT YOU TO PAY THEN THEY WILL REIMBURSE YOU IF THEY DETERMINE IT WAS DEFECTED. THE COST IS $800 PER HEADLIGHT. SO YOUR NOT GUARANTEED REIMBURSEMENT. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THEM TO ASK THIS OF AN OWNER. THEY NEED TO PAY FOR THE HEADLIGHT REPLACEMENT, AFTER ALL THEY DID BUILD THE CAR AND YOU PAY FOR THE CAR WHICH THEY TELL YOU HOW GREAT THE CAR IS AND THE WARRANTY. I AM SO UPSET WITH THEM. I CANT PAY THE $800 TOTAL $1600 FOR REPAIRS THAT WAS ON THEIR BEHALF. THEY ARE NOT ARE NOT REPRESENTING THEIR BRAND VERY WELL AT ALL. TO THEM ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! DO THEY NOT REALIZE THE ECONOMY IS NOT GOOD AT THIS TIME FOR SOME PEOPLE WHICH I HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF THOSE. I PAID THEIR PRICE FOR MY SRX SO THEY SHOULD HONOR THEIR MISTAKE WITH THEIR MONEY!! PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS ISSUE. THE DATE ENTERED BELOW IS WHEN I RECEIVED THE LETTER FROM CADILLAC. LIGHTS HAVE BEEN DIM FOR AWHILE.
NHTSA ODI #11351145
Mileage unknown · Aug 20, 2020
Exterior Lighting
2012 CADILLAC SRX. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO HEADLAMPS SAFETY RECALL. *LD THE CONSUMER STATED THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED THE CONSUMER MUST FIRST PAY FOR THE SAFETY REPAIR RECALL AND THEN BE REIMBURSED. THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY THE RECALL REPAIR WOULD BE COMPLETED. THE CONSUMER STATED THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT FULLY REIMBURSE …
Read full complaint
2012 CADILLAC SRX. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO HEADLAMPS SAFETY RECALL. *LD THE CONSUMER STATED THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED THE CONSUMER MUST FIRST PAY FOR THE SAFETY REPAIR RECALL AND THEN BE REIMBURSED. THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY THE RECALL REPAIR WOULD BE COMPLETED. THE CONSUMER STATED THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT FULLY REIMBURSE THE COST OF REPAIRS. *JS
NHTSA ODI #11349399
70,420 miles · Aug 4, 2020
Unknown Or Other
A LETTER WAS SENT TO ME BY CADILLAC RELATED TO HEADLIGHTS THAT GOT MOISTURE IN THEM AND BECAME CLOUDY. IT SAID THEY WOULD PAY TO HAVE THIS FIXED FOR 1 OR BOTH HEADLIGHTS WHETHER THE PROBLEM HAD HAPPENED OR NOT YET. I HAD JUST PAID $1,600.00 TO HAVE 1 HEADLIGHT REPLACED DUE TO THIS VERY PROBLEM. THE LETTER SAID I WOULD BE REIMBUR…
Read full complaint
A LETTER WAS SENT TO ME BY CADILLAC RELATED TO HEADLIGHTS THAT GOT MOISTURE IN THEM AND BECAME CLOUDY. IT SAID THEY WOULD PAY TO HAVE THIS FIXED FOR 1 OR BOTH HEADLIGHTS WHETHER THE PROBLEM HAD HAPPENED OR NOT YET. I HAD JUST PAID $1,600.00 TO HAVE 1 HEADLIGHT REPLACED DUE TO THIS VERY PROBLEM. THE LETTER SAID I WOULD BE REIMBURSED IF I HAD ALREADY PAID TO FIX PROBLEM. I BROUGHT CAR AND LETTER TO MY CADILLAC DEALERSHIP GARLAND CADILLAC AT 972-840-4100. I SHOWED THEM EVERYTHING AND THEY SAID THEY DID NOT USE THE PARTS TO FIX MY CAR THAT WERE LISTED ON THE LETTER TO ME. I ASKED FOR A COPY OF MY BILL WITH THE PARTS THEY USED ON IT SO I COULD CALL CADILLAC AND GOT THAT. WHEN I LATER LOOKED IN MY PAPERWORK THE LETTER CADILLAC SENT ME WAS MISSING, PRESUMABLY KEPT BY THE DEALERSHIP WHEN I WAS THERE. I KNOW DUE TO COVID EVERYTHING WAS EXTENDED AS FAR AS TIME FRAMES. I NEED HELP WITH HAVING ANOTHER COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO ME, HAVING THE THE DEALERSHIP REIMBURSE ME FOR THE REPAIR OF THE 1 HEADLIGHT, AND IN CASE THE 2ND HEADLIGHT DEVELOPS AN ISSUE BEING ABLE TO GO BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP TO HAVE IT FIXED. IF THEY DID NOT USE THE APPROPRIATE PARTS TO FIX MY INITIAL HEADLIGHT REPAIR I AM NOT SURE WHAT TO DO WITH THAT. THE REPAIR HAS BEEN FINE, DONE MARCH OF 2018. NO ACCIDENT HAS HAPPENED.
