NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
245 reports14,000 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
29,222 miles · Apr 20, 2006
Power Train
I HAVE 29,222 MILES ON MY 04 PONTIAC GTO WHEN THIS HAPPENED THE FIRST TIME. OVER TIME ALL 6 BOLTS THAT HOLD MY HALF SHAFT TO THE RIGHT REAR WHEEL HAD BACKED OUT IT LEFT ME STRANDED IN A BUSY INTERSECTION RIGHT WHEN I GOT OFF THE FREEWAY. I5 AND 17TH ST. WITH NO BOLTS HOLDING THE HALF-SHAFT IN IT WAS FREE TO SPIN FREELY AND HIT…
Read full complaint
I HAVE 29,222 MILES ON MY 04 PONTIAC GTO WHEN THIS HAPPENED THE FIRST TIME. OVER TIME ALL 6 BOLTS THAT HOLD MY HALF SHAFT TO THE RIGHT REAR WHEEL HAD BACKED OUT IT LEFT ME STRANDED IN A BUSY INTERSECTION RIGHT WHEN I GOT OFF THE FREEWAY. I5 AND 17TH ST. WITH NO BOLTS HOLDING THE HALF-SHAFT IN IT WAS FREE TO SPIN FREELY AND HIT OTHER PARTS UNDERNEATH MY CAR, DAMAGING THE AXLE, AND RIPPING THE BOOT. I RESEARCHED, AND FOUND OUT THIS HAS BEEN A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE EARLY PRODUCTION 04 MODELS. I TOLD THE DEALER THIS AND THEY REFUSE TO REPLACE THE PARTS UNDER WARRANTY. THEY TRIED BLAMING ME BECAUSE I HAD INSTALLED DIFFERENT REAR SPRINGS, AND SAID I HAD REMOVED AND RE-INSTALLED THESE BOLTS FOR THE SPRING INSTALL. THESE BOLTS DID NOT NEED TO BE TOUCHED DURING THE SPRING INSTALL, I'VE TRIED EXPLAINING THE INSTALL TO THEM, BUT THEY WONT LISTEN... HORRIBLE SERVICE... *NM
NHTSA ODI #10155773
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
15,589 miles · Mar 17, 2006
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
MY CAR HAS HAD NUMEROUS ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO THE MANUFACTURER. MY MAIN CONCERN IS AN ISSUE WITH THE TRACTION CONTROL/ABS THAT CAUSES THE CAR TO SHOW AN ERROR LIGHT AND DISABLE BOTH THE TRACTION AND ABS SYSTEMS. THE CAR HAS BEEN TO 2 PONTIAC DEALERSHIPS REGARDING THE ISSUE, IT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT 4 OR 5 …
Read full complaint
MY CAR HAS HAD NUMEROUS ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO THE MANUFACTURER. MY MAIN CONCERN IS AN ISSUE WITH THE TRACTION CONTROL/ABS THAT CAUSES THE CAR TO SHOW AN ERROR LIGHT AND DISABLE BOTH THE TRACTION AND ABS SYSTEMS. THE CAR HAS BEEN TO 2 PONTIAC DEALERSHIPS REGARDING THE ISSUE, IT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT 4 OR 5 TIMES, AND THERE STILL HAS BEEN NO RESOLUTION. THE MANUFACTURER IS REFUSING TO BUY THE CAR BACK DESPITE THE FAILURE OF A TOUTED SAFETY SYSTEM. THE ERROR OCCURS NEARLY EVERY TIME I DRIVE THE VEHICLE, SO THE "NUMBER OF FAILURES" COUNT IS AN ESTIMATE. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10153069
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
16,000 miles · Mar 7, 2006
Suspension
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, IT WAS APPARENT THERE WAS EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE INSIDE OF THE PASSENGER SIDE FRONT TIRE. THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE FRONT TIRES. THIS DID NOT CORRECT THE WEAR PROBLEM. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN ALIGNED FOUR TIMES, BUT THE TIRE IS RUBBING ON THE STRUT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REPAI…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, IT WAS APPARENT THERE WAS EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE INSIDE OF THE PASSENGER SIDE FRONT TIRE. THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE FRONT TIRES. THIS DID NOT CORRECT THE WEAR PROBLEM. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN ALIGNED FOUR TIMES, BUT THE TIRE IS RUBBING ON THE STRUT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED.
NHTSA ODI #10152142
3,225 miles · Feb 23, 2006
Suspension
RIGHT FRONT (PASSENGER) TIRE INNER SHOULDER WEARING EXCESSIVELY FAST DUE TO RUBBING ON THE RIGHT FRONT SUSPENSION STRUT TOWER. EXCESSIVE WEAR RESULTING IN PREMATURE TIRE FAILURE / BLOWOUT ON HIGHWAY. REPLACED RIGHT FRONT TIRE AND PERFORMED ALIGNMENT, ADJUSTING CAMBER TO THE EXTREME POSITIVE END OF SPEC RANGE. TIRE / SUSPENSIO…
Read full complaint
RIGHT FRONT (PASSENGER) TIRE INNER SHOULDER WEARING EXCESSIVELY FAST DUE TO RUBBING ON THE RIGHT FRONT SUSPENSION STRUT TOWER. EXCESSIVE WEAR RESULTING IN PREMATURE TIRE FAILURE / BLOWOUT ON HIGHWAY. REPLACED RIGHT FRONT TIRE AND PERFORMED ALIGNMENT, ADJUSTING CAMBER TO THE EXTREME POSITIVE END OF SPEC RANGE. TIRE / SUSPENSION INTERFERENCE REDUCED, BUT STILL CLEARANCE IS STILL DANGEROUSLY TIGHT. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10151049
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