Jump to content

Gas Pedal Flex Solution

FL335i
 Share

Recommended Posts

17Denali Enthusiast

17Denali

Posted
Posted

Don't see the need for all the performance of banging head and eyes rolling but I guess some people can't help themselves from being so rude it was a simple question. All kinds of vehicles including big trucks have things on the firewall that are related to pedals inside but I guess not these trucks as a new owner I didn't know that. Maybe grow up !!

  • Replies 292
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

FL335i
FL335i

After noticing the gas pedal has a lot of travel before it actually starts to work, I looked at it closely. I noticed it's a very bad design. There is a plastic bracket that is bolted to the floor p

Rubyralph
Rubyralph

I agree that a good video would be worth a million words of what the problem is and where it's located.   I filed the NHTSA complaint shown below:     VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL: 2014 Chevrolet Silver

FL335i
FL335i

I can't believe this post is still going strong almost 3yrs later. Glad my fix is helping others.

Posted Images

dorkweed Enthusiast

dorkweed

Posted
Posted

Don't see the need for all the performance of banging head and eyes rolling but I guess some people can't help themselves from being so rude it was a simple question. All kinds of vehicles including big trucks have things on the firewall that are related to pedals inside but I guess not these trucks as a new owner I didn't know that. Maybe grow up !!

 

 

Did you even read the prior pages of the thread??? If not; shame on you for asking such an inane question. :idiot:

  • Like 2
GMC2015 Enthusiast

GMC2015

Posted
Posted

I was at a dealer yesterday and noticed this gas pedal flex is still on the 2017s. GM should've done something by now.

roadkill5.3 Enthusiast

roadkill5.3

Posted
Posted

i see this alot. people asking dumb questions and what not. somethings take a few seconds of actually looking, and feeling around. i wasnt sure where to put the shim myself, and i didnt read much at all. i went outside, checked it out, felt in and around it, and found the gap on the bottom bolt, between the bracket and the firewall. wiggled it and verified that was the gap that wiggles.and shimmed it

 

not worth the bashing, but sometimes you just have to get off the couch or chair, and look yourself.

ChevyTech77 Senior Enthusiast

ChevyTech77

Posted
Posted

In addition to the sloppy throttle response, I had an issue related to the strange mounting system of the Silverado gas pedal. About a month ago the pedal began to squeak like crazy. The dealer contacted GM and said they had run into this numerous times. If you get a pedal squeak this mounting design is the culprit. BTW the dealer used double sided tape (they said) to fix it. Regardless it is now quiet and the throttle seems to function right.

All they had to do is seat the carpet retainer that was rubbing the edge of the pedal plate and the noise would go away. I trimmed mine so that if it ever did back off a little, it couldn't rub and make the noise.

 

I can't believe the GM Engineering and Design Team's would approve of such a flimsy mounting bracket for this important part of basic motor vehicle operation.

I would love to have GM explain why this is "as designed" and "normal" to have this amount of accelerator bracket flex.

I also realize this flex issue is NOT the entire acceleration lag issue that so many have complained about but this would be a chance for GM to step-up to the plate and correct a basic design flaw on our trucks.

I can't believe over time and usage this bracket will fail as currently designed.

 

Sure I could shim and install additional hardware to correct this safety issue, but really GM, please fix our trucks.

 

It's engineered correctly, nothing to fix.

 

I agree that a good video would be worth a million words of what the problem is and where it's located.

 

I filed the NHTSA complaint shown below:

 

 

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL: 2014 Chevrolet Silverado

Filed: 12/26/2014

 

WHILE MOVING FROM A STOP THE TRUCK SOMETIMES LAGS IN ACCELERATION WHICH MAY CAUSE THE OPERATOR TO DEPRESS THE ACCELERATOR FURTHER THAN REQUIRED TO ENTER TRAFFIC. THIS CONDITION ALSO MAY CAUSE A SHORT ACCELERATION DELAY WHEN PULLING INTO TRAFFIC THAT CAN BE UNEXPECTED BY THE OPERATOR. I HAVE BEEN SURPRISED MANY TIMES BY THIS OPERATOR DISCONNECT ACCELERATING FROM A STATIONARY POSITION. AFTER DRIVING MY NEW TRUCK 900 MILES I INVESTIGATED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ASSEMBLY BRACKET TO FIND THAT THE ENTIRE BRACKET IS NOT PROPERLY FASTENED STRUCTURALLY TO THE FIRE WALL BY DESIGN. I INSPECTED MY TRUCK ON 12/23/14 AND FOUND THIS PROBLEM, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL BRACKET FLEX ON MY TRUCK LOOKS TO BE ~3/4" TO 1" BEFORE THE ELECTRONIC LINKAGE ENGAGES. THE PEDAL TIP-IN ENGAGEMENT HAS TO FLEX THE MOUNTING BRACKET BEFORE THE ELECTRONIC ACCELERATION SWITCH ENGAGES. I CAN'T BELIEVE THE GM ENGINEERING AND DESIGN TEAM'S WOULD APPROVE OF SUCH A FLIMSY MOUNTING BRACKET FOR THIS IMPORTANT PART OF BASIC MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATION. I FEEL OVER TIME AND USAGE THAT THIS BRACKET MAY COMPLETELY FAIL AS CURRENTLY DESIGNED. I COULD SHIM AND INSTALL ADDITIONAL HARDWARE TO CORRECT THIS SAFETY ISSUE, BUT I FEEL THIS DESIGN ISSUE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED WITH GM BEFORE SOMEONE HAS A CRASH OR WORST.

How'd that turn out for you?

