New bulletin/Campaign 6.2 L87

[GETGONE]

I see this was posted as to why this doesn't apply to 2025 6.2's

 

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2025/04/heres-why-gm-6-2l-v8-recall-doesnt-apply-to-2025-model-year-vehicles/

 

 

[Snow White]

3 hours ago, MrLeadFoot said:

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.

I have a 2018 ecodiesel, even without the 10% main bearing failure engines (sound familiar?) they're expensive.  the DPF (for any vehicle) will run you $3,500 min.  they ingest their own sooty exhaust, even with the GDE tune for the babymax or the ecodiesel it's not good.  intakes look like coal tar from a 1930's furnace.  Having owned a 2014 grand cherokee before all the diesel EPA lawsuits and a 2018 ecodiesel, specifically got the 6.2L even with the known issues.  it's not all that and a bag of chips having owned 2, just saying.

Edited April 28, 2025 by butzers09silverado

[PunchT37]

9 hours ago, newdude said:

 

 

No.  And i think you mean 6.2 as the 6.6 has a longer stroke. 

 

All 3 engines have their own p/n connecting rods so that would indicate to me they are not the same.

 

5.3 uses rod p/n 12649190, 6.2 uses rod p/n 12714549 and 6.6 uses p/n 12675746. 

 

5.3 and 6.2 both do have a 92mm stroke but don't use the same p/n rods.  6.6 is 98mm stroke.  

 

The p/n 12714549 6.2 rod is used in LT1 2014-current, L86 2014-2018, L87 2019-current and the LT2 2020-current.  

 

The 12649190 rod in the 5.3 believe it or not is in a whole bunch of LS engines and then the LT based L83, L82 and L84.  Serviceability dates back to 2004 LS1 and LS6, 2010-2015 LS3 and L99 6.2, 06-09 LS4 5.3, LS2 and then a slew of LS 5.3s from 04-14.  Might explain the lack of 5.3 bottom end failures on the L82 and L84?  

 

6.6 rod is exclusive to the 6.6 L8T.  

 

 

 

 

Reason I asked is someone above stated about the rod supplier having crappy dimensions in the rods. Since all these rods are forged powdered metal, and come from the same place, why not the 5.3`s? Those rods are the same. L8T just has a shorter length for the longer stroke.

[PunchT37]

Bearing wise, don`t the L84, L87, and L8T have the same main and rod bearings? If so, why just the L87 failures? It would have to be in the blocks and or crank as the 5.3 has a cast crank and the L8T has it`s own forging. Hmmm.

[MrLeadFoot]

9 minutes ago, PunchT37 said:

Bearing wise, don`t the L84, L87, and L8T have the same main and rod bearings? If so, why just the L87 failures? It would have to be in the blocks and or crank as the 5.3 has a cast crank and the L8T has it`s own forging. Hmmm.

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. 

[Byrds8]

Do the 6.2Ls in the Camaros use the same bearings as the trucks?

[MrLeadFoot]

2 hours ago, Snow White said:

I have a 2018 ecodiesel, even without the 10% main bearing failure engines (sound familiar?) they're expensive.  the DPF (for any vehicle) will run you $3,500 min.  they ingest their own sooty exhaust, even with the GDE tune for the babymax or the ecodiesel it's not good.  intakes look like coal tar from a 1930's furnace.  Having owned a 2014 grand cherokee before all the diesel EPA lawsuits and a 2018 ecodiesel, specifically got the 6.2L even with the known issues.  it's not all that and a bag of chips having owned 2, just saying.

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). 

Edited April 29, 2025 by MrLeadFoot

[PunchT37]

14 minutes ago, MrLeadFoot said:

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. 

I`m out of the business now, but spent 30 years in it. It`s still a hobby of mine. I will die a "mechanic". I have a 2025 T1 with the 5.3. So, this 6.2 stuff has me wondering, why not mine? I understand engines and know the differences in the LS and LT engines. Foundries, parts vendors, assy lines? All problem sources. Not just GM. I always took this stuff as a scotland yard kind of challenge.

