← New search

2004 Pontiac Gto

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2004 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

190 reports with mileage · 55 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 169 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Tires. Review the 65 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

7 crash reports1 fire reports6 injury reports

Suspension complaints

169 reports
Clear category filter
18,000 miles · Jul 7, 2006
Suspension

I OWN A 2004 PONTIAC GTO WITH THE FACTORY 17' WHEELS AND 245-45-17 TIRES. IN AUSS WHERE THEY ARE MADE AND SOLD AS A HOLDEN MONARO THEY COME WITH 235-45-17 TIRES.. BUT GM CHANGED THE TIRE SIZE AND NEVER CHECKED TO SEE IF IT MADE CONTACT WITH THE STRUT. THERE HAS BEEN A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE TIRES COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE ST…

Read full complaint

I OWN A 2004 PONTIAC GTO WITH THE FACTORY 17' WHEELS AND 245-45-17 TIRES. IN AUSS WHERE THEY ARE MADE AND SOLD AS A HOLDEN MONARO THEY COME WITH 235-45-17 TIRES.. BUT GM CHANGED THE TIRE SIZE AND NEVER CHECKED TO SEE IF IT MADE CONTACT WITH THE STRUT. THERE HAS BEEN A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE TIRES COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE STRUT AND WEARING THE PAINT OFF THE STRUT AND WEARING THE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TIRE DOWN TO THE POINT OF THE TIRES BLOWING OUT. I NOTICED THAT MY FRONT TIRES WERE RUBBING ON THE STRUTS AT 18K MILES AND TOOK IT IN, AND AFTER A COUPLE OF CALLS.. THE GM REP. WON'T COVER IT AND BLAMES ME FOR THE PROBLEM AND SAYS THEY NEVER HEARD OF THIS PROBLEM BEFORE.. EVEN AFTER THEY CALLED PONTIAC TECH ASST THEY KNEW ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND HOW TO FIX IT. THIS NEEDS TO GET FIXED ASAP BEFORE SOMEONE GETS KILLED. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10161831

6,000 miles · Jul 7, 2006
Suspension

REFERENCE CLAIM OID#10116796. MY SPECIFIC PROBLEM: I NOTICED STRUT RUB ON MY FRONT STRUTS WHEN I ROTATED MY TIRES IN MARCH OF 2005 (3 MONTHS AFTER BUYING IT). MY SELLING DEALER, COVINGTON PONTIAC IN SILVER SPRING, MD CORRECTED THE STRUT RUB BUT NEVER TOLD ME WHAT THEY DID. I HAD LITTLE OR NO PROBLEMS AFTER THIS UNTIL REPLACING…

