A GM lifter recall should allegedly be ordered for Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC vehicles equipped with 5.3L, 6.0L or 6.2L V8 engines.
Nine plaintiffs filed the General Motors class action lawsuit which alleges the valve train systems, active fuel management lifters and dynamic fuel management lifters are defective.
A GM lifter recall has not been issued, but the plaintiffs claim that's what GM should do for owners of these vehicles.
2014-present Cadillac Escalade
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS-V
2014-present Chevrolet Silverado
2014-present Chevrolet Silverado 1500
2014-2019 Chevrolet Corvette
2014-2016 Chevrolet Avalanche
2014-present Chevrolet Suburban
2014-present Chevrolet Tahoe
2016-present Chevrolet Camaro
2014-present Chevrolet Camaro SS
2014 to present GMC Sierra
2014 to present GMC Sierra 1500
2014-present GMC Yukon
2014-present Yukon XL
According to the lifter class action, the valve train system comprises software run by the engine control module (ECM), specially designed and manufactured lifters and other valve train components such as the valve lifter oil manifold.
The valve train systems control some or all of the 16 lifters to prevent certain valves to the engines eight cylinders from opening at certain times and allowing fuel to enter.
This means some of the eight cylinders will not consume fuel when the ECM determines only partial engine power is needed, such as during highway cruising speeds.
But the GM class action lawsuit alleges the lifters malfunction and prematurely fail because of multiple reasons.
The lifters (including the locking pin) allegedly do not conform to design specifications, are installed in an incorrect position in the lifter guide and/or are made of sub-standard materials.
GM also allegedly didn't consider the expansion and contraction rates of the lifters and the engine block, and the bores in which the lifters are inserted have widths that allegedly do not allow for the necessary clearance of the lifter to move freely, which damages the lifters.
A GM lifter recall should also allegedly be ordered because the automaker allegedly "failed to account for the amount of increased pressure to which the AFM lifters are exposed by the pressurized oil used to operate the lifters, causing them to fail prematurely."
The plaintiffs further claim more valve train maintenance is needed, more than is advised in GM's maintenance guides.
This allegedly includes, "more frequent oil changes, engine flushing and cleaning and/or replacing the valve lifter oil manifold and its filter at regular intervals."
According to the class action lawsuit, GM allegedly replaces the defective parts with equally defective parts that continue to fail and cause a ticking noise from the engine.
Additionally, the lifter problems can cause the vehicle to lose power, "hesitate, and the engine can misfire, stall, shudder, stutter, or surge."
Although a GM lifter recall hasn't been issued, the automaker does have a policy to provide extended warranties, called Component Coverage, when vehicle owners have had two or more repairs at dealerships of the valve train and lifter problems.
The Component Coverage extended warranty covers "all internally lubricated parts, electrical components, control modules, blocks, heads, shafts, and torque converters, among other items for defects related to materials and workmanship."
However, the lifter class action says the extended warranty is only provided if a customer has already had their vehicle repaired twice.
The GM lifter class action lawsuit was filed by these plaintiffs:
Danny Harrison Alabama 2021 GMC Sierra 1500
Christopher McClave Connecticut 2021 GMC Yukon
Melissa Luster Florida 2017 Cadillac Escalade
Leon Jordan Georgia 2015 Cadillac Escalade
Daniel Demarest New Jersey 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Mark Hayford Ohio 2016 Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Ronald and Marilyn Jett Texas 2017 GMC Sierra
Rebecca Prosser Washington 2021 GMC Yukon
The GM lifter class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Harrison, et al., v. General Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Miller Law Firm, P.C., Berger Montague, Capstone Law APC, and Gordon & Partners, P.A.
