What Is the GM V8 Engine Recall Lawsuit?
The GM V8 engine recall lawsuit is a consolidated proposed class action against General Motors LLC over 6.2L L87 engines. It covers Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac trucks and SUVs. It is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan as Powell v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-10479-SDK-KGA.
Plaintiffs say the engines can fail suddenly and that GM's April 2025 recall repair does not fix the problem. The case is a class action, not a multidistrict litigation.
Other GM V8 lawsuits involve different engines or different defects. The related cases section below separates them from this one.
“These twelve putative class actions involve similar factual allegations concerning an alleged defect in certain GM vehicles equipped with the 6.2L “L87” V8 engine and they assert overlapping legal claims on behalf of overlapping putative classes. For efficiency and to conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, the parties agree that the Actions should be consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).”
Source: Powell v. General Motors LLC, No. 4:25-cv-10479-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich.), Stipulated Order Consolidating Cases, ECF No. 21 (August 12, 2025)
Why Are People Filing GM V8 Engine Recall Lawsuits?
People are filing GM V8 engine recall lawsuits because the L87 engine allegedly fails and the recall repair falls short. The consolidated complaint alleges a loss of lubrication between the crankshaft and the bearings.
The complaint says the recall does not cover every vehicle it calls a Class Vehicle. It also says some vehicles failed after the repair.
Owners also say they overpaid for engines that GM did not disclose as defective. GM disputes these claims in its motion to dismiss.
What Injuries Are Included in the GM V8 Engine Recall Lawsuit?
The injuries included in the GM V8 engine recall lawsuit are mainly financial losses and a safety risk. The complaint groups the alleged harm into four categories. They are sudden engine failure, an inadequate recall repair, higher oil and fuel costs, and lost vehicle value.
No court has ruled on any of these claims. Each category below describes an allegation, not a finding.
Sudden Engine Failure
Sudden engine failure is an unexpected breakdown of internal engine parts that stops a vehicle from moving on its own.
The consolidated complaint alleges the L87 can lose lubrication between the crankshaft and its bearings. It says this causes engine failure and a loss of propulsion, sometimes at high speed.
GM's recall report counts 12 alleged crashes, 12 alleged injuries, and 42 alleged fires potentially related to the condition. GM says the alleged injuries were minor or non-physical.
NHTSA's October 2025 closing resume lists 17 injuries and no fatalities across all reports it counted.
Inadequate Recall Repair
An inadequate recall repair is a fix that, owners say, does not remove the problem behind the recall.
Under recall 25V-274, dealers inspect the engine and repair or replace it only as necessary. Vehicles that pass inspection get 0W-40 oil, a new fill cap, a new oil filter, and a manual insert.
The consolidated complaint calls the recall "egregiously inadequate." It alleges some vehicles passed inspection and then failed. It also alleges some replacement engines failed.
Higher Oil and Fuel Costs
Operating cost is what an owner pays to run a vehicle, such as oil, fuel, and routine upkeep.
The complaint alleges the recall moves vehicles from 0W-20 oil to 0W-40 oil. It says the 0W-40 oil costs more than the oil GM specified at sale.
It also alleges thicker oil lowers fuel economy, which raises fuel costs over the life of a vehicle. Plaintiffs say owners did not bargain for those costs.
Lost Vehicle Value
Diminished value is the drop in a vehicle's market price caused by a known defect, apart from repair costs.
The complaint alleges class members overpaid for their vehicles at purchase. It says they would have paid less, or not bought the vehicles, had GM disclosed the defect.
It also pleads diminished vehicle value. This claim is an economic loss, so it does not depend on whether a particular engine has failed.
Who Qualifies for the GM V8 Engine Recall Lawsuit?
You may qualify if:
- You bought or leased a 2019 to 2024 Silverado 1500 or Sierra 1500 with the 6.2L L87 V8
- You bought or leased a 2021 to 2024 Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, Yukon XL, Escalade, or Escalade ESV with the L87
- You bought or leased the vehicle in the United States, which the proposed nationwide class covers
You may not qualify if:
- Your vehicle has a 5.3L engine or another engine, since the lawsuit covers the 6.2L L87 only
- Your vehicle is a 2025 or 2026 model, since the consolidated complaint defines Class Vehicles through model year 2024
- You expect a payout now, since no class is certified and no settlement exists
No class has been certified, so no one is currently a class member and no claim form exists. The recall repair is a separate free remedy that does not depend on this lawsuit. Whether a particular owner recovers money depends on certification, the merits, and any settlement. Only a qualified attorney reviewing your vehicle records can confirm your position.
