New bulletin/Campaign 6.2 L87

[WeGone]

14 minutes ago, PunchT37 said:

Sediments and crank dimensions/ finish. After all these model years, I wonder why the Camaro and Vette 6.2`s are fine?

I was thinking the same thing??

[taze]

I've done an oil change at 1,000 miles on my new vehicles. I wonder if that's going to save me in this instance? I noticed the recall in my Chevrolet app, so I guess we'll find out...

[GETGONE]

18 minutes ago, taze said:

I've done an oil change at 1,000 miles on my new vehicles. I wonder if that's going to save me in this instance? I noticed the recall in my Chevrolet app, so I guess we'll find out...

Did the first oil change on mine at around 1,000 miles as well. I wanted to change it at 500 but was busy and didn't have time to until 1K miles. I also run a magnet on the bottom of the oil filter and it has caught quite a lot of metallic particles the last 2 oil changes. I'm at 31K currently and change it at 6K miles.

[MrLeadFoot]

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/

[KARNUT]

Sometimes people make comments about me not personally owning a new Chevy. The family business I’m associated with owns over 50 trucks from 1/2 up to 11/2 ton service trucks. So we’re probably buying several a year. Before retirement that was one of my jobs. There’s two service trucks I bought that have the 6.0 engine. The others are Ford diesel. Yes even one Ram. My other brother runs 35 ROW crews with his son. Mostly Fords. Some of our sales people drive Chevy trading every two years. Then there’s the Super Snake, Raptor R, along with the TRX that’s part of the fleet. Every one on a spread sheet. Then there’s our costumers. All the brands are covered even Toyota. My nephew just had his 2 year old Ford go down at 100K miles. Out of warranty of course. Our lighter used 3/4 tons are being changed to gas. Emissions have taken reliability out of the diesels. My brother is a little nervous about his wife’s caddie it has the 6.2. With the recent failure of the Ford gas engine we’re hoping that’s not a pattern. That could hurt. One customer lost a Toyota engine. Toyota was on it. Our few Chevys have been fine there’s no 6.2s. We have some old 7.3s and 5.9s that are still going. The thing that would bother me the most is the years it took to make this determination. Our experience has been GM likes to hide problems. We’ve been through hundreds of trucks. There’re not getting better. We keep around 10 spares now. It used to be two. Used stuff are my new hobby. I still get something every two years. My kids and grandkids are happy I’m car crazy. There’s five floating around with them. My grandson is about to get the avalanche. As far as new stuff I’m engaged. I can drive any brand anytime. Maybe not the super snake. My brother got a lock on that one.

[dlavigne]

Is GM going to extend the warranty? Looks like my truck has the recall and either scenario is a bad solution. Replacing the engine or changing the oil to a thicker oil. You spend $80k+ on a truck and this is what you get. If they warrantied the engine for the life of the vehicle. I would be good. 

[Pinnacle]

On 4/24/2025 at 9:36 PM, tbarn said:

New bulletin/Campaign for '21 -"24 Silverado, Sierra etc with 6.2 L87 engine. Has to do with engine sudden stop (blown). Very early. No parts available at this time. NOT ALL 6.2's are involved. Which ones is unknown. Dealers have a list of inventory to inspect and stop sale if inspection fails. No much of an inspection though. Check for P0016. If it is there then stop sale. If not then change oil and filter to 0-40, change oil fill cap to reflect new oil grade, send it. Again NO PARTS at this time.

Hey bud

 

I came across one of your posts about you doing a fix on trucks with regards to the Power assist recall .  Im having this similar type of issue on my moms 2017 Sonic where she turns the wheel and it will sometimes take over and over compensate and turn the wheels more then it should be. have you seen this before , is there a fix?

 

Thanks 

[diyer2]

18 minutes ago, dlavigne said:

Is GM going to extend the warranty? Looks like my truck has the recall and either scenario is a bad solution. Replacing the engine or changing the oil to a thicker oil. You spend $80k+ on a truck and this is what you get. If they warrantied the engine for the life of the vehicle. I would be good. 

It is what it is.

