Jump to content

NHTSA expanding recall for these CRAPPY GM 6.2's

johnnyquick
 Share

Recommended Posts

customboss Senior Enthusiast

customboss

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

A year ago I bought a new car which called for 0W20 oil. It had like 20 miles on the odometer. I asked the sales guy to have the shop change the oil (car was near a year since manufacture) and to do so with a 5W30. This car has a 10 year/100,000 mile power train warranty. 

 

The immediate response was "We will void your warranty".  I asked why naturally. They said because the 'Book calls for 0W20". I had a home market owners manual and pages from the English owners manual on me expecting this pushback which noted the home market spec was 10W40 and the English cars 5W30. "On what basis would the warranty be voided, exactly"? They repeated the "in the US' line of garbage. 

 

I reminded the sales person and now the service manager who has joined the conversation that the Magnuson Moss Law placed the burden of proof for rejecting the claim on the OEM and must be based on PROOF the product I selected was the root cause for the failure, meaning a failure has to have already occurred...meaning voiding my warranty out of hand was illegal  and actionable. He agreed I could get "all litigious' on them and I explained that not only could I but would. They pulled the waiver off the table they had asked me sign. Change the oil as I requested and noted it in their record. Charged me $100 for one of the eight free oil changes the contract provided, then went out of business less than six months later. 

 

Before I left I explained that I provided my own warranties and guarantees. "I guarantee that if I buy this product from you and have an issue you will not stand behind it will be the only Brand-X car that my entire family will ever buy from them. 

 

That explanation got me a new motor in a Honda Civic that had a casting flaw that didn't show up for a few thousand miles past the warranty (I had been bringing it in for ten thousand miles before complaining of coolant losses and water in the oil). I asked the look at my buying history. Three Civics in 15 year and asked if they would like this one to be the last. He took the keys and called me a week later...It turned out to be a "know issue" with a TSB they just tried to bully me out of. I keep receipts. 

 

Someone tells me so sad to bad that I spent $70K+ on a dead horse in 36,001 miles with a pending TSB and after winning that suit I take out an add and stop buying the mark. :wtf:

 

They will do what you allow them to do. They are good at frightening people and being bullies. But this is a case where law is in your corner and the suit is free when you win. You win by following the LAW and not the claim about what the law says. 

 

Reasonable is not a word in the OEM dictionary. Litigation is. I'm not sue happy but I am also not a door mat to be stolen from. 

 

 

 

Thanks to YAWEH for US GOV was there to correct GM’s incompetence. 

asilverblazer Senior Enthusiast

asilverblazer

Posted
Posted
On 11/22/2025 at 8:39 PM, johnnyquick said:

My truck was drinking oil initially, I ran some heavy detergent diesel oil through it and switched to 5-30 and 10-30 in the summer and that essentially stopped the consumption, my engine failed 2 excessive consumption tests prior to that.

New information, and I can adjust my opinion accordingly... An engine with a documented history relative to the failure is worthy of further consideration in the event of a failure after the warranty expired - to an extent.

 

On 11/22/2025 at 8:39 PM, johnnyquick said:

...but will contend that if you are an adult male over age 40 then you KNOW that an engine should last longer than that...

Should - not shall. This is the same point we keep coming back to, just because we think it SHOULD doesn't make the manufacturer liable to make sure it does.

 

On 11/22/2025 at 8:39 PM, johnnyquick said:

(of course  you can try to argue that, and I said over 40 because under 40 seems to be the age group that has little intellect or ability in most areas, not all of them but most of them.)

That's funny.

 

On 11/22/2025 at 8:39 PM, johnnyquick said:

So I as well as others have the right to feel cheated if their engine craps out anytime before 100K miles IMO as that is a "reasonable expectation" of a products performance.

I even googled a Reasonable expectation for a gasoline V8 engine for my numbers to verify that angle as well as the AI and it is over 150k miles

Then take GM to court and find out how reasonable your expectation is. If I were to bet on the outcome, it wouldn't be in your favor.

 

On 11/22/2025 at 8:39 PM, johnnyquick said:

GM having KNOWN of these issues was cheating its customers by continuing to sell them and even as far back as 2020 I believe dealers were being told to run the engines at a certain rpm for X amount of time to see of anything happened to them before being sold.

