NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
245 reports18,000 miles · Apr 30, 2007
Tires
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH THE CONTACT HEARD A FLAPPING NOISE. AFTER OBSERVING THE VEHICLE THE FRONT PASSENGER TIRE PEELED INTO STRIPS. THE TIRE WAS A B.F. GOODRICH. THE ROAD AND WEATHER CONDITIONS WERE NOT A FACTOR. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE TIRE HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED. THE FAILURE AND …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. WHILE DRIVING 65 MPH THE CONTACT HEARD A FLAPPING NOISE. AFTER OBSERVING THE VEHICLE THE FRONT PASSENGER TIRE PEELED INTO STRIPS. THE TIRE WAS A B.F. GOODRICH. THE ROAD AND WEATHER CONDITIONS WERE NOT A FACTOR. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE TIRE HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 18,000. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10189288
Mileage unknown · Apr 30, 2007
SuspensionTires
INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6) FRONT STRUTS AND TIRES SHOW EVIDENCE OF INTERFERENCE. ALSO, FRONT SUSPENSION ALIGNMENT EXHIBITS EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE CAMBER WHICH HAS RESULTED IN EXCESSIVE TIRE WEAR ON INBOARD EDGES. 2004 PONTIAC GTO VIN: [XXX]. MILEAGE: 17,000. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10189273
26,500 miles · Apr 27, 2007
SuspensionTires
I PURCHASED A 2004 PONTIAC GTO AND PERFORMED ALL NECESSARY MAINTENANCE, SUCH AS TIRE ROTATION. THE INSIDE WALLS OF THE FRONT TIRES HAVE BEEN DAMAGED FROM RUBBING OR STRIKING AN OBJECT INSIDE THE WHEEL WELL. IT APPEARS THAT IT IS RUBBING THE FRONT SUSPENSION. UPON CLOSER INSPECTION, ALL 4 TIRES SHOW THE SAME WEAR, BECAUSE OF TH…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2004 PONTIAC GTO AND PERFORMED ALL NECESSARY MAINTENANCE, SUCH AS TIRE ROTATION. THE INSIDE WALLS OF THE FRONT TIRES HAVE BEEN DAMAGED FROM RUBBING OR STRIKING AN OBJECT INSIDE THE WHEEL WELL. IT APPEARS THAT IT IS RUBBING THE FRONT SUSPENSION. UPON CLOSER INSPECTION, ALL 4 TIRES SHOW THE SAME WEAR, BECAUSE OF THE TIRE ROTATION. FIRST NOTICEABLE INDICATION THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS VEHICLE WAS A VIBRATION IN THE STEERING WHEEL. THE CAR HAS ONLY 25,000 MILES WITH REGULAR USAGE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10189133
12,000 miles · Apr 23, 2007
Suspension
SUSPECTED STRUT RUB HAS WORN THE INSIDE EDGE OF DRIVER'S FRONT TIRE BALD. ONLY DRIVER'S FRONT TIRE IS AFFECTED, AND THIS OCCURRED WITH ONLY 12,000 MILES ON TIRES. PROBLEM WAS DISCOVERED IN NOVEMBER 2006, TIRE WEAR WAS NOT VISIBLE WHEN TIRES WERE ROTATED IN APRIL 2006 (4,000 MILES EARLIER). AN ALIGNMENT PERFORMED IN DECEMBER 2…
Read full complaint
SUSPECTED STRUT RUB HAS WORN THE INSIDE EDGE OF DRIVER'S FRONT TIRE BALD. ONLY DRIVER'S FRONT TIRE IS AFFECTED, AND THIS OCCURRED WITH ONLY 12,000 MILES ON TIRES. PROBLEM WAS DISCOVERED IN NOVEMBER 2006, TIRE WEAR WAS NOT VISIBLE WHEN TIRES WERE ROTATED IN APRIL 2006 (4,000 MILES EARLIER). AN ALIGNMENT PERFORMED IN DECEMBER 2006 SEEMS TO HAVE PREVENTED FURTHER TIRE WEAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10188613
13,100 miles · Apr 22, 2007
Suspension
NOTICED FRONT TIRE STRUT RUB RECENTLY AFTER FINDING AN ARTICLE DONE BY CLEVELAND NEWSNET 5. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10188527
Mileage unknown · Apr 12, 2007
Tires
MY 2004 GTO-I PURCHASED NEW IN 12/04. TOOK IT TO DEALERSHIP FOR WARRANTY WORK AT 2880 MILES, AND THE DEALERSHIP PERFORMED AN ALIGNMENT. THE CAR NOW HAS 18634 MILES AND NEEDS 4 NEW TIRES. THE BELT IS SHOWING ON THE RIGHT FRONT AND IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE PONTIAC DEALERSHIP, CENTURY BUICK/PONTIAC), AS WELL AS GM INSIST THERE IS N…
Read full complaint
