Jump to content

Recall On My 2008 Silverado (eletronic Component)

jerr529

Recommended Posts

jerr529 Enthusiast

jerr529

Posted
Posted

Hi all just received a recall notice about a problem thgat could occur,The eletronic component located under the padding under drivers seat may become corrode due to excess of water from saturation snow water road salt etc.The electronic SENSING and Diagnostic module is located there SDM is under the padding under carpet.causeing problems with airbag and DIC and maybe seat belt,Has anyone had a promblems and anyone rec this recall letter??

jerry :lol:

gmercury Enthusiast

gmercury

Posted
Posted

I havent had any problems but I was at the dealer the other day and they told me about it before I got the letter and took care of it that day. It only takes a few minutes to fix. I also got the letter today!

Shatterz Enthusiast

Shatterz

Posted
Posted

I just got this today too. I'm not too concerned sinice I really don't make it a habbit of soaking the carpet with road salt and water (are they really serious about this) :lol:

c4cruiser Enthusiast

c4cruiser

Posted
Posted

There was a thread about this recall earlier. Apparently it only affects trucks in those states that use salt or harsh chemicals for snowy and/or icy roads in winter.

700 sportsman Senior Enthusiast

700 sportsman

Posted
Posted

I haven't heard of any directly related problems, but all they do is rip out the padding under the unit, to prevent moisture from collecting, I don't plan on taking my truck in or doing it myself, A because I have weather tech floor liners, and B because you would have some serious snow on your boots to get under the seat and saturate the carpet

LawmanSS Senior Enthusiast

LawmanSS

Posted
Posted
...I don't plan on taking my truck in or doing it myself, A because I have weather tech floor liners, and B because you would have some serious snow on your boots to get under the seat and saturate the carpet

 

+1

03blackz71 Senior Enthusiast

03blackz71

Posted
Posted

Got the letter last week and am waiting to go in until I have other issues that they need to take care of. I have no rush either because I also have the weathertech liners so my carpet stays dry.

Bowler807 Enthusiast

Bowler807

Posted
Posted

I got the letter today also. GMC said there may be a problem with my Yukon. Then they listed my VIN. I don't have a Yukon, I have a Sierra Crew Cab.

 

This kind of shakes my faith in GM's record keeping.

ShoddyHog Enthusiast

ShoddyHog

Posted
Posted

I got the letter yesterday too. Not sure if I'm going to do anything about it since we only get a few snowfalls a year, and I don't plan on dragging much of it in the cabin with me. If I hear a lot of people saying they removed it and it didn't increase the noise in the cabin, I'll remove it.

 

Gerry

VMax2007 Senior Enthusiast

VMax2007

Posted
Posted
I haven't heard of any directly related problems, but all they do is rip out the padding under the unit, to prevent moisture from collecting, I don't plan on taking my truck in or doing it myself, A because I have weather tech floor liners, and B because you would have some serious snow on your boots to get under the seat and saturate the carpet

 

 

+2

moose201 Enthusiast

moose201

Posted
Posted
I got the letter yesterday too. Not sure if I'm going to do anything about it since we only get a few snowfalls a year, and I don't plan on dragging much of it in the cabin with me. If I hear a lot of people saying they removed it and it didn't increase the noise in the cabin, I'll remove it.

 

Gerry

 

I'm curious about the cabin noise issue as well.

ShoddyHog Enthusiast

ShoddyHog

Posted
Posted
I got the letter yesterday too. Not sure if I'm going to do anything about it since we only get a few snowfalls a year, and I don't plan on dragging much of it in the cabin with me. If I hear a lot of people saying they removed it and it didn't increase the noise in the cabin, I'll remove it.

 

Gerry

 

I'm curious about the cabin noise issue as well.

 

 

My truck is very quiet and rides better than most of the cars I've driven, so I don't want to ruin that. Then again, that'd be a good excuse to upgrade the stereo :rollin:

gmblack3 Enthusiast

gmblack3

Posted
Posted

A guy I work with had a 09 2500 crew cab duramax. It was a base model with cloth seats and no carpet. He bought it new early this year and paid approx $27k, sticker was approx $35k I think.