I would be sure to include that in your suit against GM.

 

On 11/22/2025 at 8:39 PM, johnnyquick said:

Definition of reasonable expectation according to the WEBZ..lol "Reasonable expectation for a product refers to the safety and performance standards that an average consumer anticipates when using that product. If a product fails to meet these expectations, it may be considered defective or unreasonably dangerous under product liability laws"

I agree, there is an entire courts system ready and able to determine, whether your expectation regarding the longevity of your engine is reasonable and that GM should pay for it. A recall already exists for certain ones. 

 

You weren't cheated and GM doesn't owe you anything. Until a court of law finds otherwise.

  • Haha 1
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 11/24/2025 at 11:40 AM, asilverblazer said:

You weren't cheated and GM doesn't owe you anything. Until a court of law finds otherwise.

 

I know I'm going to regret kicking this dog, but.....

 

Until a court of law finds otherwise? 🤔 :dunno:

 

Being cheated isn't something a court can decide. It can only decide if an ascertain WILL be rewarded and the act LAWFUL.  Not should, not could. Courts don't decide "moral issues". They decide issues of law. 

 

I buy a horse. Seller told me the horse "Don't 'look' so good". I think it looks fine. Then I find the horse I bought is blind and I sue for deceptive sales practice. Court says I was not deceived and was told the horse "didn't see well". NOT what I was told nor what was meant. I'm denied my claim on a point of law. However, the seller knew well he cheated me and violated his "moral responsibility' to be honest.

 

Moral correctness only matters to people with moral character. Law maters to cheats and liars and those taken by them. 

Edited by Grumpy Bear
  • Like 1
asilverblazer Senior Enthusiast

asilverblazer

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Courts don't decide "moral issues". They decide issues of law. 

 

Moral correctness only matters to people with moral character. Law maters to cheats and liars and those taken by them. 

 

This rabbit hole might go pretty deep. I WANT businesses to behave morally (this means different things to different people) but a business is NOT a person that can have a moral compass. Instead, it is led by or has individual members within that may. Courts can and do decide if you were cheated including if you are owed something resulting from it.

 

17 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Court says I was not deceived and was told the horse "didn't see well". NOT what I was told nor what was meant. I'm denied my claim on a point of law. However, the seller knew well he cheated me and violated his "moral responsibility' to be honest.

In your example, it is not an interaction between an individual and a faceless corporation, it is between two humans, each with their own moral compass. Which, I personally view a little different than the situation at hand and I personally put more onus on the seller in this case to conduct themselves honorably. Additionally, your example illustrates better a gentlemen's agreement compared to the extensive legal documents, including disclosures, warranties, obligations, recourse, etc.  involved with a vehicle purchase. The bold portion above I think has other merits that would be probed more carefully in court than this hypothetical situation warrants - but it would be established whether the seller knew and tried to deceive you. If those turned out to be true, I doubt you would lose. However, it could be surmised that if you did lose - then you were in fact NOT cheated.

 

Law is not governed by feelings or morality. BEING cheated and having legal recourse as a result of that is not the same as FEELING cheated.

 

In this case, until a trial establishes all the facts, actions, deceptions, deficiencies, failure to perform, neglect, etc. Feeling cheated does not mean the other party is liable.

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, asilverblazer said:

Law is not governed by feelings or morality. BEING cheated and having legal recourse as a result of that is not the same as FEELING cheated.

 

In this case, until a trial establishes all the facts, actions, deceptions, deficiencies, failure to perform, neglect, etc. Feeling cheated does not mean the other party is liable.

 

Interesting take. If I read the right you saying that to 'cheat' someone the word cheat isn't defined by morality or even by Oxford, Cambridge or Webster but but LAW. What the word means by Social Contract (Webster) or Morality (God) is irrelevant if LAW defines the word as circumstances agreed to by lobbies and lawmakers to mean something 'other' that what everyone who speaks the language knows it to mean. 

 

In that case I concede. No rational person can argue a single fact if the meanings of words are not first UNIFORMALLY agreed. 

 

I can punch a guy in the eye but if the LAW says punching is something one does on one foot and only if calico and I am neither then I have no guilt....according to LAW. Good to know...

