GM 6.2L L87 Engine Lawsuit, Recall 25V-274, Post-Repair Failures, and Your Rights

TL;DR

• The GM 6.2L L87 engine lawsuit is consolidated as Powell v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-10479, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan before Judge Shalina D. Kumar (Powell v. General Motors, LLC docket, E.D. Mich.).
• GM recalled 597,630 US trucks and SUVs under NHTSA campaign 25V-274 on 24 April 2025, covering 2021 to 2024 Silverado 1500, Tahoe, Suburban, Sierra 1500, Yukon, Yukon XL, Escalade, and Escalade ESV built between 1 March 2021 and 31 May 2024 (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025).
• For most owners the entire recall repair was thicker oil. Only vehicles that failed a dealer inspection received a new engine, and GM estimated in its federal filing that 3 percent of the recalled population had the defect (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025).
• NHTSA opened Recall Query RQ26001 on 16 January 2026 covering about 597,571 vehicles, after 36 owners reported their engines failed after the recall repair was already done (NHTSA Recall Query RQ26001, 2026).
• A class action splits one recovery across hundreds of thousands of owners. A lemon law claim is yours alone and can produce a buyback, a replacement, or cash, usually with the manufacturer paying attorney fees.

What Is the GM 6.2L L87 Engine Defect?

The GM 6.2L L87 engine defect is a lubrication failure that destroys the connecting rod bearings and can seize the engine without warning. GM’s own teardown analysis found two root causes, both traced to supplier manufacturing and quality problems: sediment left on the connecting rods and inside the crankshaft oil galleries, and crankshafts built outside dimensional specification or with poor surface finish (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025).

Here is the failure in plain language. The crankshaft spins inside soft bearings, and a thin film of oil is the only thing keeping metal from touching metal. Debris in the oil passages interrupts that film. The bearing starts grinding itself into the oil supply. Now the oil is full of metal, which speeds up the wear everywhere else. Owners describe a knock that gets louder over about a week, then nothing. In the worst reported cases, the connecting rod punched straight through the block.

Think of it as a heart attack with clogged arteries. The blockage builds quietly, and the failure arrives all at once.

The RPO code L87 identifies the 6.2L V8. It sits in these vehicles:

• Chevrolet Silverado 1500, where the 6.2L is optional on higher trims.
• Chevrolet Tahoe and Chevrolet Suburban.
• GMC Sierra 1500, GMC Yukon, and GMC Yukon XL.
• Cadillac Escalade and Cadillac Escalade ESV, where the engine is standard on most configurations.

Some failures happened at as little as 1,200 miles (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025). That is a vehicle that has not finished its first oil change interval and has already lost its engine.

If you want the wider picture on this engine family, our breakdown of GMC 6.2 engine problems covers the symptoms owners report across model years.

GM 6.2L V8 L87 Problems Owners Report

The most commonly reported GM 6.2L V8 L87 problems are engine knocking, a check engine light, hesitation, abnormal shifting, reduced propulsion, and no-start conditions. GM told regulators that these can appear before a failure, and the same filing notes that no warning signs are guaranteed (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025). Plenty of owners got no preview at all. The engine simply stopped.

GM identified 28,102 field complaints tied to crankshaft, connecting rod, or bearing failure, of which 14,332 involved loss of propulsion. The company also identified 42 potentially related fire allegations, 12 potentially related crashes, and 12 potentially related injuries (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025).

Loss of propulsion is the phrase that matters legally. It is bland language for a truck that quits accelerating while merging onto a highway with a trailer behind it.

Related reading if your dash lit up before anything else did: engine power is reduced on the Chevy Malibu explains how GM handles reduced power messages across its lineup.

GM L87 6.2L V8 Recall 25V-274 Explained

The GM L87 6.2L V8 recall is NHTSA campaign 25V-274, GM internal recall number N252494000, published 24 April 2025 and covering 597,630 US vehicles, with roughly 721,000 affected globally (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025). The recall applies to 2021 through 2024 model years built between 1 March 2021 and 31 May 2024. Model years 2019, 2020, and 2025 sit outside the identified production window and are not included.

