Jump to content

2kwik4u

Member
  • Content count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Good

About 2kwik4u

  • Rank
    Enthusiast
  1. Been considering this as well. This particular dealer was the volume sales leader in the area, so I figured they had the best chance of having the most/best techs. Perhaps I was wrong. There are 4 other GMC dealers here in the city, I'll give a different one a try and see how that goes on the next issue.
  2. Thanks for the replies. Much better information here than I got from the Service Writer at the dealership. Honestly I've always found message boards, and online enthusiast communities to be a great source of information. I might be done with those dealership guys at this point. Took it in for 6 problems. They "fixed" 3 of them, made one worse, and completely disregarded (or gave me a crappy work around) for the last 2. Then charged the warranty company $2,800 for the few things they "fixed" (including the A/C system).
  3. That makes better sense, but still feels like a 1/2 way fix. Thanks GM. Is the reflective surface doing anything in this process, or is it just blocking airflow? Can I stick a can of spray paint in the grill and at least get the eyesore somewhat hidden?
  4. Wait, so you're saying that the tape there is meant to work as a structural connection to help eliminate cracking in the area? Like a gusset of sorts? Surely not?!?
  5. Just had my AC Condensor replaced at 74k miles. Extended warranty covered it (and some other issues I was having). Can you elaborate on what this tape is. It sticks out like a sore thumb in the grill when looking at the truck from the front. What is this tape? What the hell is it doing, or supposed to be doing? This is the first I've seen of it mentioned online. I questioned the dealer about taking it off/removing it. Service Writer (who is NOT very strong in the technical details area) said "It's there for thermal absorption".......as a mechanical engineer, I can tell this answer is complete BS. He did say "You can paint it black if the appearance bothers you, but don't remove it" Here's some pics to show where/what the tape is: Thanks in advance!
  6. I researched the crap out of Durango's when I was looking to buy two years ago. Spent months learning the packages, what to look for on trade in's, test drove a handful of local ones. had it narrowed down to three. Went off the rails at the last minute and bought a pick-up with only a few weeks of research. Had I read about the "Chevy Shake" at the time I would've passed. Traded a basket case of a 2006 Trailblazer SS for my '15 SLT Premium Plus........I really like my truck, but honestly should've stuck to my research and went with the Durango. Really liked the "storm trooper" look on that platform. White with the blacktop and R/T package. Kinda hard to find, but look nice. The Hemi/ZF 8spd is a great powertrain combination. The chassis has roots in Germany, and hits above it's pay scale in performance. Buddy at my last job had a brand new '15 R/T while I had my '06 TBSS.......we "compared" them a few times while driving to/from lunch. I would get him by about 3/4-1 length from 0-45mph, then it was a dead heat to far above legal speeds. My TBSS ran a [email protected] bone stock, his R/T would be in the high 14's by our best guess. Congrats on the new ride. Only thing I don't like about the new ('18+) Durango's is that damn hood scoop. Just a click too aggressive for me. Otherwise the styling is spot on!
  7. The problem with these types of statements is that most people don't understand modern engine control systems. More often than not there are advanced sensing algorithms, and active feedback control loops that can and will allow advanced ignition timing settings. So simply saying "Higher octane doesn't do anything" is incorrect. Even adding "than what your engine was designed for" isn't really correct, since it was designed to run on ALL fuels not just ONE fuel. Without intimate knowledge of the control system, the only way to tell if a higher octane fuel will improve the situation is by experimentation. My '12 Focus reacted quickly and significantly. My wifes '10 Traverse had no reaction at all. My Sierra has a subtle reaction.
  8. I think this is hte exact case. I've been watching the data on timing and knock retard on my truck for a few weeks. I don't have good longs to backup my anecdotal thoughts here.....HOWEVER.....it appears that running on 93 nets me less overall time with knock retard in effect. Leading me to believe the timing parameters are setup such that they are purposefully advanced, and letting the knock sensor report problems and adjust on the fly. This would lead to a "constantly optimized" condition where the truck was always running as much timing as practical, without undue risk of damage. SO.....When moving to 93, you spend less time with timing retarded and see a net overall gain. Again, though, the gain is small. Very small. Just enough to offset the difference in the cost of the fuel on a per mile basis it appears. Defintiely not enough to feel in the seat of the pants, or hear in the ping of the engine.