Read full complaint

REFERENCE CLAIM OID#10116796. MY SPECIFIC PROBLEM: I NOTICED STRUT RUB ON MY FRONT STRUTS WHEN I ROTATED MY TIRES IN MARCH OF 2005 (3 MONTHS AFTER BUYING IT). MY SELLING DEALER, COVINGTON PONTIAC IN SILVER SPRING, MD CORRECTED THE STRUT RUB BUT NEVER TOLD ME WHAT THEY DID. I HAD LITTLE OR NO PROBLEMS AFTER THIS UNTIL REPLACING THE ORIGINAL BFG KDWS WITH THE SAME SIZE 245/45/17 PIRELLI P-ZERO NEROS IN JANUARY 2006 AT 19,500 MILES. EVEN THOUGH THE PIRELLIS WERE THE SAME EXACT SIZE AS THE OEM TIRES, MANUFACTURING DIFFERENCES EVIDENTLY MADE THEM SLIGHTLY BIGGER AND THEY AGAIN RUBBED THE STRUT. WELL, SINCE 2005 AND MANY COMPLAINTS PONTIAC HAS COME UP WITH REVISED ALIGNMENT SPECS WHICH HAVE DEALERS INCREASE CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE STRUT AND THE TIRE BY PUTTING AS MUCH POSITIVE CAMBER IN AS THEY CAN. AFTER PUTTING ON MY NEW TIRES, ANOTHER PONTIAC DEALER, BOYLE PONTIAC, SET MY ALIGNMENT TO THE NEW PONTIAC SPECS PER PONTIAC TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER'S SUGGESTION IN JAN 06. MY WHEELS ARE AT MAXIMUM POSITIVE CAMBER AND NOW ONLY SLIGHTLY RUB IF AT ALL, HOWEVER I HAVE NO MORE ADJUSTMENT LEFT IN MY SUSPENSION AND I AM NOT CONVINCED MAXIMUM POSITIVE CAMBER IS ALL THAT GOOD FOR MY TIRES OR THE CAR ITSELF. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE NEXT SET OF TIRES I BUY IN THE SAME OEM SIZE, END UP BEING SLIGHTLY BIGGER. I AM OUT OF ADJUSTMENT. IT IS RIDICULOUS TO LIMIT MY CHOICE OF TIRES TO ONE MANUFACTURER AND ONE TYPE OF TIRE OR HAVE TIRES THAT TURN AT THOUSANDS OF RPMS AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS TO RUB ANYTHING. (AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE NEXT SET OF TIRES WONT BE BIGGER THAN MY ORIGINAL EVEN IF OEM TIRES ARE USED.) *JB

NHTSA ODI #10161821

18,000 miles · Jun 29, 2006
SuspensionTires

I LEASED A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. THE AUTOMOBILE HAD PREMATURE TIRE WEAR ON THE INSIDES OF THE TIRE. THE CAR HAS LOTS OF VIBRATIONS WHILE TRAVELING AT ALL SPEEDS. I REPLACED THE TIRES FOR THE THIRD TIME THROUGH GOODYEAR AND IT STILL HAS VIBRATIONS. I TOOK TO DEALER TODAY AND CAR HAS A SERVICE BULLETIN FOR VIBRATIONS THE STRUTS ARE C…

Read full complaint

I LEASED A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. THE AUTOMOBILE HAD PREMATURE TIRE WEAR ON THE INSIDES OF THE TIRE. THE CAR HAS LOTS OF VIBRATIONS WHILE TRAVELING AT ALL SPEEDS. I REPLACED THE TIRES FOR THE THIRD TIME THROUGH GOODYEAR AND IT STILL HAS VIBRATIONS. I TOOK TO DEALER TODAY AND CAR HAS A SERVICE BULLETIN FOR VIBRATIONS THE STRUTS ARE CAUSING PROBLEMS. THE STRUTS ARE ALSO RUBBING ON THE TIRES CAUSING THE PREMATURE WEAR HOWEVER THE PONTIAC DOES NOT WISH TO RECOGNIZE THIS PROBLEM. THIS IS ALSO A SAFETY CONCERN WHICH COULD LEAD TO A BLOW OUT. BUYER BEWARE! *NM

NHTSA ODI #10161038

16,000 miles · Jun 9, 2006
SuspensionWheels

AFTER I HAD PUT 20,000 MILES ON MY CAR I COULD HEAR A RUBBING NOISE FROM THE FRONT WHEEL. UPON CLOSER INSPECTION I NOTICED THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE WAS RUBBING AGAINST THE STRUTS ON BOTH FRONT WHEELS. SINCE I HAD THE TIRES ROTATED ON A REGULAR BASIS ALL FOUR WHEELS HAD THE WEAR ON THE INSIDE. SINCE THE TIRES WERE BUBBLING OUT …

