NHTSA Complaint #11206061 — 2013 CHEVROLET MALIBU ECO

EXCESSIVE OIL CONSUMPTION REGARDING THE ECOTEC 2.4L ENGINE (LUK). I HAD PURCHASED MY VEHICLE IN SEPTEMBER OF 2018 WITH 87,932 MILES. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED AND SERVICED. PRIOR TO REACHING THE RECOMMENDED 7500 MILE OIL CHANGE INTERVAL AND BEFORE THE 'CHANGE OIL SOON' NOTIFICATION, MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. I HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO A CERTIFIED GM DEALERSHIP TO BE DIAGNOSED ON DECEMBER 14TH 2018. IT WAS NOTED THE VEHICLE WAS 3 QUARTS LOW ON OIL AT 94,530 MILES. I CONTINUED TO MONITOR THE OIL LEVELS THERE AFTER UNTIL MY NEXT SERVICING AT 97,063 MILES, AGAIN THE OIL WAS LOW BUT WITHIN MARGIN AS I HAD TOPPED OFF AS NEEDED. NOW WITH MY VEHICLE AT 100,134 MILES AND STILL LOSING OIL I AM CONCERNED THAT THE ENGINE IS PLAGUED BY THE SAME PROBLEM AS FOUND IN THE 2.4L (LEA) FOUND IN THE EQUINOX AND GMC TERRAIN. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE WAS A MANUFACTURERS DEFECT WITH THE PISTON RINGS COMBINED WITH THE OIL SPRAY COOLING THAT LEAD TO GM ISSUING A SPECIAL WARRANTY COVERAGE TO THE LEA VARIANT HOWEVER NO COVERAGE WAS EXTENDED TO THE LUK VARIANT. IT IS ALSO TO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS NO DISCERNIBLE DIFFERENCE INTERNALLY BETWEEN BOTH VARIANTS WITH THE LUK ENGINE SLIGHTLY MODIFIED TO SUPPORT THE (BAS) BELT ALTERNATOR STARTER MILD HYBRID DRIVETRAIN. BOTH STILL CONTAIN THE SAME PISTONS, PISTON RINGS, AND OIL JET SPRAY TECHNOLOGIES. AT THIS POINT I HAVE RAISED MY CONCERNS WITH GM AND HAVE SCHEDULED A OIL CONSUMPTION TEST TO BE DONE (RULED TO BE UNRELIABLE IN THE LAWSUIT REGARDING LEA TYPE ENGINES). I AM ALSO RAISING MY CONCERNS HERE AS WELL AS I BELIEVE THIS TO BE A SAFETY ISSUE AS A RESULT OF MANUFACTURE DEFECT AND I BELIEVE GM INTENDS TO SKIRT THE ISSUE BY ONLY ADDRESSING THE TYPE OF ENGINE INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT AND ONLY THOSE VEHICLES FOR WHICH THEY WERE EQUIPPED. I APPRECIATE TAKING YOUR TIME TO REVIEW THIS CASE AND HOPE TO SEE A RESOLUTION.