General Motors, LLC (GM) is recalling certain 2010-2016 Cadillac SRX and 2011-2012 Saab 9-4X vehicles. The rear suspension toe link adjuster may not have been tightened properly, which could result in a loose toe link.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A loose toe link can separate and cause a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Owners are advised to not drive their vehicle if they experience certain Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) warnings or other issues, such as unusual steering behavior, while driving. Please see the Part 573 report for the full list of warnings. Dealers will replace the adjustable toe link with a non-adjustable one, free of charge. Interim owner notification letters were mailed August 6, 2021. Owner notification letters were mailed on October 25, 2021. Cadillac and Saab customers may direct questions to Cadillac customer service at 1-800-333-4223. GM's number for this recall is N212340980.
General Motors LLC (GM) is recalling certain model year 2010-2015 Cadillac SRX vehicles manufactured April 14, 2009, to September 1, 2014, and 2011-2012 Saab 9-4X vehicles manufactured February 1, 2011, to September 13, 2011. On the affected vehicles, the jam nut in the rear suspension toe adjuster link may not be torqued to the proper specification. A loose toe adjuster link can cause the vehicle to sway or wander at highway speeds. A loose toe adjuster link may lead to thread damage and eventual failure. Failure of the toe adjuster link will cause an abrupt change in the vehicle's alignment.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: Failure of the toe adjuster link could cause a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: GM will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the torque of the left and right rear toe link adjuster lock nuts, and replace the parts if there is evidence of damage or a loose link, free of charge. The The recall began November 11, 2014. Owners may contact Cadillac customer service at 1-800-458-8006 or Saab customer service at 1-800-955-9007. GM's number for this recall is 14457.
General Motors LLC (GM) is recalling certain model year 2011-2012 Buick LaCrosse, Regal and Chevrolet Camaro, as well as certain 2010-2012 Cadillac SRX, Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain vehicles, equipped with power height adjustable driver and passenger seats. In the affected vehicles, the bolt that secures the driver's and passenger's power front seat height adjuster may fall out causing the seat to drop suddenly to the lowest vertical position.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the driver's seat unexpectedly drops, the distraction and altered seat position may affect the drivers' control of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: GM will notify owners, and dealers will replace the height adjuster shoulder bolts, free of charge. The manufacturer distributed interim letters to owners on September 11, 2014. The recall began on December 26, 2014. Owners may contact GM customer service at 1-800-521-7300 (Buick), 1-800-458-8006 (Cadillac), 1-800-222-1020 (Chevrolet), or 1-800-462-8782 (GMC). GM's number for this recall is 14271.