Read full complaint

AFTER I HAD PUT 20,000 MILES ON MY CAR I COULD HEAR A RUBBING NOISE FROM THE FRONT WHEEL. UPON CLOSER INSPECTION I NOTICED THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE WAS RUBBING AGAINST THE STRUTS ON BOTH FRONT WHEELS. SINCE I HAD THE TIRES ROTATED ON A REGULAR BASIS ALL FOUR WHEELS HAD THE WEAR ON THE INSIDE. SINCE THE TIRES WERE BUBBLING OUT ON THE INSIDE WALL OF THE FRONT TIRES I PURCHASED NEW TIRES. THE NEW TIRES WERE STILL RUBBING THE STRUTS. I TOOK IT TO THE FIRST DEALERSHIP AND THEY SUGGESTED GRINDING DOWN THE STRUTS. THE NEXT DEALERSHIP I TOOK IT TO CHANGED THE CAMBER IN MY ALIGNMENT. IT NOW HAS 1/8 INCH CLEARANCE AND WHEN I HIT BUMPS OR WHEN I TURN THE WHEEL SHARPLY IT STILL RUBS. I HAVE TAKEN IT BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP AND THEY CLAIM IT IS WITHIN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CAR. THE DEALERSHIP WILL NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AS IF IT DOESN'T EXIST. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10159370

14,000 miles · Apr 22, 2006
SuspensionTires

AT 14,000 MILES, I NOTICED UNEVEN WEAR ON THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE. UPON REMOVAL OF THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE, I OBSERVED WEAR MARKS AND RUBBER FRAGMENTS ON THE STRUT. THE TIRE STILL HAS A LOT OF TREAD LEFT EXCLUDING THE ABNORMAL WEAR WHICH HAS WORN BALD. UNCHECKED, THIS COULD LEAD TO A DISASTER. THIS DOES NOT SEEM LIKE IT WOULD BE A…

Read full complaint

AT 14,000 MILES, I NOTICED UNEVEN WEAR ON THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE. UPON REMOVAL OF THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE, I OBSERVED WEAR MARKS AND RUBBER FRAGMENTS ON THE STRUT. THE TIRE STILL HAS A LOT OF TREAD LEFT EXCLUDING THE ABNORMAL WEAR WHICH HAS WORN BALD. UNCHECKED, THIS COULD LEAD TO A DISASTER. THIS DOES NOT SEEM LIKE IT WOULD BE A DIFFICULT FIX, YET MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO HAVE GOTTEN NOWHERE WITH THE DEALERSHIP. MOST LIKELY, CHANGING THE TIRE SIZE WILL FIX THE PROBLEM. THIS SHOULD BE PERFORMED UNDER WARRANTY. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10155890

12,350 miles · Apr 19, 2006
Suspension

I REFERENCE CLAIM ODI#10116796. I AM HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM. THE FRONT TIRES OF MY 2004 PONTIAC GTO ARE RUBBING AGAINST THE STRUTS CAUSING EXTREME/EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE INNERMOST TREAD. IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE UNTIL YOU JACK THE CAR UP BECAUSE THE VEHICLE SITS SO LOW AND THE TIRES ARE SO WIDE, SO I DID NOT NOTICE IT, M…

Read full complaint

I REFERENCE CLAIM ODI#10116796. I AM HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM. THE FRONT TIRES OF MY 2004 PONTIAC GTO ARE RUBBING AGAINST THE STRUTS CAUSING EXTREME/EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE INNERMOST TREAD. IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE UNTIL YOU JACK THE CAR UP BECAUSE THE VEHICLE SITS SO LOW AND THE TIRES ARE SO WIDE, SO I DID NOT NOTICE IT, MY MECHANIC DID. NOW, MY DEALERSHIP IS GIVING ME THE RUN AROUND AND TRYING TO TELL ME THEY AREN'T GOING TO REPLACE THE TIRES EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE COVERED FOR 36,000 MILES (THERE'S ONLY 12,500 MILES ON THE CAR NOW). THEIR SERVICE MANAGER EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO TRY TO TELL ME THAT I ABUSE MY VEHICLE AND DRIVE AGGRESSIVELY AND THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THE WEAR. HE ALSO LIED RIGHT TO ME AND SAID THAT I HAD TO CALL PONTIAC AND HAVE THEM CALL HIM WITH AN AUTHORIZATION NUMBER (WHICH PONTIAC THEN TOLD ME WAS NOT THE PROCEDURE), AND HE TOLD ME HE HAD ALREADY CONTACTED HIS DISTRICT REP WHEN INDEED HE HAD NOT.

