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?