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
PE20019 · Rear Toe Link Adjuster Separation
Opened Nov 6, 2020 · Closed Dec 23, 2021
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension; Suspension:rear
On November 06, 2020, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE20-019) to assess the remedy and scope of General Motors (GM) recall 14V-571. ODI had received a total of 9 complaints with allegations of rear toe links separating while the vehicle was in motion. There were 4 complainants indicating that the remedy for recall 14V-571 had been performed on their vehicle. The other 5 complaints were outside the original recall scope but exhibited the same failure mode as addressed by recall 14V-571 and reported uncontrolled swaying while driving.ODI's review focused on all 2010-2015 Cadillac SRX vehicles that experienced a rear toe link failure while the vehicle was in motion under various driving conditions. The failures were the same or similar to those addressed by the remedy associated with recall 14V-571. The remedy for recall 14V-571 was to inspect the rear toe link adjusters and replace them if necessary as well as tighten both jam nuts to a manufacturer specified torque. The remedy can be reversed when the vehicle gets a rear alignment adjustment and the jam nuts are not properly re-torqued to the manufacturer's specification. ODI's data review confirmed a high toe link failure rate in vehicles that either had and had not received the remedy associated with recall 14V-571. On June 24, 2021, GM filed a defect information report recalling all 2010-2016 Cadillac SRX and 2011-2012 Saab 9-4X vehicles to remedy the potential failure of the rear toe link adjuster while driving. The remedy replaces adjustable toe links with non-adjustable toe links. The recall (21V-473) includes vehicles that were remedied under 14V-571. In view of the recall action being taken by GM, ODI is closing this Preliminary Evaluation. NHTSA reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances.The ODI complaints cited above can be viewed at www.nhtsa.gov.The ODI identification numbers for the complaints cited above can be found in a separate document attached to this closing resume.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Suspension
On November 06, 2020, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE20-019) to assess the remedy and scope of General Motors (GM) recall 14V-571. ODI had received a total of 9 complaints with allegations of rear toe links separating while the vehicle was in motion. There were 4 complainants indicating that the remedy for recall 14V-571 had been performed on their vehicle. The other 5 complaints were outside the original recall scope but exhibited the same failure mode as addressed by recall 14V-571 and reported uncontrolled swaying while driving.ODI's review focused on all 2010-2015 Cadillac SRX vehicles that experienced a rear toe link failure while the vehicle was in motion under various driving conditions. The failures were the same or similar to those addressed by the remedy associated with recall 14V-571. The remedy for recall 14V-571 was to inspect the rear toe link adjusters and replace them if necessary as well as tighten both jam nuts to a manufacturer specified torque. The remedy can be reversed when the vehicle gets a rear alignment adjustment and the jam nuts are not properly re-torqued to the manufacturer's specification. ODI's data review confirmed a high toe link failure rate in vehicles that either had and had not received the remedy associated with recall 14V-571. On June 24, 2021, GM filed a defect information report recalling all 2010-2016 Cadillac SRX and 2011-2012 Saab 9-4X vehicles to remedy the potential failure of the rear toe link adjuster while driving. The remedy replaces adjustable toe links with non-adjustable toe links. The recall (21V-473) includes vehicles that were remedied under 14V-571. In view of the recall action being taken by GM, ODI is closing this Preliminary Evaluation. NHTSA reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances.The ODI complaints cited above can be viewed at www.nhtsa.gov.The ODI identification numbers for the complaints cited above can be found in a separate document attached to this closing resume.
Suspension:rear
On November 06, 2020, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE20-019) to assess the remedy and scope of General Motors (GM) recall 14V-571. ODI had received a total of 9 complaints with allegations of rear toe links separating while the vehicle was in motion. There were 4 complainants indicating that the remedy for recall 14V-571 had been performed on their vehicle. The other 5 complaints were outside the original recall scope but exhibited the same failure mode as addressed by recall 14V-571 and reported uncontrolled swaying while driving.ODI's review focused on all 2010-2015 Cadillac SRX vehicles that experienced a rear toe link failure while the vehicle was in motion under various driving conditions. The failures were the same or similar to those addressed by the remedy associated with recall 14V-571. The remedy for recall 14V-571 was to inspect the rear toe link adjusters and replace them if necessary as well as tighten both jam nuts to a manufacturer specified torque. The remedy can be reversed when the vehicle gets a rear alignment adjustment and the jam nuts are not properly re-torqued to the manufacturer's specification. ODI's data review confirmed a high toe link failure rate in vehicles that either had and had not received the remedy associated with recall 14V-571. On June 24, 2021, GM filed a defect information report recalling all 2010-2016 Cadillac SRX and 2011-2012 Saab 9-4X vehicles to remedy the potential failure of the rear toe link adjuster while driving. The remedy replaces adjustable toe links with non-adjustable toe links. The recall (21V-473) includes vehicles that were remedied under 14V-571. In view of the recall action being taken by GM, ODI is closing this Preliminary Evaluation. NHTSA reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances.The ODI complaints cited above can be viewed at www.nhtsa.gov.The ODI identification numbers for the complaints cited above can be found in a separate document attached to this closing resume.
2012 Cadillac Srx Problems, Complaints & Recalls | Skip That Year