Complaints & Recalls
Consumer Complaints
22 ComplaintsGeneral Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
UNKNOWN OR OTHER
Potential Consequences:
Subject: Inadequate Anti-Theft Security – 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE To Whom It May Concern: I am filing this complaint regarding the lack of sufficient theft deterrent technology in the 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE, which directly contributed to my vehicle being stolen in July 2025. Despite being a high-performance vehicle valued at over $50,000, the Camaro lacks a modern immobilizer system, encrypted key access, or any active anti-theft protections to prevent increasingly common theft methods such as relay attacks, CAN injection, or signal spoofing. My vehicle was stolen in under one minute from a secure location, and the incident aligns with a growing national trend of GM vehicles being targeted due to these vulnerabilities. 2 years of $1,000 payments for it to be easily stolen is outrageous. I had full coverage insurance and was enrolled in OnStar, yet the recovery process was ineffective, and OnStar was unable to track the vehicle in time. Chevrolet and GM have not provided an adequate explanation for why newer models are being sold without basic theft-prevention technology that is now standard in vehicles from other manufacturers. Given the scale of this problem, I believe this represents a serious consumer safety and security issue, and GM should be required to: •Upgrade security firmware or modules in vulnerable models •Offer retrofitting of immobilizer technology or free anti-theft solutions •Notify owners of the known risk and potential theft vulnerability I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the scope of this issue and determine whether GM’s failure to implement industry-standard theft prevention constitutes a violation of consumer safety expectations. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, [XXX] Murrieta, CA [XXX] Phone: [XXX] Vehicle Info: •Year/Make/Model: 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE •VIN: [XXX] •Date of Theft: [XXX] •Location: Murrieta, CA INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Corrective Action:
Subject: Inadequate Anti-Theft Security – 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE To Whom It May Concern: I am filing this complaint regarding the lack of sufficient theft deterrent technology in the 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE, which directly contributed to my vehicle being stolen in July 2025. Despite being a high-performance vehicle valued at over $50,000, the Camaro lacks a modern immobilizer system, encrypted key access, or any active anti-theft protections to prevent increasingly common theft methods such as relay attacks, CAN injection, or signal spoofing. My vehicle was stolen in under one minute from a secure location, and the incident aligns with a growing national trend of GM vehicles being targeted due to these vulnerabilities. 2 years of $1,000 payments for it to be easily stolen is outrageous. I had full coverage insurance and was enrolled in OnStar, yet the recovery process was ineffective, and OnStar was unable to track the vehicle in time. Chevrolet and GM have not provided an adequate explanation for why newer models are being sold without basic theft-prevention technology that is now standard in vehicles from other manufacturers. Given the scale of this problem, I believe this represents a serious consumer safety and security issue, and GM should be required to: •Upgrade security firmware or modules in vulnerable models •Offer retrofitting of immobilizer technology or free anti-theft solutions •Notify owners of the known risk and potential theft vulnerability I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the scope of this issue and determine whether GM’s failure to implement industry-standard theft prevention constitutes a violation of consumer safety expectations. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, [XXX] Murrieta, CA [XXX] Phone: [XXX] Vehicle Info: •Year/Make/Model: 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE •VIN: [XXX] •Date of Theft: [XXX] •Location: Murrieta, CA INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Additional Notes:
Subject: Inadequate Anti-Theft Security – 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE To Whom It May Concern: I am filing this complaint regarding the lack of sufficient theft deterrent technology in the 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE, which directly contributed to my vehicle being stolen in July 2025. Despite being a high-performance vehicle valued at over $50,000, the Camaro lacks a modern immobilizer system, encrypted key access, or any active anti-theft protections to prevent increasingly common theft methods such as relay attacks, CAN injection, or signal spoofing. My vehicle was stolen in under one minute from a secure location, and the incident aligns with a growing national trend of GM vehicles being targeted due to these vulnerabilities. 2 years of $1,000 payments for it to be easily stolen is outrageous. I had full coverage insurance and was enrolled in OnStar, yet the recovery process was ineffective, and OnStar was unable to track the vehicle in time. Chevrolet and GM have not provided an adequate explanation for why newer models are being sold without basic theft-prevention technology that is now standard in vehicles from other manufacturers. Given the scale of this problem, I believe this represents a serious consumer safety and security issue, and GM should be required to: •Upgrade security firmware or modules in vulnerable models •Offer retrofitting of immobilizer technology or free anti-theft solutions •Notify owners of the known risk and potential theft vulnerability I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the scope of this issue and determine whether GM’s failure to implement industry-standard theft prevention constitutes a violation of consumer safety expectations. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, [XXX] Murrieta, CA [XXX] Phone: [XXX] Vehicle Info: •Year/Make/Model: 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE •VIN: [XXX] •Date of Theft: [XXX] •Location: Murrieta, CA INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Mfg Campaign: 11672384