MY 2004 GTO-I PURCHASED NEW IN 12/04. TOOK IT TO DEALERSHIP FOR WARRANTY WORK AT 2880 MILES, AND THE DEALERSHIP PERFORMED AN ALIGNMENT. THE CAR NOW HAS 18634 MILES AND NEEDS 4 NEW TIRES. THE BELT IS SHOWING ON THE RIGHT FRONT AND IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE PONTIAC DEALERSHIP, CENTURY BUICK/PONTIAC), AS WELL AS GM INSIST THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO-IT' IS NOT A WARRANTY ISSUE,JUST NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR. I BABY THIS CAR AND KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THESE TIRES,ACCORDING TO THE B.F. GOODRICH CUSTOMER REPRESENTATIVE THAT I TALKED TO TOLD ME ONE COULD EXPECT 30000 TO 40000 MILES. I TOOK THE CAR TO TIRE KINGDOM, AND THEY SAID SOMETHING WAS RUBBING ON THE TIRE TO CAUSE THIS PREMATURE AND UNUSUAL WEAR. I NOW KNOW FROM RESEARCH OF MY OWN THE GM PUT LARGER TIRES ON THE 2004 GTOS ,AND SINCE THEN HAS SUPPOSEDLY FIXED THE PROBLEM ON THE 2006 VEHICLES. .THIS DOESN'T SOLVE MY PROBLEM, AND I DO NEED NEW TIRES, BUT BECAUSE OF THE STRUT IS RUBBING AGAINST THE NEW TIRES THE SAME PROBLEM WILL OCCUR AGAIN. SHAME ON GM AND PONTIAC FOR DECEIVING ME AND THOUSANDS OF OTHERS. NOT ONLY DO THEY EXPECT US TO PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKE, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY,THERE IS A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE AS WELL. PLEASE MAKE THEM DO THE RIGHT THING.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10187659
18,000 miles · Apr 10, 2007
SuspensionTires
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. WHILE SURVEYING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE STRUTS WERE RUBBING AGAINST THE TIRES. THIS FAILURE CAUSED THE TIRES TO WEAR OUT TO THE WIRE. THE TWO FRONT TIRES WERE REPLACED, AND 3,000 MILES LATER THE TIRES BEGAN TO WEAR OUT AGAIN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO FOUR DEALERS, A…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. WHILE SURVEYING THE VEHICLE, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE STRUTS WERE RUBBING AGAINST THE TIRES. THIS FAILURE CAUSED THE TIRES TO WEAR OUT TO THE WIRE. THE TWO FRONT TIRES WERE REPLACED, AND 3,000 MILES LATER THE TIRES BEGAN TO WEAR OUT AGAIN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO FOUR DEALERS, AND NO ONE COULD EXPLAIN THE TIRE WEAR. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 22,000, AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 18,000.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10187426
30,000 miles · Apr 9, 2007
Suspension
HAD NOISES COMING FROM FRONT SUSPENSION, TOOK VEHICLE TO GM DEALER THEY REPLACED STRUT AND DID ALIGNMENT UNDER WARRANTY. BUT HAD TO REPLACE FRONT TIRES ON MY OWN WITH LESS THAN 30,000 ON THE TIRES. THE SET I REPLACED ON THE FRONT HAD BOTH COME IN CONTACT WITH THE STRUTS AND WORE THE INSIDE OF THE SIDEWALL OUT, CUT A GROOVE INTO…
Read full complaint
HAD NOISES COMING FROM FRONT SUSPENSION, TOOK VEHICLE TO GM DEALER THEY REPLACED STRUT AND DID ALIGNMENT UNDER WARRANTY. BUT HAD TO REPLACE FRONT TIRES ON MY OWN WITH LESS THAN 30,000 ON THE TIRES. THE SET I REPLACED ON THE FRONT HAD BOTH COME IN CONTACT WITH THE STRUTS AND WORE THE INSIDE OF THE SIDEWALL OUT, CUT A GROOVE INTO THE DRIVER' S SIDE THAT BLEW THE TIRE OUT. THE TIRES WERE REPLACED AT 36,000 MILES, AND NOW HAS 8, 000 MILES ON THEM AND WERE SHOWING THE SAME KIND OF SIDEWALL WEAR TO THE FRONTS. HAD THE FRONT OF THE CAR ALIGNED AGAIN AND IT WAS TO SPECS. NO WORN OUT SUSPENSION PARTS WERE FOUND. THE TIRE STORE HAD NOTICED THIS BEFORE ON OTHER VEHICLES THE SAME AS MINE, AND HAD THEM CHANGE TIRE SIZE TO GIVE THE TIRES CLEARANCE FROM THE STRUTS. SO AGAIN ANOTHER TIRE CHANGE.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10187300
16,000 miles · Apr 3, 2007
SuspensionTires
