- GM is recalling 547 2010 Cadillac SRX vehicles equipped with the turbocharged 2.8-liter V6 engine.
- Engine failure could occur if the owner uses regular fuel instead of premium fuel and drives the car aggressively.
- The recall is expected to begin on June 11.
WASHINGTON — General Motors is recalling 547 2010 Cadillac SRX vehicles equipped with the turbocharged 2.8-liter V6 because of potential engine failure if the owner uses regular fuel instead of premium fuel and drives the car aggressively, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
"The combination of regular fuel usage and aggressive driving maneuvers may induce pre-ignition," according to the NHTSA's recalls summary of the problem. "If pre-ignition occurs, you may hear a pinging or knocking sound from the engine. If the vehicle continues to be driven after the onset of this noise, a connecting rod or piston may break, resulting in engine damage, and perhaps engine failure, which would disable the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash."
Cadillac dealers will reprogram the engine control module for free. The recall is expected to begin on June 11. Owners may contact Cadillac at (866) 982-2339.
Inside Line says: If you own the aforementioned SRX, have it checked out with your dealer ASAP. — Anita Lienert, Correspondent
Add A Comment »
iskch says:
02:40 PM, 05/27/2010
Oooppps.... me olvide de poner "el sticker" que diga "premium gasoline" señor!!! Poss ... por eso cueteaa. :)) (if you need translation yours truly will give it to you)
They just push the stuff out of the door like some other "car companies" for a fast buck.
mieden says:
08:09 PM, 05/26/2010
wjt,
The timing retard is not what kills the engine. It does however rob efficiency and burn more fuel (which rules out any cost savings anyway). The change of the flame propagation front during each cylinder's power-stroke creates "hot-spots" that will most-definitely destroy the engine, although, slowly. An advanced engine controller can retard timing enough to thwart off any serious pre-ignition, however, it cannot change injector spray-pattern or position in accordance with a combustion chamber designed for low-octane fuel. Over time the minute differences in flame propagation, coupled with the "hot-spots", can cause any number of engine killing problems from piston and cylinder scarring to excessive blow-by and even diesel-esque coolant cavitation. When you have different propagation points in each cylinder you welcome in all number of complex (read: hard to diagnose) driveability concerns. On older cars (with dumber engine controllers) slightly altered crank-sensor readings will cause severe idle problems, stumbling/stalling on acceleration and timing-gear wear issues (stretched chains and toothless belts). On newer, direct-injected, cars you're looking at anything from injector & piston failure to premature catalyst replacement. No money is saved in using cheaper fuel because the engine must run less efficiently to use it and you're decreasing the dependable life of the vehicle. Just use what the manufacturer recommends and you will be fine. However, if the manufacturer gives you the choice, go with the cheapest...The engineers designed around all the obstacles I just presented!
And no doubt, GM has a controller problem. But, your blanket statement was false and misleading.
wjtinatl says:
06:46 PM, 05/26/2010
mieden
What's patently incorrect about naturally aspirated engines running fine on regular, they do. I'm sure if you were trying to extract max performance out of say a 370Z, Mustang GT or Corvette on regular, you may end up with some very mild detonation which could hypothetically reduce the life of the motor. But unless the electronics were faulty and allowed sufficient knock to hole a piston or spin a rod bearing, the engine would be fine. Retarding the timing to avoid knock won't shorten the life of the engine. And I'd believe the owner trying to extract max performance, would fill up with premium. Modern engines have to be able to run on fuel commonly available in the markets they are designed to be operated in. Since a G37 sold in Texas may spend a some of it's life in Mexico, the goat piss they sell there for gas will have to do, and do reliably. GM, given the vast array of environments and owners they sell their products to, would have to allow enough margin into their vehicles so that an inadvertent tank of regular, or an unscrupulous service station selling regular at the premium pump, wouldn't blow a common Caddy's motor. Budget has lots of new SRX's in their fleets, do you really think they, let alone the renter filling up on the way back to the airport, spends the extra coin on 93 octane? Who would ever think the lump SRX, turbo or no, would demand the same fuel a CTS-V does, let alone a twin turbo BMW or AMG Benz. Sorry, I think GM got a bad batch of engine controllers, or badly calibrated the knock controls and thats why these motors blew.
alman08 says:
04:24 PM, 05/26/2010
ok... so it does say premium fuel is required...
mieden says:
02:45 PM, 05/26/2010
wjt, to make a blatantly incorrect quote like "all naturally aspirated engines requiring premium run fine on regular, just a bit less output due to the retarded timing" is absurd. Running regular in a car with compression high enough to require premium is just about the stupidest thing any owner can do. Sure, many modern ECU's can dumb down the ignition timing (at the expense of fuel economy & power, aka: efficiency) but life is most certainly being taken off the end of the engine. You'll get 150K trouble free miles instead of 200K, not to mention the increase in NVH and decrease in drievability...
mipilot1 says:
01:40 PM, 05/26/2010
As an auto supplier in Michigan, I can confirm that most of you have it correct. The ECU was originally programmed for premium fuel only for max best performance all the time. Some drivers trying to save a few bucks used regular with the expected result. The re-flash of the ECU should solve the problem. I'm assuming that there will be a reduction in performance. Maybe not. Depends on the capabilities of the ECU. GM has some excellent programmers. Bring on the twinturbos!
lions208487 says:
01:30 PM, 05/26/2010
I agree with WJT. Every vehicle that is made by Infiniti, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and others always require premium fuel. Yes it's a little more expensive, but consider it cheap insurance that keeps your engine clean. Putting low octane gas in a turbo or DI engine is simply ridiculous, unless you want problems like this one.
stress83 says:
01:24 PM, 05/26/2010
@stingray454:
I can almost assure you with 100% certainty that dealers are more to blame with filling these vehicles with regular than the owners are -- this is before they even leave the lot.
wjtinatl says:
01:09 PM, 05/26/2010
Putting regular in and cooking an engine is absurd with today's electronic controls. The Ford Ecoboost engine can run on regular at slightly lower output as can the VW/Audi turbo's, Subaru turbo's and even GM Ecotec turbo's as found in the Cobalt and HHR SS and Solstice GXP. And, GM 3800 Supercharged engines ran fine on regular as National/Alamo had thousands of them in Grand Prix GT's in '06-'08. And all naturally aspirated engines requiring premium run fine on regular, just a bit less output due to the retarted timeing. If engines are blowing with regular in them, it's purely an electronics problem, not a fuel or driver problem.
gbriank says:
12:35 PM, 05/26/2010
stingray454, I beg to differ. This is an Opel engine with a turbo lashed onto it. SAAB borrowed this engine from the Opel parts bin. As for the control module, it could be a derivation of the TRIONIC 8 system designed by SAAB. Sadly, I don't think it is. GM opted to use Bosch's engine management for the new Ecotec motors.