NHTSA had opened its investigation in January 2025 after 39 complaints, with an investigation scope of 877,710 vehicles (NHTSA, 2025). The recall followed three months later.

What the recall repair actually does

The remedy has two paths, and which one you got depends on a dealer inspection.

If the inspection finds damage, the dealer replaces the entire engine at no cost. If the inspection finds nothing, the dealer drains the 0W-20 oil, refills with higher-viscosity 0W-40 dexos R (Mobil 1 Supercar), installs a new oil filter, installs a new oil fill cap reflecting the new specification, and hands over an owner’s manual insert. GM assigned VINs to one of three service bulletins, so which repair your truck was eligible for was determined before you arrived (GM Safety Recall N252494001; N252494002).

Read that again. For a vehicle that passes inspection, the entire federal safety remedy is thicker oil and a new cap. GM told regulators it estimated the defect was present in 3 percent of the recalled population (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025). The other 97 percent got a service that, on the invoice, looks a lot like an oil change.

GM also extended engine coverage to 10 years or 150,000 miles from the original in-service date under Special Coverage Program N252494003 (GM Authority, 2025; see also the GM dealer FAQ filed with NHTSA). That extension is a real benefit and worth confirming with your dealer. It is also the centerpiece of GM’s legal argument that owners have already been made whole, which matters later in this article.

Vehicles covered by recall 25V-274

If your VIN falls inside the build window, the recall applies regardless of how well the truck has run so far. You can confirm coverage by VIN at the NHTSA recall lookup. If your vehicle is a 2021 Silverado specifically, our 2021 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 owner’s reality check covers the rest of that model year’s defect history.

The GM 6.2L L87 Engine Lawsuit and Where It Stands

The GM 6.2L L87 engine lawsuit is consolidated as Powell v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-10479-SDK-KGA, pending in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, before Judge Shalina D. Kumar. James S. Powell filed on 18 February 2025, two months before the recall was announced. Twelve separate actions were folded into it by stipulated order entered 12 August 2025 (Powell v. General Motors, LLC docket, E.D. Mich.).

The consolidated cases include Ramirez Hernandez, Houchin, Hecht, McNamara, Wrice-Scott, Muhammad, Rittereiser, Rahaman, Markus, John, and Sherman, with Hermanowicz added later.

One naming detail most articles get wrong

You will see this case called Rittereiser v. General Motors on a number of sites. That is incorrect. The court’s consolidation order directs all future filings to use the Powell caption, and the companion matters were administratively folded in behind it (Powell v. General Motors, LLC docket, E.D. Mich.). If you are searching PACER or talking to an attorney, Powell is the case name that will actually find the docket.

What the consolidated complaint alleges

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on 26 February 2026 running 389 pages, brought on behalf of 44 named current and former owners (CarComplaints, 2026). Three points stand out.

First, the complaint covers model years 2019 through 2024, which is wider than the recall itself. Owners of 2019 and 2020 trucks who were told they fall outside the recall window are inside the complaint’s proposed class definition.

Second, the core allegation is that the defect causes insufficient lubrication between the bearings and the crankshaft, producing friction and heat that wears the components until bearings spin and rods break.

Third, plaintiffs allege the remedy is inadequate, in part because replacement engines have themselves failed.

The court appointed DiCello Levitt, Hagens Berman, Lieff Cabraser, and Miller Law as interim lead counsel on 13 November 2025 (DiCello Levitt, 2025).

GM’s response

GM moved to dismiss, reported 8 June 2026. Its argument is that the claims are not viable because it already recalled the vehicles, repaired them at no cost, and extended engine warranties to 10 years or 150,000 miles, and that plaintiffs have not shown GM denied warranty coverage or refused repairs. GM also argues the problem is a supplier manufacturing issue affecting a small share of engines rather than a design defect inherent to the L87 (CarComplaints, 2026).

That motion is pending. It has not been decided. Anyone telling you how this comes out is guessing.

There is a separate and older GM class action over AFM and DFM lifter failures that also involves the L87 and the 5.3L L84. Do not confuse the two. If you have been following GM class actions generally, our guide on how to join a GM transmission class action lawsuit walks through how joining any class works mechanically.