TL*- THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. WHILE DRIVING 50 MPH THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE WHEELS WERE VIBRATING. THE STEEL BELTS WERE EXPOSED ON THE FRONT PASSENGER'S TIRE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE NEEDED A WHEEL ALIGNMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC TO MAKE THE REPAIRS. THE CONTACT REPLACED ALL FOUR TIRES …
Read full complaint
TL*- THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 PONTIAC GTO. WHILE DRIVING 50 MPH THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE WHEELS WERE VIBRATING. THE STEEL BELTS WERE EXPOSED ON THE FRONT PASSENGER'S TIRE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE VEHICLE NEEDED A WHEEL ALIGNMENT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC TO MAKE THE REPAIRS. THE CONTACT REPLACED ALL FOUR TIRES ON THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT APPROXIMATELY 3,000 MILES LATER HE NOTICED TIRE WEAR ON THE FRONT PASSENGER TIRE. THE VEHICLE CURRENTLY HAS 19,000 MILES. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10186937
15,589 miles · Mar 30, 2007
SuspensionTires
I DROPPED OFF MY 2004 PONTIAC GTO AT THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP ON ABOUT 3/21/07 FOR A NUMBER OF WARRANTY ISSUES. ONE OF THE "ISSUES" TO BE CHECKED WAS A SLIGHT VIBRATION IN THE STEERING WHEEL. THE DEALERSHIP STATED THE PROBLEM WAS DUE TO WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ALL FOUR TIRES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. I DON'T DRIVE THE CAR IN INCLEMENT W…
Read full complaint
I DROPPED OFF MY 2004 PONTIAC GTO AT THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP ON ABOUT 3/21/07 FOR A NUMBER OF WARRANTY ISSUES. ONE OF THE "ISSUES" TO BE CHECKED WAS A SLIGHT VIBRATION IN THE STEERING WHEEL. THE DEALERSHIP STATED THE PROBLEM WAS DUE TO WHEEL ALIGNMENT AND ALL FOUR TIRES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. I DON'T DRIVE THE CAR IN INCLEMENT WEATHER, AVOID POTHOLES, AND THERE WAS NO PULLING TO EITHER SIDE. AS I HAD ONLY 15,589 MILES ON THE VEHICLE, I DECLINED THE ALIGNMENT & TIRES WHEN CALLED BY THE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE. UPON PICKUP, THE REP INDICATED THE TIRE WERE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND POINTED OUT HOW THE STEEL BELTS WERE SHOWING ON THE INSIDE OF THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE. THE REP INDICATED THAT TIRE REPLACEMENT ON THIS VEHICLE WAS COMMON FOR THAT MILEAGE. RESEARCHING ON THE INTERNET DISCLOSED THESE TIRES HAVE A 35,000 WARRANTY AND THAT THERE HAD BEEN OTHER COMPLAINTS RELATED TO PREMATURE TIRE WEAR ON 2004 AND 2005 GTOS. COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED STATING THE TIRES WERE RUBBING THE STRUTS, PRIMARILY FRONT LEFT, CAUSING THE PREMATURE FAILURES. TODAY, MARCH 30, I PULLED THE FRONT LEFT TIRE OFF THE VEHICLE TO LOOK AT THE TIRE AND STRUT. THERE ARE OBVIOUS WEAR MARKS ON THE STRUT AND A GROOVE CUT INTO THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE. ALL FOUR TIRES HAVE EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE INSIDE DUE TO REGULAR TIRE ROTATION. IT APPEARS GM MISALIGNED THE WHEELS AT THE FACTORY AND INSTALLED TOO LARGE OF TIRES CREATING A SITUATION OF INADEQUATE SPACING BETWEEN THE STRUTS AND THE TIRES. I HAVE REQUESTED GM RECTIFY THE SITUATION AND AM WAITING FOR ITS REPLY. I AM FILING THIS COMPLAINT WITH NHTSA BECAUSE THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN THAT MAY RESULT IN FATAL ACCIDENTS DUE TO TIRE BLOWOUTS CAUSED BY INACCURATE ALIGNMENT AND INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE. PLEASE INVESTIGATE THIS ISSUE AND REQUIRE THE MANUFACTURER TO RECALL 2004 AND 2005 GTOS AND RECTIFY THIS DANGEROUS SITUATION. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10186601
NHTSA investigations
1PE07010 · 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
Illustration