  9. I've always tried to start this in the spring time, right when it warms up and the providers have moved to summer blend. I'll do basically the procedure you mention. Run it pretty dry, swap to next octane on the list, run a tank, and refill. Then start data collection. This is the first vehicle I've had that didn't show a marked difference in $/mi. Even my '03 Yukon had a difference of $0.015/mi. While these are still just pennies per mile differences. Over the course of a 100,000 miles, that's $1,500 in fuel. Might be negligible to some, but seems worthwhile to me. I should also mention I've had a few vehicles where the choice was made for me (Audi A4 with mild tune, and Silverado SS with a rebuilt engine) to run 93. I've also found the opposite to be true where 87 has been the least expensive, for instance, wifes '10 Traverse also gave zero craps about octane, always returned nearly the same cost per mile, and had no noticeable driving benefits to one fuel or the other. We ran 87 in that one.
  10. I want to take a second and elaborate on this portion of the EXCELLENT post above. I do the following for every vehicle I've owned since my '00 S10 (like 7 of them now I think)......Drive for a month on each of the fuels your vehicle can accept. For instance, I had a '12 Focus Se. It would accept 87, 89, 93, and E85. After driving each fuel for a month I computed the dollars spent per mile driven for each fuel. Turns our 87 octane was the MOST expensive fuel I could be using. Followed by 89, E85, and 93. The E85 and the 93 were within fractions of a cent of each other ($0.115 and $0.118 per mile). This was based on a the cost of E85 being around $2/gal, and 93 around $3.75/gal. In the end, I ran 93 in that car with great results. I'm in the process of testing my current truck. Been running 93 Octane for almost a full month now after trying 87, and 89. So far the results are far less dramatic than with other cars. Each fuel is netting me REALLY close to $0.175/mi. 87 was $0.172/mi and 93 is currently at $0.178/mi. The 93 however runs SIGNIFICANTLY smoother in a subjective "feel" assessment. I'm most likely going to continue with the 93 when I complete the test based on that feel alone. Considering the price is so near the same on a per mile basis. The assumption here is that the factory tune was running with some level of knock retard on the 87 at all times. With the 93 it is allowing itself to "trim" the timing higher, make a few more hp, and offset the added cost of the premium fuel. Obviously it's on the order of fractions of a HP considering the relative cost per mile is SOOOO close. Moral of the story....don't just say 87 is the cheapest and let it be. There is a decent chance a higher octane/blend will be less expensive, and (at least in my particular case), it might be a wash in terms of cost, but a win in terms of driving feel. Data is your friend, and follow it's trends more than any placebo effect you might get.
  11. I do my own. I avoid the dealership like the plague. You never get good details about what they are doing. Never get a warm fuzzy that your vehicle is actually getting the attention to detail that I have personally. I'ts just a giant crapshoot on quality IMO. I'll take a rainy Sunday morning to change the oil in the garage. It's not hard, gives me a reason to get off the couch and do something, and I can have a look around underneath while I'm at it. My general nature as a Mechanical Engineer and overall car guy is to be overly detail oriented. I don't just want to know "Your A/C is fixed"........I want to know exactly what piece failed, why it failed, what was done to repair it, what tools were used to repair it, and what has been done to fix the root cause of the issue. Those details are simply NOT going to get drug out of a service writer at your local dealership, and the odds of talking to the Tech doing the work (that might or might not have those answers) is slim to none. With that said, I bought an extended warranty on this truck as a means to hedge my bets financially. Just got out of the dealership (after being in there for 16 days) to have the A/C repaired, Seat Rail Replaced, 3rd Brake Light Gasket Replaced, Electric Steering Recall completed, and Trailer Brake Switch Replaced. Several issues were simply not addressed, or I got tired of fighting them (The Chevy Shake is one of them). The warranty has paid for itself, but my time spent on the phone and being the proactive person in the ordeal could have been spent on actually doing the fix in fewer than 16 days. The upshot is that I had $2,800 worth of work done (dealership prices), and was out $185 from my pocket.........SO the hassle was worth it this time. Overall, my preference is to troubleshoot, diagnose, repair, and monitor my equipment (boat, truck, lawnmower, dishwasher, laptop, etc) myself. It's 100% personal preference.
  12. Thanks for the welcome, and the vote for some monotubes. Been lurking for 18mo or so. Just recently started being more active here.
  13. Mid-sized truck logic?

