Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

6 dampers on my exhaust fixed the 'flick a woofer' booming at low speeds.

 

 

In my experience, I don't see how the exhaust system could be the cause of the low speed body booming. Please do post pics of the dampers when you have some time -- Thanks

Posted

Anyone figure out what to do with the harsh ride on the 22s. I even felt a hard ride on the 20s

I think these trucks (2014 - 2016) are sprung a bit stiffer than previous years. That's the way it seems when I compare with my 2008 anyway. I have Wranger 20's on my truck. I've had Wranglers on other vehicles and while its a good tire it seems to ride rough to me. So, what I'm doing is set the tire pressure at 30psi cold all the way around. after only a couple of miles they're up to 32 and a few more miles they're at 34. So, no worries about being under inflated. As soon as these tires wear down a bit more I'm going to put Michelin LTX's on. Guess another solution would be to buy 18's.

Posted

The Yukon slt I test drove rode sweet. Anyone jus tried to remove a fuse for the magnetic ride to see if it would ride normal as a Yukon slt. Or even swap struts, of course the fuse is the cheaper way out if that works it's free. If it did I would jus put a switch on that circuit to cut it on and off when I please.

Posted (edited)

The Yukon slt I test drove rode sweet. Anyone jus tried to remove a fuse for the magnetic ride to see if it would ride normal as a Yukon slt. Or even swap struts, of course the fuse is the cheaper way out if that works it's free. If it did I would jus put a switch on that circuit to cut it on and off when I please.

 

People have tried the fuse, some report it works other reports say no difference

 

Shows you how each vehicle is truly a different set of circumstances

 

Are you getting the SLT? If it rode well, you should grab it quick.

Edited by boazEarl8
Posted

People have tried the fuse, some report it works other reports say no difference

 

Shows you how each vehicle is truly a different set of circumstances

 

Are you getting the SLT? If it rode well, you should grab it quick.

I'm guessing all the slt ride well. Am I wrong
Posted (edited)

I'm guessing all the slt ride well.

You'll find problems in all of the brands and models, so I wouldn't say all SLTs ride well. But if you have an extended version, 6.2, Magnetic Ride, and 22s, any problems you have will probably be worse as compared to the standard version, 5.3, Premium Ride, 20 inch or less wheels.

Edited by The Zip
Posted (edited)

I mentioned back in January that 20's were the answer on the Yukon Denali I purchased (May 2015) with less than 20 miles. I've asked several 2015-2016 Yukon owners about their cabin pressure. My experience seems to be consistent with other owners. Switching to 20's reduced and/or eliminated the problem. I have 18,000 miles on my SUV and don't have any pressure problems.

Our "rental" at the moment for the 2016 Escalade is Back in the shop, has 20" wheels. Has all the booming and Buffeting as our 22".

 

Tell ya what. Went and drove a 2016 Landcruiser today. Gotta honestly say, it doesn't look 1/2 as trick as the Escalade, but it rides 10x better with NONE of the booming, buffeting sounds.

Edited by TOBTEK
Posted

Both, the 2015 (that got bought back) and the new 2016 both have the 20 and both have the same issues, booming and vibrating. Wheel size doesn't have anything to do with the issues.

So what does?

GM

Posted

In my case as far as the booming goes, it depends how you, or at what point you catch the engine/chasi/wheels I don't know what.

At the same exact stop sign, accelerating to get on the freeway every other time or so, it will boom like a mother and nothing will make it stop, slowing down, accelerating more, nothing, it just keeps booming until a complete stop is made. Weird man, weird.

 

Hope they fix it on the 2017s cos I'm gone to start going back in for another buy back.

Posted

...engine/chasi/wheels I don't know what.

 

Hope they fix it on the 2017s

GM doesn't know what hit them either. They would first have to know what the problem is, then decide to do something about it. GM profit margin more than doubled for this half of 2016, doing anything about the issue would cut into that margin. Senior execs and major shareholders are not going to allow that to happen. It would be more acceptable to the company to figure this out with a new roll-out, why fool around with those profit margins. This current roll-out took 8 years, I don't see a solution in 2017. For GM to do anything about these issues, the customer needs to cut into that profit margin. And as a customer I know the fix, get something else. As Tobtek put it, "LandCruiser may not be as trick as an Escalade, but it rides 10x better with no buffeting or booming".

Posted

GM doesn't know what hit them either. They would first have to know what the problem is, then decide to do something about it. GM profit margin more than doubled for this half of 2016, doing anything about the issue would cut into that margin. Senior execs and major shareholders are not going to allow that to happen. It would be more acceptable to the company to figure this out with a new roll-out, why fool around with those profit margins. This current roll-out took 8 years, I don't see a solution in 2017. For GM to do anything about these issues, the customer needs to cut into that profit margin. And as a customer I know the fix, get something else. As Tobtek put it, "LandCruiser may not be as trick as an Escalade, but it rides 10x better with no buffeting or booming".

