Jump to content

Ipod/iphone Connection To Gmt-900 Stereo

robbd

By robbd
in Audio, Electronics & Software

Recommended Posts

robbd Enthusiast

robbd

Posted
Posted

Just bought myself an 07 Sierra NBS, and I know I can use the aux headphone jack to play music from my iPhone. Now laws where I'm from state that you cannot use a handheld device while driving or your getting a Nice $175 fine. So I have been looking into options other than the headphone aux jack to play my iPod thru my Stereo cause I dont need to be paying the fine for grabbing my phone to switch songs. My Girlfriends car is a Chev cobalt with somewhat the same style stereo setup only hers has a USB jack on the opposite side from the Headphone Aux Jack. I was wondering if there was a stock deck from GM that I could replace mine or if anyone knew if this option of the iSimple by Tranzit works to the point of being able to switch songs with the Steering Wheel/Deck Controls

 

Link - iSimple by Tranzit

msubullyfan Enthusiast

msubullyfan

Posted
Posted

That unit is a wired FM modulator to connect an iPod/iPhone to a vehicle without an aux input jack. It plugs in at the base of the antenna jack at the back of the head unit and switches off the antenna when it detects an audio signal from the iPod to reduce noise and improve sound quality.

 

However, you'd still have to use the iPhone/iPod for controls AND the sound quality of the aux input jack would be better than using that device with an FM modulator.

8balla Enthusiast

8balla

Posted
Posted

As advised above that isimple thing your looking at will still require you to use you ipod/iphone, no advantage over what you have now, in fact it will be worse sound quality because it will no longer be a direct input. There are some options for what you want to do from many after market companies. I have used the PAC part a few times, good piece but a little complicated to get the feel for and you need to buy a specific harness for your vehicle separately, the soundgate part works well and is easier to operate, plus it will come will all the cables you need, i haven't used the PIE and neuclues parts but have heard that they are qwerky in operation at times and are built by the same people. there are a few on-line places you can buy these parts from.

  • 2 weeks later...
Dr Len Enthusiast

Dr Len

Posted
Posted
<br />As advised above that isimple thing your looking at will still require you to use you ipod/iphone, no advantage over what you have now, in fact it will be worse sound quality because it will no longer be a direct input. There are some options for what you want to do from many after market companies. I have used the PAC part a few times, good piece but a little complicated to get the feel for and you need to buy a specific harness for your vehicle separately, the soundgate part works well and is easier to operate, plus it will come will all the cables you need, i haven't used the PIE and neuclues parts but have heard that they are qwerky in operation at times and are built by the same people. there are a few on-line places you can buy these parts from.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

 

 

Use This

http://pac-audio.com/productDetails.aspx?P...p;CategoryID=22

nootron69 Enthusiast

nootron69

Posted
Posted
<br />As advised above that isimple thing your looking at will still require you to use you ipod/iphone, no advantage over what you have now, in fact it will be worse sound quality because it will no longer be a direct input. There are some options for what you want to do from many after market companies. I have used the PAC part a few times, good piece but a little complicated to get the feel for and you need to buy a specific harness for your vehicle separately, the soundgate part works well and is easier to operate, plus it will come will all the cables you need, i haven't used the PIE and neuclues parts but have heard that they are qwerky in operation at times and are built by the same people. there are a few on-line places you can buy these parts from.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

 

 

Use This

http://pac-audio.com/productDetails.aspx?P...p;CategoryID=22

 

 

The pac setup is what I got in 08, they were only avail on an ebay store. I really wanted to keep radio stock and be able to read my ipod screen off my stock display. Unless they improved the compatability, ipod navigation with the stereo controls absolutely stank. Additionally, I just got an Ipod touch, and it will not charge when plugged in like my old ipod. The only saving grace is one can select IPOD or aux, and aux allows you to use the ipod controls, rather than the radio (although I guess that would defeat the purpose for the original posters' needs)

aesalazar Enthusiast

aesalazar

Posted
Posted

I put the PAC in my 09 as well. I really like how well it works with my Ipod, havent tried running an itouch or iphone with this through.

 

Nootrom: Did you try flashing it to the latest firmware on pacs website? Maybe that might help.

 

Install took about 1 hour since it has to be plugged into the back of the radio. But once done, it works great with the OEM controls including the steering wheel button. You can change and scroll albums, artists, tracks, etc. on the radio screen using without having to take you hands off the wheel.

 

Found it online at some radom website for around 100 bucks so it wasnt alot of money either.

 

Ernie

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      I hope to high heaven this is wrong. My Chevy farm trucks frame is lasting way longer than a newer Nissan Titan XD I got for a steal, and it only pulls trailers. A decade younger and it's frame is already way rustier than the waxed Chevy I drive across longs and ditches. Also, hasn't Ford been having tones of troubles with rusted frames? 
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      Batteries don’t always show signs of a few years ago my vehicle started fine in the morning and took me to work. After work the battery was completely dead and I needed a jump. No, I didn’t leave anything on and the battery was only a couple months old. It was replaced under warranty. 
    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      AFM is confirmed in the Corvette engine, so I'm assuming the higher volume trucks will get it as well
    • NDKoze
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By NDKoze · Posted

      If his battery was that bad I would think it would have been showing signs before this that were ignored. Stinks that it happened the way it did in rush hour traffic, but this seems like a pretty fringe scenario. I don't mind it that bad and never turn it off. The only slight annoyance for me is the slight delay between brake to gas, but I have gotten used to it and figure if it can save a little gas why not.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant. What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.” I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly. So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself. A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like: - new vs historical - active vs stored - repeated vs one-time - duration of the event - whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom - whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc. - whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority. For example: Misfire event: Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs. Oil-pressure event: Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison. Communication event: Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated. Voltage/reset event: Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first. That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system. I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom. For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be: - which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first - whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition - whether fuel trims were already moving - whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time - whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version. OBD is much easier for the average owner: - easier install - easier removal - inside the cabin - easier phone connection - easier data download - easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters. The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product. Maybe the split is: - OBD/DLC version for most consumers - ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get - shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem. Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality. Not “here are 50 parameters.” More like: “Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.” or “Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.” or “Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.” That is a much better way to think about the report.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...