GTO a real tire shredder?
There aren't too many cars out there that can shred all four tires at once, but that's exactly what certain Pontiac GTO models are being accused of. Cleveland's Newsnet5 looked into GTO owners' complaints of shredded front tires with all the drama and hidden pinhole cameras (see the video here) you'd expect from a such a story.
What they found was actually somewhat startling. Early GTOs are eating their front tires. It seems the Holden Monaro, on which the GTO is based, is sold in Australia with 233 mm-wide tires. In the U.S., the GTO gets 245 mm-wide tires. According to the Center for Auto Safety, that extra rubber puts the tire snug up against the GTO's strut, causing the front tires to eventually fail. The TV station says 65 GTO owners have filed reports with the NHTSA about the problem, which has mailed letters alerting owners to an investigation.
Owners of 2006 GTOs need not worry about the tire-shredding problem. GM fitted the newer cars with updated struts which give sufficient tire clearance. Instead, that group of GTO fans gets to worry about strut failure, of which there have been numerous NHTSA complaints.
You can read a statement the CAS after the jump.
[Source: Newsnet5 via Wired]
From The Center for Auto Safety:
The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) today called on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to open an investigation into tire failures and front suspension problems that occur on the 2004-2006 Pontiac GTO.
The agency has received 65 complaints involving tires on the 2004-2005 GTO, involving 8 blowouts and one crash. Many of these complaints cite tire wear caused by contact with struts as the source of the failures. The problem seems to occur early in the lifespan of the vehicle, as a number of complaints cite mileages of less than 10,000 at the time of the failure.
The 2004-2006 GTO was manufactured by GM subsidiary Holden in Australia based on the Holden Monaro platform. The Australian version came equipped with tires of 235mm in width, however the GTO sold in the United States was equipped with wider tires of 245mm width. The larger width of the GTO tire results in contact with the struts, wearing the tire and creating a risk of tire failures that can result in loss of vehicle control. Additionally, many GTO owners are forced to replace worn tires and damaged struts at their own expense.
The 2006 Pontiac GTO was manufactured with redesigned front struts that seem to have eliminated the tire wear problem. However, NHTSA has received more than 100 complaints of front strut failure in the 2006 model.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
judd 11:16AM (2/15/2007)
Wider is not always better.
Reply
Big jim 11:35AM (2/15/2007)
its a muscle car
Reply
Tim S. 12:01PM (2/15/2007)
This issue is being covered and discussed on the major late model GTO forum, LS1GTO.com:
http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136357
Lots of info on strut rub there
Reply
mkbruin 12:06PM (2/15/2007)
Let me get this straight:
1) The 1st line from the press release is "The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) today called on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to open an investigation into tire failures and front suspension problems that occur on the 2004-2006 Pontiac GTO."
So, it is an independant group asking the NHTSA to review.
Who is that group?
About the CAS, from their own website:
"Consumers Union and Ralph Nader founded the Center for Auto Safety (CAS)in 1970 to provide consumers a voice for auto safety and quality in Washington and to help lemon owners fight back across the country. CAS has a small budget but a big impact on the auto industry. With less than half what General Motors spends on a single Super Bowl commercial, CAS has taken on the auto giants and won for consumers.
Among our many accomplishments are:
Lemon laws in every state to make it as easy to take back a defective car as a defective toaster.
Recall of the infamous Ford Pinto for exploding gas tanks and the Firestone 500 tire for tread separation.
Exposure of GM Firebomb pickups with side saddle gas tanks that have burned to death over 750 people.
State laws to force disclosure of secret warranties on cars that can save consumers billions of dollars each year.
Safety and highway standards that have dropped the death rate on America's road from 5.2 per 100 million vehicles mile traveled in 1969 to 1.7 in
1997.
Publication of the landmark Lemon Book, an action
manual for lemon owners that has helped hundreds of thousands of consumers get lemonaide.
Publication of the Car Book to help consumers
buy peaches and avoid lemons.
Numerous legal victories over government agencies that have saved vital consumer, safety and environmental laws under assault by industry."
Yep, no agenda here. Especially in the way the information is passed along to us...
Reply
Brent 12:32PM (2/15/2007)
Make sure you give equal coverage to the Nissan 350Z that was plagued by this problem. My co-worker has gone thru SIX sets of front tires on his (Nissan).
