apex944
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2024
- Posts
- 65
- Reaction score
- 27
I briefly outlined my failure scenario in this post. Here is my plan to request that GMC deal with the situation BEFORE I have a safety issue at speed.
My Argument:
“GM’s known defective L87 engine is continuing to generate objective wear evidence after the recall remedy, and GM’s own recall exists because the defect can cause loss of propulsion. I want a documented warranty decision now, not after a highway failure.”
My Request:
“This vehicle continues to show abnormal internal engine wear metals after the L87 recall remedy/Pico test. I am requesting diagnosis for ongoing crankshaft, connecting rod, and bearing deterioration under recall 25V-274, Special Coverage N252494003, and the GM powertrain warranty. Please open a repair order and attach my oil analysis reports, and opened filter media photos.”
My Plan:
1. Get a formal repair order. The RO should mention excessive wear metals, L87 recall, suspected bearing/crank/rod wear, and my request for engine replacement or further diagnosis.
2. Ask Service Manager to open a GM TAC case / field engineer review.
A dealer can't authorize preemptive replacement, but GM technical assistance can.
3. Ask them to cut open and inspect the current oil filter, document debris, and run any GM-approved diagnostics beyond Pico. My oil reports become stronger if paired with physical filter evidence.
4. Will escalate to GM Customer Assistance and ask for a case number, not just a service appointment. GM’s own warranty/lemon-law help page tells customers with ongoing warranty or repair problems to contact GM directly.
5. Will file an NHTSA complaint.
NHTSA has already opened Recall Query RQ26001 specifically because it received complaints of L87 engine failures after the recall remedy was completed, and it is assessing whether GM’s remedy is adequate.
6. I will talk to a lemon-law/warranty attorney before accepting any GM settlement or trade-assist offer. My case is better than a normal complaint because GM has already acknowledged the L87 defect, NHTSA has an open post-remedy inquiry, and I have serial oil-analysis data and physical wear evidence.
PS - I suggest everyone with a 6.2L get a used oil analysis, have an indy cut open your filter, photograph it and file the same requests as outlined above. Together we are stronger.
My Argument:
“GM’s known defective L87 engine is continuing to generate objective wear evidence after the recall remedy, and GM’s own recall exists because the defect can cause loss of propulsion. I want a documented warranty decision now, not after a highway failure.”
My Request:
“This vehicle continues to show abnormal internal engine wear metals after the L87 recall remedy/Pico test. I am requesting diagnosis for ongoing crankshaft, connecting rod, and bearing deterioration under recall 25V-274, Special Coverage N252494003, and the GM powertrain warranty. Please open a repair order and attach my oil analysis reports, and opened filter media photos.”
My Plan:
1. Get a formal repair order. The RO should mention excessive wear metals, L87 recall, suspected bearing/crank/rod wear, and my request for engine replacement or further diagnosis.
2. Ask Service Manager to open a GM TAC case / field engineer review.
A dealer can't authorize preemptive replacement, but GM technical assistance can.
3. Ask them to cut open and inspect the current oil filter, document debris, and run any GM-approved diagnostics beyond Pico. My oil reports become stronger if paired with physical filter evidence.
4. Will escalate to GM Customer Assistance and ask for a case number, not just a service appointment. GM’s own warranty/lemon-law help page tells customers with ongoing warranty or repair problems to contact GM directly.
5. Will file an NHTSA complaint.
NHTSA has already opened Recall Query RQ26001 specifically because it received complaints of L87 engine failures after the recall remedy was completed, and it is assessing whether GM’s remedy is adequate.
6. I will talk to a lemon-law/warranty attorney before accepting any GM settlement or trade-assist offer. My case is better than a normal complaint because GM has already acknowledged the L87 defect, NHTSA has an open post-remedy inquiry, and I have serial oil-analysis data and physical wear evidence.
PS - I suggest everyone with a 6.2L get a used oil analysis, have an indy cut open your filter, photograph it and file the same requests as outlined above. Together we are stronger.