 

When one builds hotrod and race engines, he goes far away from factory specs and needs to keep his math front and center as he can`t go "by the book" anymore. His parts need to be chosen by him as his combo is not in any book.

 

Anyway, I kinda like this stuff. Easy to say when it`s not mine. Getting to the bottom of it is the challenge for me. Being the 1`st to do it is a bonus. I/we, as techs, have had to figure out ****** for years. It`s nice if you can beat the engineers to it.

[GETGONE]

Guess nobody watched the teardown video posted earlier. It was mentioned the crank journal wasn't machined straight so bearings were at an angle and seized in some cases in as few as 100 miles. The teardown was of an 8K mile engine.

[carguy1701]

27 minutes ago, GETGONE said:

Guess nobody watched the teardown video posted earlier. It was mentioned the crank journal wasn't machined straight so bearings were at an angle and seized in some cases in as few as 100 miles. The teardown was of an 8K mile engine.

I did :< If the plant machines the blocks then somebody has been asleep at the switch for a while...

 

This is starting to sound like the Hyundai/Kia 2.4/2.0T crank debacle. All caused by somebody apparently not doing their job...

[MrLeadFoot]

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. 

[newdude]

11 hours ago, PunchT37 said:

Bearing wise, don`t the L84, L87, and L8T have the same main and rod bearings? If so, why just the L87 failures? It would have to be in the blocks and or crank as the 5.3 has a cast crank and the L8T has it`s own forging. Hmmm.

 

10 hours ago, Byrds8 said:

Do the 6.2Ls in the Camaros use the same bearings as the trucks?

 

 

5.3 has its own bearing p/ns.  Rods are 12668160, mains are 12729654.  

 

The 6.2 and 6.6 share so L87, L8T, LT1, LT2, LT4 and LT5.  Rods are 12683811, mains are 12729655.  

[virtualdru]

On 4/27/2025 at 5:16 AM, Snow White said:

tnot many people do oil analysis, I am only at 2500 miles so my next oil change is coming in 1500 miles.  did the 1st one at 1000.  looked like normal wear but i'm a september build. 

Why do you mention the Sept build?  I believe I was 08/24 for my AT4 and I do not show the recall.

Nevermind! I found the article that mentions changes to the crankshaft and connecting rods were put into place on Jun 1 2024.

 

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2025/04/heres-why-gm-6-2l-v8-recall-doesnt-apply-to-2025-model-year-vehicles/

Edited April 29, 2025 by virtualdru

[newdude]

9 hours ago, GETGONE said:

Guess nobody watched the teardown video posted earlier. It was mentioned the crank journal wasn't machined straight so bearings were at an angle and seized in some cases in as few as 100 miles. The teardown was of an 8K mile engine.

 

 

Exactly.  Some other online spots they keep mentioning lifters and lifter bores which was a separate issue on the 6.2s.  GM hasn't 100% detailed this bottom end issue (they haven't come straight out and said they f'd up in detail) but does clearly make note in the FAQ for the recall that it was a manufacturing issue.

 

What is the issue or condition?

 

A2) The connecting rod and/or crankshaft engine components in these vehicles may have manufacturing defects that can lead to engine damage and engine failure.

Edited April 29, 2025 by newdude

[newdude]

On 4/27/2025 at 6:16 AM, Snow White said:

 I am only at 2500 miles so my next oil change is coming in 1500 miles.  did the 1st one at 1000.  looked like normal wear but i'm a september build.  it does have an unnerving rod knock sound but that could be a lot of things.  next oil change will be 0-40 and i'll be interested if the knock goes away.  i also run a range technology on our yukon 6.2. to eliminate dfm and start stop.

 

 

3 minutes ago, virtualdru said:

Why do you mention the Sept build?  I believe I was 08/24 for my AT4 and I do not show the recall.

 

 

Citing from the GM Authority article at the top of page 7;

 

This made us wonder: why isn’t the 2025 model year included in the recall? We asked General Motors, and here’s what they told us: “A series of crankshaft and connecting rod manufacturing improvements implemented on or before June 1^st, 2024, addressed contamination and quality issues. Model-year 2025 vehicles were built after these improvements and are not included in the recall.”