Reply
MikeW 12:50PM (2/15/2007)
Well if it wasn't so front heavy (55/45) then it wouldn't need 245/45 17 front tires. 235/45 17 front and 265/40 17 rear, that would be nice if they got 50/50 weight distribution.
Maybe a small spacer ~2.5 would prevent dynamic rubbing with the strut, but what about the fender?
Reply
RWD fan (Matthew) 12:52PM (2/15/2007)
mkbruin:
I am confused at your concern about an agenda. Is protecting consumers from poorly designed vehicles a bad thing? Is pointing out potentially deadly defects suddenly a negative thing to do?
It seems to me that GM has a long standing tradition of flatly denying any problems with their product. My 2000 Buick Century has a tranny problem. Think it's news to GM? No, they are well aware of issue with their 4T65E transmissions, and have Tech. Service Bulletins out addressing the very issue. Think they're going to fix a known defect? Nope, they'll be happy to take over $500 to replace a $30 failed part, but there's no way they're going to take responsibility. If my post can change just one person's mind about purchasing a GM product then I've already cost the company more in profit than they would have spent rectifying the problem in the first place.
So, mkbruin, what's your agenda in trying to call out the CAS or Autoblog on a safety issue?
Reply
Jim 1:10PM (2/15/2007)
Ahh, strut rub. Being a 2004 GTO owner, I had my fronts cut to the cords. Luckily I heard a strand of wire hitting the strut as it went around. I pulled the tire to see what it was, both fronts, all the way to the cords.
Through research, an alignment usually helps, as does 235s (which I went to). From what I read, this is mainly a problem on 2004s.
55/45 is nose so nose heavy? Most FWD cars are biased much more towards the front. 55/45 is pretty close to balanced. 265s in the rear get close to the fender, and may require a roll (100's of post on the LS1GTO forum about wheels :)
Reply
sith33 1:17PM (2/15/2007)
#4 - Errr.. of course they have an agenda. That's the whole point of an organization. If they didn't have an agenda, they're just sit around and stare at the wall all day. For example, right now my agenda is to mock you. The Center for Auto Safety's agenda is to make autos safer. Get it?
Reply
MikeW 1:30PM (2/15/2007)
No GM should have scrapped [or overhauled] the platform and start over, neo-GTO. (Bigger rear wheel wells)
Move the front axle forward 3-4", then they could realistically get 50/50
55/45 is crap 45% traction to move 100% mass (and the GTO's fuel tank wasn't under the rear seats)
Front wheel drive is ~60/40 60% to move 100%
The BMW 650i coupe isn't that good, at 52.6/47.4, but it had to be front heavy so the convertible wasn't that rear heavy 48/52 stick, 49/51 auto.
Reply
Mike 1:37PM (2/15/2007)
I posted a lengthy response, I am just waiting...and waiting...and waiting for it to hit my email.
Reply
MikeW 2:27PM (2/15/2007)
Front wheel drive is front heavy for a reason, traction ~60/40, 60% of the weight to move 100% of the mass (yes there is a negative feedback under acceleration) but just lower the car.
Rear drive cars should start at 50/50. 55/45 is terrible, there is no traction 45% (and a positive feedback gain under acceleration) to move 100% of the mass. (although if it lowered for better braking and cornering, there isn't going to much traction gained under acceleration)
Reply
G. Snyder 3:43PM (2/15/2007)
MikeW - confused on how 55/45 is "so front heavy "? There are a lot of highly performing RWD cars with the same distribution. Is a M5 (52/48) or M6 (4/46) BMW "so front heavy"? Those cars have not been accused of anything other than balance. A Shelby GT500 is 58/42. 50/50 seems desirable, but I think you are trying to make this something it is not. Occam's razor says this is a clearance issue right?
Reply
MikeW 5:06PM (2/15/2007)
No ever accused the M5/M6 of balance.
That might be applied to the Boxster, which started as 45/55, but with the addition weight of the center front radiator is ~46/54
The 911 40/60 is/was for traction, and traction junkies can get Haldex now.
Rear drive pickups are ~55/45 unladen. They have loads of traction, right.
The McLaren F1 was somewhere between 43/57 & 41/59, they were trying to get the front/rear sprung to unsprung weight ratios as close the the same as possible.
