Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/24/2026 2:29:21 PM PDT by DFG
The 6.2-liter V8 found in certain Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, and Cadillac Escalade models has been recalled for more than a year now, but the remedy may not be to the government's satisfaction. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced it would investigate the recall after receiving complaints from owners who had experienced engine failures even after their trucks and SUVs had been repaired according to GM's standards.
Problematic Machining And Lubrication
The original recall of the 6.2-liter V8, codenamed L87 and also found under the hoods of some Silverado 1500 and Sierra 1500 pickups, pertained to machining flaws to the crankshaft and connecting rods, as well as foreign material that would clog oil passages and contaminate rod bearings. In extreme cases, affected vehicles would exhibit rod knock, losses of power, and complete engine failure.
GM traced the problem back to a supplier and worked out a solution to build the engine components to tighter standards, then issued NHTSA Safety Recall 25V-274 in 2025 for 597,000 examples of the company's full-size, body-on-frame SUVs and half-ton trucks. The recall inspection involved inspecting for excessive wear on the bearings and rods, with passing vehicles getting a higher-viscosity oil for better lubrication and failing units receiving entirely new engines.
Fixing A Fix Till It's Fixed
However, NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has received nearly 500 complaints from 6.2-liter V8 owners who alleged their vehicles suffered from engine failure even after successfully carrying out the manufacturer recall. Furthermore, ODI says that GM itself has received 6,900 such reports, although consolidating duplicates brought the total number of claims down to 6,050. As a result, the office opened an engineering analysis and recall query into GM's supposed remedy.
Making matters worse for Chevrolet, Cadillac, and GMC, the complaints don't just apply to the 2021–2024 models that the companies initially recalled. Newer SUVs and trucks not subject to the initial 2025 campaign (and theoretically built with the new component design) have also reported engine failures, meaning the solution might be more complicated than GM and its suppliers initially thought. The total number of vehicles covered by ODI's investigation totals 997,743 trucks and SUVs from the 2021 to 2026 model years, 400,000 units more than the company recalled last year.
The engineering analysis is still under way, so it's possible that the post-recall engine failures are related to something else entirely, whether that's driver error or some other mechanical issue. We'll reserve final judgment for when we hear more from either ODI or GM.
CarBuzz Insight – Why This Matters:
Long known for its steadfast reliability and flexibility, GM's small-block V8 has suffered a bit of a black eye as a result of these pesky 6.2-liter engines. And it's all the worse that many of the six-two's current customers are driving around in some of GM's most expensive vehicles, like the Escalade and Yukon Denali. Although the automaker wouldn't admit to anything, we suspect that the new 5.7-liter L76 and 6.6-liter L78 engines found in the 2027 Silverado 1500 and Sierra 1500 are an attempt to distract customers from the unfortunate reputation of the current engine (while also boasting improved power and capability over their predecessor). Here's hoping for a speedy solution for all current 6.2-liter V8 owners.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Cadillac and Marmon made V16 engines back in the 1930's.
6.8 V10 Is a truck motor.
Gas guzzler is an understatement but between that and any powerstroke post 7.3, I would use it and have used it.. Several of my tow trucks had em. Never failed us.
the ONLY reason GM used it was a slight (like .02 mpg) increase in fuel efficentcy.
So many expensive and very bad things were introduced into production chasing that CAFE MPG goal. The very worst of the worst is shutting off engines at stops. Heavier batteries, heavier starters, unreliable, expensive repairs and only of marginal value to city folk with lots of stop and go driving.
MY CHEVY 1 TON 4 SPEED WITH A 454 ENGINE +++==OVER 348,000 ON THE CHASSIS & A NEW BUILD ENGINE...NOT A REBUILD. 50 YEARS OLD.
MY BUICK WAGON WITH A 403 OLDS ENGINE WITH OVER 225,000 MILES. 47 YEARS OLD.
NEITHER IS FOR SALE.....
Not sure about the validity of this but I read that manufacturer’s, in an effort to meet Federal mileage standards, have begun using much tighter clearances, lighter viscosity oils and no use of zinc or phosphorous. EPA str8kes again.
I meant the 383 in the 1965 Chrysler 300. I understand there was a later 383 that was a different design, but I had no experience with it.
From my observations everything manufactured after kung flu lockdowns has been crap.
10W30 oil.
Okay gotcha. The B block 383 didn’t change too, too much in its 1959-71 run. There was however an odd RB block 383 for two years (tall deck block with a longer 3.75” stroke crank like the 413-426-440) but that was just a stop gap 1959-60 until the B block production was ramped up.
The 1965 300 and 300L were really nice cars!
Did you install a disabler?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes I did.... not sure what make it is but it is a knockoff of the expensive one that folks are normally referring to. What happened was that I was looking through a listing of stuff for sale one night and ran across one. Turns out the seller was close by so I drove over to his place.... he had bought it for a Vette that he was selling. I asked if I could try it out first and he said yes so I put it in, drove around the block and it worked perfectly. I think he only wanted $30 or so for it. I’ve had it in for several years now and it has worked flawlessly. As for gas mileage, I think it has dropped by about 0.3 mpg.
There is one thing you have to watch out for... it does have a small parasitic load. This is normally not a problem but if the battery is a bit weak and you park it at the airport for a few weeks, you might find you got a dead battery.
Oh I get it now. You had two “lean burn” era 318s. They were low compression (about 8.5:1) but they starved them of fuel with a super lean mixture and advanced the timing like crazy to the point even lower compression engines would ping from all that heat. So yes, you’re absolutely right. Premium fuel and under-performance.
My 318 was in an older van before lean burn, and my similar 360 was in a pickup truck without lean burn despite being right in the middle of that phase. Never had a malaise era car with those stupid federally mandated mpg targets.
Sorry to doubt you!
“My ‘72 Torino engine threw a rod (bad oil pump), but I do not know if it was a 302 or one of the 351s.”
I’d be interested in that 72 as I have two of them.... one a 2Dr Fastback and the other a Ranchero.
Mine was a family style four door sedan. I was new to cars at the time (I didn’t know to pull the car over as it was overheating). I remember it was a V-8, NOT top of the line. Medium blue.
I had zero issues with my 2019 6.2L Silverado. Great engine, great truck.
The nose on those were one year only... sorta reminded me of the AC Cobra of yesteryear.
I have a 2000 Silverado with 300K on the clock
Dicked around so much with electric they forgot how to make real motors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.