Must Read!! Article from GM High-Tech Performance--CTS-V Differential!!

[bcholka]

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse here but the other day I was waiting for my wife in the mall when I decided to go into a bookstorse and look through some mags. One of the mags I picked up was the November 2006 issue of GM HIgh Tech Performance. On page 6 a writer from the mag (Rick Jensen) discusses the launch of the new Camaro. He discusses a few topics that he feels are crucial for the new Camaro to succeed. I would like to now reprint a particular section of that article relating to our wonderful rear ends (no pun intended).
The title of the paragraph is "Give This Musclecar A Musclecar Drivetrain"
He states: I have an internal GM document on my desk that was sent between the program mangers & engineers at Delphi & GM regarding the 04-05 CTS-V rear halfshafts. The max vehicle load acceptable for these shafts was 5100 Nm, and a "side-step clutch pop maneuver at gross vehicle weight and 4000 rpm exceeds this acceptable load"--that load was measured to be 5652 Nm. GM signed off on the shafts anyway, and there are a lot of unhappy CTS-V owners out there who found out about the V's differential the hard way. The article then continues by syaing that since GM has shifted from live axle to IRS, it MUST provide one that is strong enough for use in a V-8 musclecar. The V-8 Camaro won't be spending much time with the wine-and-cheese crowd--we're talking big smoky burnouts with red-blooded Americans behind the wheel. GM screwed up big-time with the weak '04-'05 CTS-V differential & halfshaft design and then compounded that problem by making it difficult for frustrated owners to get it fixed. With any decently sized V production run, this would have been a PR nightmare. Total production numbers of the V will pale in comparison to the proposed amount of V-8 Camaros. GM must build the Camaro's drivetarin right the first time, period. <End of article>
I don't understand why Cadillac isn't stepping up to the plate on this one. I love my V and I would expect the folks at Cadillac to own up to this being a real issue. I hope threads like this possibly lead to results with Cadillac accepting responsibility for this huge blunder.
I personally haven't experienced any differential problems, however, my V is going in next week for a Maggie, Kooks, blah, blah, blah. Wish me luck and for those of you that weren't aware of this article I hope this helps!

[The Tony Show]

Crap. As a GM Employee and stockholder, this both saddens and irritates me.

Nice find.

[CHarris_05V]

Yeah... I saw that one, too... looks like the self ejecting vette roof panels got fixed via recall before the V diffs. Lame.

[Sick03L]

The 06 rear and halfshafts were the so called "fix" for the weak rears......yeah right!

[BowenCT]

Wow........excellent find.

[ronr]

Originally Posted by Sick03L

The 06 rear and halfshafts were the so called "fix" for the weak rears......yeah right!

Actually I'm pretty pleased with my '06 replacement. Knock on wood I haven't had any whine or other issues since getting my '06.

[bcholka]

Do you know what they did differently for the '06 parts?? Does the '06 have wheel hop issues?? (I would hope not!!) I've heard from a number of people that it is the wheel hop that really does the rear end in.........

[Florian]

06 has hop just like the others....its not the diff, its the suspension that makes it hop. Diff just grenades as a result.


F

[CIWS]

I wonder if that's something that could be scanned and Reed would want on the FAQ page ?

[svassh]

Yes, someone please scan and let Reed post.

[lasstss]

I put in the 06 half shafts as they are much heavier. They are not likey to snap. The 06 rear has more/larger ribs in the case however, its still a 6 cylinder rear!

As far as the Aussies, Im going to ask Kurt if they will send what they have done, here. Surely there is a US machinist that can take less than a year to machine a case for Ford 9" parts. This is over a year old.

[Jpjr]

any Cadillac IRS is going to hop... to build a non-hop IRS means an incredibly uncomfortable ride which is simply not acceptable for a Cadillac. perfectly acceptable on a Corvette

[The Tony Show]

Not to mention the fact that a Corvette has transverse leaf springs, which are much better suited to hard launches.

[StealthViggen]

Umm, I would be interested in obtaining this "internal GM docuement" as it would clearly put GM in legal liability if they knowing sold, and continue to sell a product which they know fails under given conditions, and have not put out a recall to address the problem or a lifetime warranty on the affected part. The simple fact that this guy published he had such a document would put him in position to be under Subpeona to produce or testify to it's contents. I know one of you guys out there have to be a lawyer. Get on this one!

[bcholka]

I second that--if the research is now at this type of exact level and with the understanding that this document exists I don't understand how GM could evade the legalities of this one. At a bare minimum I can't imagine your typical V owner bringing this type of info to his/her dealer and the dealer giving them grief on warranty. I also agree with your comment regarding the gentleman that wrote the article--maybe he didn't realize it at the time but it seems to me that what he has exposed through his printing could bring him into a potential legal case. His publishing of this could be what all of us V owners need to finally say that now our cars are 100% instead of the many of us that give it a 95% on Cadillacfaq.com!! I hope we can keep this thread moving--I think it's definitely at the point where attorneys should at least be consulted...........