GM 6.2L L87 V8 Engine Failures Continue After Recall Fix, NHTSA Reviews Remedy
GM 6.2L L87 V8 Failures Continue After Recall “Fix,” Prompting New Federal Scrutiny
Reports are continuing to surface that certain General Motors trucks and SUVs equipped with the 6.2-liter L87 V8 are suffering catastrophic engine failure even after owners brought their vehicles in for the recall remedy. According to Carscoops, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is now looking into dozens of complaints alleging post-remedy failures, with 36 reported failures occurring after the recall repair was completed.
This is not a minor nuisance issue. Engine failure can mean sudden loss of propulsion at speed, which is a safety risk and can strand drivers with a vehicle that needs a major repair or a full engine replacement.
Below is what owners should understand about the recall, the “fix,” why the problem may be continuing, and what you should do if your GM truck or SUV is experiencing symptoms.
What’s the Problem
The defect concerns reported engine bearing failures in GM’s 6.2L L87 V8 used in certain full-size trucks and SUVs. Owners have described bottom-end knocking or growling noises and, in more severe cases, catastrophic engine damage and complete failure. NHTSA’s defect investigators have described the risk clearly: if the engine fails while driving, the vehicle can lose propulsion, increasing crash risk.
GM issued a major recall (commonly referenced as 25V-274) for certain vehicles produced within a defined window, but now regulators are scrutinizing whether the recall remedy is actually effective—especially where engines allegedly fail after the dealership performed the prescribed work.
Allegations
The core allegation is straightforward: GM’s recall remedy does not reliably prevent engine failure.
Carscoops reports that NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation is now focused on the “adequacy of the remedy,” after receiving complaints of L87 engine failures following completion of the recall remedy.
In other words, the concern is no longer just whether the engines can fail, but whether the recall process—inspection plus oil change or engine replacement depending on results—meaningfully addresses the underlying defect across the affected population.
Recall/TSB
The recall scope (as widely reported)
GM’s recall addressed roughly 597,630 U.S. vehicles across the 2021–2024 model years equipped with the 6.2L V8, including vehicles like the Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban, GMC Sierra 1500, and GMC Yukon/Yukon XL.
Reuters also reported GM identified 12 crashes and 12 injuries that may be related to the issue, and that GM identified tens of thousands of complaints/incidents potentially related to the defect (including thousands alleging loss of propulsion).
The remedy GM described
As reported, the remedy generally involved:
Inspecting the engine under a recall procedure, and then
If it “passes,” switching to higher-viscosity oil (reported as 0W-40) with an updated oil cap and filter
If it does not pass, engine repair or replacement
Separate, ongoing investigation activity
NHTSA’s ODI closing resume for PE25001 states that ODI received 1,157 allegations of engine bearing failure and that NHTSA would continue investigating failures outside the recall scope under an Engineering Analysis (EA25007).
Reuters separately reported that NHTSA expanded its probe in October 2025 and upgraded it to an engineering analysis based on those reports, including assessment of vehicles built outside the original recall scope.
Why Owners Are Concerned About the “Fix”
A recurring issue in automotive defect cases is when a manufacturer’s first-line remedy addresses symptoms (or reduces risk in some cases) but does not eliminate the underlying failure mode.
Carscoops describes teardown findings tying failures to issues such as rod-bearing damage and crankshaft-related concerns, and reports that the government’s latest focus is specifically whether the remedy is adequate.
If the complaint trend continues—particularly post-remedy failures—regulators can pressure an expanded remedy, additional repairs, or further recall action. For owners, the practical reality is that an engine failure is one of the most expensive outcomes possible, and repeat dealer visits can mean long downtime, rental headaches, and major loss of confidence in the vehicle.
Symptoms
If you own a GM truck or SUV with the 6.2L L87, take early warning signs seriously. Commonly reported warning signs include:
Knocking, ticking, growling, or rumbling noises (often described as “bottom-end” sounds)
Check engine light or reduced power warnings
Rough running, misfires, or sudden loss of power
Metal in oil or unusual oil-related findings at service
Sudden engine failure and loss of propulsion
Even if your vehicle already received the recall remedy, do not assume you are in the clear if symptoms begin afterward—post-remedy failures are exactly what the new scrutiny is about.
How to Proceed
Document Issues
Keep detailed records of all repairs and communications with the manufacturer.
While at the dealership, ensure that all of your complaints are noted in the work order that you receive when you first drop off your vehicle.
Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts
While the law doesn't specify an exact number, generally, if the same problem persists after four or more repair attempts, or if the vehicle is out of service for more than 30 days cumulatively, it may qualify as a "lemon." However, even a single engine replacement can qualify under the California lemon law.
Monitor Symptoms
Any new engine noises, warning lights, or loss of power? Stop driving immediately and seek inspection and let the dealership know.
Talk to a Lemon Law Attorney, like Valero Law
If repairs fail, or if you experience repeated issues, you may be entitled to relief under California law. Remedies can include a repurchase of the vehicle or a cash settlement.
Practical Claim Considerations (California and Beyond)
If you are in California and your vehicle is under warranty, repeated engine issues can create a strong factual record for a lemon law claim—especially when the defect is safety-related and the manufacturer cannot provide a lasting repair.
Key points that often matter:
Warranty coverage and timelines: When did the problem first occur, and is the vehicle still within the warranty period?
Repair history: Did the dealer attempt a repair, perform a recall procedure, replace parts, or replace the engine? Was the vehicle returned with the same symptoms?
Days out of service: Long cumulative downtime can be as important as repeated repair attempts.
Safety implications: Loss of propulsion and sudden engine failure typically elevate the seriousness of the claim.
Even outside California, many states have lemon laws or warranty enforcement pathways (including federal Magnuson-Moss claims) that may apply depending on your purchase/lease facts and repair history.
Call Valero Law
Protect Your Rights Under California Lemon Law
If you are like many GM owners who are now experiencing serious engine issues with your Chevrolet, GMC, or Cadillac, you may be entitled to compensation under the California Lemon Law.
Compensation may include:
A complete repurchase of your defective vehicle
A replacement vehicle
Or substantial cash reimbursement for damage already caused by the defect
If you’re in California and your GM truck or SUV has a 6.2L engine, lifter, or transmission defect, call Valero Law, APC at (424) 299-4447 or complete our free Lemon Law case evaluation form today.
If your GM truck or SUV is suffering from repeated engine failures, loss of power, or extended time in the shop, you may have rights under the California Lemon Law. Valero Law, APC offers a free case evaluation. We handle cases on a contingency basis, meaning there is no cost to you unless we recover compensation for you.