IllustrationROOF FLYING OFF WHILE DRIVING
2005 Cadillac Xlr
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Limited comparison data
There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Xlr 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
10–25K
525–50K
750–75K
575–100K
4100–150K
0150K+
22 reports with mileage · 9 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.
- Structure. Review the 13 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Exterior Lighting. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Fuel System, Gasoline. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
0 crash reports0 fire reports0 injury reports
Structure complaints
13 reports2005 CADILLAC XLR. WIND NOISE NEAR THE SEAL BETWEEN THE WINDSHIELD AND THE CLOSED CONVERTIBLE TOP.*CW THE DEALERSHIP STATED IT WAS PROBABLY A WORN, OLD SEAL WHERE THE TOP CLOSED AND NO ACTION OTHER THAN APPLYING SOME SILICONE CAULK AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WOULD REDUCE THE WIND NOISE. THE NEXT DAY, WHILE TRAVELING AT APPROX…
Read full complaint
2005 CADILLAC XLR. WIND NOISE NEAR THE SEAL BETWEEN THE WINDSHIELD AND THE CLOSED CONVERTIBLE TOP.*CW THE DEALERSHIP STATED IT WAS PROBABLY A WORN, OLD SEAL WHERE THE TOP CLOSED AND NO ACTION OTHER THAN APPLYING SOME SILICONE CAULK AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WOULD REDUCE THE WIND NOISE. THE NEXT DAY, WHILE TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 72 MPH DOWN THE INTERSTATE, WITH THE CONVERTIBLE TOP CLOSE, THE TOP FIBERGLASS PANEL OF THE CONVERTIBLE ROOF SEPARATED ENTIRELY AND CLEANLY FROM THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. THE CONSUMER WAS BALE TO PUT THE PANEL IN THE TRUNK OF THE VEHICLE AND RETURNED TO THE DEALER. THE CONSUMER FOUND A RECALL ONLINE, THAT WAS SIMILAR TO HER ISSUE. HOWEVER, IT WAS FOR ANOTHER MAKE AND MODEL. *JB
PRE-LITIGATION STATEMENT FOR SETTLEMENT & COMPROMISE PURPOSES ONLY PURSUANT TO NRS**CC AS THE CONSUMER WAS ATTEMPTING TO EXIT HER DRIVEWAY, SHE NOTICED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS SEVERELY LOW TO THE GROUND TO THE POINT THAT IT DAMAGED THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY WHILE BACKING ONTO THE STREET. AFTER DURING RESEARCH, THE CONSUMER DISCOVERED…
Read full complaint
PRE-LITIGATION STATEMENT FOR SETTLEMENT & COMPROMISE PURPOSES ONLY PURSUANT TO NRS**CC AS THE CONSUMER WAS ATTEMPTING TO EXIT HER DRIVEWAY, SHE NOTICED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS SEVERELY LOW TO THE GROUND TO THE POINT THAT IT DAMAGED THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY WHILE BACKING ONTO THE STREET. AFTER DURING RESEARCH, THE CONSUMER DISCOVERED THAT REGULATIONS WERE SET FORTH BY NHTSA, THAT THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HOLD MORE THAN 342LBS OF PASSENGER AND CARGO WEIGHT. THE CONSUMER FOUND THAT THE ONLY PLACE THE VEHICLE DISCLOSED SUCH RESTRICTIONS WAS ON THE SIDE DOOR IN A RELATIVELY CONCEALED AREA. THE SALES AGENT NEVER INFORMED THE CONSUMER ABOUT THE WEIGHT RESTRICTION. THE CONSUMER AND HER FIANCEE HAVE A TOTAL WEIGHT OF 396LBS WITH NO CARGO ALLOWANCE. THE CONSUMER IS REQUESTING TO BE LET OUT OF THE LEASE DUE TO NON-DISCLOSURE OF THE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. (LAWYER ON BEHALF OF CLIENT). *JB
Official recalls
206V263000 · Exterior Lighting:turn Signal
Jul 19, 2006
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES, THE DAYLIGHT RUNNING LIGHTS (DRL), TURN SIGNAL, AND PARKING LAMPS USE THE SAME BULB. THE BULB MAY BECOME DAMAGED FROM VIBRATION WITHIN A LOOSE FITTING SOCKET OR AIR ENTERING THE BULB DUE TO AN INADEQUATE SEAL. BOTH OF THESE CONDITIONS WILL CAUSE THE BULB TO BURN OUT PREMATURELY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS WERE TO OCCUR, THE DRIVER WOULD NOTICE THAT THE ARROW IN THE INSTRUMENT PANEL WOULD FLASH FASTER THAN NORMAL WHEN THE TURN SIGNAL IS ACTIVATED. THE LOSS OF THE DRL AND TURN SIGNALS COULD FAIL TO WARN OTHERS OF THE DRIVER'S PRESENCE OR INTENTIONS AND COULD LEAD TO A VEHICLE CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SOCKET AND BULB IN BOTH LAMPS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 31, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT CADILLAC AT 1-866-982-2339.
