The 2018 Chevrolet Trax has a well-documented front lower control arm weld defect (NHTSA Campaign 19V312000, issued April 2019). Owners report steering loss, clunking and popping noises, and knocking while turning. Multiple owners describe loud cracks during normal driving—U-turns, highway speeds, even after hitting a pothole—followed by hard steering or vehicle instability. One owner's rear suspension swing bar separated at the weld during highway conditions. Some vehicles exhibited pulling to the right or felt "unsafe to drive" after the weld failure.
The recall repair itself became the bigger problem. Dealerships consistently reported parts on back order or unavailable for months after the recall notice went out. Owners waited 6+ weeks and sometimes had their vehicles longer with the dealer than at home. When repairs finally happened, secondary issues emerged: uneven tire wear (directly attributed to misaligned control arms), cross-threaded wheel studs, loose bolts after installation, and wheel sensors reportedly damaged during the recall work.
Owners faced denial and confusion. Dealerships sometimes claimed vehicles weren't under recall despite inspection findings, then later changed course. One owner reported the dealership re-tested with a "special tool" and found the vehicle *was* affected, but initially denied it and suggested the owner pay for repairs as an accident. Tire damage caused by the defective control arms went unreimbursed by both Chevrolet and dealers, who said owners should have detected worn tires sooner.
Dealers also declined to repair vehicles after the recall was officially closed, even though both control arms on a single vehicle sometimes needed replacement at different times.
Failure modes owners describe
Front lower control arm weld fracture
The front lower control arm weld cracks or separates under normal driving conditions, causing loss of steering control, pulling, and clunking/popping noises. The defect is part of NHTSA Campaign 19V312000 (Suspension). Owners report this occurring at low mileage (around 7,500–10,500 miles for some) and also much later (20,000+ miles).
When: 7,500–36,000 miles; some owners report defect found months after purchase despite low initial mileage
Symptoms owners cite: Loud crack or popping sound while driving or turning; Hard/difficult steering or steering loss; Knocking or clunking noise while turning; Vehicle pulling to the right; Vibration under the feet/dashboard area; Vehicle fishtail or instability; Grinding noise from suspension
Codes mentioned: NHTSA Campaign 19V312000 (Suspension), NHTSA Campaign 19V652000 (Suspension) referenced in one narrative
Repairs/costs cited: Dealership replacement of one or both front lower control arms, typically done under recall; however, parts were frequently unavailable for months. One owner reported both arms needed replacement; dealership replaced one and initially denied the other side was defective. After replacement, some owners reported the dealership did not perform wheel alignment, leading to cross-threaded studs and uneven tire wear.
Recalls/TSBs owners mention: NHTSA Campaign 19V312000 issued April 18, 2019. Recalls closed, though at least one owner reported a separate campaign (19V652000). Manufacturer acknowledged defect but parts supply issues delayed repairs indefinitely. GM refused to cover tire damage caused by the defective control arms, claiming it was not their responsibility.
Rear suspension swing bar weld separation
The rear suspension swing bar separates at the weld, rendering the vehicle unable to drive forward. One owner reported this occurred after running over a manhole cover at highway speeds, with the rear fishtailing dangerously. Owner states the current recall only mentions the front control arm but the rear issue is the same problem.
When: Mileage not specified; incident occurred during highway driving
Symptoms owners cite: Rear fishtailing; Vehicle unable to drive forward despite engine running; No prior warning signs
Repairs/costs cited: Not repaired; vehicle towed to dealership. Insurance inspection determined the incident did not match the damage, and vehicle was at risk of being declared a total loss.
Recalls/TSBs owners mention: Owner notes the current recall does not cover the rear suspension swing bar weld, only the front control arm, despite the same weld failure mode.
Tire wear and damage from control arm misalignment
Defective lower control arms cause excessive or uneven tire wear and toe-out, leading to premature tire failure. Tires became extremely hazardous within 40,000 miles of new vehicle purchase. Multiple tire shops confirmed that misaligned control arms directly caused the accelerated tire wear.
When: Approximately 40,000 miles (some tires were new or nearly new before the defect caused damage); discovered during or shortly after recall repair
Symptoms owners cite: Extreme tire wear; Uneven tire wear; Tire toe-out; Tires becoming 'extremely hazardous' prematurely
Repairs/costs cited: Tires required replacement; owners sought reimbursement. Dealerships offered discounted tires but refused full coverage. Tire experts confirmed the control arm defect caused the wear.