    I think I might consider that route as well when time for an upgrade comes. I drove an F350 4dr long bed SRW that was a company truck. Had that for a few years, and it was the best road trip vehicle I've ever been in. Had a giant topper on it and was like driving a small bus. Parking was tedious from time to time, but otherwise it was great. SOOOOO much room for gear/people got reasonably decent mileage (18 on the highway, 14-15 around tow, 11-13 towing). With two boys and a dog The interior space is needed, but I could get that in a sport wagon. Add the boat in and I needed something with a good tow rating. Now the wife is talking about slide in campers, so moving to something with a high payload, high interior space, and enough remaining capacity to tow a boat drops me squarely into 2500-3500 territory. I think we're still a few years off from that, but I can see it being a thing in the not so distant future.
  14. I was thinking some more about this on the way into work this morning (we were out of coffee and I had to do something to keep my mind busy for 40 minutes)...... The best explanation I could come up with between the two trucks I drove is that my personal truck ('15 SLT Z71) is very "nervous" over bumps, while the loaner truck ('18 LT Z71) was very "composed" over most bumps. For example.....There is a left hand sweeping curve on the expressway in the morning. Large pothole on the left side of the lane right in the middle of the curve. It's got a "sharp" edge on it, is about the size of a frying pan, and is 1-layer of concrete deep. City has fixed it multiple times and it keeps coming back. My truck hits that and it hits hard. I can feel it in the seat, and steering wheel. The front and back end scoot over a shade, and the whole truck feels largely unsettled. The loaner truck would take that bump in stride. It wasn't as much of a "bang" as it was a "thud" in the feeling. It was general softer overall, and the truck remained mostly settled throughout the impact. The constant "banging" and "nervousness" of my truck is what I'm looking to eliminate. I want a nice "composed" ride. I want it to take the hits, but continue on it's intended path, and reduce some of the impact into the cab. The plan is to find some softer sidewalled tires, and a new set of shocks and see where that gets me.
  15. Same here. Same assumption. Drove my 73k mile '15 SLT Plus into the shop, and was handed the keys to a '18 Silverado LT Z71 with 3.1k miles. Both had the factory ranchos. My truck has the 20in wheels, the Silverado had the 18in wheels. The 2018 truck drove SIGNIFICANTLY better than mine. I'm suspecting my stock Ranchos are long past their "replace me" time. Combined with the stiffer sidewall of my 20in KO2's, and the assumed faulty shocks, my truck rides like a hay wagon. Bounces badly on large undulating rises, and does little damping on sharp square edge bumps. It's a very harsh ride overall, and somewhat "floaty" in all scenarios. The Silverado was well composed over the same roads. Small bumps went away, and large rise/falls were not "bouncy" or "floaty" at all. It was seriously like I had two completely chassis's underneath them. The Silverado had a bit less damping overall than I would have preffered, but I'm unsure if that was the large sidewall tires, or the shocks. I'll be swapping over to Bilstien 5100's (on stock height settings) within the month. I'm also on the search path for some taller sidewall tires in a P series instead of the LT series. Love the look of the KO2's, but they're noticeably heavier than the stockers,, and ride like they're almost solid. Handle nice and have lots of traction though.
×

Important Information

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