MrLeadFoot

Why is that so hard to believe? I don't understand what you are saying.

I don't think they're saying that. I think their initial thought was to help the motor last a bit longer until they can replace it, hence why bulletin 2 specifies to replace all the motors.

Sorry to hear of your experience, and thank you for sharing. Would you are to elaborate on what you experienced when it happened? And, did you have any warning signs?

I think that the reason they are instructed not to do anything is because the first bulletin, that says they will do an "inspection", which is really only looking for a p0016 code, was released simply so that gm could show nhtsa they had steps in place for the recall by the deadline that was set for them. GM knows darned well that the code will be present if an engine has been compromised, but they still don't have a real plan on how to deal with the motors that haven't yet thrown the code or seized yet, because they know it is a very real possibility that every single one of these engines within the specified date range have the bad components, whether they be crankshaft, connecting rod, or actual engine case. Because of the way things are playing out on this thus far, it is likely that the only way to know which vehicles have the bad components is to open up these motors, but because the problem is in the short block, there is SO much involved to completely tear these engines all down, hence the talk of replacement instead. Less cost to replace, less cost in labor hours, and less risk of something going wrong putting everything back together properly at the dealership level. As to oil, 40w oil can insulate and help keep temps down a little longer if there is slightly too little clearance somewhere, or something misaligned that could also cause more friction. This could theoretically buy more time for them to get through replacing all the engines out there, as they start with dealership inventory and the trucks that actually break down because they surely can't do them all at once. Even if they had enough engines lying around, their dealer network simply can't support replacing 500k+ motors in succession (within a reasonable amount of time), let alone all at once. There is so much going on here, beyond the engine problems themselves. There's the possibility they can't get to them all in a timely manner, which could bring more liability if more engines start seizing resulting in related accidents that include injury or worse. Imagine those lawsuits. Imagine also the lawsuits for perceived loss of value by people who may want to trade-in or sell their trucks but new motors can't be sourced and installed in time for them to do so, and no one wants to buy a used truck with an open recall. It's not necessarily whether GM loses (or wins) a suit that's the issue, because lawsuits like these will cost millions in fees alone! It's possible that GM is weighing all of this right now, and no doubt considering if it might be smarter to do buybacks instead of trying to replace 600k motors and risking all those lawsuits. Remember VW's Dieselgate? VW ended up buying back a LOT of cars. Maybe GM will do something like that, or come up with an alternative for customers with affected vehicles to be able to trade into a different truck (like diesel or 5.3) with a guaranteed allowance, who knows? But, the fact remains that GM knows they don't have much time to come up with something because everyday there are undoubtedly more engines seizing up. If you don't think GM can absorb a cost like this, think again. Whoever manufactured the bad parts can chip in to help fund this, but there is also the insurance GM and its suppliers carry for stuff just like this. No matter what happens, this is huge because it's a known issue, and there are even risks of lawsuits for mental and emotional anguish customers will feel because of what many members have already voiced: not being able to drive these trucks comfortably without worrying of possibly breaking down in the middle of nowhere leaving people vulnerable. This recall is actually worse than Dieselgate because doctoring emissions of VW engines wasn't going to physically hurt someone, whereas GM motors actually seize, so people can indeed get hurt either directly or indirectly from a motor failing under operation. Here's a real pic of what is involved with swapping out a motor that's happening right now on a new Ford. This pic was taken in a dealership service bay a few days ago. I apologize for the quality. If it's hard to make out, the entire body of the truck is lifted up off the chassis, and you can see the engine on the ground in the foreground. Never mind replacing the motor, or "only" dismantling it to just inspect the crankshaft or connecting rod, or whatever inside the bottom of the motor. Either way, do you think this truck will ever be the same, or do you think it's possible that this job will end up introducing new rattles, squeaks and vibrations even with a new, better motor installed, because not every single thing was put back correctly? Something like that would be yet another headache GM might face, even with complete swaps of all the motors, which is another reason why buybacks may be being discussed internally. Yep, this recall is a serious issue for GM, and for us. I, for one, hope that not every motor has bad parts because I don't think service departments can put every truck back together properly. That said, from the way this entire ordeal has unfolded, I think GM knows exactly what's wrong, and that it does indeed affect every motor in the specified date range, otherwise things would have been completely divulged by now, and a solid plan would already have been put into place. Considering the two bulletins released thus far have completely different procedures, it looks more and more like they indeed need a multi-phase approach, as @newdude postulated, if they have any chance of rectifying something of this magnitude. Can you imagine how many loaners they would have to give out if they were to replace every single 6.2 that people bought over 3-4 years that are still within their warranty? Wow, just wow!