Recall Date: Jul 9, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Potential Consequences:
Subject: Inadequate Anti-Theft Security – 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE To Whom It May Concern: I am filing this complaint regarding the lack of sufficient theft deterrent technology in the 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE, which directly contributed to my vehicle being stolen in July 2025. Despite being a high-performance vehicle valued at over $50,000, the Camaro lacks a modern immobilizer system, encrypted key access, or any active anti-theft protections to prevent increasingly common theft methods such as relay attacks, CAN injection, or signal spoofing. My vehicle was stolen in under one minute from a secure location, and the incident aligns with a growing national trend of GM vehicles being targeted due to these vulnerabilities. 2 years of $1,000 payments for it to be easily stolen is outrageous. I had full coverage insurance and was enrolled in OnStar, yet the recovery process was ineffective, and OnStar was unable to track the vehicle in time. Chevrolet and GM have not provided an adequate explanation for why newer models are being sold without basic theft-prevention technology that is now standard in vehicles from other manufacturers. Given the scale of this problem, I believe this represents a serious consumer safety and security issue, and GM should be required to: •Upgrade security firmware or modules in vulnerable models •Offer retrofitting of immobilizer technology or free anti-theft solutions •Notify owners of the known risk and potential theft vulnerability I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the scope of this issue and determine whether GM’s failure to implement industry-standard theft prevention constitutes a violation of consumer safety expectations. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, [XXX] Murrieta, CA [XXX] Phone: [XXX] Vehicle Info: •Year/Make/Model: 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE •VIN: [XXX] •Date of Theft: [XXX] •Location: Murrieta, CA INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Corrective Action:
Subject: Inadequate Anti-Theft Security – 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE To Whom It May Concern: I am filing this complaint regarding the lack of sufficient theft deterrent technology in the 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE, which directly contributed to my vehicle being stolen in July 2025. Despite being a high-performance vehicle valued at over $50,000, the Camaro lacks a modern immobilizer system, encrypted key access, or any active anti-theft protections to prevent increasingly common theft methods such as relay attacks, CAN injection, or signal spoofing. My vehicle was stolen in under one minute from a secure location, and the incident aligns with a growing national trend of GM vehicles being targeted due to these vulnerabilities. 2 years of $1,000 payments for it to be easily stolen is outrageous. I had full coverage insurance and was enrolled in OnStar, yet the recovery process was ineffective, and OnStar was unable to track the vehicle in time. Chevrolet and GM have not provided an adequate explanation for why newer models are being sold without basic theft-prevention technology that is now standard in vehicles from other manufacturers. Given the scale of this problem, I believe this represents a serious consumer safety and security issue, and GM should be required to: •Upgrade security firmware or modules in vulnerable models •Offer retrofitting of immobilizer technology or free anti-theft solutions •Notify owners of the known risk and potential theft vulnerability I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the scope of this issue and determine whether GM’s failure to implement industry-standard theft prevention constitutes a violation of consumer safety expectations. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, [XXX] Murrieta, CA [XXX] Phone: [XXX] Vehicle Info: •Year/Make/Model: 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE •VIN: [XXX] •Date of Theft: [XXX] •Location: Murrieta, CA INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Additional Notes:
Subject: Inadequate Anti-Theft Security – 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE To Whom It May Concern: I am filing this complaint regarding the lack of sufficient theft deterrent technology in the 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE, which directly contributed to my vehicle being stolen in July 2025. Despite being a high-performance vehicle valued at over $50,000, the Camaro lacks a modern immobilizer system, encrypted key access, or any active anti-theft protections to prevent increasingly common theft methods such as relay attacks, CAN injection, or signal spoofing. My vehicle was stolen in under one minute from a secure location, and the incident aligns with a growing national trend of GM vehicles being targeted due to these vulnerabilities. 2 years of $1,000 payments for it to be easily stolen is outrageous. I had full coverage insurance and was enrolled in OnStar, yet the recovery process was ineffective, and OnStar was unable to track the vehicle in time. Chevrolet and GM have not provided an adequate explanation for why newer models are being sold without basic theft-prevention technology that is now standard in vehicles from other manufacturers. Given the scale of this problem, I believe this represents a serious consumer safety and security issue, and GM should be required to: •Upgrade security firmware or modules in vulnerable models •Offer retrofitting of immobilizer technology or free anti-theft solutions •Notify owners of the known risk and potential theft vulnerability I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the scope of this issue and determine whether GM’s failure to implement industry-standard theft prevention constitutes a violation of consumer safety expectations. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, [XXX] Murrieta, CA [XXX] Phone: [XXX] Vehicle Info: •Year/Make/Model: 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE •VIN: [XXX] •Date of Theft: [XXX] •Location: Murrieta, CA INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Mfg Campaign: 11672384
