BREAKING: GM is officially recalling the L87

[Stbentoak]

I think that is a formula for success. Multi wt 30 or 40, frequent changes, early early first oil change, Dfm/auto stop disabler, don’t lug it use tow haul when needed. No guarantee but I think your chances for a long and happy life are greatly increased.

The formula for success is picking a Duramax for this vehicle. You can read various, and many different forums and they certainly have had some small issues.... but by and large they had been bulletproof for both pickup trucks and Tahoe Yukon. They basically do about everything better except go faster from zero to 60. Which is the total non factor to an old goat like me....

 

[rizzuto]

I'm not sure, I had a breakdown just during the period of inactive DFM, when I was driving 150 km/h on the highway with a trailer

DFM is still active in tow/haul mode. The only way to turn DFM off is in L9. So you had a failure while DFM was active.

 

[Vladimir2306]

DFM is still active in tow/haul mode. The only way to turn DFM off is in L9. So you had a failure while DFM was active.

The Dfm deactivates at speeds in excess of 85 mph

 

[23Seven]

First time I ever heard of 85mph deactivation? I thought they were more apt to deactivate at freeway speed.

 

[Vladimir2306]

First time I ever heard of 85mph deactivation? I thought they were more apt to deactivate at freeway speed.

At high speed on the highway, they are deactivated

 

[WalleyeMikeIII]

I am convinced all these "bandaid" solutions: different oil, DFM disable, etc are just that. GM has stated root cause is:
1) Out of tolerance crankshaft machining
2) Sediment in Oil galleys of crankshaft and on connecting rods

The ability to get longevity out of the crank if the machining is not to design is slim. Eventually it is going to lead to bearing damage and ultimately failure.
If sediment is present, and clogs an oil pathway, the results are obvious.
If sediment is present and causes premature bearing wear or damage, a thicker oil may help for a while, but again, longevity not on our side.

Original bulletin said the expected population defective was 3%; we don't know how GM arrived at this, but living my life in quality for my day job, I can conjecture it was by inspecting incoming cranks and rods for the known defect, then doing some math. This 3% fail rate may grow over time in the field; or it may be the real number.

We see the complaints here, but 3% * 577k = 17.3k projected failures. That would imply 560k of these 6.2's are out there running fine (so far.) Other defects may be discovered later too, but for now, based on most of the reported failures we have seen on this forum, it seems the fails are consistent with GM's admitted root cause; and in the realm of the 3% they have discussed.

Even @Vladimir2306's issue, well documented in the other thread, seems like it could be caused from either 1 or 2 above, although the crank contact w/ the block could maybe point to the thrust bearing?

 

[GMCChevy]

I am convinced all these "bandaid" solutions: different oil, DFM disable, etc are just that. GM has stated root cause is:
1) Out of tolerance crankshaft machining
2) Sediment in Oil galleys of crankshaft and on connecting rods

The ability to get longevity out of the crank if the machining is not to design is slim. Eventually it is going to lead to bearing damage and ultimately failure.
If sediment is present, and clogs an oil pathway, the results are obvious.
If sediment is present and causes premature bearing wear or damage, a thicker oil may help for a while, but again, longevity not on our side.

Original bulletin said the expected population defective was 3%; we don't know how GM arrived at this, but living my life in quality for my day job, I can conjecture it was by inspecting incoming cranks and rods for the known defect, then doing some math. This 3% fail rate may grow over time in the field; or it may be the real number.

We see the complaints here, but 3% * 577k = 17.3k projected failures. That would imply 560k of these 6.2's are out there running fine (so far.) Other defects may be discovered later too, but for now, based on most of the reported failures we have seen on this forum, it seems the fails are consistent with GM's admitted root cause; and in the realm of the 3% they have discussed.

Even @Vladimir2306's issue, well documented in the other thread, seems like it could be caused from either 1 or 2 above, although the crank contact w/ the block could maybe point to the thrust bearing?

It is a bandaid. You shouldn't have to do anything special and baby it to make it last. Why even bother owning a 6.2 one at that point.

 

[Scarey]

Agreed, GM failed miserably and these are all bandaids. But when you have an 85k truck you can’t trade or sell, these are your best options. I was driving a 2002 5.3 up until I bought my 6.2 last summer. Stupid me, I thought the internal gas engine technology had probably advanced in the 22 years since my last gm.

 

[DuraYuk]

Agreed, GM failed miserably and these are all bandaids. But when you have an 85k truck you can’t trade or sell, these are your best options. I was driving a 2002 5.3 up until I bought my 6.2 last summer. Stupid me, I thought the internal gas engine technology had probably advanced in the 22 years since my last gm.

I know no one cars since this is 90pages of circles but the tundra/some lexus...a toyota....had engines recalled because of debris. And yet resale is unaffected and its business as usual.

But it's whatever. Let's get this to 100pages!

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a61708841/toyota-tundra-lexus-lx-engine-replacement-recall/#:~:text=Toyota%20and%20Lexus%20will%20replace,2022%20and%202023%20model%20years.

