Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Thomcat last won the day on June 25 2016

Thomcat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

367 Excellent

About Thomcat

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
  • Location
    Harpers Ferry WV
  • Gender
  • Drives
    '16 Silverado LTZ71; '16 Malibu LT; '18 Traverse Premier Redline

Recent Profile Visitors

5,300 profile views
  1. More preferable to scare the $hit out of you than shake the $hit of you.......problem with the seat motors is they are still there and affect comfort even if you disconnect the power.
  2. Re: Vibrating seat ------too cheap to modify the existing dash to beep and project a multi LED "heads up" visual alert system on the windshield like in my new Traverse and Malibu instead of that uncomfortable vibrating seat......probably coming in the '19 trucks.
  3. In closer look comparing the photos it appears the brackets are similar, but appear to be too short with not enough extension of the bracket past where the bolt rests in the slotted end of the bracket.....since they do not extend far enough to rest upon the multilayer lip of welded steel and against the stronger curved lip, resting only on the flat single layer of sheet metal the weight punched through and cracked the sheet metal. Maybe each bracket a little different.....could be brackets installed in incorrect position on the board?
  4. Similar doesn't count......painting stripes on a white horse doesn't make it a zebra. Difference is in the shape of the brackets, areas they are bolted to and most important the part of the structure where the weight from the board is transferred. OEMs are specific to these areas whereas aftermarkets may be designed to fit a majority of vehicles in ways different than the truck manufacturers design. OEM mounts are installed in dedicated holes designed into reinforced areas of the body which are multilayered welded steel and the shape of the bracket to transfer support to the strongest areas of the body. All the bolts directly support the weight as well as the curved reinforced lip against which all three brackets rest. There is no rotational torque around any mounting bolt no matter how much weight is placed upon them and all bolts are mounted into dedicated reinforced areas. Photos depict the mounting areas. All brackets is specific to the mounting location - bolted one to the the reinforced bottom lip of the rocker, one to the steel channel or multilayered structure and the end of the brackets bearing the majority of the transferred weight rests against against a curved support lip of multilayered welded sheet metal..
  5. .02 Doesn't look like an OEM running board mount......no mounting bolts located anywhere near that sheet metal on the chassis with OEM mounts/boards, three separate mounting arms cantilever 90 deg. off the reinforced sill rocker panel portion of the chassis. Supports 350 lb+ with no flex, just chassis tipping when two people stand on the same board. Looks like a crazy way to mount it anyway...poor design likely to save money or adapt the product to multiple brand/model chassis.....weight on the board will cause a rotational force on the right anchor bolt transferring all the weight on the bracket to the left anchor bolt left which is secured into thin metal and it cracked exactly where the reinforcement plate ended.
  6. Forget undercoating......just spray any rust areas with Rust-Oleum RUST REFORMER comes in a spray can. Instantly converts rust to a protected surface....chemically converts the iron oxide to a rustproof compound with a flat black finish matching the existing frame coating. Sprayed the few rusted frame contact areas 2 Winters ago and still good.
  7. I'd sell my truck and drive a scooter before I'd sell my 5000 sq ft house. Attached 2 car garage serves only two purposes - to keep my a$$ dry during a rainstorm and to keep the vehicles clean in a snowstorm. The real detached garage is for the jet boat, lawn tractor, pool equipment, generator and smelly crap that I don't want to stink up the house
  8. The Malibu "grocery getter" is always parked in the side load garage's "K-turn" section. What's the big deal, with leather seats you just whiz across and puts less wear and tear on the left edge of the driver's seat crapo GM leather which is the subject of complaints on this board.