Recall Date: Jul 9, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
ENGINE
Potential Consequences:
Subject: Inadequate Anti-Theft Security – 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE To Whom It May Concern: I am filing this complaint regarding the lack of sufficient theft deterrent technology in the 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE, which directly contributed to my vehicle being stolen in July 2025. Despite being a high-performance vehicle valued at over $50,000, the Camaro lacks a modern immobilizer system, encrypted key access, or any active anti-theft protections to prevent increasingly common theft methods such as relay attacks, CAN injection, or signal spoofing. My vehicle was stolen in under one minute from a secure location, and the incident aligns with a growing national trend of GM vehicles being targeted due to these vulnerabilities. 2 years of $1,000 payments for it to be easily stolen is outrageous. I had full coverage insurance and was enrolled in OnStar, yet the recovery process was ineffective, and OnStar was unable to track the vehicle in time. Chevrolet and GM have not provided an adequate explanation for why newer models are being sold without basic theft-prevention technology that is now standard in vehicles from other manufacturers. Given the scale of this problem, I believe this represents a serious consumer safety and security issue, and GM should be required to: •Upgrade security firmware or modules in vulnerable models •Offer retrofitting of immobilizer technology or free anti-theft solutions •Notify owners of the known risk and potential theft vulnerability I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the scope of this issue and determine whether GM’s failure to implement industry-standard theft prevention constitutes a violation of consumer safety expectations. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, [XXX] Murrieta, CA [XXX] Phone: [XXX] Vehicle Info: •Year/Make/Model: 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE •VIN: [XXX] •Date of Theft: [XXX] •Location: Murrieta, CA INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Corrective Action:
Subject: Inadequate Anti-Theft Security – 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE To Whom It May Concern: I am filing this complaint regarding the lack of sufficient theft deterrent technology in the 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE, which directly contributed to my vehicle being stolen in July 2025. Despite being a high-performance vehicle valued at over $50,000, the Camaro lacks a modern immobilizer system, encrypted key access, or any active anti-theft protections to prevent increasingly common theft methods such as relay attacks, CAN injection, or signal spoofing. My vehicle was stolen in under one minute from a secure location, and the incident aligns with a growing national trend of GM vehicles being targeted due to these vulnerabilities. 2 years of $1,000 payments for it to be easily stolen is outrageous. I had full coverage insurance and was enrolled in OnStar, yet the recovery process was ineffective, and OnStar was unable to track the vehicle in time. Chevrolet and GM have not provided an adequate explanation for why newer models are being sold without basic theft-prevention technology that is now standard in vehicles from other manufacturers. Given the scale of this problem, I believe this represents a serious consumer safety and security issue, and GM should be required to: •Upgrade security firmware or modules in vulnerable models •Offer retrofitting of immobilizer technology or free anti-theft solutions •Notify owners of the known risk and potential theft vulnerability I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the scope of this issue and determine whether GM’s failure to implement industry-standard theft prevention constitutes a violation of consumer safety expectations. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, [XXX] Murrieta, CA [XXX] Phone: [XXX] Vehicle Info: •Year/Make/Model: 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE •VIN: [XXX] •Date of Theft: [XXX] •Location: Murrieta, CA INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Additional Notes:
Subject: Inadequate Anti-Theft Security – 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE To Whom It May Concern: I am filing this complaint regarding the lack of sufficient theft deterrent technology in the 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE, which directly contributed to my vehicle being stolen in July 2025. Despite being a high-performance vehicle valued at over $50,000, the Camaro lacks a modern immobilizer system, encrypted key access, or any active anti-theft protections to prevent increasingly common theft methods such as relay attacks, CAN injection, or signal spoofing. My vehicle was stolen in under one minute from a secure location, and the incident aligns with a growing national trend of GM vehicles being targeted due to these vulnerabilities. 2 years of $1,000 payments for it to be easily stolen is outrageous. I had full coverage insurance and was enrolled in OnStar, yet the recovery process was ineffective, and OnStar was unable to track the vehicle in time. Chevrolet and GM have not provided an adequate explanation for why newer models are being sold without basic theft-prevention technology that is now standard in vehicles from other manufacturers. Given the scale of this problem, I believe this represents a serious consumer safety and security issue, and GM should be required to: •Upgrade security firmware or modules in vulnerable models •Offer retrofitting of immobilizer technology or free anti-theft solutions •Notify owners of the known risk and potential theft vulnerability I am requesting that NHTSA investigate the scope of this issue and determine whether GM’s failure to implement industry-standard theft prevention constitutes a violation of consumer safety expectations. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, [XXX] Murrieta, CA [XXX] Phone: [XXX] Vehicle Info: •Year/Make/Model: 2023 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE •VIN: [XXX] •Date of Theft: [XXX] •Location: Murrieta, CA INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Mfg Campaign: 11672384
