Investigations
| NHTSA ID | Manufacturer | Date open | Date close | Subject | Recall campaign | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TIRES | ||||||
| PE07010 | GENERAL MOTORS CORP. | 02/16/2007 | 08/08/2007 | FRONT STRUT TO TIRE INTERFERENCE | ||
| 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 this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that a safety-related defect does not exist.the agency will continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted. | ||||||
| TIRES - SIDEWALL | ||||||
| PE07010 | GENERAL MOTORS CORP. | 02/16/2007 | 08/08/2007 | FRONT STRUT TO TIRE INTERFERENCE | ||
| 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 this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that a safety-related defect does not exist.the agency will continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted. | ||||||
Consumer Complaints
| Fail date | miles | occurences | Purchase date |
|---|---|---|---|
| TIRES | |||
| 04/23/2011 | 22000 | ||
| Blow out of right rear tire on 2006 pontiac gto with factory bridgestone potenza 18 tires with 22,000 miles on them. inside tread severely worn before the rest of the tire causing a tear all the way around the tire. this was not discovered until after the blow out. | |||
| 07/26/2010 | 15948 | ||
| I just found out my gto had this problem when i started having many other numerous problems cosmetically with my car by researching my problems on the gto forums online. i own a 2006 pontiac gto that has not been modified, is original stock, is not raced or beat on, but has been babied. back on 5/10/2008 i had a tired blow out with only 15,948miles on my car. on 8/30/2008 i had another tire that would not hold air and had to get it replaced with then only having 18,721 miles on the car. at the time i did not know about struts rubbing on the tires on this car and didn't have any other problems with my car at the time and personally i didn't think about there being something wrong, i guess i just assumed bad luck then but i did find it odd. however, on 7/26/2010, when i started having my other problems with my car, i found out about the struts rubbing on tires and had my dealership lift my car up to see if it had this problem; and my gto did. gm would only pay 50% out of warranty even though i explained it was a saftey issue and that they were lucky 2yrs ago that i didn't hurt myself or someone else on the road. but at the same time i understand they can not prove since it's been 2yrs now that the struts were the cause then, however, it's kinda funny how my car had the strut tire rub issue and i had tire leakage and a blow out with very low miles back in 08. i currently have 27,000 miles on the car and i still have 2 of the original bf goodrich tires and two that are new and a different brand. the two bf goodrich tires that i have that came with the car new, do need to be replaced because they too are not lasting. i'm very upset about this issue, especially when it has been reported to gm in the past and they never did a recall on it. its not fair to me that they possibly only look at my life as being worth 50% and now they have cost me a full set of tires that should have lasted probably atleast to around 40,000-50,000 miles. | |||
| 03/31/2010 | 14000 | ||
| I have a 2006 pontiac gto with just over 14,000 miles on the odometer. i was getting an oil change done and the car was up on a lift. my mechanic told me that i need to come look at something. he showed me that the inside of my right rear tire was worn to the point that the steel belts were showing through the tire. he also pointed out that the insides of my other tires were showing wear but not near as badly as the right rear tire. he stated to me that the only cause of this was to get an alignment. i had the alignment checked by an alignment shop that tells me that the alignment is in factory specifications. i had to pay for four new tires at discount tire company here in phoenix. i have done searches on the internet and many other gto owners are having the same issues i am having. pontiac needs to research this and recall these vehicles if necessary. something is very wrong here. | |||
| 07/01/2009 | 26000 | ||
| When replacing a flat tire on my 2006 pontiac gto with standard 17 wheels and original tires (approx. 26k miles), i noticed that the whole inner side of the tire was shredded beyond the belts. when i had the tire replaced, two additional tires were found in even worse condition - all were shredded on the inner side. one tire that had previously been replaced, was in good condition. i remember that when i bought the car, there was a manufacturer's service bulletin addressing strut rub on the inside of the front wheels. i made sure this was addressed and that the vehicle received an alignment at the dealership according to manufacturer's specs. tires have been rotated at every oil change in accordance with maintenance procedures in the owner's manual. it appears that even though the manufacturer is aware of the defect, the solution is not a cure. we have a vehicle that keeps on shredding tires - that is not very safe. | |||
