When you spend big money on a full-size truck or SUV, it’s reasonable to expect plenty of torque, smooth cruising, and solid durability. While late-model high-end GM trucks were great at the first two things, reliability on one engine left much to be desired. After months of investigation and years of posts from angry owners, GM has finally recalled nearly 600,000 trucks and SUVs with the L87 6.2-liter V8 for defective rotating assembly parts that can cause sudden catastrophic engine failure.
If you aren’t familiar with the L87, it’s GM’s 6.2-liter V8 with automatic stop-start and dynamic fuel management, the standard engine in Escalades, High Country Silverados, full-size Denalis, the trucks that people spend the big bucks on. It pumps out a stout 420 horsepower and 460 lb.-ft. of torque which can move an apartment building-sized slab of General Motors machismo to 60 MPH in fewer than six seconds, or it can just blow up.
See, over the past six or so years, owners of high-trim half-ton GM trucks and SUVs have reported engines conking out, sometimes at alarmingly low mileage. Lewin previously covered this issue, and I highly recommend clicking this link if you want to read reports of engine failure at alarmingly short intervals after pulling off dealership lots. Some owners report going through two engines in less than 30,000 miles.
Earlier this year, NHTSA launched an investigation into the 6.2-liter V8s in 2019 and newer Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500, and 2021 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe, Suburban, GMC Yukon, and Cadillac Escalade SUVs. Normally, there’s a data submission deadline that can be extended if a manufacturer needs extra time, and the data deadline for this NHTSA investigation got extended twice, with the final partial extension approved for April 25. Well, April 24 came, and that’s when the defect report showed up. More than merely turning over data to NHTSA, this is an actual potential remedy for consumers with the L87 engine, but it’s frustrating that it took GM “three prior investigations into this condition in February 2022, June 2023, and July 2024” and a government investigation for the problem to be recognized, at least according to recall documents.
Now, that timeline already gets our spidey sense tingling, but the rest of the 573 Recall Report is just as monocle-popping. As the official recall document states:
GM’s investigation identified 28,102 field complaints or incidents in the US potentially related to failure of the L87 engine due to crankshaft, connecting rod, or engine bearing failure, of which 14,332 involved allegations of loss of propulsion. These field complaints were received between April 29, 2021, and February 3, 2025. GM identified 12 potentially related alleged crashes and 12 potentially related alleged injuries in the U.S.; all specifically alleged injuries were minor or non-physical, and most were not crash related. GM also identified 42 potentially related fire allegations in the U.S., but in the majority of these cases (a) the causation of these incidents is unclear and (b) the alleged fire damage is contained to the engine compartment and consistent with damage that can occur, in rare instances, during engine failure.
Whew, there’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s do just that. Firstly, nearly 30,000 reports of engine failure is a huge number. Remember when Toyota recalled its 3.4-liter turbocharged V6 for engine failure? That happened after only 824 warranty claims, including 166 field reports, meaning GM let its 6.2-liter problem get 34 times larger than Toyota’s V6 problem before pulling the recall lever. If all 28,102 field complaints are indeed related to this issue and GM claims 597,630 vehicles are affected, that would result in a failure rate of 4.7 percent, exceeding the failure rate of the dual-row version of Porsche’s dreaded IMS bearing roughly fourfold.
What’s more, these aren’t clear-cut cases of drivers harmlessly limping their trucks to service departments; these defective crankshafts and connecting rods may have led to 12 injuries. There may be a real human toll here, and that’s before we get into the potential psychological impacts of 12 “potentially related alleged crashes” and 42 possible fires.
Considering we were already seeing plenty of L87 V8 failures in 2021, it shouldn’t have taken this long for these 6.2-liter engines to be recalled, and it looks like not all examples are covered. This recall doesn’t include models made before March 1, 2021, and considering engine failures in earlier trucks have been documented, it wouldn’t be surprising if this recall gets expanded. As for the fix, GM’s specifying a higher oil viscosity for the L87 and a new oil filter in addition to replacing problematic engines currently equipped with defective crankshafts and/or connecting rods. If you own a vehicle with one of these affected engines built between March 1, 2021 and May 31, 2024, expect to hear from GM in early June about this fix. Otherwise, sit tight.