NHTSA Is Now Investigating Whether the Recall Fix Worked

On 16 January 2026, NHTSA opened Recall Query RQ26001 covering approximately 597,571 vehicles already subject to recall 25V-274. The trigger was 36 complaints from owners whose engines failed after the recall remedy had been performed. The stated purpose is to evaluate the adequacy of the remedy, and the opening resume notes that the complaints allege failures of both remedy paths (NHTSA Recall Query RQ26001, 2026).

A recall query is a specific and fairly rare thing, so it is worth defining. An ordinary defect investigation asks whether a problem exists. A recall query asks a narrower and more pointed question: the manufacturer already told us it fixed this, so did the fix work? It is the federal safety equivalent of a contractor returning to check their own repair after the ceiling leaked again.

A separate probe covers roughly 286,000 2019 to 2021 trucks that were never included in the original recall (NHTSA, 2026).

Here is why RQ26001 matters more to you than to GM’s lawyers.

Every state lemon law is built around the same basic idea: a manufacturer gets a reasonable number of chances to fix a defect covered by warranty, and if the defect survives those attempts, the manufacturer owes you a remedy beyond another repair order. When the manufacturer’s own federally supervised fix does not hold, that is not a gray area. That is the fact pattern the statutes were written to capture, documented by the manufacturer and reviewed by a federal agency.

If your engine failed after the dealer completed the 25V-274 recall service, you are not an outlier complaining about a rough idle. You are a documented instance of exactly what NHTSA is currently investigating.

Class Action or Lemon Law Claim, Which One Fits You

A class action and a lemon law claim solve different problems, and the honest answer is that they are not competitors so much as different-sized tools. A class action addresses a defect across an entire owner population. A lemon law claim addresses your specific vehicle, your specific repair history, and your specific losses.

A few things worth understanding before you decide anything.

Staying in a certified class can limit your right to bring an individual claim for the same defect, and opt-out deadlines are real deadlines. If a settlement is ever reached in Powell, the notice you receive will contain a date. That date is not a suggestion.

The federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act can apply where a state lemon law does not, including some used vehicles still covered by a written warranty. Given that GM extended engine coverage to 10 years or 150,000 miles, a used L87 truck bought from a private seller may still carry the written warranty that a Magnuson-Moss claim needs.

Under most state lemon laws and under Magnuson-Moss, a prevailing consumer’s attorney fees are paid by the manufacturer, not deducted from your recovery. Our page on what lemon law attorneys actually cost breaks down how that works.

We are not going to tell you to join the class action, and we are not going to tell you not to. What we will say is that the two paths produce very different numbers, and you should know both before you sign anything. If you want to estimate what an individual claim on your truck could be worth, start with the lemon law buyback calculator.

Do You Have a Lemon Law Claim for L87 Engine Failure?

You likely have a lemon law claim if your L87 engine failed under warranty and the manufacturer’s repair attempts did not resolve it, or if your vehicle spent an extended period out of service. Most states apply a repeated-repair test, a days-out-of-service test, or both, and the exact thresholds vary. Some states count a single unsuccessful repair attempt on a serious safety defect. Our overview of how many repairs it takes before lemon law applies covers how the thresholds differ.

The post-remedy situation deserves its own sentence. An engine that was replaced or serviced under recall 25V-274 and then failed again is a documented repeat failure of the same defect, with the manufacturer’s own recall paperwork establishing that it knew about the problem and attempted to fix it. That is unusually clean evidence.

Gather these before you call anyone:

• Every repair order from every visit, including ones where the dealer found nothing. A no-fault-found visit is still a repair attempt in most states.
• The recall notice you received in the mail, and the date of the 25V-274 service.
• The dealer’s inspection result, meaning whether your engine was replaced or received the 0W-40 oil change.
• Documentation of days out of service, including loaner car agreements and rental receipts.
• Your purchase or lease agreement and current mileage.

