← New search

2006 Pontiac Gto

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2006 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

198 reports with mileage · 18 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 191 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Tires. Review the 19 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 6 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

3 crash reports0 fire reports1 injury reports

What owners actually said

216 reports
30,000 miles · Apr 14, 2009
SuspensionTires

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 PONTIAC GTO. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS PREMATURE WEAR ON THE INNER SHOULDERS OF HIS TWO FRONT TIRES. THE FAILURE CAUSES BOTH FRONT TIRE BELTS TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STRUTS. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT NOTICED SPARKS COMING FROM THE FRONT TIRES WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKE…

Read full complaint

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2006 PONTIAC GTO. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS PREMATURE WEAR ON THE INNER SHOULDERS OF HIS TWO FRONT TIRES. THE FAILURE CAUSES BOTH FRONT TIRE BELTS TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STRUTS. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT NOTICED SPARKS COMING FROM THE FRONT TIRES WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, BUT THEY COULD NOT DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE. THE REPAIR WILL COST $1,000. THE VEHICLE IS STILL UNDER WARRANTY; HOWEVER, THE DEALER WILL NOT HONOR THE WARRANTY. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 30,000.

NHTSA ODI #10265236

27,000 miles · Apr 9, 2009
SteeringSuspension

2006 PONTIAC GTO ENGINE FAILURE AT 15,000 MILES. FRONT SUSPENSION PULLS TO THE LEFT, WITH TREMENDOUS VIBRATION FROM THE STEERING WHEEL AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, VEHICLE WILL NOT HOLD AN ALIGNMENT. BRAKING IS HARSH WITH FURTHER FRONT END VIBRATIONS, OCCASIONAL SQUEALING AND DRIFTING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT BEFORE COMING TO A COMPLETE STOP…

Read full complaint

2006 PONTIAC GTO ENGINE FAILURE AT 15,000 MILES. FRONT SUSPENSION PULLS TO THE LEFT, WITH TREMENDOUS VIBRATION FROM THE STEERING WHEEL AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, VEHICLE WILL NOT HOLD AN ALIGNMENT. BRAKING IS HARSH WITH FURTHER FRONT END VIBRATIONS, OCCASIONAL SQUEALING AND DRIFTING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT BEFORE COMING TO A COMPLETE STOP. CAN HEAR THE COLLAPSING NOISE OF THE COMPRESSED STRUT TOWERS, ALONG WITH SOME INNER WHEEL STRUT RUB. THE PRESENCE OF MECHANICAL KNOCKING AND POPPING NOISE WITH THE VEHICLE SITTING STILL AND JUST TURNING THE STEERING WHEEL FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AND LEFT TO RIGHT. REAR SUSPENSION SAGGING ON THE PASSENGER SIDE, ROLLING OVER UNEVEN ROAD SURFACES CAUSES COLLAPSING OF RIGHT REAR SHOCKS AND SPRING TO RUB THE RIGHT REAR TIRE. NORMAL ACCELERATION FROM A STOP WITH A FULL TANK OF FUEL, THE REAR END BOTTOMS OUT RUBBING THE RIGHT REAR TIRE. PLACING THE VEHICLE IN GEAR FROM A STOP, CAUSES THE REAR END TO DROP SOME 2 - 3 INCHES. CAN HEAR THE SOUND OF A BLOWN SHOCK KNOCKING AND CLANKING ON CERTAIN ROAD SURFACES, HARD TO DUPLICATE FOR SERVICE MANAGER AT DEALERSHIP. VEHICLE HAS BEEN WITH THE DEALERSHIP FOR SEVEN DAYS STRAIGHT, DEALERSHIP REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. GM CUSTOMER SERVICE REGIONAL MANAGER HAS BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN SEEKING OUT A RESOLUTION TO FIX THE PROBLEM. NO ACCIDENTS AS OF YET? DEALERSHIP STANDS BY LEAD MECHANIC, STATING THAT THE VEHICLES SUSPENSION IS WITHIN GM SPECIFICATION, AND THAT THE FAULT IS WITH THE FITMENT OF AFTERMARKET WHEELS AND TIRES. I BEGAN COMPLAINING ABOUT THE ISSUE AT ABOUT 18,000 MI, WITH FACTORY SETUP STILL INSTALLED. THE VEHICLE KNOW IS AT 27,000 MI WITH AFTER MARKET WHEELS AND TIRES ON FOR 1,200 MI. DEALERSHIP IS COMPLETELY AWARE OF THIS CHANGE AND WHEN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10264839