NHTSA ODI #10155651

2,000 miles · Apr 12, 2006
Power TrainSuspensionCrash

VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A 1 CAR ACCIDENT. FOR NO KNOWN REASON THE VEHICLE WENT OUT OF CONTROL WHILE PULLING OUT OF A PARKING LOT. UPON REMOVAL OF THE DAMAGED FRONT FENDER IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE TIRES ON THIS VEHICLE WERE BALD ON THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE. THIS DAMAGE TO THE TIRES IT WAS ULTIMATELY CAUSED THE ACCIDENT. THIS …

Read full complaint

VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A 1 CAR ACCIDENT. FOR NO KNOWN REASON THE VEHICLE WENT OUT OF CONTROL WHILE PULLING OUT OF A PARKING LOT. UPON REMOVAL OF THE DAMAGED FRONT FENDER IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE TIRES ON THIS VEHICLE WERE BALD ON THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE. THIS DAMAGE TO THE TIRES IT WAS ULTIMATELY CAUSED THE ACCIDENT. THIS DEFECT IS WHAT IS KNOW AS STRUT RUB AND IS CAUSED BECAUSE OF A DESIGN FLAW IN THE PARTICULAR VEHICLE. PONTIAC 2004, GTO IN ADDITION TO THIS ISSUE MY VEHICLE HAS HAD NUMBER ISSUES WITH THE SHIFTER. IT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT BY THE DEALER 6 TO 7 TIMES AND SHIFTER WAS REPLACED ONCE. WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS THE SHIFTER STARTS RATTLING AGAIN. THIS VEHICLE IS DEFINITELY A LEMON AND SHOULD BE RECALLED. GM REFUSES TO BUY BACK THE VEHICLE BECAUSE IT WAS IN AN ACCIDENT, EVEN THOUGH THE ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY THE DEFECT IN THE SUSPENSION ON THIS VEHICLE. ALSO, EVEN THOUGH THIS VEHICLE IS STILL UNDER WARRANTY, THE MANUFACTURER STATES THAT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE VEHICLE AND HAS INSTRUCTED US TO DRIVE IT. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OCCURRENCES DOCUMENTED ON VARIOUS WEB SITES, SUCH AS GTO FORUM. I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PRINT OUT THIS INFORMATION FOR YOUR REVIEW!!! *JB

NHTSA ODI #10155138

10,000 miles · Apr 5, 2006
Suspension

I REFERENCE CLAIM ODI#0116796. I AM HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM, MY TIRES ARE RUBBING ON MY FRONT STRUTS. TIRES ARE RUINED. ROTATED TIRES STILL HAVE PROBLEM. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10154583

35,000 miles · Mar 22, 2006
Suspension

I HAVE A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. I REPLACED THE TIRES AT 35,000 MILES DUE TO SEPARATION OF TREAD AND EXPOSED CORDS. IT WAS ON THE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TIRES, NOT VISIBLE WITHOUT LOOKING BENEATH THE CAR AT THE INSIDE OF TIRE. A TIRE WAS GOING FLAT WHICH IS WHY I TOOK IT IN. THEY SHOWED THE WEAR AND I GOT NEW TIRES FIGURING IT WAS NOR…