Top graphic credit: GMC
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
GM’s 6.2-Liter V8 Is Seizing Up At Highway Speeds And Leaving Owners Stranded
-
Toyota Screwed Up The Tundra So Bad It’s Replacing 100,000 Engines
-
How Ford ‘Fixed’ A Deadly Problem With A Sticker To Dodge The Biggest Recall In History
-
Kia Niro Recalled For Wiring Issue That Can Make Airbags Go Off Randomly
-
GM Just Recalled The Chevrolet Equinox EV Because Its Radar Cruise Control Might Not Hit The Brakes
Please send tips about cool car things to tips@theautopian.com. You could even win a prize!
GM is notorious for shady handling of powertrain issues. My favorite was when they had a recall to top off the coolant on the 3.6 in the Traverse/Acadia/Enclave/Outlook because they knew if they filled it back up, the leak was so slow that the majority of owners would be out of warranty before they noticed.
They’re not the only ones, Ford had to be drug kicking and screaming to court over the 4.6 intake manifolds (literally the only common issue on the 2v version of those engines), the “coolant intrusion” issues of the 1.5/1.6/2.0/2.3 Ecoboost, the timing chain driven water pump on the Ecoboost/Duratec V6 engines, and their infamous DCT transmissions in the Focus.
BMW lost a lawsuit over the ridiculously fragile N20/N26 timing system (I miss doing those all day every day, easy money!), and will possibly be facing one over the horribly designed oil filter housing on the B48/58 that gets eaten from the inside by cavitating coolant (too bad they got that one part so wrong that it sometimes takes the engine out with it, because they’re actually pretty rock solid other than that and the occaisional oil leak).
That said, GM’s screwup in this case? Monumental. The trucks with these engines are bought by wealthier clients and commercial customers, two customer bases you DESPERATELY don’t want to drive to your competitor’s showrooms.
GM set the bar for shady handling of recalls when they tried to pull the “that was “Old GM”” argument on the massive lawsuit following the ignition recall when it was uncovered that they knew about the problem and covered it up.
Barra is paid $29.5MM last year while GM knowingly brushes under the carpet a fatal flaw in the flagship engine of its flagship large SUV product. My engine failed at highway speed with my family in the car. GM refused to acknowledge there was an issue. This was several years ago in a model that pre-dates the recall range. The problem doesn’t stop with the 2021s and this issue is only going to get bigger.
A large-scale rural Instagram influencer (say what you want about the “influencer” culture) has a new Suburban on its second engine at 19,000 miles. She posted a video recently of it idling and sounding like a squeaky washing machine as she waited for a tow truck to take it to the dealer (again). Thousands upon thousands of comments from her followers. Not a good look for GM.
I heard a new Escalade making the same noise. I used to see that SUV every day at my kids daycare. It’s been a couple of months since I’ve seen it last. And it was the dealership’s roadside assistance vehicle too!
Every since the V8 MDS system was introduced in 2007, there have been failures causing a lifter to drop, bend pushrod, basically grenade the motor. Its happened to me on a 2009 Yukon. Yes, they make cam kits to delete this but it’s unacceptable.
It’s amusing this was known for years and tuned out to fix and GM did nothing. Always many speculating it was because of emissions and fuel economy and they couldn’t fix it. There is a feeling with alot of Ford guys if there is a problem they will recall it. Some people had bad feeling about Toyota and other Japanese brands for not wanting to admit something was a problem and recalling. But things have changed they seem quicker to recall now and GM still dragging it’s carcus to do anything even though it was probably the single best known issue with an mass produced engine in recent history. I think it even surpasses the Ford / international issues and the 5.4 spark plug issues. The amount of people that know about it surpasses the normal. Because so many people have been effected many small businesses owners have had it happen yet if they still may have a gmt800 running strong. And they tell people. I can only think of 1 person that had a GM truck I’ve talked to in the last 2 years that didn’t know about it. The damage is already done and they aren’t even really owning up to it just slapping a bandaid and getting the dealers read to deny as many claims as possible.