04V525000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
Nov 3, 2004
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES WERE PRODUCED WITH ONE OR BOTH REAR BRAKE HYDRAULIC LINES THAT CAN COME IN CONTACT WITH OR BE AFFECTED BY HEAT FROM THE LEFT ENGINE EXHAUST MANIFOLD AND THE LEFT EXHAUST PIPE. THE BRAKE FLUID COULD REACH ELEVATED TEMPERATURES AND BOIL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE BRAKE FLUID BOILS IN A REAR BRAKE LINE, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REAR BRAKE SYSTEM WOULD BE REDUCED WHICH COULD RESULT IN A BRAKE LINE LEAK AND LOSS OF BRAKE FLUID. IF ENOUGH FLUID LEAKS FROM THE REAR BRAKE SYSTEM SO THAT BRAKE PEDAL APPLICATION CAN NO LONGER BUILD PRESSURE TO THE REAR BRAKES. THE OPERATOR OF THE VEHICLE WILL EXPERIENCE LIMITED BRAKING WHICH COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL (1) INSPECT THE LEFT ENGINE EXHAUST MANIFOLD CLIP FOR PROPER ALIGNMENT AND PLACEMENT ON THE BODY-MOUNTED STUD. IF INCORRECT, THEY WILL REPOSITION THE CLIP ON THE BRAKE LINES AND REINSTALL THE CLIP ON THE STUD; (2) THE DEALER WILL VERIFY THAT BOTH REAR BRAKE LINES HAVE THE PROPER CLEARANCE TO THE LEFT EXHAUST PIPE. THEY WILL REPOSITION THE LINES BY BENDING AS NECESSARY; (3) DEALERS WILL REMOVE THE MACHINING TAB FROM THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL HOUSING. ALSO, DEALERS ARE TO INSPECT THE BRAKE LINES FOR WEAR IN THESE RELATED AREAS AND REPAIR OR REPLACE IF THERE IS ANY SIGN OF WEAR-THROUGH ON THE NYLON OVERCOATING. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JANUARY 18, 2005. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT CADILLAC AT 1-866-982-2239 OR CHEVROLET AT 1-800-630-2438.
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
1PE19001 · Roof Skin Separation While Driving
Opened Feb 1, 2019 · Closed Dec 12, 2019
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:roof And Pillars
On August 23rd, 2018 - the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a media inquiry pertaining to a motorist experiencing separation of the roof skin from their Cadillac XLR while driving.Based on the data in-hand at that time and a subsequent (December) consumer complaint, ODI opened PE19-001 on February 1, 2019 to evaluate the scope of this condition in the 2004 - 2005 XLR population.The subject vehicle model is a two-seat roadster equipped with an electrically powered retractable roof system. The outer roof skin is a Sheet Molded Composite (SMC) which is adhered to the magnesium alloy roof frame.ODI's February 7, 2019 Information Request (IR) letter to General Motors (GM) covered the entirety of XLR production: MY 2004 - 2009. GM's March 21, 2019 IR response attributed the separations to an unexpected oxide layer on the magnesium framework. A total of eight separations were identified, six of which coincided with consumer complaints to NHTSA. Separations occurred at two per calendar year with the most recent taking place in late 2018.An additional twenty-one noise, fit/finish/ functionality claims were identified that did not lead to separations.ODI compared the separation rate in the subject vehicles to those in to two roof skin separation safety recalls involving the Corvette (06V181: 2005 - 2006 Corvette; 09V491: 2005 - 2007 Corvette) to find that the subject vehicles took over ten years of exposure to reach the failure rate that triggered the 06V181.Since PE19-001 opened, ODI has received only one additional consumer complaint which reported wind noise symptoms. The complainant has not responded to outreach efforts by ODI or GM.Based on a low failure rate, sporadic occurrence, and high detectability of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles, this investigation is closed. Further use of agency resources on this matter is not warranted. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist in the subject vehicles.The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances. The ODI complaints cited above can be viewed at www.nhtsa.gov under the following ODI identification numbers: Separations: 11155574, 11101657, 11012176, 11012166, 10970736, 10970383, 10653304Note: ODI 11012176 & 11012166 pertain to the same incidentNot Separated: 11243947, 11194359, 11176647, 11173362, 11074433, 10985013 Note: 11176647 & 10985013 pertain to the same incident