What Is the Current Status of the GM V8 Engine Recall Lawsuit?
The current status of the GM V8 engine recall lawsuit is pending, with GM's motion to dismiss undecided. No class is certified, and no court has ruled on whether the L87 engine is defective.
The newest docket entries this page reviewed are dated October 13, 2026. They show supplemental authority filings and no hearing date or ruling. Court records on CourtListener can lag the live docket.
Powell v. General Motors, LLC
James S. Powell II filed the first complaint on February 18, 2025, two months before GM announced the recall. Judge Shalina D. Kumar consolidated twelve related actions on August 12, 2025, and added more cases on November 12, 2025.
On November 13, 2025, Judge Kumar appointed four firms as interim class counsel and denied a competing slate. Plaintiffs filed the 389-page consolidated complaint on February 26, 2026.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division) |
| Case Number | 4:25-cv-10479-SDK-KGA |
| Judge | Judge Shalina D. Kumar; Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman |
| Filed | February 18, 2025 |
| Plaintiffs | 43 captioned plaintiff entries in the consolidated complaint, two of them married couples |
| Defendant | General Motors LLC |
| Interim Class Counsel | The Miller Law Firm P.C., DiCello Levitt LLP, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP |
| Claims Alleged | Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraudulent omission, unjust enrichment, and state warranty and consumer protection counts |
| Proposed Classes | A nationwide class of U.S. purchasers and lessees of Class Vehicles, plus 26 state classes |
| Current Stage | GM's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 41) is pending; plaintiffs' motion to compel limited early discovery (ECF No. 40) was briefed by June 2, 2026 |
GM's motion argues that the NHTSA-supervised recall remedies the alleged defect. It also blames supplier issues, not a uniform design flaw, for failures.
CarComplaints reports GM told the court about 3% of engines were defective. It also reports a 10-year, 150,000-mile extended engine warranty on recalled vehicles.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition on July 13, 2026, and GM replied on August 12, 2026. On August 28, 2026, plaintiffs gave the court notice of NHTSA's new engineering analysis.
GM then filed notices of supplemental authority on October 7 and 9, 2026, citing two Ford rulings from this district. CarComplaints dated the motion to June 8, 2026, but the docket shows it entered on May 12, 2026.
How Much Is the GM V8 Engine Recall Lawsuit Worth?
The GM V8 engine recall lawsuit has no determined worth, because no settlement exists and no class is certified.
The complaint asks for class certification, damages, an injunction, interest, and attorneys' fees. It pleads no total damages figure. It cites the Class Action Fairness Act's $5 million threshold, a jurisdictional minimum and not an estimate.
Owners do not need to wait for the lawsuit to use the recall. GM's recall report says dealers will inspect and, as necessary, repair or replace the engine.
Payouts in a different GM engine class action averaged about $3,380 per member, but that case involved another engine. The related cases section explains why it does not predict this outcome.
GM V8 Engine Recall Lawsuit Updates
Here are the latest GM V8 Engine Recall lawsuit updates, covering new court filings, rulings, and case-count reports as they're confirmed. As of October 2026, the consolidated Powell v. General Motors class action remains in active pretrial litigation with no settlement announced. The full timeline below covers every verified development since the first case was filed.
GM V8 Engine Recall Lawsuit Timeline of Events
Earliest owner report cited in the consolidated complaint
The consolidated complaint cites a December 5, 2021 CarComplaints.com post by an owner of a 2021 Silverado with 6,000 miles. The owner wrote that two rods had gone through the engine block.
NHTSA opens Preliminary Evaluation PE25001
NHTSA opened PE25001 on January 16, 2025, after complaints about L87 engine bearing failures in GM trucks and SUVs. GM opened its own product investigation the same day.
James S. Powell II files the first lawsuit
Powell filed a class action complaint against General Motors LLC in the Eastern District of Michigan on February 18, 2025. It became the lead case, No. 4:25-cv-10479.