I think rough country, for one, makes a kit for Arc.

All the time you spent on this thread for what turned out to be nothing! Congratulations to you, while the rest of us suffer a slow death because, as of the last notice, all dealer inventory new or used gets a new motor, while us owners already on the road get to eventually breakdown somewhere over time, likely in a remote area in the middle of the night while towing a boat! Seriously, though, the way 002 reads, the rest of us will all eventually get a motor but, because it will take so long, we still have to be prepared for sudden engine seizure in the meantime.

You understand what I am saying, right? If all the trucks, new or used (and maybe even older than my 22 refresh) get new engines and I don't, they instantly become more valuable than mine because no one will want mine. So, if they don't replace my engine, I have grounds for a lawsuit for reduction in value because they don't replace mine. That, I would think, would end up costing GM more in the long run. Maybe they hope I get in an unrelated accident that totals my truck, or die, which would then save them money. But, hopefully, you're right, and things are still developing and could change. I guess that's the silver lining in why they're not sending us letters until June 9.

So, it sounds like the dealer network gets priority over the customers because regardless of whether the unsold trucks on the lots are new or used they get new motors, while customers with trucks only get an oil switch to 0w40, unless the motor is compromised at time of inspection. Something is not right here. Please tell me I'm reading this wrong because this sounds completely unfair. Edit: Wait a minute. Under the Dealer Responsibility section of the bulletin it says: "In addition, for vehicles entering your facility for service, you are required to ensure the customer is aware of the open recall and make every reasonable effort to implement the program correction as set forth in this bulletin prior to releasing the vehicle." That wording right there sounds to me that we indeed get new engines, too, because, unlike in the previous bulletin, nowhere in this bulletin does it say anything about an inspection, it only talks about engine replacements of motors built within certain dates. Does this 002 supersede the previous bulletin?

Exactly! That's why I say the recall "inspection" isn't really an inspection if that's all they're looking for! Something sounds fishy to me.

This is puzzling to me, too. Given the code they are "inspecting" for, if it's there you obviously have the problem, and your motor is on its way out. But, what I don't get is how they can rule out if your motor is NOT a candidate from failure without physically inspecting the parts in question which requires getting inside the block. But, then again, GM is not stating exactly which parts are the problem, and understandably so, because if they actually stated words like "crankshaft" or "connecting rod", the public would know that their proposed "inspection" doesn't do a darned thing except idenitify an already compromised motor via the P0016 code, whereas a physical inspection would help determine if something is beginning to score. I think the ambiguity of the recall procedures is quite telling. GM obviously doesn't want to replace 600k motors, so if they can placate the NHTSA by pretending to do an "inspection", that's what they're going to do. I just don't understand how the NHTSA is accepting what GM has proposed to do. I guess from a safety standpoint GM is telling the NHTSA, "A truck comes in with a service engine soon light on. If we pull code P0016 we can prevent that truck from being on the road again in that condition, thus we are making the road a safer place." But, they would do that anyway even if there was no recall, if a customer came in with a P0016. So, it doesn't sound like much is being done by GM (aside from us getting 40w oil and a new oil filler cap). And, after letting 28,000 cases go by before doing anything at all, it appears the NHTSA doesn't care that much about the consumer, either.

This article tells it like it is. Unbelievable, or is it willful negligence? https://www.theautopian.com/it-took-gm-more-than-28000-failed-v8s-and-three-internal-investigations-before-recalling-its-l87-engines/

I'm curious as to how they know it's only 3% of the 600k engines.

Years ago, I rebuilt a motorcycle engine 3 times. Each time, on the test drive, an overhead cam siezed within a few minutes. Couldn't figure it out at first, and on the fourth rebuild a TINY particle finally shot out of an oil port when cleaning with air compressor nozzle. So, I would think a bad crank journal or rod bore would cause a seizure pretty darned quickly. So, maybe those of us with a few thousand miles on our 6.2s already have hope that our motors are fine, and them upping to 40w oil is just a precaution. In fact, from the beginning I was always astounded that these motors ran a 20 weight oil. That seems awfully thin. Especially now that I know the Vettes run 40w. Even my C5 with meager 5.7 liter runs 30 weight. Maybe running 20 weight oil in the 6.2 trucks is what they had to do to be able to eek some MPGs out of these things and meet CAFE standards, not to mention make them bearable with their miniscule gas tanks for such a beast of an engine. No doubt, our MPGs will drop now, probably significantly over a yearly basis. I already find myself looking at my mile range every time I pass a gas station! Maybe it's their way of training us to be EV drivers.