Read full complaint

I HAVE A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. I REPLACED THE TIRES AT 35,000 MILES DUE TO SEPARATION OF TREAD AND EXPOSED CORDS. IT WAS ON THE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TIRES, NOT VISIBLE WITHOUT LOOKING BENEATH THE CAR AT THE INSIDE OF TIRE. A TIRE WAS GOING FLAT WHICH IS WHY I TOOK IT IN. THEY SHOWED THE WEAR AND I GOT NEW TIRES FIGURING IT WAS NORMAL WEAR. HOWEVER, AFTER LOOKING AT GTOFORUM.COM, I SAW PICTURES OF TIRES JUST LIKE MINE, AND THE OWNER OF THAT CAR SAID HIS TIRES WERE RUBBING ALONG THE STRUT. OTHERS ON THE WEBSITE COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS AS WELL. IT SEEMS TO BE A COMMON PROBLEM THAT NEEDS ADDRESSED. THESE ARE FAST CARS, AND IF AN UNSUSPECTING DRIVER IS DRIVING TRIPLE DIGIT SPEEDS (WHETHER AT A TRACK OR NOT, IT DOESN'T MATTER) THE RESULTS COULD BE DISASTROUS. ON GTOFORUM.COM THEY WERE SAYING AN ALIGNMENT WILL CORRECT THIS, BUT IT SEEMS THIS CAR WOULD BE NEEDING FREQUENT ALIGNMENTS THEN. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10153426

17,170 miles · Mar 8, 2006
Suspension

I HAVE A 2004 PONTIAC GTO WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN AUGUST OF 2004. WITHIN A FEW THOUSAND MILES, THE STEERING OF THE CAR BEGAN TO PULL TO THE RIGHT AND THE CAR WANTED TO FOLLOW RUTS IN THE PAVEMENT MORE SO THAN IT DID WHEN NEW. DURING A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE, MY MECHANIC NOTED THAT THE PASSENGER-SIDE FRONT TIRE WAS WEARING UNEVENLY AN…

Read full complaint

I HAVE A 2004 PONTIAC GTO WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN AUGUST OF 2004. WITHIN A FEW THOUSAND MILES, THE STEERING OF THE CAR BEGAN TO PULL TO THE RIGHT AND THE CAR WANTED TO FOLLOW RUTS IN THE PAVEMENT MORE SO THAN IT DID WHEN NEW. DURING A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE, MY MECHANIC NOTED THAT THE PASSENGER-SIDE FRONT TIRE WAS WEARING UNEVENLY AND HAD SOME CHUNKS OF RUBBER MISSING. I TOOK THE CAR INTO THE DEALER TO HAVE THE ALIGNMENT CHECKED. THE DEALER NOTED THAT THE ALIGNMENT WAS WITHIN SPEC AND JUST ROTATED THE TIRES. THE TIRE ROTATION HELPED THE PULLING AND RUT FOLLOWING FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. I HAD THE TIRES ROTATED ON A REGULAR BASIS DURING REGULAR OIL CHANGES. FAST FORWARD TO JANUARY 2006, I NOTICED THAT THE INSIDE EDGE OF THE PASSENGER SIDE FRONT TIRE WAS COMPLETELY WORN THROUGH TO THE STEEL BELTS DURING A SELF PERFORMED OIL CHANGE.. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, THE PASSENGER SIDE REAR TIRE ALSO SHOWED UNEVEN WEAR (LATER SURMISED TO HAVE HAPPENED WHILE ON THE FRONT). AT THIS POINT THE CAR HAS ONLY 17,000 MILES ON IT. I REPLACED ALL FOUR TIRES AT 17,170 MILES TO THE TUNE OF $826.84. THE ALIGNMENT WAS CHECKED AND WAS SLIGHTLY OUT OF SPEC, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO CAUSE THE KIND OF WEAR THAT WAS EXPERIENCED. THE TIRE SHOP THAT REPLACED NOTED THAT THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE HAD BEEN RUBBING ON THE STRUT TOWER. THROUGH WWW.MYCARSTATS.COM, I HAVE DISCOVERED NUMEROUS OTHER CONSUMER COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS SAME PROBLEM. THIS IS A POTENTIALLY SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT IS DUE TO PONTIAC SPECIFYING WIDER TIRES ON THIS VEHICLE THAN DOES HOLDEN, THE AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURER OF THE GTO. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10152238

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