Recalls/TSBs owners mention: GM refused to cover the cost of replacement tires, despite the recall explicitly stating that faulty control arms 'could' cause toe-out and tread issues. Dealerships refused to cover the cost as well.
Recall parts unavailability and extended repair delays
The lower control arm parts required for the recall repair were on back order or unavailable for months after the recall was issued. Owners waited 6+ weeks to months for repairs, with dealerships unable to provide estimated timeframes. This systemic parts shortage delayed the remedy for the safety-critical defect.
When: April 2019 (recall issued) through 2020 and beyond; some vehicles still waiting months later
Symptoms owners cite: Dealership unable to schedule recall repair due to parts unavailability; Indefinite waiting periods for parts; Owners kept vehicle with known defect while waiting for recall parts
Codes mentioned: NHTSA Campaign 19V312000 (Suspension)
Repairs/costs cited: No repair completed during the waiting period; vehicles remained in service with known defective parts. Some dealerships offered loaner vehicles; others did not. One owner reported the dealership later told her the recall was 'dangerous' but had already let her drive the vehicle for months.
Recalls/TSBs owners mention: Manufacturer was aware of parts shortages and stated they would provide updates or confirm availability, but failed to do so in most cases. No confirmed timeframe provided in any complaint. Some dealerships were instructed to offer loaner vehicles, but this was inconsistently applied.
Secondary damage during recall repair installation
During installation of replacement lower control arms, dealership technicians caused additional damage, including cross-threaded wheel studs, loose bolts, and possibly damaged wheel sensors. These issues occurred during work on the recall itself.
When: Discovered within days to weeks after control arm replacement (approximately 30,000–36,000 miles in one case)
Symptoms owners cite: Cross-threaded wheel stud requiring replacement; Loose bolts after control arm installation; Wheel sensor malfunction (allegedly caused during control arm replacement); Uneven tire wear due to improper alignment after installation
Codes mentioned: ABS light illuminated (wheel sensor issue)
Repairs/costs cited: Dealerships blamed owners for the damage or claimed it was not covered under warranty. One owner reported the dealership initially denied responsibility for a cross-threaded stud, claiming the owner was responsible. Wheel sensor replacements were quoted at $200+ and denied under warranty. Alignment work was sometimes not performed after control arm replacement.
Recalls/TSBs owners mention: Warranty claims for secondary damage were denied. Dealerships blamed parts departments or claimed damage was outside warranty coverage.
Dealer refusal to repair after recall closure
After the recall was officially closed, dealerships refused to repair control arms on the same vehicle even when both sides were defective. One owner reported the left side was repaired under recall in 2019, but when the right side began to fail 3.5 years later, the dealer refused to cover it and charged for inspection.
When: 3.5 years and 10,000 miles after initial recall repair; discovered when independent shop inspected during routine oil change
Symptoms owners cite: Noise from unreplaced control arm; Control arm separation (observed by third-party shop during oil change)
Codes mentioned: NHTSA Campaign 19V312000 (officially closed)
Repairs/costs cited: Dealership refused repair, citing recall closure, and quoted $150 just for diagnostic inspection. Independent tire shop (Tire Kingdom) provided recall information and advised contacting Chevrolet. Vehicle remained inoperable.
Recalls/TSBs owners mention: Recall officially closed; dealer no longer obligated. Owner contacted NHTSA and mentioned potential new/special recall may be needed.
Dealer confusion and inconsistent recall eligibility determination
Dealerships provided conflicting information about whether vehicles were covered by the recall. Some initially said vehicles were not affected, then later changed their determination after re-testing with a 'special tool' or upon further inspection. One dealer claimed the vehicle wasn't under recall while knowingly replacing lower control arms.
When: 2019 (recall issue period)
Symptoms owners cite: Initial inspection: 'vehicle not affected'; Subsequent inspection: 'vehicle affected, arms need replacement'; Dealer replacing control arms while denying recall applicability
Codes mentioned: NHTSA Campaign 19V312000
Repairs/costs cited: Dealerships replaced lower control arms as a 'courtesy' despite claiming the vehicle was not under recall. One owner was initially told the car wasn't affected, then after damage occurred (U-turn incident), the dealership replaced both arms but maintained the vehicle was not under recall. Insurance adjuster was later told a special re-test tool found the vehicle was covered.
Recalls/TSBs owners mention: Inconsistent application of recall eligibility criteria across dealerships; confusion between what is a recall issue versus a courtesy repair.
Synthesized from 31 NHTSA owner complaints — unverified consumer
allegations, summarized for patterns. The verbatim filings appear below.