“I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209! Renovation program! Spare parts for 25 years! Who cares if it worked or not!”
Detroit always gonna Detroit. Buyer beware!
I never really put 2 and 2 together to think that GM = OCP.
Yes another reminder of why I don’t buy these vehicles.
The lack of commitment to quality is just staggering. Even on an ancient engine like this, they still can’t figure it out.
Then people here laugh at bmws…
Previous generations of gm V8’s are proven to be bulletproof, the new LT based engines have nothing but problems. BMW’s engines, on the other hand, have only gotten worse after turbocharging and direct injection came into play.
Sounds like the Cadillac V8-6-4 recall of this generation, only this time it affects all of the GM brands’ top selling models (excluding Buick since they don’t have anything with the L87).
It was hard to go wrong with a Cadillac before the V8-6-4 arrived, even if the brand had already petered-out as ‘standard of the world’ in large sedans by that time.
In a similar fashion, a Suburban, Silverado, or any of their badge siblings could be counted on even if nothing else at GM could. And if someone was willing to shell out extra for the highest trim with the best engine, you best believe it was because they expected better out of it than this.
I half believe they waited so long to issue the recall because they know how it affects their brand perception. If they did the recall early on it wouldn’t have mattered as much, but that’s not how GM works.
The Eaton-sourced V8-6-4 was finicky to keep working properly, but the underlying 362 was as fine a V8 as ever. Just disconnect the multi-displacement hardware and drive on.
The HT4100 that they rushed into service, on the other hand, is hte picture next to the word “shitshow” in some dictionaries.
Yeah, the HT4100 might be a better comparison. I imagine engines like the L87 are built with displacement-on-demand as a primary function that could not easily be removed/switched off like the Eaton system could.
At least this explains to me why they’re still using pushrod based engines in this day and age.
Clearly overhead cams are far too high tech for GM to attempt.
I thought calling pushrods low-tech ended in about 2005, amazing to still see comments like this in the wild.
Outside of the US, they’re considered agricultural at best, even cheap hatchbacks forty years ago used overhead cams.
What happened in 2005 to make them contemporary?
Outside the US, taxes on engine displacement favor overhead cams, because they allow higher revs and therefore more power from a given displacement.
On physical engine size and weight, efficiency per liter, low RPM torque, and so on, cam-in-block engines offer huge advantages.
Why do you think GM can offer a mid-engine Corvette with Ferrari performance for $70,000? It’s not just because the interior is cheaper.
You think Phuzz has any idea how small any LS engine is compared to OHC competitors?
Besides the side-by-sides with other V8s, which are instructive, the fact that Flyin Miatas with the LS3 literally quadruple the power while adding only 200 lb (including the stronger driveline and suspension) and fitting in the same space as the Mazda 4 cyl are the biggest eye openers to me.
I would have said it happened in ’97 when the LS was introduced. They are contemporary because they are tiny, efficient and powerful.
Have you ever seen an LS beside a Ford Triton? The Triton is huge with it’s OHC (or DOHC) design in comparison and doesn’t make any more power or get better fuel economy. The Triton also has a much higher center of gravity with all that weight up high.
Yeah 05 was about when I remember the “muh HP/L” comments on forums finally ceasing as even the biggest Honda fanboys realized how good the LS was.
Hold on now. You said ‘agricultural at best’ ?? Thats a bit Phuzzy to me.
what you did there
I see it
Preach
The GM V8’s are the pinnacle of packaging and efficiency – there is a reason that every time there is a European beater featured on this site, everyone shouts “LS Swap!”.
I believe this is a crank bearing issue, not valvetrain related.
What’s wrong with pushrods?
They have no idea. Someone probably told them they were low tech vs OHC as that’s usually the case and that somehow equates to inferior. Maybe they should look up the history to see just how far back OHCs go, then look at physical dimensional differences between OHC and OHV and weight and fuel efficiency and torque . . . low revving? Yeah, usually, but it can turn twice the gear with far more torque at half the rpm with far less wear due to the high torque allowing low load and low rpm running while using less fuel even with larger displacement.