 

His gauges quit working so he took it in. His leaked water when raining into the cab and down under the seat which corroded the component they are talking about. They called a "leak specialist" into the dealership and after being in the shop for 13 days they could never get it to stop leaking. He traded the truck in and now has a Tundra. :smash:

 

So if anybody is looking at a used red 09 base model 2500 duramax in the Atlanta area, avoid it.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • cautious optimist
      2027 Chevrolet Silverado: Official Discussion

      By cautious optimist · Posted

      You nailed it with 6 trims. 
    • richard wysong
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By richard wysong · Posted

      I had an 88 K1500 with a 5.7 that had those symptoms, I know totally different, it ended up being the ECM. Once you get the fuel system fixed if it still runs lousy you may want to investigate that. it didn't set any codes, stalled ,ran rough at times etc
    • James Beyer
      Trading 7.3 (Godzilla) for G.M.C gas

      By James Beyer · Posted

      Congratulations Isttype, on your gmc. Really like my 2024 2500hd sle doublecab now with 85,500 miles.  I checked the oil today at 4800 miles since last oil change and barely reading on the stick.  I don't care if GM says it's Acceptable adding a quart every 2000 miles because that is 100% BS, It is not a 1966 Harley Shovelhead! Sounds like it's setting up a future failure like I had with my 1500 6.2l. Other than oil consumption problems, I really like the 6.6l gas and 10 speed is really nice.  Towed a light 4000 pound trailer last week and averaged 14 mpg.  I was pretty impressive that a 7300 pound gas truck did 14mpg towing, Later-
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Long Term Cold Cycle Limited Testing   Back to the 1990's and XOM's million mile test. Since then there have been others and there will be more. Schaeffer's, AMSOIL to name two. Of these Schaeffer's is the stand alone which I will explain in a bit later.    http://papers.sae.org/600190/:   http://papers.sae.org/850215/:   Up to 75% of  engine wear occurs on cold starts. These two links (above) provide the technical reasons for engine wear. In a nut shell, and by a large margin, cylinder wear is what takes out most motors and even with a pre-oiling system that part of the engine is dry enough on cold starts and cold warm up to pierce Stribeck.   So when you put a motor, or a car, on a dyno for a million miles stopping only for oil changes, (yes fuel is uninterrupted) or break down maintenance, you are depriving the test of the most important part of it's wear cycle. Yes a million is then a pretty easy walk even for a mineral oil under those conditions.    How about cleanliness during the long test cycles? Same thing. Varnishes that stick rings and insulate parts are laid down by repetitive 'heat cycles'. It's the cool down the precipitates the varnishes. These long runs also hinder acidic attack caused by cold start richness and less than optimal cold start ring sealing. They hinder water formation and enhance breathing of the crankcase; the petri dish of acid formation, the first step in sludge formation, amalgamation and precipitation. These motors are also monitored and controlled for water and oil temperatures to within the "normal operating range".      https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf Note the test sequence in some boutique oils literature for testing, API IIIH, is not the standard used for the ILSAC G7 testing. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No, not as used. As used as a 'visual guide' it makes it's point. The G7 weighted piston deposit minimum is lower.      Back to Schaeffer's. That was a cyclical test of an engine in fleet service and not a dyno mule and if you saw the video it was not mirror clean but wear was low.    There are oils like BioSyn and other 'Renewable" source oils that taught cleanliness and have proven themselves in fleet testing. Havoline an other example.    The newest ILSAC G-7 test prioritize cleanliness, LSPI mitigation and fuel economy OVER WEAR. In comparison Porsche C30 Specification Verses ILSAC G-7 Specification below:      Some will balk that this graph isn't apples to apples and I will challenge that in that this graph represent the SPECIFICATION and not the any One Oil Performance.   It is absolutely possible to minimize wear, maximize cleanliness and mitigate LSPI etc., It just isn't cheap and currently I see none that are not walking toward profit over performance.     
    • asilverblazer
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      I don't think you will need a split, separate product, etc., the OBD port should be able to deliver everything you need. Since your device would be plugged into it all the time, it wouldn't miss anything.    Hardware in this case will be the easiest part of your project - ELM 327 devices will already deliver all the data you need. Reporting/software is where your advantage/marketability is.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...