  9. Just a thought - Seems that video is showing more than an unbalance shake. Had many vehicles with unbalanced tires , fronts usually cause more of an up-down vibration without excessive steering wheel play, rears less and definitely in the 50 - 65 mph range but that back and forth play in the steering wheel seems to indicate something more - either the driver is driving looking at the front of the hood instead of aiming high on the road ahead for road centralization......or much more likely rear axle bounce and tires are loosing lateral contact with the road. If equipped with the trailering package, there is anti-sway control built into the vehicle software which could be false triggered by intermittent rear wheel operation. I remember posts around the time I purchased my '16Z71 new and it was equipped with different GM number rear leaf springs than previous models, I believe there were also aluminum vs. steel control arm differences. Over 12K miles and still running smooth as silk - and I never rotate the tires (not even under the free 2 year maintenance) so long nothing vibrates and they are wearing evenly OP should load the bed with over 500 lbs of crap over the rear axle and check operation to see if it reduces vibration. Dealer's max 65 mph claim is B$, but vibrations maybe caused or aggravated by running with an empty bed. Could be the extra wide trailer towing option in the video comes in an OEM package that triggers a spring change that assumes max load causing an axle hop with an empty bed.??? Not making excuses for GM.....it's F'd up either way.....but if loading the bed reduces or eliminates the vibration, a rear spring change may compensate.
  10. Here's my suggestion I chose for myself - Nothing. Works fine in a two car garage '18 Traverse with a full length center console parks on the left and Silverado with no console and open floor space on the right permitting driver to park close, slide over and exit/enter from the passenger door
  11. Re: http://www.revbase.com/BBBMotor/TSb/DownloadPdf?id=201534 An ingenious solution for a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place - a locking dust cap for a capless gas filler pipe. Of course, GM didn't say it was available under recall, or worse, at no cost to the owners - likely because it is not free, just "available". Let's see if I'm wrong and they really do hand them out for free. If not, nothing more than a joke on owners, forcing a buyer of a $50K vehicle to pay extra for an extra gas cap instead of designing a "free" passive dust shield integral with the fuel door for the capless pipe, like the new Traverse - and who are they kidding, this "lock" was not really designed to provide security like a locking threaded gas cap for a standard fill pipe, this "lock" is necessary to keep this unthreaded kludge from falling off. Looks like a real quick design for the keylock portion too, as if water wouldn't seep past that retractable cover for the keyslot, or when inserting a wet key in the rain and later freeze in the tumblers just like it used to do in the same type keyslots of the 50's - 60's era push button door handles or even in dry weather waiting for someone to jamb their fat mitts in there trying to unlock that cheapo lock and break off the key! Then it's: "No gas for you!"
  12. Not I! So what else did anyone really expect they would say: "Essentially with the upcoming gen we f-&#*d it up even more"???? The real question is should we have believed GM/Chevy then or should we believe them now? From the firm who designed an promoted a new truck look and continued use of steel in truck beds ...the new gen's rounded wheel wells of a Ford... the new gen's reduction of hundreds of pounds of weight substituting even more aluminum, plastic and fiber with less confidence of durability past the 3/36 warranty.......the new gen's more intrusive emissions kludges to get that extra 10 drops per mile of gasoline........ and a new environmentally friendly 1234yf refrigerant that is less capable of heat transfer while with its new proprietary lubricants being much more expensive than older 134a and as a bonus FLAMMABLE........to summarize: the new GM trucks will look like a Ford F-150 which upon impact may explode like a Ford Pinto. No complaints here. My almost 2 y.o. '16 Z71 Silverado has only been back to the dealer twice.....once for the AA upgrade to the MyLink and once for a free yearly State inspection.... drives great and smooth riding all the way to 80+ mph.
  13. Most GPS modules that connect to a PC's USB port need a custom software program to run it and wont work through the Infortainment USB port. Google maps can be run off an Iphone or Android after loading the specialized app to the phone. After market DIY kits using OEM HMI modules are available for '15s and below, but not '16 and later which use a different MyLink system iphone/Android capable interface. One firm markets a complete kit for upgrading using a factory module http://www.gen5diy.com/Chevrolet/Silverado/chevrolet-silverado-diy-kits/Navigation-Upgrade9/ However the kit costs more than the $495 charge for the Nav option on new Silverados.