There are pushrod engines that spin 10k RPM for hours at a time in NASCAR while making 850 horsepower. Don’t forget the pushrod engines in Top Fuel drag racing that make 11,000 horsepower. Theres a few examples of pushrod engines doing things just as well as, or better than OHC engines. Sometimes simpler is better.
Yeah there’s no way they would attempt an OHC engine.. you know, something like the most powerful naturally aspirated production V8 engine. And they definitely wouldn’t take that engine, slap some turbos on it and make it the most powerful production V8 ever made by an American manufacturer.
Correct me if I am wrong, but GM is inspecting the engines and changing out the oil and filter to a different spec. Must not forget a new oil cap with the heavier weight oil label on it.
They are not just going to replace the engine if it is still working or whatever inspection they are doing doesn’t uncover something serious. Furthermore, I haven’t heard about a warranty extension.
Does anyone know what the inspection will encompass. Oil analysis? Some camera of the piston wrist pin via a dropped oil pan? Acoustic sensor test (for knocking noise)?
From what I have read, they will check for a specific check engine code (P0016) that detects a cam/crank timing mismatch and replace the engine if it is present, otherwise, it’s just the oil change and new oil cap.
Well that seems like it will do nothing to detect excessive metal wear unless it is so bad that built in sensors pick up a clear and present failure.
Yeah… I’d want a full oil workup now and a follow up in Xooo miles. That is the science.
GM gonna GM…
How much of this is the engine stop-start systems? It must compromise lubrication. I only see it making sense on a Hybrid where you can run on battery alone for short distances. In stop and go, my Hybrid barely runs the engine, and does so for longer (charging) when it does. Additionally, it was DESIGNED for this duty cycle at the outset. I get in a normal car with stop-start and it is the first thing I disable (if I can figure out how).
Think about it, a lifetime of stop/start cycles in a few thousand miles of city driving. One reason why diesels run forever is steady, consistant operation in a narrow specified rev range. Journal bearings really only wear when started from a stop!
Agree – from photos that I’ve seen of this issue, it sure look like the bearings are getting wiped from zero oil pressure under high load from a dead stop. Lately I’ve been disabling the Auto Start Stop whenever I start the vehicle to avoid it.
Lots of cars have auto-stop systems and aren’t prone to low miles engine failures, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it may have been a contributing factor. So even on a warm engine you’re getting effectively a dry start at every stoplight, and that takes longer to rebuild oil pressure from the low-flow pump and super thin oil that has completely drained back to the pan in the span of a traffic light.
When the auto-stop systems first came out I wondered if they had a small auxiliary electric oil pump to maintain oil pressure, or some sort of uprated starter/alternator to handle constantly stopping/starting the engine in city driving. Far as I’ve seen, none of the above. There are some “timeouts” for it…if the battery voltage gets low it won’t shut off, a certain number of restarts in a certain amount of time it’ll lock out for a bit, ect.
My Maverick (ecoboost, non-hybrid) had the auto-stop system, which I quickly found annoying and really the only thing I didn’t like about the truck. It’d always decide to shut off right as I was about to pull into traffic, and in hot Texas weather, of course the A/C dies when the engine is off. Stop-and-go traffic was also tedious of the engine constantly stopping/restarting. There’s a button to (temporarily) disable it, but it always reverts to on at the next key cycle, and when disabled, it puts an annoying “reminder” on the dashboard every time it would have shut down. So every stoplight it dings and a message pops up that “Auto Stop Disabled by Switch”. Same idea as the seatbelt dinger, compliance through annoyance.
Pretty quickly ordered an OBDLink cable, got FORSCAN, plugged in and permanently shut it off (and it’s nag screen), haven’t missed it one bit. If there was any effect to overall fuel mileage, it wasn’t enough to notice.
