New bulletin/Campaign 6.2 L87

[dennismc]

When I run the vin on GMs website my truck shows recall under program #252494000, Status- Incomplete, Remedy not available. Build date is 3/27/21. When will the Status become complete?

It sounds like some have already had engine replacements with the recall,

[Andrew Martens]

The dealer says that for the missfire they are going to install all new fuel injectors. I believe they only go by truck build date for recalls 

[MrLeadFoot]

8 hours ago, dennismc said:

When I run the vin on GMs website my truck shows recall under program #252494000, Status- Incomplete, Remedy not available. Build date is 3/27/21. When will the Status become complete?

It sounds like some have already had engine replacements with the recall,

Status refers to whether or not you had a particular recall performed. So, it won't show complete until they perform the recall remedy which, in this case, has not yet been defined, so you can't complete it. 

[PunchT37]

32 minutes ago, Andrew Martens said:

The dealer says that for the missfire they are going to install all new fuel injectors. I believe they only go by truck build date for recalls 

Wow. Did that "new" engine come complete with new injectors? Should have. That should have been a plug and play engine.

Edited May 11, 2025 by PunchT37

[Andrew Martens]

Nope. No injectors, spark plugs, spark plug wires or intake manifold, etc.  Supposedly only items are installed on the engine which seals oil. I am trying to get them to install new spark plug wires as well. 

[MrLeadFoot]

1 hour ago, Andrew Martens said:

Nope. No injectors, spark plugs, spark plug wires or intake manifold, etc.  Supposedly only items are installed on the engine which seals oil. I am trying to get them to install new spark plug wires as well. 

If they truly believed it was purely a mechanical failure, it makes sense that they gave you a long block with heads, but no manifolds, etc. That said, with today's computer controlled engines, that still leaves a lot of stuff that might not possibly be put on correctly. Sometimes, it's something as simple as maybe a harness not getting plugged back in snugly enough, or something. But, it sounds like they've ruled out spark-related stuff (coils, plugs, wires), hence why they're thinking injectors.

 

Since it probably ran fine when they tested everything (otherwise they wouldn't have released it to you), they probably suspect something got into the fuel path during all the reassembling of things, and eventually clogged the injectors, and that's why you experienced the problem later. 

 

FWIW, on my last 3 motors that were worked hard, not one of them needed new wires, or plugs for that matter. Good plugs and wires seem to last forever these days. One I sold with 235,000 miles, the others I still have. One has 145,000 miles and one is a racing outboard engine hand-built in 1998, which is 27 years ago! Yes, I pulled plugs on all of them over the years/miles/hours but all plugs still looked good. Amazing.

Edited May 11, 2025 by MrLeadFoot

[GETGONE]

There was a service bulletin from quite a while ago for failed fuel injectors causing misfires.

[Andrew Martens]

The dealer did take my oil pan off and confirmed that the thrust bearing was no good. So kudos to the GM engineer who diagnosed that bearing just from a recording. But for GM engineers to investigate and claim only the certain vin ranges of 6.2 engines should have crank bearing problems as mine was built several months before the recall range, they obviously have a bigger problem

 

Would be interesting to see the percentage of engines so far that have blown that are outside of the range of recalls.

 

I just thought since they are now doing injectors and everything else is new how about some new wires as it is possible they could cause a miss fire as well. 
 

Also the truck misfired as I was driving away from the dealership from picking it up, which was at the end of the day. 

Edited May 11, 2025 by Andrew Martens

[MrLeadFoot]

40 minutes ago, Andrew Martens said:

The dealer did take my oil pan off and confirmed that the thrust bearing was no good. So kudos to the GM engineer who diagnosed that bearing just from a recording. But for GM engineers to investigate and claim only the certain vin ranges of 6.2 engines should have crank bearing problems as mine was built several months before the recall range, they obviously have a bigger problem

 

Would be interesting to see the percentage of engines so far that have blown that are outside of the range of recalls.

 

I just thought since they are now doing injectors and everything else is new how about some new wires as it is possible they could cause a miss fire as well. 
 

Also the truck misfired as I was driving away from the dealership from picking it up, which was at the end of the day. 

I understand why you asked for wires. To me, a "mis-fire" is spark-related, but apparently these days that term can encompass fuel-related faults, too. 

 

In either case, I'm shocked to hear that they let you drive it home when it was misfiring/stuttering/hesitating. There is no excuse for that. Sounds like they didn't test drive it themselves for very long after putting it all back together before calling you. So sorry to hear of your problems. 

 

On another note, did you notice any new rattles after everything was put back together? 

Edited May 11, 2025 by MrLeadFoot

[Andrew Martens]

Nope it seams to be good other than the misfires.

 

The detail cleaning job though inside and out was phenomenal. The truck hasn’t been this clean in years 

[MrLeadFoot]

3 hours ago, Andrew Martens said:

Nope it seams to be good other than the misfires.

 

The detail cleaning job though inside and out was phenomenal. The truck hasn’t been this clean in years 

That's good to hear. Hope everything is good when you pick it up this week (I assume) . 

[Andrew Martens]

Going in on Wednesday for sure for the injectors. The dealer is checking with GM if they will approve wires. 

