Jump to content

Shake or Vibration Issues

Silver space ship
 Share

Recommended Posts

Badass69 Senior Enthusiast

Badass69

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am on the Tundra forums and I own a 2015 Tundra as well as the truck has not sold yet. I own a bunch of trucks and this one needs to go... it holds no purpose. I would not recommend the truck to anyone.... Slow, uncomfortable to ride in, terrible on fuel and don't ever drive it on something that isn't a paved surface. I bought it for one of my drivers and we fell for that "so reliable" BS....

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Edited by 1994Vmax
  • Replies 12.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

csckickass
csckickass

Well folks, I did it. After all the failed attempts at the Chevy dealer I traded it in for a 2015 Ram 1500 Larame. I have to agree with the other folks on here that have done the same thing, it was th

mafd2
mafd2

Apparently you and the other customer reps don't care. If you or GM would care y'all would put more effort in the matter. Just coming on the forum and stating the same repetitive posts and being a 3

DALaws
DALaws

Well I have some good news and bad news about my truck vibrations. Good news is that my truck has a significantly less vibration at speed. The bad news is my truck has significantly less vibration. Fo

Posted Images

Bill Heg Enthusiast

Bill Heg

Posted
Posted

Interesting situation, ok recap first; traded a 2015 All Terain shaker for a 2016 SLT. Over 4,000 miles and so far no vibrations, although the 8 speed tranny has the low speed clunk. Here's where it gets interesting, traded my wife's 2015 Enclave for an upgraded 2016 with 20 inch rims. Drove it home and guess what? It had the shakes just like my 2015 Sierra! Took it back the next day to the dealer. They replaced both front tires and had to rebalance the rear tires. Drove it home and the vibrations seem to be gone. Dealer felt the two front tires had bad flat spots due to sitting on the lot for a long time.

C6Bill Enthusiast

C6Bill

Posted
Posted

I am on the Tundra forums and I own a 2015 Tundra as well as the truck has not sold yet.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time following.

Badass69 Senior Enthusiast

Badass69

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time following.

Pretty straightforward Bill... I own a Tundra along with a bunch of other trucks and it's for sale. The Tundra forums supposedly have no complaints... well yeah like any other manufacturers forum they sure do. Any of you unhappy GM owners are welcome to buy my Tundra and join their ranks to see for yourselves lol. It doesn't need to be in my company fleet and I simply don't need that headache.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Edited by 1994Vmax
  • Like 1
Jesse Davidson Enthusiast

Jesse Davidson

Posted
Posted

 

Says who? Go visit Tundra Forums and you'll see they have plenty of issues and their fair share of people who are threatening to dump their T-ERDs to go buy a Ford or a Ram or a Chevy!

I've been watching all the forums as I can't wait to get rid of my shakerado, and I have found very few complaints on the tundras. No where even close to the RAM Ford and GM forums

Are you a member of many Tundra forums ? I am and I don't see much complaining at all. The vast majority of threads are about having fun with their trucks.

I havn't seen much either

 

Interesting situation, ok recap first; traded a 2015 All Terain shaker for a 2016 SLT. Over 4,000 miles and so far no vibrations, although the 8 speed tranny has the low speed clunk. Here's where it gets interesting, traded my wife's 2015 Enclave for an upgraded 2016 with 20 inch rims. Drove it home and guess what? It had the shakes just like my 2015 Sierra! Took it back the next day to the dealer. They replaced both front tires and had to rebalance the rear tires. Drove it home and the vibrations seem to be gone. Dealer felt the two front tires had bad flat spots due to sitting on the lot for a long time.

what size rims are on each of the vehicles?

 

Side note 1: If you haven't done so yet, check your vins for the most recent recall on the upper control arms. there was a recall for bad welds and GM has advised not to drive the vehicles until it is fixed.

 

Side note 2: I was reading about the 2017 F-150 and how its going to be getting a new 10 speed tranny. Turns out Ford is collaborating with GM on the design and manufacturing on it... now thats scary. Also Ford plans to use it in the F-150, and GM plans to use it in the Camaro I believe it was. so is the Camaro getting an overbuild tranny designed for a truck, or is the F-150 getting an underbuild tranny designed for a Camaro? let the conspiracy theories begin hahaha.