If you own a Ford made in the last ~10-15 years or so, do yourself a favor and get the cable and forscan. It’s like the god mode “konami code” for your vehicle. It’s not just for modders/tuners, even mundane stuff like getting some extra gauge screens/drive modes, turning off annoying dings and messages, correcting the speedometer for different size tires, disabling auto start/stop, and about a thousand other things.
Our 2019 Toyota Highlander had the auto stop-start and I found it to be the dumbest and most rudimentary system as well.
I’d go to take my son to kindergarten in the morning, and it’d be 15° F outside. Car and motor both cold. Make it 100 feet down the street to the stop sign, and the engine shuts down with the auto stop-start. While cold. How’s that for efficiency? I got to where I’d turn that off every time I started the car.
We sold the Highlander during the pandemic when the used car crisis hit and the dealer offered us more for it than we paid for it new, and now neither of our cars have the stop-start. Thank goodness.
The start/stop in my Equinox seems to do a decent job of not shutting the engine off if the heat or AC are blasting.
But in any case, remember that the systems are designed at their core for emissions and are going to be tuned to do best on the EPA test cycle.
It was a manufacturing problem from everything I’m told, and the fix is heavier oil. Way to go. Haha
I’m betting the stop/start systems contribute, particularly if higher viscocity oil is the “fix”. Keep the oil on the bearings for longer at the expense of economy.
My guess is it’s more about the variable displacement oil pump that was introduced on this generation. Ironically, the thicker oil will partially negate the economy savings of the variable displacement pump.
KISS – keep it simple, stupid. Or to paraphrase Ian Malcolm, just because we can doesn’t mean we should.
From my understanding/memory there’s a couple of issues, one of which has to do with the line boring process, but it all seems like the problem stems from a relatively basic level of manufacturing.
It is a warranty band-aid, which sucks from a customer/enthusiast point of view, people love their trucks and a lot of them want to keep them longer than 3-5 years without rebuilding/replacing the engine. Case in point is my GMT400 with 275k on the original engine and transmission. I’m not sure that’s a feat these newer ones will pull off, as nice as some of them really are. When it works right the 6.2 is fun, especially with the 10 speed. Although in a parallel universe where I wanted a new truck, and it just had to be a GM, I’d be more inclined to check out a 4 cylinder version. Or a Ram, probably just a Ram.
Ram did the same thing with the Ecodiesel. Heavier oil is a bandaid to get you beyond the warranty period.
That was my first thought as well. Changing oil viscosity is a band-aid on a gaping wound.
When the transmissions start flaking out, GM will add sawdust.
They’ll make it into a tablet/capsule shape to make it easier for the technicians!
It gets shipped in suppository form for customers.
We have friends who recently picked up a ‘21 Tahoe with the L84 5.3 liter. 1,000 or so miles later and the whole top end needed replacement, from whatever wickedly common thing is failing on those. Wow, nearly the entire full-size line is junk if you bought in the past couple of years. Those friends are usually Toyota buyers, but I’m not sure if they’ll scamper back or not.
yeah, the 5.3 ain’t so hot lately either
If GM can GM then GM will GM. I am surprised they didn’t give them a coupon for a new truck.
I’ve been following this for a while and the question I keep coming back to is an emphatic HOW?!?! GM has basically been making small block V8s since the dawn of mankind and these are all descendants of the legendary LS. I know they’re not like…identical to the LT1 in the Camaro/Corvette and that there are minor differences that a GM fan will correct me on promptly but for all intents and purposes this is more or less a motor that GM has been making for more than a quarter century with small revisions.
Trucks are also any American manufacturer’s bread and butter/where the majority of their resources are dedicated. Them phoning in a shitty subcompact crossover or 5 that wind up being disasters doesn’t really matter, but them catastrophically fucking up their flagship truck engine is an unforced error of biblical proportions.
Not to mention online truck people are constantly screaming into the void about how turbocharging and electrification are the death of trucks as we know them, how Toyota is officially dead to them, etc. Meanwhile we’ve got arguably the most desirable NA half ton truck engine in the industry grenading itself on a massive scale. GM gonna GM, unfortunately…but seeing them fuck this up of all things is just brutal.
Since 2014.