  14. Yes there continue to be problems - that doesn't mean that they are AFM related. Yes the V8 small block was probably the best - and it turned to $hit a long time before the AFM insult - the 283 on my '60 and 327 in my '65 SS were bulletproof, but they used steel cylinder walls not aluminum blocks, ran at 165 deg F, with only a road draft tube or PCV valve for emissions, free breathing induction and exhaust systems, drank gasoline contaoining that wonderful lubricant tetra ethyl lead which lubricated the upper end's 16 valves with simple hydraulic lifters, no variable valve or ignition timing other than vacuum advance . and not a single piece of electronics other than the radio, . That's not what's powering the vehicles of today....many cross country and coastal trips - the 5.3 AFM's in my '12 Avalanche hit 80K and the '13 Avalanche hit 60K without burning any measurable oil on the stick, or adding a drop of oil. Of course I always buy new with less than 50 miles on the clock, first oil & filter change at 1K, second at 3K and then every 3K thereafter Mobil 1 and OEM filter replacements and only drink more expensive tier 1 gasolines - too much, too often? -damn right, but in the over 3 dozen vehicles I've owned and bought for the children not a single oil burner or engine failure.....exception might have been the '07 Avalanche which I had enough brains to dump before the unmodified AFM engine became a burner. People buy low mileage "cherry" used vehicles that someone else has kicked the crap out of them or follow the ridiculous oil change schedule dictated by that engine killing DIC and then wonder why engines wear out and screw up. Excessive oil changes have never killed a single engine, but the opposite is not true and following the oil change advice of the DIC becomes a poor claim for self defense when the engine dies and you have to pay the penalty. And the number of complaints are irrelevant without knowing the population used for comparison or insults they have been subjected to in their lifetime. Only the guy that gets the $hit end of the stick is the one who does the complaining......so all that can be surmised from what appears to some to be a large number of complaints is relevant only to those doing the complaining. Whether poor maintenance, abuse or just plain bad luck creates the oil addict V8, even though the AFM issue has been remedied it will continue to get the blame. Proof is that the majority of vehicles with the same engines made out of the same parts don't exhibit these problems......same goes for the notorious "Chevy shake".....another problem which I and most have never encountered, nor complained.
  15. It's possible because there should be no AFM related on post 1/2011 aluminum AFM V8s. Whether or not an engine of later production will be an oil burner depends upon specs of assembly, maintenance, type of stresses placed on the engine and fluids used for lubrication and propulsion. Improper maintenance of the PVC takeoff system or aging of the valve seals and rings will cause oil burning is more likely a cause of oil burning than AFM or the dwell time run as a V4. Second gen '07 Avalanches with the 5.3 and other first AFM engines of that era suffered from all the AFM related causes related to eventual oil burning. One cause of oil consumption was position of the PCV valve takeoff in the valve cover where it sucked a great deal of oil off the valve train, overloading the system and feeding oil into the induction system. The late 2008 and later mod included a redesigned valve cover with the PCV takeoff at a different location. Problems continued on higher mileage AFMs and oil burning was found to be frozen oil control ring sets clogged with burned oil crap on 1 or 2 of the 4 AFM cylinders - GM came up with a cleaning system for the rings, failing that the alternative replacement of pistons. Seems main cause of the problem was the AFM discharge valve which directed oil from the deactivated cylinder hydraulic tappets back into the sump.The discharge head has 5 discharge ports, one vertically and four horizontal ones spraying into the sump - spray from the horizontal ports overloaded the oil control rings of the AFM cylinders, which were "dead" in V4 operation, eventually gumming up their oil control ring sets. Once frozen the rings wore and couldn't squeegee excess oil from the cylinder walls passing excess oil to the combustion chamber. An AFM baffle was retrofitted directing all discharge from the AFM port directly downward into the sump - no more oil splash on dead cylinder walls - no more AFM related oil burning problems. There were additional mods related to reliability of AFM hydraulic valve design. All of these AFM mods were incorporated in post 1/2011 production. Now we have DI where the fuel is directly injected into the combustion chamber instead of against the valves. So there is a new problem related to valve lubrication/carbon buildup in the induction chamber and engine wear. That;'s why the manuals recommend tier one gasoline which has additives that MAY help in this area. Just for laughs I bought the Range device which Woot had on sale for $99 to see if it made a difference in performance - I didn't notice any difference in performance in my mountain/small town driving where it is in V8 most of the time anyway.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.