Jump to content

Can Magnetic Ride Control be retrofitted to our trucks?

Cliff14Denali
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

bladz1454
bladz1454

How is this thread still going?   The short answer to the OP's question is YES.   If you have the money, you can probably pay to have your truck retrofitted with a refurbished NASA Rocketdyne RS-2

white1500
white1500

If the OP has money to burn any not just sell the outdated 2014 and get a 2015+ with all the bells and whistles plus the magnetic ride control?   Speaking of which, does anyone know the part number

Chris
Chris

Unless you have months on end where you cant drive it, endless disposable income, and more free time than a toddler, then it can not be done. Harness is different and is not available for sell. Dealer

Antoine08 Enthusiast

Antoine08

Posted
Posted

You guys can't really tell him it's not going to work if no one knows what the system is made up of. All he wants is part numbers and to figure out if it is doable or not. I say go for it and let us know how it turns out. This may be something ppl start doing down the road. 3000 for the smoothest riding truck? I can see a lot of ppl paying for that.

Horacio Enthusiast

Horacio

Posted
Posted (edited)

If the harness isn't available, what's the point?

Back in '03 I purchased an Avalanche but didn't get the rear seat entertainment system, but really wanted it. So I went through A LOT of bs to install the oem system. New headliner, wire harness for the unit and huge wire harness that I practically had to remove the whole dash to install, not to mention I had to take it to a reluctant dealer so they could program the BCM to tell it I had the RSE. It was a total pita including numerous cuts to my hands from being inside the dash. I can't imagine trying to add Mag Ride to a '14, but ya know, ignorance is bliss!

Edited by Horacio
high country Enthusiast

high country

Posted
Posted

I hear what everyone is saying but you are all missing my point....it can be done and who can get the part numbers. I wouldn't trade my truck in just for magnetic ride control. My truck is exactly what I want and the way I wanted it.....just looking to up the ride a little, that's all.

What part of the harness is not available did you miss?

Spurshot Senior Enthusiast

Spurshot

Posted
Posted

Google it. There some banter about retrofitting mag-lev systems in other GM vehicles. But I never found where someone did it. Some old stuff mentioned the BCM being separate for it.

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted

I hear what everyone is saying but you are all missing my point....it can be done and who can get the part numbers. I wouldn't trade my truck in just for magnetic ride control. My truck is exactly what I want and the way I wanted it.....just looking to up the ride a little, that's all.

 

 

No...It CAN'T be done. You can't buy the most crucial part to do it, and thats the chassis wiring harness. Just because you can buy most of the parts, most likely, you can't get all the stuff to talk to eachother.

fondupot Senior Enthusiast

fondupot

Posted
Posted

Anything can be done. Just depends on how much money you want to spend. In the end though, it would be cheaper to trade in your "perfectly" spec'd truck on a 2015 Denali, which would be spec'd out just as nice, or even better.

  • Like 1
newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted

You guys can't really tell him it's not going to work if no one knows what the system is made up of. All he wants is part numbers and to figure out if it is doable or not. I say go for it and let us know how it turns out. This may be something ppl start doing down the road. 3000 for the smoothest riding truck? I can see a lot of ppl paying for that.

 

The part numbers won't tell you anything. Shocks (front and rear, two or three part numbers per shock depending on suspension codes), level sensors, the electronic suspension controller, chassis harness...the BCM is a different part # between a 2014 and 2015. And on top of that, how much $$$ in labor to swap everything, and then, who says it will all just program to work?

Antoine08 Enthusiast

Antoine08

Posted
Posted

 

The part numbers won't tell you anything. Shocks (front and rear, two or three part numbers per shock depending on suspension codes), level sensors, the electronic suspension controller, chassis harness...the BCM is a different part # between a 2014 and 2015. And on top of that, how much $$$ in labor to swap everything, and then, who says it will all just program to work?

 

I didn't know the wiring harness isn't available, but either way "if there is a will, there is a way" is all I'm saying. Not trying to argue anything because i don't care. I'm not trying to do this retrofit, but in my honest opinion i do think it can be done but yes it will take time and a lot of money AND SOMEONE TO BE THE FIRST TO FIGURE IT OUT.

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

Shoot a letter off to Stacey David on Mav T.V, try telling him something cant be done.

SouthernSilveradoGuy85 Senior Enthusiast

SouthernSilveradoGuy85

Posted
Posted

Shoot a letter off to Stacey David on Mav T.V, try telling him something cant be done.

 

The actual job could be done, but as stated the wiring harness isn't available for sell so right now it can't, unless you custom make a harness.

vetteboy9 Enthusiast

vetteboy9

Posted
Posted

I'm all for doing the impossible, but my objection is from another angle- Is the magnetic ride suspension really that much better? If when buying my truck it was offered as a $2000 option I probably would laugh in my salesman's face, probably same result for under a grand.

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

    • 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...