Recall Date: Jul 9, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
AIR BAGS
Potential Consequences:
The passenger and driver side roof rail air bags deployed without any crash impact just was driving around a corner and they went off there was no crash nothing was so scary I was also the only one in the vehicle at the time this happened. this also happened 2 days after Chevy had it. They had it to upgrade the system due to a recall. I called Chevy right away and asked them if the upgrade to my cars system had anything to do with the safety system they said no but they did not no what exactly it did do. This locked my seatbelts and caused my heated and cooled seats to no longer work it was looked at 2 days ago waiting for the cost estimate as we speak
Corrective Action:
The passenger and driver side roof rail air bags deployed without any crash impact just was driving around a corner and they went off there was no crash nothing was so scary I was also the only one in the vehicle at the time this happened. this also happened 2 days after Chevy had it. They had it to upgrade the system due to a recall. I called Chevy right away and asked them if the upgrade to my cars system had anything to do with the safety system they said no but they did not no what exactly it did do. This locked my seatbelts and caused my heated and cooled seats to no longer work it was looked at 2 days ago waiting for the cost estimate as we speak
Additional Notes:
The passenger and driver side roof rail air bags deployed without any crash impact just was driving around a corner and they went off there was no crash nothing was so scary I was also the only one in the vehicle at the time this happened. this also happened 2 days after Chevy had it. They had it to upgrade the system due to a recall. I called Chevy right away and asked them if the upgrade to my cars system had anything to do with the safety system they said no but they did not no what exactly it did do. This locked my seatbelts and caused my heated and cooled seats to no longer work it was looked at 2 days ago waiting for the cost estimate as we speak
Mfg Campaign: 11666694
Recall Date: Jun 13, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Potential Consequences:
Over a year ago, my car developed an intermittent slow crank/starting issue. After driving 20–30 minutes and turning the engine off, it often wouldn’t restart on the first try, sometimes requiring 2–5 cranks. From my research (forums, Reddit, Facebook), I suspected heat soak affecting the starter, which can eventually harm the battery, alternator, or starter itself. About six months ago, the battery was replaced under warranty, though I don’t know the full details of what the dealership diagnosed back then. On April 25, 2025, a more dangerous incident occurred: while driving on the highway, my engine suddenly lost all power without warning, right as I tried to accelerate to merge lanes. I had to coast in neutral onto the shoulder, narrowly avoiding a dangerous situation on a busy road. There were no warning lights or advance signs. After getting towed, I suspected the alternator had failed due to the long-term starter heat soak issue. Both the tow truck driver and dealership technician thought the same, especially after the dealership checked the OBD2 and only saw low-voltage-related codes. After 1-2 weeks of diagnostics, the dealership shocked me with their findings: the engine had catastrophically failed. They suspect metal shavings, possibly due to a rod bearing or crankshaft failure, but the exact cause is still under investigation. They are going to replace the engine and will provide the full details once the work is done. What’s concerning is that the slow crank issue had been happening for over a year, yet no clear signs pointing to impending engine failure. Only hints were a static (not flashing) check engine light that came on and off a few times over the past year, usually disappearing after 1-2 days and not returning for months. The LT1 6.2l V8 in my 23 Camaro is essentially the same engine found in GM’s recent massive recall for L87 6.2l V8 engines in trucks/SUVs. This calls for investigation into the LT1 engines.
Corrective Action:
Over a year ago, my car developed an intermittent slow crank/starting issue. After driving 20–30 minutes and turning the engine off, it often wouldn’t restart on the first try, sometimes requiring 2–5 cranks. From my research (forums, Reddit, Facebook), I suspected heat soak affecting the starter, which can eventually harm the battery, alternator, or starter itself. About six months ago, the battery was replaced under warranty, though I don’t know the full details of what the dealership diagnosed back then. On April 25, 2025, a more dangerous incident occurred: while driving on the highway, my engine suddenly lost all power without warning, right as I tried to accelerate to merge lanes. I had to coast in neutral onto the shoulder, narrowly avoiding a dangerous situation on a busy road. There were no warning lights or advance signs. After getting towed, I suspected the alternator had failed due to the long-term starter heat soak issue. Both the tow truck driver and dealership technician thought the same, especially after the dealership checked the OBD2 and only saw low-voltage-related codes. After 1-2 weeks of diagnostics, the dealership shocked me with their findings: the engine had catastrophically failed. They suspect metal shavings, possibly due to a rod bearing or crankshaft failure, but the exact cause is still under investigation. They are going to replace the engine and will provide the full details once the work is done. What’s concerning is that the slow crank issue had been happening for over a year, yet no clear signs pointing to impending engine failure. Only hints were a static (not flashing) check engine light that came on and off a few times over the past year, usually disappearing after 1-2 days and not returning for months. The LT1 6.2l V8 in my 23 Camaro is essentially the same engine found in GM’s recent massive recall for L87 6.2l V8 engines in trucks/SUVs. This calls for investigation into the LT1 engines.