The change from LS to LT and direct injection was a big one.
As I pointed out in the first post about this, the smoking gun seems to be tied to the “advanced” displacement on demand system that is in these trucks, but not in the Camaro or Corvette LT1 (or the 2014-19 truck L86).
Yep, same basic issue I have every time I hear about a Wrangler issue, specifically with the Pentastar V6. You have one of the most mechanically simple vehicles on the road, one that prints money for your and keeps the company afloat, yet there are still rust issues and recalls? And the V6, the one they’ve put in almost every car for nearly 20 years, it’s still a crapshoot?
This is how FCA/Stellantis got the reputation they have. Sorry to get off topic, but GM sounds like they might be on the same path now. Anecdotally, “GM V8” is supposed to be synonymous for “thirsty but lasts forever.” I wonder how much of this was their attempt at engineering for its own sake, or chasing some miniscule fuel economy improvement.
I know it’s not very Kaizen of me to say this, but sometimes good enough is good enough. Or “perfect is the enemy of good.” Or maybe they just cheaped out again like they did on those ignition switches a decade ago. A shocking choice for their biggest moneymakers, if so.
Cadillac solution to a Chevrolet problem. Been a maintenance/reliability engineer for decades. Yes, good enough is good enough. Kaizen lives off the 80/20 principle. Most of your problems are caused by a small subset of issues – look at these first. Then move on. There is a point of diminishing returns, go to something else.
Kaizen, or continuous improvement, doesn’t necessarily mean you ‘continuously improve’ by adding a bunch of new stuff to an existing design.
You could Kaizen by continuously improving the existing design to be the best it can, or in your case, getting it to good enough and keeping it there.
True. I still think there’s some corruption of the application of Kaizen or Six Sigma (I’m not in the auto field, but I work with a lot of stats people and financial modelers, and continuous improvement infects everything). My thought process is more like how people justify their own positions by contributing something, and there’s nobody there to say “no” because the bosses also feel the pressure to deliver something and make a name for themselves.
Sometimes perfecting an existing process doesn’t get any attention, while innovating (by adding) is much more easily attributable to someone’s ingenuity. Steve Jobs used to lament that there are too many salespeople running large companies — often poorly — because their results are much easier to quantify and promote.
I completely agree.
Not only that, but the JL is going to be entering it’s 9th production model year. It’s like they’ve never heard of the term Continuous Improvement.
DI may play an issue, I know Honda has a TON of issues currently with gasoline diluting the oil, calling for ’60s – ’70s era oil change intervals.
It is wild to me that GM would risk their most profitable vehicle lines, the ones where they are (or were) the undisputed market leader, etc. without fully and completely vetting them.
Go ahead and respond to this with snark about same old GM, but for 90 years the Suburban (and GM large SUVs in general) has stood as a awesome example of durability and reliability. They justly earned the reputation they had. This is sad more than anything.
The domestic makers seem to get by on the fact that the full-size SUV market doesn’t have many good options, and a lot of their buyers are brand “loyalists.” Which is just another way of saying they are easily fooled by marketing.
I don’t agree with this.
When was the last time you even saw a Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, or Escalade advertised?
You can call it being brand-loyal if you want, but GM’s large SUVs sold themselves, because they were the best. Maybe they still are; certainly no one else in the segment has been covering themselves in glory recently.
Put another way, if customers were easily fooled, what better product were they talked out of buying instead?
I agree that there is a dearth of options, which was half my comment if you noticed. The Nissan models aren’t great alternatives, and the Toyota might be better built and engineered, but it doesn’t have the variation that is popular in the segment. Domestic options are also much more focused on style/fashion, which is a big deal for the target consumer group. It is also a demographic that still tends lean in to xenophobia in most things, including car brands.
But that doesn’t really matter to the point I was making. Marketing that builds brand loyalty isn’t as simple as an ad on TV for a specific model. Just think of all the Chevy or Ford family-type B.S. that has infected lots of consumers for decades, more so with trucks than any other segment.