One caution on timing. Lemon law and warranty claims have deadlines that run independently of anything happening in Powell. A pending motion to dismiss in Michigan does not pause your state’s clock. Our guides on the California lemon law time limit and GM lemon law buyback process cover what happens next.

Frequently Asked Questions About the GM 6.2L L87 Engine Lawsuit

Which GM vehicles have the 6.2L L87 engine defect?

Recall 25V-274 covers 2021 to 2024 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Tahoe, and Suburban, GMC Sierra 1500, Yukon, and Yukon XL, and Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV equipped with the 6.2L V8 (RPO L87) and built between 1 March 2021 and 31 May 2024 (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025). The consolidated lawsuit reaches further, covering 2019 through 2024.

What is GM recall 25V-274?

Recall 25V-274, GM internal recall number N252494000, was published 24 April 2025 and covers 597,630 US vehicles. GM identified manufacturing defects in connecting rods and crankshafts, including sediment in the crankshaft oil galleries and out-of-specification crankshaft dimensions, that can cause bearing failure, engine damage, and loss of propulsion (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025).

Is there a class action lawsuit for the GM L87 engine?

Yes. Twelve class actions were consolidated into Powell v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-10479, in the Eastern District of Michigan before Judge Shalina D. Kumar. Plaintiffs filed a 389-page consolidated complaint on 26 February 2026. GM has moved to dismiss and that motion is currently pending (Powell v. General Motors, LLC docket, E.D. Mich.).

Does the recall fix actually work?

That is the exact question NHTSA is investigating. On 16 January 2026 the agency opened Recall Query RQ26001 covering about 597,571 vehicles, after 36 owners reported engine failures that occurred after the recall remedy was performed. The stated purpose is evaluating the adequacy of the remedy (NHTSA Recall Query RQ26001, 2026). No conclusion has been announced.

What if my engine failed after the recall repair?

A failure after a completed recall repair is a documented repeat failure of the same defect, which is the core test in most state lemon laws. Save the recall paperwork, the repair order for the 25V-274 service, and every subsequent repair order. Then have the file reviewed, because the timeline is the strongest part of the claim.

Can I file a lemon law claim instead of joining the class action?

Often yes, though it depends on your state, your warranty status, and whether a class has been certified or a settlement reached. A lemon law claim is individual and can produce a buyback, replacement, or cash compensation, while a class recovery is divided across the entire class. Opt-out deadlines in any future settlement are strict.

Are 2019 and 2020 models covered?

Not by recall 25V-274, which is limited to vehicles built between 1 March 2021 and 31 May 2024. However, the consolidated complaint covers model years 2019 through 2024, and NHTSA has a separate probe covering roughly 286,000 2019 to 2021 trucks outside the recall window (NHTSA, 2026).

How much is a GM L87 engine replacement worth?

Under recall 25V-274, a qualifying engine replacement is performed at no cost to the owner, and GM extended engine coverage to 10 years or 150,000 miles from the in-service date under program N252494003 (GM Authority, 2025). What an individual lemon law claim is worth is a separate calculation based on your purchase price, mileage at first repair, and state formula.

Key Takeaways

• Recall 25V-274 covers 597,630 US vehicles with the 6.2L L87 engine across eight Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac models from the 2021 to 2024 model years (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025).
• GM estimated the defect was present in 3 percent of the recalled population, meaning the federal safety remedy for the large majority of vehicles was an oil specification change rather than an engine replacement (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report, 2025).
• The consolidated class action, Powell v. General Motors, LLC, is pending in the Eastern District of Michigan, and GM’s motion to dismiss has not been decided.
• NHTSA’s Recall Query RQ26001 is now examining whether the recall repair actually worked, based on 36 post-remedy failure complaints.
• If your engine failed after the recall service, that is a repeat failure of a defect the manufacturer already acknowledged, and it is worth having an individual claim evaluated before any class settlement deadline arrives.

This article covers pending litigation and an open federal investigation. Case status changes. Verify current filings through the [NHTSA recall lookup](https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls), the [RQ26001 opening resume](https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-RQ26001-10001.pdf), and the [court docket](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69650736/powell-v-general-motors-llc/) before relying on any detail here for a legal decision.