Willshire

Is this the fix for 2016's? Mine is doing it pretty bad. Well bad enough it is bothering the crap out of me. Is your seat still good?

Wait. You soldered a diode on to a $600 board just to have fogs when your high beams are on? I have never heard of this mod and judging by your experience i do not intend to perform. Light output is just fine for my wallet. lol. Thanks for posting this warning to those of us who had not heard of this. A really nice LED bar behind the grill for that money!

My 2016 does it to albeit not as bad. GM installed stops next to the white plastic rotating pieces but there is still a small gap. I will be installing a zip tie to make up the difference. The zip tie will be a wearable part so it may be replaced from time to time.

Anybody put the MIT on a 2016 with the high capacity air box RPO K47? Airaid emailed me and said they cannot recommend it for my 2016 AT as it has not been tested

i just threw in some 89 to see if it makes a big enough difference. I will log some data and compare the 89 and the 87. I need 10% better MPG for the boss to justify the 10% increase in cost per liter.

Correct me if i am wrong guys but isn't the check valve for boosted applications when there is a possibility of positive pressure in the intake? NA engines don't create positive pressure in the intake unless an intake valve is stuck.

Afm lifters are still garbage apparently. Tuned mine out

93 in a 6.2 i understand but why in a 5.3? unless it is tuned to run on it. A stock 5.3 requires no more than 89 (87 mfr recommended) at best so why the added expense of higher octane? Here 91 is roughly 50 cents more a gallon.

Although I don't disagree with your logic, in fact I agree with it, when the boss is willing to pay up to $200 a week for gas I will have go that route. That's a mortgage payment every month. So I guess I will have to take the lower power output. That is really the only reason I run 87 vs 89. If I can prove 89 will save him money he may go for it

I run tier 1 87 in mine as is recommended by GM in the owners manual. 6.2's are 91 minimum. 87 is all the company will pay for so that is what i run since i am 700 miles a week. I was looking at data and did not notice any knock retard being used during any acceleration. I assume this is because BBP never adjusted my timing off of the GM setting. Justin recommended 89 as it may be more fuel efficient. The compression is allowed to be this high as fuel doesn't enter until just before the plug fires. on my 64, it was built at 10.5:1 running on 100 octane gas. i have to pull timing and run 91 shell or 93 other to prevent detonation. With the fuel entering just as the spark plug fires, aluminum heads and block, 11:1 is achievable on 87

Rubberized undercoating Rubberized undercoating

No drip oil applied with a long piece of tubing. My 08 was mint and I did it every October

The GM Borla for the 2015/16 come in two sounds i believe as my coworker's is louder than mine but his is on a 2013 so no flapper. It's loud enough for me. I don't need to hear inside the truck with the windows up

To answer my own question, TM is required in the transmission as part of the design of the transmission (clutch to clutch) not so much to extend the life of the clutches but for the hard parts usually the output shaft or the drum. It looks like the 6l80 can handle the input torque of a stock 5.3 even a slightly beefed one. (CAI, Exhaust, tune) may run into issues with a turbo or SC if you drive it hard. Maximum engine input torque for the 6L80 is 440 ft. lbs. and the maximum output torque is 664 ft. lbs. The case is die cast aluminum. So, i suppose some TM is required in the transmission but, can be removed from the engine.

Please explain how a little bit of slip is better for clutches than none? Any time a clutch slips it wears and creates heat. Smooth shifts are slipping clutches.