 

[vcode]

2002 chevy silverado 2500hd for sale by owner - Damascus, OR - craigslist

Our beautiful 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 HD V8 6.0L long bed 4x4 Only 116,000 miles This truck has ZERO issues Runs awesome Drives awesome Shifts amazing Everything works on it AC blows ice cold...

bend.craigslist.org

That's awesome. But what if 10K people suddenly want one?

 

[DontTaseMeBro]

I am convinced all these "bandaid" solutions: different oil, DFM disable, etc are just that. GM has stated root cause is:
1) Out of tolerance crankshaft machining
2) Sediment in Oil galleys of crankshaft and on connecting rods

The ability to get longevity out of the crank if the machining is not to design is slim. Eventually it is going to lead to bearing damage and ultimately failure.
If sediment is present, and clogs an oil pathway, the results are obvious.
If sediment is present and causes premature bearing wear or damage, a thicker oil may help for a while, but again, longevity not on our side.

Original bulletin said the expected population defective was 3%; we don't know how GM arrived at this, but living my life in quality for my day job, I can conjecture it was by inspecting incoming cranks and rods for the known defect, then doing some math. This 3% fail rate may grow over time in the field; or it may be the real number.

We see the complaints here, but 3% * 577k = 17.3k projected failures. That would imply 560k of these 6.2's are out there running fine (so far.) Other defects may be discovered later too, but for now, based on most of the reported failures we have seen on this forum, it seems the fails are consistent with GM's admitted root cause; and in the realm of the 3% they have discussed.

Even @Vladimir2306's issue, well documented in the other thread, seems like it could be caused from either 1 or 2 above, although the crank contact w/ the block could maybe point to the thrust bearing?

It's already more than 3% since they(GM) identified 28,102 field complaints or incidents in the US potentially related to failure of the L87 engine. And that number is growing.

 

[Vladimir2306]

We have only one engine out of ten that does not require revision and refinement. 9 new engines out of 10 were made in violation of GM standards. So do the math yourself, most likely 9 out of 10 cars will break down. Moreover, I thought that my engine for 75,000 miles bored out clearances, but no. Even after a run of 75,000 miles, the piston moves in the cylinder with great effort.

 

[WalleyeMikeIII]

It's already more than 3% since they(GM) identified 28,102 field complaints or incidents in the US potentially related to failure of the L87 engine. And that number is growing.

"Complaint" does not necessarily indicate failure for the shown root cause...but I agree it is growing, and continues to do so daily.

 

[DontTaseMeBro]

"Complaint" does not necessarily indicate failure for the shown root cause...but I agree it is growing, and continues to do so daily.

Correct, however we both know that more than likely it’s because of the said root cause. Otherwise they wouldn’t have stated that figure during the recall announcement.

 

[WalleyeMikeIII]

Production ramp at Tonawanda Powertrain

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2025/05/gm-tonawanda-plant-to-work-overtime-to-build-more-l87-engines/

 

[nomech]

"EPA chief Lee Zeldin to kill car feature ‘everyone hates’"

"WASHINGTON — Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin hinted Monday that he’s preparing to roll back one car feature that every driver “hates.”

“Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy,” Zeldin tweeted Monday in a post that has since racked up more than 8 million views.

“EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it.”

The feature kills internal combustion engines at red lights and has been touted by proponents for being able to conserve fuel and cut down on pollution."

No information, yet, on how this will play out, but I would like to see an OTA update that has a settings option that allows this to be off by default. I'd say I'm 90% at remembering to disable right after I start my vehicle.

 

[WalleyeMikeIII]

Updated NHTSA recall notice published. Says notification and remedy for the 000 recall now will be phased between Jun 9 and Sep 30. PG 6, Recall Schedule. And so it begins…

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2025/RCLRPT-25V274-1938.PDF

 

[23Seven]

I have been running my Tahoe in L9 since day 1 I hate afm/dfm and like to make sure all 8 are firing 100% of the time. With that said I’m 5000 miles in and have yet to see this rig burn a drop of oil. I also have friends with 5.3’s and 6.2’s burning oil regularly but they let dfm go through its motions.

The motors are designed to be V8’s, Chevy small blocks were bullet proof for a long time running as designed. I still think if you trash DFM and run 5/30 or 0/40 you are helping the situation. I mean just think of all the stress when only 1 or 2 pistons and rods are tweaking the crank while the other dead cylinders sit quietly by. True fix is dump the garbage lifters and replace with a regular lifters and a new cam. Run the intended weight oil and enjoy 200-300k of True V8 power before any rebuilding.

 

[BADRIDES]

Updated NHTSA recall notice published. Says notification and remedy for the 000 recall now will be phased between Jun 9 and Sep 30. PG 6, Recall Schedule. And so it begins…

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2025/RCLRPT-25V274-1938.PDF

They can have phase dates all they want but its parts they wont have

 

[griffin99]

Any ideas why a particular 2021-2024 Yukon Denali with the 6.2 isn't found in the GMC database? I thought it covered all 21-24s. I'm searching here: https://www.gmc.com/ownercenter/recalls

Thanks.