Additional Notes:
Over a year ago, my car developed an intermittent slow crank/starting issue. After driving 20–30 minutes and turning the engine off, it often wouldn’t restart on the first try, sometimes requiring 2–5 cranks. From my research (forums, Reddit, Facebook), I suspected heat soak affecting the starter, which can eventually harm the battery, alternator, or starter itself. About six months ago, the battery was replaced under warranty, though I don’t know the full details of what the dealership diagnosed back then. On April 25, 2025, a more dangerous incident occurred: while driving on the highway, my engine suddenly lost all power without warning, right as I tried to accelerate to merge lanes. I had to coast in neutral onto the shoulder, narrowly avoiding a dangerous situation on a busy road. There were no warning lights or advance signs. After getting towed, I suspected the alternator had failed due to the long-term starter heat soak issue. Both the tow truck driver and dealership technician thought the same, especially after the dealership checked the OBD2 and only saw low-voltage-related codes. After 1-2 weeks of diagnostics, the dealership shocked me with their findings: the engine had catastrophically failed. They suspect metal shavings, possibly due to a rod bearing or crankshaft failure, but the exact cause is still under investigation. They are going to replace the engine and will provide the full details once the work is done. What’s concerning is that the slow crank issue had been happening for over a year, yet no clear signs pointing to impending engine failure. Only hints were a static (not flashing) check engine light that came on and off a few times over the past year, usually disappearing after 1-2 days and not returning for months. The LT1 6.2l V8 in my 23 Camaro is essentially the same engine found in GM’s recent massive recall for L87 6.2l V8 engines in trucks/SUVs. This calls for investigation into the LT1 engines.
Mfg Campaign: 11660111
Recall Date: May 10, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
ENGINE
Potential Consequences:
Over a year ago, my car developed an intermittent slow crank/starting issue. After driving 20–30 minutes and turning the engine off, it often wouldn’t restart on the first try, sometimes requiring 2–5 cranks. From my research (forums, Reddit, Facebook), I suspected heat soak affecting the starter, which can eventually harm the battery, alternator, or starter itself. About six months ago, the battery was replaced under warranty, though I don’t know the full details of what the dealership diagnosed back then. On April 25, 2025, a more dangerous incident occurred: while driving on the highway, my engine suddenly lost all power without warning, right as I tried to accelerate to merge lanes. I had to coast in neutral onto the shoulder, narrowly avoiding a dangerous situation on a busy road. There were no warning lights or advance signs. After getting towed, I suspected the alternator had failed due to the long-term starter heat soak issue. Both the tow truck driver and dealership technician thought the same, especially after the dealership checked the OBD2 and only saw low-voltage-related codes. After 1-2 weeks of diagnostics, the dealership shocked me with their findings: the engine had catastrophically failed. They suspect metal shavings, possibly due to a rod bearing or crankshaft failure, but the exact cause is still under investigation. They are going to replace the engine and will provide the full details once the work is done. What’s concerning is that the slow crank issue had been happening for over a year, yet no clear signs pointing to impending engine failure. Only hints were a static (not flashing) check engine light that came on and off a few times over the past year, usually disappearing after 1-2 days and not returning for months. The LT1 6.2l V8 in my 23 Camaro is essentially the same engine found in GM’s recent massive recall for L87 6.2l V8 engines in trucks/SUVs. This calls for investigation into the LT1 engines.
Corrective Action:
Over a year ago, my car developed an intermittent slow crank/starting issue. After driving 20–30 minutes and turning the engine off, it often wouldn’t restart on the first try, sometimes requiring 2–5 cranks. From my research (forums, Reddit, Facebook), I suspected heat soak affecting the starter, which can eventually harm the battery, alternator, or starter itself. About six months ago, the battery was replaced under warranty, though I don’t know the full details of what the dealership diagnosed back then. On April 25, 2025, a more dangerous incident occurred: while driving on the highway, my engine suddenly lost all power without warning, right as I tried to accelerate to merge lanes. I had to coast in neutral onto the shoulder, narrowly avoiding a dangerous situation on a busy road. There were no warning lights or advance signs. After getting towed, I suspected the alternator had failed due to the long-term starter heat soak issue. Both the tow truck driver and dealership technician thought the same, especially after the dealership checked the OBD2 and only saw low-voltage-related codes. After 1-2 weeks of diagnostics, the dealership shocked me with their findings: the engine had catastrophically failed. They suspect metal shavings, possibly due to a rod bearing or crankshaft failure, but the exact cause is still under investigation. They are going to replace the engine and will provide the full details once the work is done. What’s concerning is that the slow crank issue had been happening for over a year, yet no clear signs pointing to impending engine failure. Only hints were a static (not flashing) check engine light that came on and off a few times over the past year, usually disappearing after 1-2 days and not returning for months. The LT1 6.2l V8 in my 23 Camaro is essentially the same engine found in GM’s recent massive recall for L87 6.2l V8 engines in trucks/SUVs. This calls for investigation into the LT1 engines.