Brand loyalty isn’t repeatedly buying the same brand because it happens to be the best product. What brand loyalty provides is protection against the impact of issues like GM is now having. Loyalists are far less likely to look seriously at alternatives or to point out the flaws in the other options within the segment to justify their continued devotion to a brand. They are less likely to really shop around to know which is the best option.
That brand “stickiness” can be a big disincentive for quality, since there is a lot more forgiveness for mistakes. When the big three domestic brands that are the primary drivers of the segment all have significantly loyal buyers the fact that all of them have questionable quality isn’t a surprise.
We can watch as the sales numbers won’t be significantly impacted outside of potential production slowdowns needed to fix the issue. GM will still move these en masse at their sky-high margins.
A minivan.
(Sorry, required comment whenever full size SUVs are discussed).
Is it though? Maybe for the Tahoe, Yukon, Escalade size.
But for the Suburban, Yukon XL, Escalade ESV sized you, you cannot fit as many people and their cargo in any minivan.
I’ve already done quite a few trips that fit more, if not as much and more easily than when we had the Pacifica PHEV.
I just wish the Burban was PHEV with a 50 mile range. But maybe when the iQs come down in price I’ll get one.
All companies have recalls; the difference is how they handle them and what they are for. GM avoided obvious issues for as long as possible, and the fix seems designed to simply push the problem out a bit in hopes everyone forgets about it. So standard GM garbage. This being standard GM practice is one reason that, despite being great to drive, I haven’t seriously considered a Blackwing.
“GM’s investigation identified 28,102 field complaints or incidents in the US potentially related to failure of the L87 engine due to crankshaft, connecting rod, or engine bearing failure, of which 14,332 involved allegations of loss of propulsion. These field complaints were received between April 29, 2021, and February 3, 2025. GM identified 12 potentially related alleged crashes and 12 potentially related alleged injuries in the U.S.; all specifically alleged injuries were minor or non-physical, and most were not crash related. GM also identified 42 potentially related fire allegations in the U.S., but in the majority of these cases (a) the causation of these incidents is unclear and (b) the alleged fire damage is contained to the engine compartment and consistent with damage that can occur, in rare instances, during engine failure.”
That’s a lot of carefully chosen words as to avoid the stampede of lawyers filing the lawsuits.
I mean, it’s clearly drafted by lawyers for lawyers. Also technically accurate- some of those failures could have resulted from putting Silly Putty instead of 10W30 at the oil change. Can’t ever count out the idiot factor.
They’re GM products, which while I don’t want to blanket insult all GM owners, I have met several who are desperately underwater on high interest loans that push back maintenance to save money, and it seems to be more common the larger the vehicle. Financial stability be damned when you have to one-up the neighbor with their two-year old Tahoe.
I used to work at an oil change place, and like all oil change places the advertised prices included 5 quarts of oil. That was 15 years ago, but that’s still the case today as far as I know.
Anyway- I got yelled at by customers pretty often because their car called for more than 5 quarts. We were sure to let them know before we started anything, because otherwise they’d try to get us with a “but you didn’t tell me”. (also, we weren’t told to be dicks about it. If it called for 5.2 quarts we didn’t have to charge extra).
I don’t know how many times I was yelled at by customers, because I pretty quickly started brushing it off because I knew it was coming, but most of the time it was guys driving a freshly off-lease Caddy that were appalled I’d try to charge them for an extra 3 quarts of oil much less recommend full synthetic like the mfg recommended. It was obviously my fault that they couldn’t afford basic maintenance on the new (to them) car they just bought.
GM = Slow Learners
GM =
Slow LearnersCheap BastardsFTFY
6.6 Gassers in the HD trucks are drinking oil regularly, though they at least do not have the dreaded AFM/DFM sytems. But yeah the AFM/DFM issues has claimed many more engines I would guess. The class action lawsuit covers 2014 to present Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC vehicles equipped with the 5.3L, 6.0L, or 6.2L V8 engines. So yeah, I am officially a former GM advocate and purchaser I guess.
Sadly Ferd has a bit of an issue with the 2.7 and 3.0 Valves, but that one seems to e limited to just 90,000 vehicles so far.