| 02/02/2010 | 24972 | 3 | |
| I have a 2006 pontiac gto with 24,000 miles on it. it has never been in an accident. i has to replace 3 tires due to the inside of the tires were worn to the cords. i went to the dealer and they have not been able to explain why this happened. the dealer say they are not responsible for a the problem and can not explain why it happened. after talking to other people it is a problem that continues to happen. *tr | |||
| 04/11/2009 | 30000 | ||
| 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. | |||
| 11/21/2008 | 16800 | 1 | |
| 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 | |||
| 10/04/2008 | 7000 | 1 | |
| My car has worn out three sets of tires since 8/7/2006 when i purchased it new. i had a flat tire today. when i took the tire off the driver rear side of the car it was badly worn on the inner threads again. it looked to me that the tire had actually rubbed something as opposed to tire wear. i was so aggravated when i finally got home i went on ls1@gto.com and was advised by other members that the issue is called strut rub. i will be contacting gm when they open today. i am in the process of finding out what parts will correct the problem. *tr | |||
| 05/10/2008 | 1 | ||
| I purchased a 2006 pontiac gto in august 2007. after driving for 1 month, i parked the car in my garage and was deployed overseas to iraq for 3 months. after returning, and driving my car for approximately 6 months, with a total car mileage of less than 20,000, my front tire unexpectedly started to fray and caught on to the axle as i was driving on the highway in may of 2008. the tire literally started to unravel like a ball of yarn. i took my car into the pontiac dealership at 16200 frederick rd, gaithersburg, md 20898. the service mechanic informed me that low tire pressure caused the tire to rub against the strut and that is what caused the tire failure. i was also told that both front tires needed replacement. at that time, i just had the one tire replaced and the tires rotated. on october 2, while taking my car in for an oil change, i received a call from the dealer saying i needed two new front tires, as the inner tread had started to wear quite rapidly and was becoming dangerous. my car has less than 21,000 miles on it, with tire pressure inspected, and if needed, filled on a bi-weekly basis. i did some research and it appears this is a common occurrence with my vehicle make. i feel this is a defect in the design of the car. all of the parts on my car are directly from the factory and it has never been raced or abused. i drive my car each day less than 5 miles, as i take public transportation to work. my car is mainly a weekend car, with little use during the week. i have owned 2 separate cars in the past and have never had this problem. i realize my car is a high-performance vehicle, but other cars of the same category do not have this problem. *tr | |||
| 07/31/2007 | 16000 | 1 | |
| Pontiac gto 2006. 1st incident happened with approx 4,950 miles on car. front passenger tire blew out when i had just got off interstate (thank god). that was fixed by dealership after my car was parked in my driveway for approx 3 weeks while dealership got the specs from gm to re-align the front of my car. 2nd incident happened at over 16,000 miles. pulled over after hearing a noise. back passenger tire was severed and a long piece had hit my fender wheel alerting me to the fact before the tire blew out completely. after looking at the other back tire - i found it had similar wear pattern. both were warn on the inside of the tire. dealership told me this was caused from a alignment problem that had been there since the beginning. i am now scared to drive my car! who knows what will happen in another 16,000 miles. *tr | |||
| 06/30/2008 | 28500 | 1 | |
| I was driving at approximately 40 mph and the tire blew out. i went home and put on my donut to find out that the blow out occurred on the inside of the tire close to the tire wheel interface. i called my serviceman and had my two back wheels replaced. *tr | |||
| 04/12/2006 | 14000 | 1 | |
| Driving 60 mph on freeway and had a blow out. almost hit two cars as a result of control loss. removed flat tire (front passenger) and noticed the inside of tire was excessively worn down to the metal while the rest of the tire still had plenty of tread. tire still had half its life left. asked tire company to return the tire to me but they sent it to recycler before i picked the car up. i did take a picture of the tire and it does show the inside wear. there is a corresponding mark on the shock where the tire rubbed the paint off in one specific area on the shock. i have no alignment problems which is what the dealer said caused the blow-out. there is no question that the rubbing is what caused the problem. i don't feel safe driving and will have to prematurely replace tires which wii be expensive. there are alot of problems with the gto and gm should be responsible and accountable for the products they make. this isn't an isolated case like gm and its dealerships would like people to believe. *tr | |||