  • Like 1
Bill Heg Enthusiast

Bill Heg

Posted
Posted

I've been watching all the forums as I can't wait to get rid of my shakerado, and I have found very few complaints on the tundras. No where even close to the RAM Ford and GM forums

I havn't seen much either

 

what size rims are on each of the vehicles?

 

Side note 1: If you haven't done so yet, check your vins for the most recent recall on the upper control arms. there was a recall for bad welds and GM has advised not to drive the vehicles until it is fixed.

 

Side note 2: I was reading about the 2017 F-150 and how its going to be getting a new 10 speed tranny. Turns out Ford is collaborating with GM on the design and manufacturing on it... now thats scary. Also Ford plans to use it in the F-150, and GM plans to use it in the Camaro I believe it was. so is the Camaro getting an overbuild tranny designed for a truck, or is the F-150 getting an underbuild tranny designed for a Camaro? let the conspiracy theories begin hahaha.

Both my truck and the Enclave have 20" rims.

Jesse Davidson Enthusiast

Jesse Davidson

Posted
Posted (edited)

Both my truck and the Enclave have 20" rims.

what about the ones you traded in?

Edited by Jesse D
tootall87 Enthusiast

tootall87

Posted
Posted

Well after my latest "it's in spec" from GM I decided to get the BBB involved just to see if they could do anything. Not 24 hours after I filed the initial claim the regional division rep leaves me a voicemail saying they want to take another look at it and get a field engineer some time with it.

 

Well see what happens.

Jesse Davidson Enthusiast

Jesse Davidson

Posted
Posted

Well after my latest "it's in spec" from GM I decided to get the BBB involved just to see if they could do anything. Not 24 hours after I filed the initial claim the regional division rep leaves me a voicemail saying they want to take another look at it and get a field engineer some time with it.

 

Well see what happens.

Don't hold your breath. You're more likely to get a trade assist or buy back offer than get it fixed

C6Bill Enthusiast

C6Bill

Posted
Posted

Pretty straightforward Bill... I own a Tundra along with a bunch of other trucks and it's for sale. The Tundra forums supposedly have no complaints... well yeah like any other manufacturers forum they sure do. Any of you unhappy GM owners are welcome to buy my Tundra and join their ranks to see for yourselves lol. It doesn't need to be in my company fleet and I simply don't need that headache.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification, nobody ever said Tundras "supposedly have no complaints". Just go to one forum and have a look, the vast majority of threads are of a different nature than this one, they are typically of people enjoying their trucks or having fun modifying.

 

GIve it a shot

 

http://www.tundratalk.net/

Badass69 Senior Enthusiast

Badass69

Posted
Posted

I'm on that forum actually lol... I just don't post because... well there is nothing to talk about. The other aspect is Toyota sells a fraction of trucks a year than anyone else besides Nissan .. thus lessening the base of people to pull complaints from.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Ron.s Enthusiast

Ron.s

Posted
Posted

I went from the Tundra to GM so I could write a book about Tundra issues but sorry to say I did not post on the Tundra Forum. For the most part my Tundra was reliable and resale wasn't bad. Handling and towing way below average and fuel economy towing is a joke. I towed a travel trailer to Alaska and back and had a miserable trip. Carried 12 gallons extra gas and had to use it more than once. The fuel mapping is way off because the truck wants to run high R's (no useable torque) and 6-8 mpg often the result. Even using the select shifting is was almost impossible to drive at peak torque of about 3600, don't hold me to that # it's been a few years might have been 3400. And hills or God forbid having to slow down for traffic and then...try to recover, forget it. When I returned I provided my dealer with a scathing critique and lots of detail including pictures. Toyota flew 2 guys in and spent 2 days with my truck only to report "working as designed". And the 16's are still basically the same setup.

I had purchased a trailer with aluminum frame and weight of 4150 dry, never over 5500 during the trip. I also towed a snowmobile trailer that was about 4,000 and other trailers that were lighter. My quick summary conclusion is that Toyota still doesn't understand truck engines. Engine and transmission mapping are bad but the basic engine power band is more "carlike". Great drag racing but that's about it.