Strangely the one engine that should probably have recalls for the MDS system, but has none is the 6.4 Hemi.
The Ford suits are probably popping champagne in honor of not having the most embarrassing recall for a US automotive company this week.
they only have the second largest with something like 140,000 units recalled for Brake and PCM Issues.
100% improvement!
As for the fix, GM’s specifying a higher oil viscosity for the L87 and a new oil filter in addition to replacing problematic engines currently equipped with defective crankshafts and/or connecting rods.
How is this a fix? This seems just to delay the issue (Higher viscosity oil). I am still waiting for the EGR recall on the Chevy Volt but they do not seem to care.
This is exactly what I was thinking, pushing the issue out till after the warrantee/recall period expires. Adding thick-as-mud oil to the engine is the oldest sketchy car dealer trick to quiet down cooked bearing till after the sale is finalized.
Also as a bonus, the thicker oil will reduce mileage as well.
Class Action lawyers are already circling.
1000% this.
Right, this is ridiculous. Toyota did a blanket no questions asked replacement on 100k Tundra engines with under 1k failures over the potential for machining debris to maybe cause a failure. GM on the other hand has defective *crankshafts and rods* and is pushing off replacements and hand waving thicker oil and a bigger filter as if that will magically replenish the bearings that have turned to glitter. GM gonna GM
I haven’t been bitten by the EGR yet, BECM got me though. At 53,000 miles and less than a year left on my Voltec warranty I almost want it to die now while I’m sure it’s covered.
The thing is that they don’t even have parts to fix it. I am driving it with the EGR not connected, MPGs went down from 40mpg to 34mpg and I cannot remote start since the check engine light is on.
Damn, I thought I’d heard parts were starting to show up again. Maybe I heard wrong.
Simply put, heavier weight oil it is not really a fix. Maybe it is a tactic to manage the service department load on dealers, but I think it is more likely an attempt to slow the progression of engine failures till they have enough mileage that they could use some ‘normal wear and tear’ excuse to deny warranty coverage.
When it comes to wear, oil is only a life extender. Could be GM is trying to say that they under spec’d the oil to a point that accelerated wear is an issue and that with a heavier weight oil, the life span of the engines would otherwise be normal/acceptable. Plausible, but I’m skeptical that going up 20 points on oil weight is going to result in night and day difference in reliability. Especially since some engines were failing at under 10k miles. Now maybe they could make it to 30k miles. Still not good enough.
I ran some gear oil mixture in one of my old cars when it started knocking. It reduced the noise and kept running a little longer. Prevention is better than a Bandaid on a bullet hole. That being said, some preventative measures cannot keep something from failing that is defective and destined to fail.
Our mint ’05 Sierra single cab with the bulletproof 4.8 feels increasingly like a forever truck, to be coddled and appreciated until the heat death of the universe. It’s a mystery as to why people line up to heave their life savings into the burn pit of new trucks.
06 Silverado with a 5.3 and extended cab is still going with 280k miles. It does occasionally require you to work on the old girl and I think if you were not handy enough to do most things, some of the repairs would definitely make you question cost versus value of the thing, but yeah, last of the good LS motors, outside my 2008 all aluminum no AFM 5.3 in the Hummmer Alpha.
What’s it like, to live where winter doesn’t exist?
Any GMT800 that’s has spent it’s entire life in my area has no rocker panels left; and maybe has a bit of bed side still attached to the frame.
What’s it like? In a word, EXPENSIVE! lol 🙂
Let that sink in just a little bit, people avoided buying Tundras and pivoted to American trucks because of the reliability concerns with Toyota. It’s nonsense like this that will continue my bias towards Toyota trucks. While I’ve been spoiled by owning two separate 2UZ trucks, a GX470 and 2nd Gen Tundra, they have both been truly faultless despite their age.
Given GM’s track record with these kind of things, we should be grateful that, A: nobody died, and B: that they issued a recall at all.
I guess that helps explain the super-obnoxious grilles in this generation. They’re just highly adorned coffins for the engines.