25,100 miles · Mar 18, 2009
Electrical System

DASHBOARD STARTED FLASHING "CHECK ALTERNATOR". SHORTLY AFTER, DASHBOARD STARTED FLASHING "ABS BRAKE SYSTEM OFF TRAK". AFTER TURNING OFF CAR, IT WOULD NOT RESTART. CAR HAS BEEN IN THE SHOP FOR OVER A WEEK, AND ANOTHER 10 DAYS IS ESTIMATED BECAUSE OF BACKORDERED ALTERNATOR. ALTERNATOR APPARENTLY WENT BAD AFTER ONLY 2 YEARS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10262224

Mileage unknown · Nov 28, 2008
Suspension

I OWN A 2006 GTO - PURCHASED MAY 2007. APPROX 8,000 MILES THE FRONT PASSENGER STRUT WENT OUT. DEALERSHIP REPLACED. APPROX 11,000 MILES, DRIVERS SIDE STRUT WENT OUT. DEALERSHIP ALSO REPLACED. NOW @ 31,000 MILES OUR REAR TIRES NEEDED REPLACING. WHEN WE TOOK THE OLD TIRE OFF, WE NOTICED THAT THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE HAD WORN OUT. …

Read full complaint

I OWN A 2006 GTO - PURCHASED MAY 2007. APPROX 8,000 MILES THE FRONT PASSENGER STRUT WENT OUT. DEALERSHIP REPLACED. APPROX 11,000 MILES, DRIVERS SIDE STRUT WENT OUT. DEALERSHIP ALSO REPLACED. NOW @ 31,000 MILES OUR REAR TIRES NEEDED REPLACING. WHEN WE TOOK THE OLD TIRE OFF, WE NOTICED THAT THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE HAD WORN OUT. THE DEALERSHIP SAID THAT THEY WOULD CHECK INTO THE PROBLEM. WE KNOW THAT THE FRONT TIRES WILL PROBABLY NEED TO BE REPLACED. WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE DEALERSHIP IN 4 WEEKS FROM THE DATE WE PURCHASED THE NEW TIRES. THEY DID DO A FRONT WHEEL ALIGNMENT @ NO CHARGE. WE DO PLAN ON GOING TO THE DEALERSHIP TO SEE ABOUT THEM REPLACING OUR FRONT TIRES @ NO CHARGE. PLEASE NOTE THAT I RELY ON MY DEALERSHIP TO ADVISE ME THAT I SHOULD HAVE PURCHASED NEW TIRES. I HAVE THEM ROTATED EVERY OTHER OIL CHANGE SINCE WE PURCHASED THE VEHICLE. AFTER RESEARCHING THRU THE NAFTA REPORTS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS PROBLEM HAS ALWAYS PERSISTED. PLEASE ADVISE IF THERE IS ANOTHER WAY THAT WE SHOULD RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU *TR

NHTSA ODI #10250101

29,000 miles · Nov 25, 2008
Suspension

WHEN REMOVING MY SUMMER TIRES, AND INSTALLING MY WINTER TIRES I NOTICED THAT MY FRONT RIGHT TIRES INNER SHOULDER WAS WORN DOWN TO THE STEEL BELT. I WAS VERY CONCERNED, AS THE CAR HAS BEEN ALIGNED BY THE MFG REGULARLY, AND THE TIRES HAD LOW MILEAGE ON THEM. THE TIRE WAS IN A CONDITION SUCH THAT IT COULD LOSE PRESSURE AT ANY MOM…