Additional Notes:
Over a year ago, my car developed an intermittent slow crank/starting issue. After driving 20–30 minutes and turning the engine off, it often wouldn’t restart on the first try, sometimes requiring 2–5 cranks. From my research (forums, Reddit, Facebook), I suspected heat soak affecting the starter, which can eventually harm the battery, alternator, or starter itself. About six months ago, the battery was replaced under warranty, though I don’t know the full details of what the dealership diagnosed back then. On April 25, 2025, a more dangerous incident occurred: while driving on the highway, my engine suddenly lost all power without warning, right as I tried to accelerate to merge lanes. I had to coast in neutral onto the shoulder, narrowly avoiding a dangerous situation on a busy road. There were no warning lights or advance signs. After getting towed, I suspected the alternator had failed due to the long-term starter heat soak issue. Both the tow truck driver and dealership technician thought the same, especially after the dealership checked the OBD2 and only saw low-voltage-related codes. After 1-2 weeks of diagnostics, the dealership shocked me with their findings: the engine had catastrophically failed. They suspect metal shavings, possibly due to a rod bearing or crankshaft failure, but the exact cause is still under investigation. They are going to replace the engine and will provide the full details once the work is done. What’s concerning is that the slow crank issue had been happening for over a year, yet no clear signs pointing to impending engine failure. Only hints were a static (not flashing) check engine light that came on and off a few times over the past year, usually disappearing after 1-2 days and not returning for months. The LT1 6.2l V8 in my 23 Camaro is essentially the same engine found in GM’s recent massive recall for L87 6.2l V8 engines in trucks/SUVs. This calls for investigation into the LT1 engines.
Mfg Campaign: 11660111
Recall Date: May 10, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
POWER TRAIN
Potential Consequences:
Over a year ago, my car developed an intermittent slow crank/starting issue. After driving 20–30 minutes and turning the engine off, it often wouldn’t restart on the first try, sometimes requiring 2–5 cranks. From my research (forums, Reddit, Facebook), I suspected heat soak affecting the starter, which can eventually harm the battery, alternator, or starter itself. About six months ago, the battery was replaced under warranty, though I don’t know the full details of what the dealership diagnosed back then. On April 25, 2025, a more dangerous incident occurred: while driving on the highway, my engine suddenly lost all power without warning, right as I tried to accelerate to merge lanes. I had to coast in neutral onto the shoulder, narrowly avoiding a dangerous situation on a busy road. There were no warning lights or advance signs. After getting towed, I suspected the alternator had failed due to the long-term starter heat soak issue. Both the tow truck driver and dealership technician thought the same, especially after the dealership checked the OBD2 and only saw low-voltage-related codes. After 1-2 weeks of diagnostics, the dealership shocked me with their findings: the engine had catastrophically failed. They suspect metal shavings, possibly due to a rod bearing or crankshaft failure, but the exact cause is still under investigation. They are going to replace the engine and will provide the full details once the work is done. What’s concerning is that the slow crank issue had been happening for over a year, yet no clear signs pointing to impending engine failure. Only hints were a static (not flashing) check engine light that came on and off a few times over the past year, usually disappearing after 1-2 days and not returning for months. The LT1 6.2l V8 in my 23 Camaro is essentially the same engine found in GM’s recent massive recall for L87 6.2l V8 engines in trucks/SUVs. This calls for investigation into the LT1 engines.
Corrective Action:
Over a year ago, my car developed an intermittent slow crank/starting issue. After driving 20–30 minutes and turning the engine off, it often wouldn’t restart on the first try, sometimes requiring 2–5 cranks. From my research (forums, Reddit, Facebook), I suspected heat soak affecting the starter, which can eventually harm the battery, alternator, or starter itself. About six months ago, the battery was replaced under warranty, though I don’t know the full details of what the dealership diagnosed back then. On April 25, 2025, a more dangerous incident occurred: while driving on the highway, my engine suddenly lost all power without warning, right as I tried to accelerate to merge lanes. I had to coast in neutral onto the shoulder, narrowly avoiding a dangerous situation on a busy road. There were no warning lights or advance signs. After getting towed, I suspected the alternator had failed due to the long-term starter heat soak issue. Both the tow truck driver and dealership technician thought the same, especially after the dealership checked the OBD2 and only saw low-voltage-related codes. After 1-2 weeks of diagnostics, the dealership shocked me with their findings: the engine had catastrophically failed. They suspect metal shavings, possibly due to a rod bearing or crankshaft failure, but the exact cause is still under investigation. They are going to replace the engine and will provide the full details once the work is done. What’s concerning is that the slow crank issue had been happening for over a year, yet no clear signs pointing to impending engine failure. Only hints were a static (not flashing) check engine light that came on and off a few times over the past year, usually disappearing after 1-2 days and not returning for months. The LT1 6.2l V8 in my 23 Camaro is essentially the same engine found in GM’s recent massive recall for L87 6.2l V8 engines in trucks/SUVs. This calls for investigation into the LT1 engines.