 

No to the point. 'Feeling Cheated' may not win me a court case but it will keep that person from selling to me twice. Only a fool lets the same thief steal from them twice. You have a nice day there sir..

  • Like 1
asilverblazer Senior Enthusiast

asilverblazer

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Interesting take. If I read the right you saying that to 'cheat' someone the word cheat isn't defined by morality or even by Oxford, Cambridge or Webster but LAW. What the word means by Social Contract (Webster) or Morality (God) is irrelevant if LAW defines the word as circumstances agreed to by lobbies and lawmakers to mean something 'other' that what everyone who speaks the language knows it to mean. 

 

No to the point. 'Feeling Cheated' may not win me a court case but it will keep that person from selling to me twice. Only a fool lets the same thief steal from them twice. You have a nice day there sir..

 

On 11/24/2025 at 11:40 AM, asilverblazer said:

You weren't cheated and GM doesn't owe you anything. Until a court of law finds otherwise.

I don't disagree with the definition(s). The very fine distinction I am making is between being cheated such that you are owed something in recompence. More specifically, as it relates to the discussion with johnnyquick.

 

My opinion remains: buying a new truck from GM with all its warranties, maintenance requirements, etc. does not guarantee me an engine that will last beyond the warranty period. If it fails at 60,001 miles - I WAS NOT CHEATED.  It goes back to what 'legal' obligation did GM fail to perform? There might be other extemporaneous circumstances, willful negligence, denying know issues (the oil consumption note johnnyquick made would be an example). We might also have a 'reasonable' expectation the product last longer than the warranty - determined via law suit - until then, so sorry, the engine failed. But you weren't cheated.

 

And yes, I would be angry upset and mad if my engine failed at 60,001 miles because I have the same expectation that it should last longer. 

 

I readily acknowledge that GM has disappointed many with these flaws, but I am drawing a line that GM doesn't owe anyone anything for that 'disappointment'... Until a court of law finds otherwise.

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, asilverblazer said:

And yes, I would be angry upset and mad if my engine failed at 60,001 miles because I have the same expectation that it should last longer. 

 

I readily acknowledge that GM has disappointed many with these flaws, but I am drawing a line that GM doesn't owe anyone anything for that 'disappointment'... Until a court of law finds otherwise.

 

Agree! :) 

johnnyquick Enthusiast

johnnyquick

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 11/26/2025 at 3:18 PM, asilverblazer said:

 

I don't disagree with the definition(s). The very fine distinction I am making is between being cheated such that you are owed something in recompence. More specifically, as it relates to the discussion with johnnyquick.

 

My opinion remains: buying a new truck from GM with all its warranties, maintenance requirements, etc. does not guarantee me an engine that will last beyond the warranty period. If it fails at 60,001 miles - I WAS NOT CHEATED.  It goes back to what 'legal' obligation did GM fail to perform? There might be other extemporaneous circumstances, willful negligence, denying know issues (the oil consumption note johnnyquick made would be an example). We might also have a 'reasonable' expectation the product last longer than the warranty - determined via law suit - until then, so sorry, the engine failed. But you weren't cheated.

 

And yes, I would be angry upset and mad if my engine failed at 60,001 miles because I have the same expectation that it should last longer. 

 

I readily acknowledge that GM has disappointed many with these flaws, but I am drawing a line that GM doesn't owe anyone anything for that 'disappointment'... Until a court of law finds otherwise.

Just to be clear, I NEVER stated that GM owed me anything, however and I should have been more explanatory as Grumpy was, MORALLY GM cheated and continues to do so by selling an Engine with known failure rates that are abnormally high.

Yes all of your legal spegal may be correct in the court of law, but it does not make it right Kind of like a murderer getting off because his arrest warrant had the wrong zip code on it.

Anyway I will be selling mine by spring and moving on in the meantime, Caviar priced oil and 3000 miles max OCI's

GM will never get me again other than the wifes V series Escalade which is the tried and true LT4 or  handbuilt 6.2.

Happy Holidays to all you Gents

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,913
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Smitty462
    Newest Member
    Smitty462
    Joined

  • Who's Online   5 Members, 1 Anonymous, 649 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...