Read full complaint

WHEN REMOVING MY SUMMER TIRES, AND INSTALLING MY WINTER TIRES I NOTICED THAT MY FRONT RIGHT TIRES INNER SHOULDER WAS WORN DOWN TO THE STEEL BELT. I WAS VERY CONCERNED, AS THE CAR HAS BEEN ALIGNED BY THE MFG REGULARLY, AND THE TIRES HAD LOW MILEAGE ON THEM. THE TIRE WAS IN A CONDITION SUCH THAT IT COULD LOSE PRESSURE AT ANY MOMENT. AFTER RESEARCH, IT APPEARS AS IF THE FRONT RADIUS ROD BUSHINGS AND FRONT STRUT MOUNTS HAVE FAILED. A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS FAILURE WAS THE FACT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS MADE IN AUSTRALIA AND SHIPPED TO THE US FOR DISTRIBUTION/SALES. DURING THE SHIPPING PROCESS, THE VEHICLES WERE STRAPPED DOWN SUCH THAT THEIR SUSPENSIONS WERE FULLY COMPRESSED. THIS EXTENDED LOAD ALLOWED FOR KEY SUSPENSION COMPONENTS TO FAIL PREMATURELY. ANOTHER CONTRIBUTOR TO THE FAILURE IS THE FACT THAT THE TIRES MOUNTED TO THE VEHICLE IN THE US ARE WIDER THAN THE TIRES INCLUDED WITH THE VEHICLE IN AUSTRALIA. THE WIDER TIRES INFRINGE UPON THE CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE TIRES AND FRONT STRUTS. THE EARLY FAILURE ALLOWS THE TIRES TO WEAR UNEVENLY, AND PERMITS THE TIRE TO CONTACT THE STRUT MOUNT DURING CORNERING, BREAKING AND ACCELERATION. COUNTLESS OTHER OWNERS OF THIS VEHICLE HAVE SEEN THE SAME ISSUE, AND THE MFG "FIX" IS TO ALIGN THE FRONT TIRES SUCH THAT THE CAMBER IS SO LARGE THAT IT SPACES THE TIRE AWAY FROM THE STRUT. THIS IS A BAND AID REPAIR, AS THE FRONT SUSPENSION PERFORMANCE IS NOW LIMITED, AND THE TIRES WEAR THE OUTSIDE SHOULDERS PREMATURELY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10249852

16,800 miles · Nov 24, 2008
SuspensionTires

THE CAR HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER IN MARCH 2008 REGARDING AN ISSUE OF THE FRONT TIRES RUBBING AGAINST THE STRUTS. THE DEALER IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM AS AN ALIGNMENT ISSUE AND MADE A CORRECTION, HOWEVER THE EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE INSIDE EDGES OF THE TIRES WAS NOT ADDRESSED. THE EXCESSIVE WEAR IS NOT A TIRE DEFECT AND IS A DIRECT…