Additional Notes:
Over a year ago, my car developed an intermittent slow crank/starting issue. After driving 20–30 minutes and turning the engine off, it often wouldn’t restart on the first try, sometimes requiring 2–5 cranks. From my research (forums, Reddit, Facebook), I suspected heat soak affecting the starter, which can eventually harm the battery, alternator, or starter itself. About six months ago, the battery was replaced under warranty, though I don’t know the full details of what the dealership diagnosed back then. On April 25, 2025, a more dangerous incident occurred: while driving on the highway, my engine suddenly lost all power without warning, right as I tried to accelerate to merge lanes. I had to coast in neutral onto the shoulder, narrowly avoiding a dangerous situation on a busy road. There were no warning lights or advance signs. After getting towed, I suspected the alternator had failed due to the long-term starter heat soak issue. Both the tow truck driver and dealership technician thought the same, especially after the dealership checked the OBD2 and only saw low-voltage-related codes. After 1-2 weeks of diagnostics, the dealership shocked me with their findings: the engine had catastrophically failed. They suspect metal shavings, possibly due to a rod bearing or crankshaft failure, but the exact cause is still under investigation. They are going to replace the engine and will provide the full details once the work is done. What’s concerning is that the slow crank issue had been happening for over a year, yet no clear signs pointing to impending engine failure. Only hints were a static (not flashing) check engine light that came on and off a few times over the past year, usually disappearing after 1-2 days and not returning for months. The LT1 6.2l V8 in my 23 Camaro is essentially the same engine found in GM’s recent massive recall for L87 6.2l V8 engines in trucks/SUVs. This calls for investigation into the LT1 engines.
Mfg Campaign: 11660111
Recall Date: May 10, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
UNKNOWN OR OTHER
Potential Consequences:
At very low speed like 1 or 2 mph car accelerates when braking, typically when like parking
Corrective Action:
At very low speed like 1 or 2 mph car accelerates when braking, typically when like parking
Additional Notes:
At very low speed like 1 or 2 mph car accelerates when braking, typically when like parking
Mfg Campaign: 11655761
Recall Date: Apr 21, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
ENGINE
Potential Consequences:
while driving car stoopped runnig on expressway ; said electrical system low ; later found out at dealer engine siezed
Corrective Action:
while driving car stoopped runnig on expressway ; said electrical system low ; later found out at dealer engine siezed
Additional Notes:
while driving car stoopped runnig on expressway ; said electrical system low ; later found out at dealer engine siezed
Mfg Campaign: 11653298
Recall Date: Apr 7, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
SERVICE BRAKES
Potential Consequences:
Accelerates when Braking !!
Corrective Action:
Accelerates when Braking !!
Additional Notes:
Accelerates when Braking !!
Mfg Campaign: 11651792
Recall Date: Mar 31, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Potential Consequences:
Accelerates when Braking !!
Corrective Action:
Accelerates when Braking !!
Additional Notes:
Accelerates when Braking !!
Mfg Campaign: 11651792
Recall Date: Mar 31, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM
Potential Consequences:
Accelerates when Braking !!
Corrective Action:
Accelerates when Braking !!
Additional Notes:
Accelerates when Braking !!
Mfg Campaign: 11651792
Recall Date: Mar 31, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM
Potential Consequences:
The rods broke. The lifters are faulty and the power cuts off in the middle of driving. The car was taken back to the dealership and the cam shaft was replaced as well as the rods. However, after getting it back the car looses power and will not accelerate. It is currently in the shop as I type this complaint.
Corrective Action:
The rods broke. The lifters are faulty and the power cuts off in the middle of driving. The car was taken back to the dealership and the cam shaft was replaced as well as the rods. However, after getting it back the car looses power and will not accelerate. It is currently in the shop as I type this complaint.
Additional Notes:
The rods broke. The lifters are faulty and the power cuts off in the middle of driving. The car was taken back to the dealership and the cam shaft was replaced as well as the rods. However, after getting it back the car looses power and will not accelerate. It is currently in the shop as I type this complaint.
Mfg Campaign: 11651831
Recall Date: Mar 31, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
ENGINE
Potential Consequences:
The rods broke. The lifters are faulty and the power cuts off in the middle of driving. The car was taken back to the dealership and the cam shaft was replaced as well as the rods. However, after getting it back the car looses power and will not accelerate. It is currently in the shop as I type this complaint.
Corrective Action:
The rods broke. The lifters are faulty and the power cuts off in the middle of driving. The car was taken back to the dealership and the cam shaft was replaced as well as the rods. However, after getting it back the car looses power and will not accelerate. It is currently in the shop as I type this complaint.
Additional Notes:
The rods broke. The lifters are faulty and the power cuts off in the middle of driving. The car was taken back to the dealership and the cam shaft was replaced as well as the rods. However, after getting it back the car looses power and will not accelerate. It is currently in the shop as I type this complaint.
Mfg Campaign: 11651831
Recall Date: Mar 31, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Potential Consequences:
The rods broke. The lifters are faulty and the power cuts off in the middle of driving. The car was taken back to the dealership and the cam shaft was replaced as well as the rods. However, after getting it back the car looses power and will not accelerate. It is currently in the shop as I type this complaint.
Corrective Action:
The rods broke. The lifters are faulty and the power cuts off in the middle of driving. The car was taken back to the dealership and the cam shaft was replaced as well as the rods. However, after getting it back the car looses power and will not accelerate. It is currently in the shop as I type this complaint.