GM files recall 25V-274
GM submitted its Part 573 safety recall report to NHTSA on April 24, 2025. It covers 597,630 vehicles with L87 engines built from March 1, 2021 through May 31, 2024.
Judge Kumar stays the case for transfers
Judge Kumar signed a stipulated order on June 26, 2025 that paused all deadlines. The pause let related suits transfer into the Eastern District of Michigan and consolidate.
Twelve actions consolidated before Judge Kumar
A stipulated order entered on August 12, 2025 consolidated twelve putative class actions under the Powell caption. Judge Kumar then told counsel to propose or move for interim class counsel within 14 days.
NHTSA closes PE25001 and continues in EA25007
NHTSA closed Preliminary Evaluation PE25001 on October 23, 2025, citing GM's recall. The agency kept investigating engine failures outside the recall's scope under Engineering Analysis EA25007.
Court appoints interim class counsel
Judge Kumar granted the Miller slate's motion for interim class counsel on November 13, 2025. The order denied the competing motion from the Arias slate.
NHTSA opens recall query RQ26001
NHTSA opened Recall Query RQ26001 on January 16, 2026 to test whether the recall 25V-274 remedy works. Complaints alleged engine failures after both the oil change and engine replacement repairs.
Plaintiffs file the consolidated complaint
Plaintiffs filed a 389-page Consolidated Class Action Complaint on February 26, 2026. It pleads 80 counts for a nationwide class and 26 state classes.
GM moves to dismiss
General Motors LLC's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint entered the docket on May 12, 2026 as ECF No. 41. Plaintiffs separately moved to compel limited early discovery.
Plaintiffs oppose the motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to GM's motion on July 13, 2026. GM filed its reply on August 12, 2026.
NHTSA opens Engineering Analysis EA26005
NHTSA opened EA26005 on August 20, 2026, covering 997,743 vehicles from model years 2021 to 2026. It adds engines built after the recall's production window.
Plaintiffs notify the court of EA26005
Plaintiffs filed a notice of the supplemental NHTSA investigation on August 28, 2026, attaching the agency's opening resume. GM responded on September 1, 2026.
GM files supplemental authority from Ford cases
GM filed notices on October 7 and October 9, 2026 citing Pacheco v. Ford Motor Co. and Letson v. Ford Motor Co., two Eastern District of Michigan rulings from late September 2026. No ruling on GM's motion appears on the docket.
How to File a GM V8 Engine Recall Lawsuit
Follow these 6 steps to file a GM V8 Engine Recall lawsuit.
- Confirm your engine and model year: Check that your truck or SUV has the 6.2L L87 V8 and falls in the model years the complaint lists.
- Run your VIN through NHTSA's recall lookup: Enter the 17-character VIN at NHTSA.gov/recalls to see whether recall 25V-274 is open for your vehicle.
- Gather your sale or lease documents: Collect the purchase contract or lease, showing the date, the state, and whether you bought new or used.
- Save every repair and oil record: Keep dealer inspection results, repair orders, tow bills, and receipts for any 0W-40 oil you bought.
- Document any engine failure: Note the date, mileage, symptoms, and what the dealer said, and consider reporting it to NHTSA.
- Consult a consumer class action attorney: Because Powell is a pending proposed class action, an attorney can explain whether to wait or pursue a separate claim.
Answer a few questions and a case reviewer will follow up. Free, no obligation.
A case reviewer will follow up soon.
What Evidence Do You Need for a GM V8 Engine Recall Lawsuit?
The evidence needed for a GM V8 engine recall lawsuit centers on your vehicle's VIN, engine type, and repair history. The VIN and window sticker show whether the truck or SUV has the 6.2L L87.
Dealer inspection results and repair orders show whether the vehicle passed the recall inspection or received a new engine. Oil change invoices show whether the 0W-40 oil was added.
For an economic claim, the purchase or lease contract and fuel receipts can matter. Only a qualified attorney can say which records a court would find useful.
What Did GM Allegedly Know Before the V8 Engine Recall?
GM allegedly knew of L87 engine failures for years before the V8 engine recall, according to the consolidated complaint. GM's own recall report says it closed three earlier investigations into the condition.