| 08/04/2007 | 17000 | 2 | 08/08/2006 |
| At approximately 5,000 miles, i noticed tire wear on the inside of both front tires of my 2006 gto where the tread meets the sidewall. i contacted my local dealer, who aligned the front suspension. i also rotated the tires every 5,000 miles. now, at 17,000 miles, the two tires which are now in the rear both are split at the junction of the sidewall and the tread. one tire went completely flat. this happened at about 60 mph. the other has only started leaking. this is the result of the tire contact with the strut, as indicated by the very close tolerance between the two, and the lack of paint on the strut in that location. *tr | |||
| 01/15/2007 | 12000 | 2 | |
| Tl*the contact owns a 2006 pontiac gto. the front and rear tires are wearing unevenly. the tire manufacturer is bridgestone, the tire line is potenza, and the size, 235/40/18. the rear tires were replaced at the failure mileage of 12,000 and failed again at 19,000 miles; however, the front and rear are worn. the dot number is unavailable. the contact will add the additional tire information that is missing when he receives his complaint. the manufacturer was unable to assist him with the failure. the current mileage was 19,800. | |||
| 04/29/2007 | 10420 | 1 | 03/17/2006 |
| Mechanical contact between right front tire and suspension strut, excessive negative camber of wheel assembly, resulted in accelerated uneven and excessive tire wear. if not corrected ,this problem could lead to sudden air loss due to mechanical wear of the tire against the strut, or loss of vehicle control due to excessively worn tires. this issue was addressed in nhtsa preliminary evaluation, pe07-010.*ak | |||
| TIRES - MARKINGS | |||
| 07/15/2006 | 250 | 1 | 06/04/2006 |
| Front struts continued to make failure noises - was checked by dealership numerous times , each time i was told that this noise was due to high performance tires and 18 inch rims that came on the car. this noises were equivalent to blown struts. this start on the first couple of weeks of purchasing the car. 2006 pontiac gto w/ 6 speed.*ak | |||
| TIRES - PRESSURE MONITORING AND REGULATING SYSTEMS | |||
| 05/10/2008 | 1 | ||
| I purchased a 2006 pontiac gto in august 2007. after driving for 1 month, i parked the car in my garage and was deployed overseas to iraq for 3 months. after returning, and driving my car for approximately 6 months, with a total car mileage of less than 20,000, my front tire unexpectedly started to fray and caught on to the axle as i was driving on the highway in may of 2008. the tire literally started to unravel like a ball of yarn. i took my car into the pontiac dealership at 16200 frederick rd, gaithersburg, md 20898. the service mechanic informed me that low tire pressure caused the tire to rub against the strut and that is what caused the tire failure. i was also told that both front tires needed replacement. at that time, i just had the one tire replaced and the tires rotated. on october 2, while taking my car in for an oil change, i received a call from the dealer saying i needed two new front tires, as the inner tread had started to wear quite rapidly and was becoming dangerous. my car has less than 21,000 miles on it, with tire pressure inspected, and if needed, filled on a bi-weekly basis. i did some research and it appears this is a common occurrence with my vehicle make. i feel this is a defect in the design of the car. all of the parts on my car are directly from the factory and it has never been raced or abused. i drive my car each day less than 5 miles, as i take public transportation to work. my car is mainly a weekend car, with little use during the week. i have owned 2 separate cars in the past and have never had this problem. i realize my car is a high-performance vehicle, but other cars of the same category do not have this problem. *tr | |||
| TIRES - SIDEWALL | |||
| 03/13/2008 | 20000 | 2 | 01/14/2006 |
| 2 time tire failure on my 2006 pontiac gto, for the second time within the 1st 36,000 miles my pontiac gto has front tires shredding. these are the manufacture tires. last time gm bought me 4 new tires but did not fix the problem causing them to shred. my warranty is almost up and i don't want to have to deal with this problem for safety reasons and also because of the expense of buying new tires everytime they are cut by they suspension. please help with this, i know that there are numerous complaints out there about this problem. i've seen several stories about this issue. *tr | |||
| TIRES - TREAD/BELT | |||
| 12/02/2007 | 25000 | 60 | 05/27/2006 |
| Tl*the contact owns a 2006 pontiac gto. while driving 60 mph, the steering column vibrated and shook excessively. the contact noticed that the tire tread was very low. he took the vehicle to the dealer and they stated that the failure was due to tire imbalance. a professional technician stated that the tires were rubbing against the struts. the vehicle has not been repaired. the failure mileage was 25,000 and current mileage was 27,000. | |||