Additional Notes:
The rods broke. The lifters are faulty and the power cuts off in the middle of driving. The car was taken back to the dealership and the cam shaft was replaced as well as the rods. However, after getting it back the car looses power and will not accelerate. It is currently in the shop as I type this complaint.
Mfg Campaign: 11651831
Recall Date: Mar 31, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
AIR BAGS
Potential Consequences:
I was involved in a motor vehicle accident. My airbags failed to deploy & I received a notification through my Chevrolet app on my phone, right after the accident stating “your 2023 Camaro airbag system has an issue. Schedule service”. My safety belt system also states there is an issue detected and to schedule service.
Corrective Action:
I was involved in a motor vehicle accident. My airbags failed to deploy & I received a notification through my Chevrolet app on my phone, right after the accident stating “your 2023 Camaro airbag system has an issue. Schedule service”. My safety belt system also states there is an issue detected and to schedule service.
Additional Notes:
I was involved in a motor vehicle accident. My airbags failed to deploy & I received a notification through my Chevrolet app on my phone, right after the accident stating “your 2023 Camaro airbag system has an issue. Schedule service”. My safety belt system also states there is an issue detected and to schedule service.
Mfg Campaign: 11635448
Recall Date: Jan 11, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
SEAT BELTS
Potential Consequences:
I was involved in a motor vehicle accident. My airbags failed to deploy & I received a notification through my Chevrolet app on my phone, right after the accident stating “your 2023 Camaro airbag system has an issue. Schedule service”. My safety belt system also states there is an issue detected and to schedule service.
Corrective Action:
I was involved in a motor vehicle accident. My airbags failed to deploy & I received a notification through my Chevrolet app on my phone, right after the accident stating “your 2023 Camaro airbag system has an issue. Schedule service”. My safety belt system also states there is an issue detected and to schedule service.
Additional Notes:
I was involved in a motor vehicle accident. My airbags failed to deploy & I received a notification through my Chevrolet app on my phone, right after the accident stating “your 2023 Camaro airbag system has an issue. Schedule service”. My safety belt system also states there is an issue detected and to schedule service.
Mfg Campaign: 11635448
Recall Date: Jan 11, 2025
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
ENGINE
Potential Consequences:
My engine got my brand new Camaro is having a lifter tick issue. This seems to be a very common issue amongst these new Chevy engines, after doing research they all seem to stem from the same problem, and that would be the fuel management system that deactivates certain cylinders in the engine to “save on gas”, or better MPG. So their own technology is breaking their engines, I’m certain my car is having this issue now and it’s very, very expensive to fix.
Corrective Action:
My engine got my brand new Camaro is having a lifter tick issue. This seems to be a very common issue amongst these new Chevy engines, after doing research they all seem to stem from the same problem, and that would be the fuel management system that deactivates certain cylinders in the engine to “save on gas”, or better MPG. So their own technology is breaking their engines, I’m certain my car is having this issue now and it’s very, very expensive to fix.
Additional Notes:
My engine got my brand new Camaro is having a lifter tick issue. This seems to be a very common issue amongst these new Chevy engines, after doing research they all seem to stem from the same problem, and that would be the fuel management system that deactivates certain cylinders in the engine to “save on gas”, or better MPG. So their own technology is breaking their engines, I’m certain my car is having this issue now and it’s very, very expensive to fix.
Mfg Campaign: 11593064
Recall Date: Jun 7, 2024
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
POWER TRAIN
Potential Consequences:
Car losses power and shutters
Corrective Action:
Car losses power and shutters
Additional Notes:
Car losses power and shutters
Mfg Campaign: 11548063
Recall Date: Oct 3, 2023
General Motors, Llc
Defect Description:
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Potential Consequences:
Vehicle had approximately 5000 miles on it when the electronic trunk release failed to operate. Trunk would not unlock or open from the key fob or the push button inside the vehicle. This was a safety concern as it was determined by the dealer of a faulty fuse box which controlled several other components of the vehicles electrical system. Dealer informed customer that the fuse box was on back order due to a large number of replacements for the same issue occurring.
Corrective Action:
Vehicle had approximately 5000 miles on it when the electronic trunk release failed to operate. Trunk would not unlock or open from the key fob or the push button inside the vehicle. This was a safety concern as it was determined by the dealer of a faulty fuse box which controlled several other components of the vehicles electrical system. Dealer informed customer that the fuse box was on back order due to a large number of replacements for the same issue occurring.
Additional Notes:
Vehicle had approximately 5000 miles on it when the electronic trunk release failed to operate. Trunk would not unlock or open from the key fob or the push button inside the vehicle. This was a safety concern as it was determined by the dealer of a faulty fuse box which controlled several other components of the vehicles electrical system. Dealer informed customer that the fuse box was on back order due to a large number of replacements for the same issue occurring.
Mfg Campaign: 11541688
Recall Date: Aug 30, 2023
Need Legal Help?
Featured Attorneys
Barry Edzant
Edzant Price LLC
Valencia, CA • 36 yrs
Focus: Lemon Law, Personal Injury