I just thought of something, because I am slow like that. If there was an issue with crank alignment sitting in the case journals or rod bores are too small, wouldn't those cause a problem pretty darned soon, and once you pass a few thousand miles, you are likely one of those that do NOT have the problem specified in this particular recall? Re: the vehicle you mentioned above, were those motors relative to this specific issue, or could they have been for other reasons? To be clear, I am NOT insinuating in any way that you are wrong about anything, just asking for clarity

That's not a good reason, as some of them still are, since they come with 5/60k powertrain, don't they? It might be because they don't have the issue.

Thank you for the response. Am I wasting my time putting a code scanner on my truck myself, if no SES light is on?

Can someone please explain the rationale behind this recall? Because I still don't get how scanning for a code helps. I mean, just because the code is not present at the time they scan for it, couldn't said motor still have an issue, but it's not yet to the point that a bearing has not yet spun, so no code is set? But, the motor would eventually throw a rod regardless of what oil is used from the point of inspection on? Or, is it possible that something like switching oil really will help? Because otherwise wouldn't the nhtsa NOT be satisfied by this remedy? Unless, of course, gm has the nhtsa in their back pocket, and the recall is aimed to pull the wool over the eyes of the average Joe and Jane. I did the math using approximate numbers, and if 877k motors need to be replaced or repaired, that could easily be in the range of 5-8 billion dollars, maybe more if you factor in logistics like providing loaner cars. There's no way gm would agree to absorbing that, and even if they could, they wouldn't be able to accommodate doing that many motors. That would have to interrupt gm's own operations, because they'd have to lend a hand in getting these motors fixed/replaced because there's no way their network of franchised dealerships would be able to handle something of this magnitude.

You bet I watched the video, and it is unbelievable that we're getting a free oil change as a warranty repair. Oh wait... and a new oil filler cap and lower gas mileage.

Thanks for the education. At least I wasn't completely off base when I chose the 6.2 over the Baby Duramax. Makes me feel a little better. One reason I got the 6.2 was because people told me diesel maintenance costs are high. Another reason is because the horsepower on the Baby Duramax is too low for my liking. When I stomped on it on the freeway during multiple test drives to simulate passing, it struggled more than I would have preferred (although the gas mileage sure was tempting). The final reason was because I had a 93 Vette, 97 Suburban, 2000 Suburban and 2001 Vette, and they were all dependable motors, none of which ever needed any internals repaired/replaced. The 2000 Suburban had 235k miles on it when I sold it after buying the Sierra, and I towed my bass boat with it regularly over the 22 years since I bought it new. I still have the 2001 Corvette has 135k on it, and it still runs strong. Having all those v8 gas motors be so solid, I figure I couldn't go wrong with the 6.2, especially since iterations of that motor are in the newer the Vettes. I thought, surely, they have to be workhorses. But, I guess like modern refrigerators, sounds like they just don't make 'em like they used to (but charge 3 times as much for them).

Makes sense to me. Not sure whether or not knowing this helps us much, though, you know what I mean? Thanks for chiming in here. Nice to have someone like you on this forum.

So, it sounds like the "inspection" called for by the recall doesn't mean much, then. I mean, if the SES light is not on, then the code hasn't been thrown and I get 0w-40 oil put in. Using a scanner to look for a thrown code isn't much of an inspection. It would be a true "inspection" if they were to actually look at the areas where damage might be occurring, such as the crankshaft journals, which requires at least dropping the oil pan. On the other hand, if the SES light IS on due to the P0016 code having been thrown, then it's too late, no inspection needed, and I would likely need a motor instead. Shoulda bought a diesel. Figures.

Will this code throw the SES light, or just be a stored code?

As someone who's done a lot of troubleshooting on this, including installing brand new OEM 20" wheels in place of the stock 22" wheels on my 22 refresh Denali, as well as have spoken to lemon law attorneys, I've noticed that I don't feel it when there's a strong cross wind. Could it be wind turbulence we're feeling? I ask this partly because it only happens at moderate to moderate-high freeway speed range , I don't feel it when in a strong cross wind, and I have never heard of someone with an AT4 or Trail Boss complaining about this.

Here's what I did. Works like a charm: https://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/264546-disconnect-center-stack-tailgate-button/page/3/#findComment-2640366 Edit: I just corrected the link I previously posted to go directly to my solution, instead of the entire thread.

I'm pretty sure that at this time GM does not value owners of the particular model years involved with this recall, because they are such recent years that those owners already bought a GM product recently, so are not likely to be buyers again any time soon anyway.