[Probity]

I don’t have a 6.2L in my ’24, but as a new-to-GM owner again after 48 years (last new GM truck a ’76 Sierra) I’m sort of interested in this issue. Like others, am curious about/would like to know the details on what specific issues were identified at American Axle and Questum Macimex, corrective measures taken, etc. The engine oil viscosity issue is a whole other matter that I’m sure will be debated at great length.

 

But I’m not sure we’ll ever get all the AA/QM gory details. I’m not familiar enough with the NHTSA procedures/protocols involved in initiating/completing Investigations and Recalls, timelines, what publicly available information will ultimately end up in the NHTSA Investigations site for this 6.2L issue.

 

My previous ride was a F-150 with the 2.7L Nano EB engine and I got very interested in the MY2021/2022 “loss of motive power/intake valves may break” Investigation and subsequent recall with the 2.7L Nano engines (a much smaller population of potentially affected vehicles - ~90k versus the ~600k for the 6.2L). This was Ford’s Silchrome 1 vs. Silchrome Lite controversy. I did a fairly deep dive into the NHTSA docs available on this, and was able to learn a fair bit about the issues at the Eaton Kearney facility that made the intake valves, what corrective measures were taken, etc.

 

But the whole NHTSA process for this Ford 2.7L problem was different than that with the GM 6.2L (and different than that with the Toyota MY2022-2023 V35A engine issue/recall).

 

Ford actively fought issuing a recall. The NHTSA’s ODI first opened a prelim. evaluation of the intake valve problem in July 2022 (requiring 18 specific info requests to be answered), upgraded to an Engineering Analysis in Sept. 2023. On Ford’s side, they had begun investigating the problem in July 2021, claimed they had determined the root cause(s) and initiated corrective actions, and had eliminated the problem for vehicles produced after Oct. 2021. But Ford pushed back issuing a recall. Finally in Aug. 2024 Ford caved and issued their recall. Before the recall was issued, the Investigation site was populated with numerous (66) documents from Ford and Eaton, running hundreds if not thousands of pages. A majority of these docs were heavily redacted (some 99% or more – confidentiality issues), but there was enough unredacted info for me to see in some detail the root cause(s) [Silchrome Lite material, machining and grinding, QAQC checks), and corrective actions taken (go back to using Silchrome 1, manufacturing process and QAQC changes). One big take-away for me was that even though the issue involved only MY2021-20222 2.7L Nano’s, the switch from using Silchrome 1 material to using Silchrome Lite was actually made in 2018 for MY2018 and beyond engines – and was the result of a ‘cost reduction’ effort in 2018 (imagine that!).

 

The GM 6.2L Investigation/Recall is different. NHTSA’s ODI first opened a prelim. evaluation of the problem in Jan. 2025. 14 (not 18 like Ford had to answer) specific info requests from ODI to be answered by GM before March 28, 2025. GM petitioned for (and received from NHTSA) an extension until late April 2025 to answer many of these info requests. Then from GM, they issued their safety recall on April 24, 2025. And at the same time, GM has told NHTSA (as of today) that for 3 of the Investigation info requests (#2, #9, #10) they are claiming a “Confidential Business Information (CBI) request from the manufacturer for the entirety of each document.” So I’m not confident in seeing root cause/corrective action details in future, but who knows, time will tell.

 

GM has told NHTSA that they “closed three prior investigations into this condition in February 2022, June 2023, and July 2024 based on the available safety field information.”. And that they’ve ‘fixed’ the problem (“A series of crankshaft and connecting rod manufacturing improvements implemented on or before June 1, 2024, addressed contamination and quality issues”). So presumably problem root cause(s) and corrective actions are known and corrected. But right now only GM, American Axle and Questum Macimex know what they are.

 

Toyota’s problem with their V35A engines was an even different process – no NHTSA Investigation, Toyota went straight to recall.

 

So it’s all interesting stuff, but at the end of the day, knowing exactly what the root causes were and exactly what corrective actions were taken for the 6.2L is probably not in my future.