Jesse Davidson Enthusiast

Jesse Davidson

Posted
Posted

I went from the Tundra to GM so I could write a book about Tundra issues but sorry to say I did not post on the Tundra Forum. For the most part my Tundra was reliable and resale wasn't bad. Handling and towing way below average and fuel economy towing is a joke. I towed a travel trailer to Alaska and back and had a miserable trip. Carried 12 gallons extra gas and had to use it more than once. The fuel mapping is way off because the truck wants to run high R's (no useable torque) and 6-8 mpg often the result. Even using the select shifting is was almost impossible to drive at peak torque of about 3600, don't hold me to that # it's been a few years might have been 3400. And hills or God forbid having to slow down for traffic and then...try to recover, forget it. When I returned I provided my dealer with a scathing critique and lots of detail including pictures. Toyota flew 2 guys in and spent 2 days with my truck only to report "working as designed". And the 16's are still basically the same setup.

I had purchased a trailer with aluminum frame and weight of 4150 dry, never over 5500 during the trip. I also towed a snowmobile trailer that was about 4,000 and other trailers that were lighter. My quick summary conclusion is that Toyota still doesn't understand truck engines. Engine and transmission mapping are bad but the basic engine power band is more "carlike". Great drag racing but that's about it.

So from what you're saying, for the average person who in all reality doesn't do much towing, but may use the bed now and then the Tundra is fine. The new '16s now have an integrated trailer brake controller so they should be better at stopping as you complained. However every comparison review you will find says the Tundra is "worst in class" for towing. The fuel economy still sucks no matter how you look at it, they have also increased the gas tank size to 38 gallons from the 26.4 that it used to be, so there is your extra 12 gallons you carried XD.

 

The way i see the truck market right now is, you have 3 brands with a vibration problem in GM, Ford, and RAM (yes yes for those of you sticklers out there, not every one of the trucks will vibrate.)

Or there is the Tundra with its poor towing and horrid fuel economy.... I don't tow alot, so I'd take poor fuel economy in a reliable truck over vibrating to death in a fuel efficient truck... but thats just me

C6Bill Enthusiast

C6Bill

Posted
Posted

Someone find me a perfect truck and I'll be happy to buy it, I thought that Chevy was going to be it but that just didn't work out for me. And GM's response to the issues made sure that I would never come back.

  • Like 1
Ron.s Enthusiast

Ron.s

Posted
Posted

So from what you're saying, for the average person who in all reality doesn't do much towing, but may use the bed now and then the Tundra is fine. The new '16s now have an integrated trailer brake controller so they should be better at stopping as you complained. However every comparison review you will find says the Tundra is "worst in class" for towing. The fuel economy still sucks no matter how you look at it, they have also increased the gas tank size to 38 gallons from the 26.4 that it used to be, so there is your extra 12 gallons you carried XD.

 

The way i see the truck market right now is, you have 3 brands with a vibration problem in GM, Ford, and RAM (yes yes for those of you sticklers out there, not every one of the trucks will vibrate.)

Or there is the Tundra with its poor towing and horrid fuel economy.... I don't tow alot, so I'd take poor fuel economy in a reliable truck over vibrating to death in a fuel efficient truck... but thats just me

I didn't say I had trouble stopping....I had trailer brakes and a controller. You must have read that into my comment about "slowing for traffic and trying to recover". Issue is-lose momentum and try to get back up to cruising speed.

And I didn't mean to infer that everything else was rosy. There were three or four recalls and several issues that Toyota wouldn't fix. Terrible infotainment system and Nav not as good as GM by a bunch! Strange very hard downshift and clunk infrequently. Handling not as good as GM, etc. etc. Drivetrain reliability was OK and nothing broke while I owned it. I would say the same about my 14 & 16 GM trucks and frankly don't think Toyota is even close. But if a vibrator is your only criteria the Toyota may be the best truck. But then if you don't tow-buy a midsize and save some money. The Ridgeline might be worth a try. All of the trucks seem to have some issues, although GM may lead in %. But this is getting off topic.

My 2016 had a suspension related vibration at high speed that GM/Dealer wouldn't fix. I was lucky and after trying rear spring clamps figured out that the issue was U bolt related. I spent $40 and fixed mine with 9/16" (larger diameter/more torque) replacement U bolts. This also got rid of some driveline slop and now the shocks work like they should.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • nfisherman
      Software Update

      By nfisherman · Posted

      Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...