Automotive Litigation | Lemon Law | Business

Background: The Recall & the Real Concerns

In April 2025, General Motors issued a recall affecting nearly 600,000 vehicles equipped with its 6.2 L EcoTec3 L87 V8 engine—spanning popular models like the Chevrolet Silverado, GMC Sierra, Cadillac Escalade, and Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban. NHTSA investigations and GM’s internal diagnostics revealed potential connecting rod-bearing or crankshaft defects, raising the specter of sudden engine failures—even in vehicles with minimal mileage (CarBuzz).

GM advised a two-pronged “fix”: immediate inspection with full engine replacement if warranted, or, for engines that pass, a switch from 0W‑20 to thicker 0W‑40 oil, a new oil fill cap, and filter update (CarBuzz).

Legal Challenge: Owners Say GM’s “Fix” Misses the Problem

Plaintiffs in several overlapping class actions—including McNamara v. GM, Houchin v. GM, and Powell II v. GM—charge that GM’s remedy is legally inadequate, arguing:

• Root Cause Ignored: Simply changing oil viscosity (and sometimes replacing the same type of engine) doesn’t address faulty rod bearings or crankshaft specs (lemonlawclaims.com).
• Fuel Economy Penalty: Thicker oil increases drag, eroding fuel efficiency by an estimated 3–4%, and potentially costing drivers hundreds to over a thousand dollars more in fuel over the vehicle’s life (The Drive).
• Safety Risks Persist: Engines deemed “not yet failed” remain vulnerable to the same sudden breakdowns, posing continuing safety concerns .

Legal Theories & Remedy Sought

Plaintiffs invoke a range of causes, including:

• Breach of Implied Warranty: Arguing GM sold vehicles unfit for normal use, given sudden engine failures.
• Fraud by Omission: Claiming GM concealed known defects.
• Unjust Enrichment: Highlighting that GM benefits from continued sales of affected vehicles while passing increased fuel costs to consumers.
• Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Seeking legal declarations and orders compelling GM to fix the core engineering issues—not just apply a temporary band-aid (Top Class Actions, Top Class Actions).

Consumer Voices from the Road

Reddit users vividly recount their experiences:

“2023 Yukon Denali 20,549 miles… the engine completely failed without warning… no check engine light” (Reddit).

Another explained:

“lifters go bad… then you’re burning oil… bearings in the crankshaft go bad and the engine seizes up” (Reddit).

These real-world accounts underscore the unpredictable and dangerous nature of the defect—beyond mere inconvenience.

What’s Next: Discovery, Certification & Design Fixes

• Class Certification decisions are expected this summer, determining whether owners across states can unify their claims.
• Discovery Battles will focus on GM’s internal communications—specifically, what it knew, when it knew it, and why it opted for a partial fix rather than a full redesign.
• Engineering Testimony may show whether oil viscosity alone can reliably mitigate hardware flaws, and if GM has redesigned components for 2025 models (Corvette: Sales, News & Lifestyle, The Drive).

Notably, some users report that 2025 model engines have revised parts—but confidence remains low while warranty engineers await replacement inventory .

Takeaways for OEMs & Consumers

1. Temporary fixes can trigger longtail litigation—partial remedies may invite consumer backlash and costly class actions.
2. Full transparency and structural engineering fixes may reduce legal risk and increase buyer confidence.
3. OEM communications must balance regulatory compliance with honest disclosure, especially regarding residual risks.

Conclusion: A Thin Line Between Fix and Failure

GM’s 6.2 L V8 saga spotlights the legal perils of patchwork technical solutions. The thicker-oil remedy may temporarily reduce immediate engine failures, but from a legal standpoint, it fails the adequacy test. Plausible causes of action include safety, fuel economy degradation, and consumer protection issues.

If courts determine the band-aid isn’t enough, GM may be compelled to issue engineering revisions, pay restitution, and potentially extend warranties—demonstrating that in automotive law, remedy must align with risk, not merely with expediency.