[tjonesdfw]

12 minutes ago, Probity said:

I don’t have a 6.2L in my ’24, but as a new-to-GM owner again after 48 years (last new GM truck a ’76 Sierra) I’m sort of interested in this issue. Like others, am curious about/would like to know the details on what specific issues were identified at American Axle and Questum Macimex, corrective measures taken, etc. The engine oil viscosity issue is a whole other matter that I’m sure will be debated at great length.

 

But I’m not sure we’ll ever get all the AA/QM gory details. I’m not familiar enough with the NHTSA procedures/protocols involved in initiating/completing Investigations and Recalls, timelines, what publicly available information will ultimately end up in the NHTSA Investigations site for this 6.2L issue.

 

My previous ride was a F-150 with the 2.7L Nano EB engine and I got very interested in the MY2021/2022 “loss of motive power/intake valves may break” Investigation and subsequent recall with the 2.7L Nano engines (a much smaller population of potentially affected vehicles - ~90k versus the ~600k for the 6.2L). This was Ford’s Silchrome 1 vs. Silchrome Lite controversy. I did a fairly deep dive into the NHTSA docs available on this, and was able to learn a fair bit about the issues at the Eaton Kearney facility that made the intake valves, what corrective measures were taken, etc.

 

But the whole NHTSA process for this Ford 2.7L problem was different than that with the GM 6.2L (and different than that with the Toyota MY2022-2023 V35A engine issue/recall).

 

Ford actively fought issuing a recall. The NHTSA’s ODI first opened a prelim. evaluation of the intake valve problem in July 2022 (requiring 18 specific info requests to be answered), upgraded to an Engineering Analysis in Sept. 2023. On Ford’s side, they had begun investigating the problem in July 2021, claimed they had determined the root cause(s) and initiated corrective actions, and had eliminated the problem for vehicles produced after Oct. 2021. But Ford pushed back issuing a recall. Finally in Aug. 2024 Ford caved and issued their recall. Before the recall was issued, the Investigation site was populated with numerous (66) documents from Ford and Eaton, running hundreds if not thousands of pages. A majority of these docs were heavily redacted (some 99% or more – confidentiality issues), but there was enough unredacted info for me to see in some detail the root cause(s) [Silchrome Lite material, machining and grinding, QAQC checks), and corrective actions taken (go back to using Silchrome 1, manufacturing process and QAQC changes). One big take-away for me was that even though the issue involved only MY2021-20222 2.7L Nano’s, the switch from using Silchrome 1 material to using Silchrome Lite was actually made in 2018 for MY2018 and beyond engines – and was the result of a ‘cost reduction’ effort in 2018 (imagine that!).

 

The GM 6.2L Investigation/Recall is different. NHTSA’s ODI first opened a prelim. evaluation of the problem in Jan. 2025. 14 (not 18 like Ford had to answer) specific info requests from ODI to be answered by GM before March 28, 2025. GM petitioned for (and received from NHTSA) an extension until late April 2025 to answer many of these info requests. Then from GM, they issued their safety recall on April 24, 2025. And at the same time, GM has told NHTSA (as of today) that for 3 of the Investigation info requests (#2, #9, #10) they are claiming a “Confidential Business Information (CBI) request from the manufacturer for the entirety of each document.” So I’m not confident in seeing root cause/corrective action details in future, but who knows, time will tell.

 

GM has told NHTSA that they “closed three prior investigations into this condition in February 2022, June 2023, and July 2024 based on the available safety field information.”. And that they’ve ‘fixed’ the problem (“A series of crankshaft and connecting rod manufacturing improvements implemented on or before June 1, 2024, addressed contamination and quality issues”). So presumably problem root cause(s) and corrective actions are known and corrected. But right now only GM, American Axle and Questum Macimex know what they are.

 

Toyota’s problem with their V35A engines was an even different process – no NHTSA Investigation, Toyota went straight to recall.

 

So it’s all interesting stuff, but at the end of the day, knowing exactly what the root causes were and exactly what corrective actions were taken for the 6.2L is probably not in my future.