[customboss]

 

[MrLeadFoot]

16 hours ago, customboss said:

 

Whatever link you posted doesn't work for me. Any way you can post it differently?

Edited May 14, 2025 by MrLeadFoot

[customboss]

 

 

Posted 17 hours ago

•  

GM BLINKS FOR BREATHING SPACE??? Confusing a confused and pissed off customer base with more disappointment? 
Creating another problem. 

GM Recall Sparks Supply Chain Concerns Following Sudden Switch to dexos^® R SAE 0W-40

Tom Glenn 

Jobbersworld.com

General Motors has issued a large-scale safety recall affecting nearly 600,000 vehicles equipped with the 6.2L V8 L87 engine. The recall cites potential internal engine defects linked to crankshaft and bearing durability, which could lead to a sudden loss of propulsion. It applies to select 2021–2024 models, including the Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Suburban, and Tahoe; GMC Sierra 1500, Yukon, and Yukon XL; and Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV.

Under the recall procedure, GM dealerships will inspect affected engines. Units deemed fit for continued operation will receive an oil and filter change, and a new SAE 0W-40 fill cap. Critically, GM is mandating a change from the previously recommended dexos1 Gen3 SAE 0W-20 motor oil to dexos R SAE 0W-40.

This mid-year viscosity shift could have significant ramifications for the lubricants industry. If fully executed, the switch could displace approximately 570,000 gallons of 0W-20 motor oil while driving equivalent demand for SAE 0W-40 by year-end. The abrupt change creates volatility in inventory planning and purchasing patterns across the supply chain. Although the potential impact on volume accounts for only about 1.5% of U.S. passenger car motor oil (PCMO) demand, it is expected to significantly elevate the profile of SAE 0W-40—a viscosity grade that currently sees limited sales. In the aftermarket, consumers will likely face a price premium for this specialized oil.

While it is still too soon to determine how many vehicles will switch to 0W-40, the prospect of a widespread transition has raised concerns about potential supply shortages. The rapid shift could strain production capacities, leading to backorders and delays in fulfilling demand. Distributors, retailers, and quick-lube operators may face increasing difficulty securing adequate volumes, further complicating their ability to meet customer needs. A key challenge lies in the limited availability of dexos R-approved SAE 0W-40 motor oils. A review of General Motors’ official list of licensed dexos R products shows only four SAE 0W-40 formulations, all supplied exclusively by ExxonMobil. GM specifically recommends Mobil 1 Supercar dexos R SAE 0W-40 for the affected applications. This stands in sharp contrast to dexos1 Gen3 SAE 0W-20, which is broadly available and produced by nearly all major lubricant manufacturers.

As a result, dexos R-approved SAE 0W-40 oils are distributed by a much smaller pool of suppliers and may be challenging to procure. With such a constrained supply base, any surge in demand—such as that triggered by the recent GM recall—is likely to further strain availability.

Although other SAE 0W-40 motor oils can be found in the API licensee directory, only those supplied by ExxonMobil currently appear on GM’s official list of dexos R licensed brands. Expanding this list is likely to be lengthy, as the dexos certification procedure is rigorous and costly. Securing approval typically requires at least a year to complete all testing and administrative steps.

It is unclear whether GM has initiated efforts to approve additional products in light of the recent issue and associated remedy. The initial oil change under the recall is being performed at no cost to consumers, but is limited to service at GM dealerships. Consequently, it may take a considerable amount of time before other oils are approved and consumers are presented with broader options for service providers and oil brands.

The timing of the recall adds an additional layer of disruption. Taking place mid-year—after the majority of 2025 procurement plans have been finalized—it has the potential to significantly impact inventory allocations. Distributors are now faced with the need to reevaluate and adjust their ordering cycles, and in some cases, explore alternative supply sources to ensure sufficient volumes of SAE 0W-40 motor oil are available to meet updated demand forecasts.

While GM maintains that the recent change in oil viscosity is solely related to a specific crankshaft defect, the decision will likely reignite consumer skepticism toward low-viscosity motor oils. SAE 0W-20 has long been promoted for its fuel economy advantages; however, concerns persist regarding its performance in high-load and high-temperature conditions. The broader implications of this recall may extend well beyond the immediate issue, potentially influencing long-term consumer preferences and prompting original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to reevaluate their viscosity recommendations and formulation strategies.

This development also raises questions about the real-world acceptance of SAE XW-20 oils, which are expected to be introduced in future Class 8 diesel engines under the upcoming PC-12 specification.

GM has emphasized that the issue is isolated to a single engine platform and does not indicate a broader change in its stance on SAE 0W-20, which remains its primary recommended engine oil. V8 engines have become increasingly uncommon in modern passenger vehicles, and SAE 0W-20 has seen widespread adoption since its introduction by Honda and Toyota in 2009 for most gasoline-powered applications. Today, it is one of the fastest-growing viscosity grades globally, supported by an industry-wide push for improved fuel efficiency and reduced emissions. Aside from this specific case, no significant or widespread issues regarding using SAE 0W-20 have been reported.

Note: dexos® is a registered trademark of General Motors LLC“

Edited May 14, 2025 by customboss