Sport bikes are ~50/50
The Shelby GT500 is a fricking joke, same weight distribution as the Acura RL (which needs better tires)
Reply
G. Snyder 5:34PM (2/15/2007)
Mikew - you are kidding about an M5 not being a balanced car, right?
Reply
MikeW 5:39PM (2/15/2007)
Ford new about this, that was then entire basis for the FR500 concept of a while back.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/3229/road-test-ford-mustang-fr500.html
http://www.supercars.net/cars/706.html
http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/cars/mustangfr500.html
Reply
bill 1:04PM (2/16/2007)
I bought new rims with a different clearance. Problem solved and the car looks better anyway. I wouldn't trade my 05 GOAT for anything. Why would you want a car everybody else drives. Say like a mustand dime-a-dozen GT? I love the new vettes but even they are getting to the point where I see like 3 or 4 a day. I still get oohs and aahs everywhere I go with mine. Other GTO guys will tell you the same.
Reply
Warren 3:49PM (2/19/2007)
I think this is blown way out of proportion, and probably at least a little just because it's American made. I recently bought my wife an '04 Acura TSX. It was a low mile (about 24k), one-owner car, annd was in great shape. Less than 3 months after we bought it we noticed the back end felt really squirrelly. We stopped to check it and both rear tires (about 1/2 tread when we bought the car) were worn all the way to the cords on the inside edges (camber wear).
After replacing the tires we took it to the dealer to have the alignment checked out (tire shop said they couldn't because they showed no camber adjustment for the rear). The dealer told us that in some TSX's there is an issue with an upper control arm causing camber problems.
This issue did not cause any exploding tires, but the wear did cause the back end to swerve even on dry roads. Don't hear anyone bashing Acura's build practices or quality over this "known issue".
Also, put the numbers in perspective. 65 complaints out of what, 20k to 30k cars? 65 out of 20k is .325%. That's 3 tenths of 1 percent. Holy sh--!! It's an epidemic!
Reply
jim henry 12:05PM (2/20/2007)
I have an 05 GTO.I put staggered 19 inch PIAA wheels [9.5 inch wide x 19 .00 on the rear and 8.50 inch wide x 19.00 on the front.The tires are 275x30zr x19`s on the rear and 245x35zrx19`s on the front.My tire guys said that that fitment was about the largest that can be fitted with any long term success.I have had no problems with the fronts and I have almost 31,000 miles on the car.[I love driving this thing!]My pass.side rear tire self destructed last week on trip back from Seattle but I would chalk that up to having 31,000 miles on the car.
I may have dodged the front tire shredding issue by putting after market wheels and tires on it almost immediately after I bought.
The offsets on aftermarket wheels is usually greater.
In my immediate family we have had an Audi TT,five BMW 3 series including a German Spec AC Schnitzer M3,a Lexus 300 with a Supra 2JZ single turbo Japanese crate motor we installed at our shop,and we`re also adding a Japanese Spec 1995 Toyota Celica Turbo GT Four right hand drive car.
These things never got over to the U.S.
The GTO though is my favorite as it combines German level interior quality with a Corvette power train.
We are going to twin turbo it and modify the susupension and add Brembo brakes.
The styling is classic and not given to silly styling cues like say a Caddilac CTS V series.
I cannot for the life of me understand what drugs the GM design people are using when they came up with the CTS design.
It has unrelated sharp "folded paper" body creases and lines going all over it especially when viewed from the rear quarter panels.
Why is it impossible for GM to draw a straight line from the front of a car to the back?
That styling direction will date the car in a few short years.I would love to buy a Caddilac if they could manage to build an American version of an M5 with straight softer lines that run from the front to the back that give the car more solid qualitative and timeless look.
Lexus and BMW seem to be able to instill that look and except for the idiotic styling of the current Mercedes S500 and S600 the cars have a classic yet hip look.
I intend to keep my GTO it forever and that is saying a lot because I have never kept any car I owned more than two years.
Reply
Boz 10:42AM (3/03/2007)
I thought that this was about GTO strut rub, not about weight bias and what other cars have for weight distribution. The front tires are supposed to keep you pointed in the right direction, maybe this blog should do the same>
Reply