We're both speculating but I believe they know what's causing the buffeting/booming. They've made some running changes to help mitigate but not solve the issues and I doubt those were guesses. I suspect the overall issue is a design flaw that, as you say, senior management and major shareholders would be opposed to fixing. We've also got decent sales numbers and weak competition working against us. That may change a bit when the new expedition/navigator come out next year, but the redesign for this generation is already underway and will be out not long after that. So long story short, I think GM gets away with it with minimal impact.

Posted

We're both speculating but I believe they know what's causing the buffeting/booming. They've made some running changes to help mitigate but not solve the issues and I doubt those were guesses. I suspect the overall issue is a design flaw that, as you say, senior management and major shareholders would be opposed to fixing. We've also got decent sales numbers and weak competition working against us. That may change a bit when the new expedition/navigator come out next year, but the redesign for this generation is already underway and will be out not long after that. So long story short, I think GM gets away with it with minimal impact.

I'm curious. What are the running changes that have been made? The bows coming detached would obviously be a problem. I guess GM lost the formula on its 2014+ generation. Seems odd though as they've been building Suburbans since the 50's. My guess, in addition to the bow problem, has to do with the frame and the gauge of the skin. All of the truck companies have put a lot of engineering into improving their frames with hydroforming, boxing, etc. they're also under the gun to reduce weight so to improve mileage. Ford went with aluminum skin while GM stayed with steel, although a thinner gauge than previous generations. So, I think the GM rigid frame along with the thinner skin creates the higher resonance (booming) that previously would be absorbed and thereby go undetected. It's my guess the reason Ford apparently doesn't exhibit this problem is due to their aluminum skin which doesn't resonate like steel. I think We will see GM go to aluminum skin on their next re-tool. My two bits, keep the change :)

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

I'm curious. What are the running changes that have been made? The bows coming detached would obviously be a problem. I guess GM lost the formula on its 2014+ generation. My guess, in addition to the bow problem, has to do with the frame and the gauge of the skin.

Gen 3 (06-14) was pretty decent. I agree with the piece about the bows, I believe this is the only obvious issue that GM really issued a fix for. The gauge may be thinner and there is less, but what I don't agree with the thinner skin causing the boom. The problem is somewhere in the length, suspension, engine, transmission, and wheels. Whether singular or in combination. There is definitely problems, folks posting negative comments don't work for another manufacturer, but I am not sold on a design flaw. I have been driving long enough to know if I was experiencing issues on this thread, just not happening. If someone having issues could ride in my truck they would also not be sold on a design flaw. And no, I don't work for GM. But what puzzles me is when similar trucks to mine (Tahoe LT) are having some of the problems on this thread. The wheels would be the only difference, cause the length/suspension/engine/ and transmission are the same. But if everything is equal, then it would be quality of part suppliers and the lack of quality control at the plant after my rollout. At some point in time, GM went to three shifts, my truck was built at the end of 2013 or early 2014 cause it was at the dealership in Feb 2014. Sales and three shifts may have caused GM to rush the product and not screen part suppliers and quality checks compared to when mine hit the street. But time will tell with the Ford/Lincoln rollout if GM sacrificed early quality ahead of later sales or if the other manufacturers copy GMs template of length, transmission, engine, suspension, wheels and their products begin to exhibit the same problems. Like BuyAmerican said though, this is all just speculation and this stuff may be on GMs radar.

Edited by The Zip
Posted

Gen 3 (06-14) was pretty decent. I agree with the piece about the bows, I believe this is the only obvious issue that GM really issued a fix for. The gauge may be thinner and there is less, but what I don't agree with the thinner skin causing the boom. The problem is somewhere in the length, suspension, engine, transmission, and wheels. Whether singular or in combination. There is definitely problems, folks posting negative comments don't work for another manufacturer, but I am not sold on a design flaw. I have been driving long enough to know if I was experiencing issues on this thread, just not happening. If someone having issues could ride in my truck they would also not be sold on a design flaw. And no, I don't work for GM. But what puzzles me is when similar trucks to mine (Tahoe LT) are having some of the problems on this thread. The wheels would be the only difference, cause the length/suspension/engine/ and transmission are the same. But if everything is equal, then it would be quality of part suppliers and the lack of quality control at the plant after my rollout. At some point in time, GM went to three shifts, my truck was built at the end of 2013 or early 2014 cause it was at the dealership in Feb 2014. Sales and three shifts may have caused GM to rush the product and not screen part suppliers and quality checks compared to when mine hit the street. But time will tell with the Ford/Lincoln rollout if GM sacrificed early quality ahead of later sales or if the other manufacturers copy GMs template of length, transmission, engine, suspension, wheels and their products begin to exhibit the same problems. Like BuyAmerican said though, this is all just speculation and this stuff may be on GMs radar.

j

 

Nothing personal; but your posting makes my head hurt.

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
    • 2024 Silverado 2500 HD LTZ grille no camera Parts list   84603331 84913656 84913657 84913654 84913655 84911567 84911568 85646092 85646093 85797921 85797922   11570637  x10-15   grille/bumper bolts 11546500  x10      grille clips 11571006  x10      push/retainer clips 11546454  x6       nut retainers 11611609  x6       M5 bolts 11610700  x6       molding/trim retainers
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...