The report says GM received 28,102 field complaints or incidents between April 29, 2021 and February 3, 2025. Of those, 14,332 alleged a loss of propulsion.
| Event | Actor | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Owner reports two rods through the block on a 2021 Silverado | Owner on CarComplaints.com | December 5, 2021 |
| Closes first product investigation into the condition | GM | February 2022 |
| Closes second product investigation | GM | June 2023 |
| Closes third product investigation | GM | July 2024 |
| Opens Preliminary Evaluation PE25001 | NHTSA | January 16, 2025 |
| Opens its own product investigation | GM | January 16, 2025 |
| Decides to conduct a safety recall | GM Safety Field Action Decision Authority | April 17, 2025 |
| Files recall 25V-274 (GM number N252494000) | GM | April 24, 2025 |
Recall 25V-274 covers 597,630 vehicles built between March 1, 2021 and May 31, 2024. GM estimated that 3% of them have the defect.
GM's report names two root causes. One is sediment on connecting rods and in crankshaft oil passages. The other is out-of-specification crankshaft dimensions and surface finish. GM attributes both to supplier manufacturing and quality issues and does not name the supplier.
NHTSA's EA26005 opening resume reports 499 complaints of engine failure after the recall remedy. Of those, 473 followed the oil change and 26 followed an engine replacement. It also lists 191 reports from engines built after the recall window, and GM reported 6,953 post-remedy complaints.
An engineering analysis does not by itself require a new recall. It can end with no action, a changed remedy, or a larger recall.
How Does the GM V8 Engine Recall Lawsuit Compare to Other GM Engine Lawsuits?
The GM V8 engine recall lawsuit differs from other GM engine lawsuits in engine, alleged defect, and procedural stage. It concerns the 6.2L L87 and its connecting rod and crankshaft bearings.
Two other GM V8 cases are easy to confuse with it. Neither is part of Powell.
| Case | Engine and alleged defect | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC, No. 3:16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.) | 5.3L LC9 V8 in 2011 to 2014 trucks and SUVs; defective piston rings and excess oil consumption | $150 million settlement for California, Idaho, and North Carolina classes; final approval reported October 2025 |
| GM valve lifter class action (E.D. Mich.) | 5.3L and 6.2L V8s with cylinder deactivation; alleged premature valve lifter failure | Pending since December 2021; March 2026 ruling denied a motion to split the case; no certification reported |
| Powell v. General Motors, LLC (this case) | 6.2L L87 V8; connecting rod and crankshaft bearing failure and an alleged inadequate recall | Pending; GM's motion to dismiss undecided; no class certified |
Reports put the average Siqueiros payout at about $3,380 per class member. That case involved a different engine, different years, and a different defect, so it does not predict a result here.
The valve lifter case can include some L87 trucks, but it alleges a lifter problem, not bearing failure. The sources reviewed did not give its caption.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the GM V8 engine recall lawsuit about?
The GM V8 engine recall lawsuit is about 6.2L L87 V8 engines that plaintiffs say can fail suddenly. They also allege that GM's recall 25V-274 repair is inadequate. The case is Powell v. General Motors, LLC in the Eastern District of Michigan.
Is the GM V8 engine recall lawsuit a class action or an MDL?
The GM V8 engine recall lawsuit is a proposed class action, not an MDL. Judge Shalina D. Kumar consolidated twelve actions on August 12, 2025. No class has been certified.
Which vehicles are in the GM V8 engine recall lawsuit?
The lawsuit covers 2019 to 2024 Silverado 1500 and Sierra 1500 trucks with the 6.2L L87. It also covers 2021 to 2024 Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, Yukon XL, Escalade, and Escalade ESV models with that engine. Recall 25V-274 covers a narrower group built from March 1, 2021 to May 31, 2024.
Has GM settled the V8 engine recall lawsuit?
No. GM has not settled the V8 engine recall lawsuit as of October 2026. GM's motion to dismiss is pending, and no class is certified, so no claim form exists.
Is the GM V8 engine recall lawsuit the same as the lifter or LC9 lawsuits?
No. The Siqueiros case involved the 5.3L LC9 engine and settled for $150 million in three states. The valve lifter case alleges a different defect and is a separate proceeding in the same district.
Does the GM V8 engine recall repair cost owners money?
Recall 25V-274 provides an inspection and any needed repair or engine replacement from GM dealers, per GM's recall report. The lawsuit alleges the oil change remedy adds higher oil and fuel costs.