Great post pointing out the difference in how this has been handled by GM vs other manufacturers.  #2 was the number and nature of the complaints, crashes, injuries etc. and the causal and contributing factors.  Clearly GM doesn't want to disclose either of those and is running PR damage control with that CBI request.  #9 pertained to the investigations, testing, etc. GM performed to ascertain the problem as well as the associated engineering group and suppliers, and #10 to any modification and/or change implemented, and identification of the part numbers affected.  I assume most manufacturers would claim CBI on those two requests, but as you said, it sure doesn't instill any consumer confidence to hide the information requested #9 and #10 entirely and not just redact "confidential" information.  Consumers therefore have no concrete evidence that GM has fixed the issues in replacement motors, or '25 and '26 models other than the vague statement they released.  My guess is GM's main effort is to get as many vehicles as far out of warranty as possible, then attempt to fix the issue with the '27 redesign and next gen motor.  

[PunchT37]

7 minutes ago, tjonesdfw said:

Great post pointing out the difference in how this has been handled by GM vs other manufacturers.  #2 was the number and nature of the complaints, crashes, injuries etc. and the causal and contributing factors.  Clearly GM doesn't want to disclose either of those and is running PR damage control with that CBI request.  #9 pertained to the investigations, testing, etc. GM performed to ascertain the problem as well as the associated engineering group and suppliers, and #10 to any modification and/or change implemented, and identification of the part numbers affected.  I assume most manufacturers would claim CBI on those two requests, but as you said, it sure doesn't instill any consumer confidence to hide the information requested #9 and #10 entirely and not just redact "confidential" information.  Consumers therefore have no concrete evidence that GM has fixed the issues in replacement motors, or '25 and '26 models other than the vague statement they released.  My guess is GM's main effort is to get as many vehicles as far out of warranty as possible, then attempt to fix the issue with the '27 redesign and next gen motor.  

`27 redesign? IF that doesn`t have any problems.

[tjonesdfw]

1 hour ago, dlavigne said:

Is GM going to extend the warranty? Looks like my truck has the recall and either scenario is a bad solution. Replacing the engine or changing the oil to a thicker oil. You spend $80k+ on a truck and this is what you get. If they warrantied the engine for the life of the vehicle. I would be good. 

I doubt GM will extend the warranty for the life of the vehicle, but they "should" extend the recalled vehicles powertrain warranties, and warrant subsequent replacement engines for a period of time as good will to customers.  From the owners I know that have already had this replacement done though, GM only warrantied things through their factory powertrain coverage that was tied to their original vehicle in service date.  I suspect if you were close to the end of your powertrain coverage, you might receive a token extension if you made a big stink with GM customer service.  Bottom line though is GM nor any other manufacturer really cares about the consumer... with numbers like this, its all driven by the bottom line, NOT doing what's right.  There's no way an auto manufacturer could do what's right for the consumer, and simultaneously be competitively profitable against the others who don't.  

[tjonesdfw]

Just now, PunchT37 said:

`27 redesign? IF that doesn`t have any problems.

Exactly, with their track record, I don't think I'll "trust" a next gen small block until its had a few years of miles and reports.  My dilemma like many others is, the options are limited and they all have their own issues.  You're just picking one of multiple evils these days.    

[PunchT37]

Three things in common with all these manufacturer`s problems today. Gas or diesel. Two are oil related and one govt. related.

 

OR, one can say, all govt. related.

[66ss3964spd]

20 minutes ago, Probity said:

...knowing exactly what the root causes were and exactly what corrective actions were taken for the 6.2L is probably not in my future.

Probably not in any consumers/owners future, though many of us sure would like to know.

 

This was posted above; "NOT ALL 6.2's are involved. Which ones is unknown." The way I read the recall all 6.2's from the listed model years (there's probably a start month in '21 and an end month in '24) are affected by the recall, though not all actually have the defect(s). It doesn't appear that GM can actually determine, by VIN, which do and don't within that date range. If they could the recall would state as much and the number would be smaller; publicity wise it would certainly be in GM's interest for that number to be as small as possible. 600k is a devastating number.

 

Part of the recall is to scan for a P0016 DTC. P0016 is basically a rotational timing difference between the crank and the cam that the ECU does not expect to see. Given the defect(s), rod and/or crank bearing failure, I be really interested to know exactly how P0016 can point to imminent or current bearing failure.