2023 Chevrolet Camaro

Subject: Inadequate Anti-Theft Security – 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE To Whom It May Concern: I am filing this complaint regarding the lack of sufficient theft deterrent technology in the 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE, which directly contributed to my vehicle being stolen in July 2025. Despite being a high-performance vehicle valued at over $50,000, the Camaro lacks a modern immobilizer system, encrypted key access, or any active anti-theft protections to prevent increasingly common theft methods such as relay attacks, CAN injection, or signal spoofing. My vehicle was stolen in under one minute from a secure location, and the incident aligns with a growing national trend of GM vehicles being targeted due to these vulnerabilities. 2 years of $1,000 payments for it to be easily stolen is outrageous. I had full coverage insurance and was enrolled in OnStar, yet the recovery process was ineffective, and OnStar was unable to track the vehicle in time. Chevrolet and GM have not provided an adequate explanation for why newer models are being sold without basic theft-prevention technology that is now standard in vehicles from other manufacturers. Given the scale of this problem, I believe this represents a serious consumer safety and security issue, and GM should be required to: •Upgrade security firmware or modules in vulnerable models •Offer retrofitting of immobilizer technology or free anti-theft solutions •Notify owners of the known risk and potential theft vulnerability I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the scope of this issue and determine whether GM’s failure to implement industry-standard theft prevention constitutes a violation of consumer safety expectations. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, [XXX] Murrieta, CA [XXX] Phone: [XXX] Vehicle Info: •Year/Make/Model: 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE •VIN: [XXX] •Date of Theft: [XXX] •Location: Murrieta, CA INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Over a year ago, my car developed an intermittent slow crank/starting issue. After driving 20–30 minutes and turning the engine off, it often wouldn’t restart on the first try, sometimes requiring 2–5 cranks. From my research (forums, Reddit, Facebook), I suspected heat soak affecting the starter, which can eventually harm the battery, alternator, or starter itself. About six months ago, the battery was replaced under warranty, though I don’t know the full details of what the dealership diagnosed back then. On April 25, 2025, a more dangerous incident occurred: while driving on the highway, my engine suddenly lost all power without warning, right as I tried to accelerate to merge lanes. I had to coast in neutral onto the shoulder, narrowly avoiding a dangerous situation on a busy road. There were no warning lights or advance signs. After getting towed, I suspected the alternator had failed due to the long-term starter heat soak issue. Both the tow truck driver and dealership technician thought the same, especially after the dealership checked the OBD2 and only saw low-voltage-related codes. After 1-2 weeks of diagnostics, the dealership shocked me with their findings: the engine had catastrophically failed. They suspect metal shavings, possibly due to a rod bearing or crankshaft failure, but the exact cause is still under investigation. They are going to replace the engine and will provide the full details once the work is done. What’s concerning is that the slow crank issue had been happening for over a year, yet no clear signs pointing to impending engine failure. Only hints were a static (not flashing) check engine light that came on and off a few times over the past year, usually disappearing after 1-2 days and not returning for months. The LT1 6.2l V8 in my 23 Camaro is essentially the same engine found in GM’s recent massive recall for L87 6.2l V8 engines in trucks/SUVs. This calls for investigation into the LT1 engines.

Vehicle had approximately 5000 miles on it when the electronic trunk release failed to operate. Trunk would not unlock or open from the key fob or the push button inside the vehicle. This was a safety concern as it was determined by the dealer of a faulty fuse box which controlled several other components of the vehicles electrical system. Dealer informed customer that the fuse box was on back order due to a large number of replacements for the same issue occurring.