Read full complaint

THE CAR HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER IN MARCH 2008 REGARDING AN ISSUE OF THE FRONT TIRES RUBBING AGAINST THE STRUTS. THE DEALER IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM AS AN ALIGNMENT ISSUE AND MADE A CORRECTION, HOWEVER THE EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE INSIDE EDGES OF THE TIRES WAS NOT ADDRESSED. THE EXCESSIVE WEAR IS NOT A TIRE DEFECT AND IS A DIRECT RESULT OF STRUT RUB AND ALIGNMENT. EVEN WHEN WITHIN ALIGNMENT SPECS THE EXCESSIVE WEAR ON THE INSIDE EDGES OF THE TIRES CONTINUES. AT THE TIME, IN MARCH, THE FRONT TIRES WERE ROTATED TO THE REAR. IN NOVEMBER THE RIGHT REAR TIRE, PREVIOUSLY LEFT FRONT WHICH HAD RUBBED THE STRUT, BEGAN TO SHRED WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH. THE TIRE DID NOT GO FLAT. THE INSIDE EDGE OF THE RUBBER PEELED AWAY FROM THE TIRE IN A 1/2 INCH WIDE STRIP, EXPOSING THE STEEL BELT. I AM CONCERNED THAT THE OTHER REAR TIRE, PREVIOUSLY RIGHT FRONT, IS ABOUT TO DO THE SAME. I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALER AGAIN AND THE DEALER ACKNOWLEDGED THE PROBLEM BUT SAID THAT BECAUSE THE ALIGNMENT IS WITHIN SPECS IT IS NOT A WARRANTY ISSUE. THE DEALER DID OFFER TO REPLACE THE ONE SHREDDED TIRE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE DEALERSHIP, BUT WOULD NOT REPLACE THE OTHER WORN TIRE. THE DEALER ALSO OFFERED TO RECHECK AND ADJUST THE FRONT ALIGNMENT BECAUSE THE FRONT TIRES WERE AGAIN SHOWING SIGNS OF PREMATURE WEAR ON THE INSIDE EDGES. THIS IS NOT A TIRE DEFECT AND IS NOT NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR. THIS IS A MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY GM AS MANY PEOPLE ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE A CAR THAT I FEEL SAFE IN, AND THIS CAR HAS AN INCREASED RISK OF BLOWOUTS DUE TO THIS PROBLEM. GM NOT ONLY NEEDS TO REPLACE TIRES, IT NEEDS TO DETERMINE HOW TO SOLVE THE ALIGNMENT/STRUT RUB PROBLEM TO PREVENT NEW TIRES FROM EXCESSIVE AND PREMATURE WEAR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10249671

11,500 miles · Nov 10, 2008
Suspension

2006 PONTIAC GTO WITH 11,500 MILES. THE INSIDE TREAD WAS WORN TO THE BELTS ON ALL FOUR TIRES. THE REST OF THE TREAD LOOKED IN GOOD SHAPE. IF IT WEREN'T FOR A FLAT THE WEAR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NOTICED AND I WOULD HAVE RUN THE TIRES UNTIL THERE WAS A BLOWOUT. THESE TIRES HAD BEEN ROTATED TWICE BY THE DEALER WITHOUT A COMMENT ON TH…

Read full complaint

2006 PONTIAC GTO WITH 11,500 MILES. THE INSIDE TREAD WAS WORN TO THE BELTS ON ALL FOUR TIRES. THE REST OF THE TREAD LOOKED IN GOOD SHAPE. IF IT WEREN'T FOR A FLAT THE WEAR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NOTICED AND I WOULD HAVE RUN THE TIRES UNTIL THERE WAS A BLOWOUT. THESE TIRES HAD BEEN ROTATED TWICE BY THE DEALER WITHOUT A COMMENT ON THE TREAD WEAR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10248355

14 miles · Nov 8, 2008
Suspension

I PURCHASED A 2006 PONTIAC GTO AND FROM THE START I HEARD A CLUNKING SOUND AT THE FRONT END WHILE DRIVING OR SLOWING TO STOP. IT APPEARS TO BE THE STRUTS OR CONTROL ARMS. THIS DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A CAR WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS AND MY FRIENDS HAVE NOTICED THE ODD SOUNDS LIKE THE CAR IS GETTING READY TO BREAKDOWN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10248021

8,700 miles · Oct 29, 2008
StructureSuspension

FRONT STRUTS REPLACED BEFORE PURCHASE 8/07(LEAKING) FRONT RIGHT STRUT REPLACED 10/07 REAR VALENCE FLEW OFF ON PARKWAY REPLACED 10/18/07 TIRE RUB FRONT RIGHT DEALER BLAMES MANUFACTURING DEFECT ON FRAME DEALER ALSO STATES FRONT BUMPER SPRAYED. FRAUD CAR BOUGHT NEW NO ACCIDENTS ON CAR. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10247105

36,000 miles · Oct 27, 2008
Suspension

FRONT STRUTS ON MY 2006 PONTIAC GTO FAILED AFTER ONLY 20 MONTHS OF USE. THIS FAILURE RESULTS IN LOSS OF DIRECTIONAL STABILITY AND CAUSES AN INCREASE IN STOPPING DISTANCE. THE CAR HAS SEEN NO TRACK TIME. IT IS MY DAILY DRIVER, MOSTLY HIGHWAY USE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10246800

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