 

This needs to be a sticky because holy hell it made such a massive difference fixing that freaking pedal bracket flex!!!!

 

It drives like a totally different truck!

 

Side note, what the F were they thinking with that design?! Big TY to OP & the replies. This plus disabling AFM has made me soooo much more satisfied with the truck. My thoughts on a tune are now on the back burner, I honestly have darn near no complaints with the shifting & throttle response now, before these 2 simple mods it was almost scary to drive sometimes due to the hesitation & unpredictable, lazy pedal.

Vibration control. That's what they were thinking. One of the many complaints about AFM equipped 900 Series trucks was vibrations through the gas pedal when the engine was in afm mode.

 

I have no idea why GM hasn't addressed this simple issue in the 3rd model year. If they want the throttle to respond slowly for enhanced fuel economy, it seems to me that should be done in the throttle mapping and not by having the accelerator bracket have a half inch of slop in it.

See previous reply. This pedal bracket mounting is used on many GM vehicles for the same concern. I've never seen one complaint until I read this thread.

 

GM didn't intentionally design the bracket to flex for improved fuel economy. It's just a cheap design that allows flex and hampers accurate throttle control. The true source of the unresponsive throttle is the drive-by-wire system in conjunction with torque management:

 

"The 5.3L, and 6.2L suffers from poor throttle response down low. In fact the factory programming has limits on the max throttle blade opening that PCM allows and is based on RPM range engine is operating in. By correcting this issue and a few others; improvements will be much better throttle response, step on go pedal, vehicle will respond quickerthis DBW system is a torque driven system, it works by taking a certain amount of torque via engine and wheel and applies it to what the driver foot say it needs; a better way to explain it is its a torque limiter. It only allows so much torque at a given pedal position. Stock tables are conservative and numb at best and thats why one would feel some times a lag or a goofy pedal with DBW systems. For a 5.3L, or 6.2L V8 this is one of the most critical areas that must be addressed and modified to generate more torque /hp and throttle response."http://5startuning.com/got-a-gmgmc/

 

The pedal flex eliminates some of the vagueness of the throttle but only a tuner can make your truck truly reponsive and "torquey" off the line.

Incorrect. Read above.
HondaHawkGT Senior Enthusiast

HondaHawkGT

Posted
Posted (edited)

Incorrect. Read above.

Oh? Incorrect on which part?

 

The throttle response is pretty terrible with the factory PCM programming. Guys in this thread are naturally trying to find a simple explanation for why a truck with a 5.3 rated at 355HP and 383 lb-ft torque seems so dead from a stop. The flexible pedal bracket is going to be an easy target to blame, correct or incorrect.

 

GM's truck would get better reviews if they would just tune the truck right.

Edited by HondaHawkGT
ChevyTech77 Senior Enthusiast

ChevyTech77

Posted
Posted

Oh? Incorrect on which part?

 

The throttle response is pretty terrible with the factory PCM programming. Guys in this thread are naturally trying to find a simple explanation for why a truck with a 5.3 rated at 355HP and 383 lb-ft torque seems so dead from a stop. The flexible pedal bracket is going to be an easy target to blame, correct or incorrect.

 

GM's truck would get better reviews if they would just tune the truck right.

You didn't read my explanation, above your post that I quoted, I see.

 

My '14 5.3 runs almost as hard as my '11 and '13 6.2's did, especially on E-85, if driven right. I've never heard of anyone blaming the amount of torque management in these trucks on the flexible pedal mounting bracket. I get what it's doing and what is being discussed here but the K2 engines have more torque management programmed into them that any of the 900 Series trucks had. Saying that GM intentionally made the pedal bracket flexible for fuel economy or for more torque management, especially to the point of trying to sue GM for it is some of the craziest things I've read in a long time. Again, I posted the exact reason why GM did what they did with the pedal bracket. You can believe it or not, I'm not going to argue with you. I've worked deep within "the house" for 10 years and I'm not here to brag about what I know or throw it in anybodies face but sometimes people on forums make my head hurt.

 

I guess all I had to do is come back here, after a long hiatus, to read something like this. One of the many reasons why I quit reading/posting/contributing here.

HondaHawkGT Senior Enthusiast

HondaHawkGT

Posted
Posted (edited)

You didn't read my explanation, above your post that I quoted, I see.

My '14 5.3 runs almost as hard as my '11 and '13 6.2's did, especially on E-85, if driven right. I've never heard of anyone blaming the amount of torque management in these trucks on the flexible pedal mounting bracket. I get what it's doing and what is being discussed here but the K2 engines have more torque management programmed into them that any of the 900 Series trucks had. Saying that GM intentionally made the pedal bracket flexible for fuel economy or for more torque management, especially to the point of trying to sue GM for it is some of the craziest things I've read in a long time. Again, I posted the exact reason why GM did what they did with the pedal bracket. You can believe it or not, I'm not going to argue with you. I've worked deep within "the house" for 10 years and I'm not here to brag about what I know or throw it in anybodies face but sometimes people on forums make my head hurt.

I guess all I had to do is come back here, after a long hiatus, to read something like this. One of the many reasons why I quit reading/posting/contributing here.

Sorry if I come off as trying to brag or act as if I have all the answers. I definitely don't. I'm also not trying to start an argument over some4hing as stupid as the throttle bracket. It makes complete sense that the bracket is designed to float away from the firewall to isolate AFM vibration. The idea of filing a lawsuit over it is indeed ridiculous.

 

A lot of guys that don't have a technical background come here to figure out why the first 15-20% of pedal movement produces barely enough engine power to pull out into busy traffic. It's something that bothered me since most of the previous vehicles I owned were cable throttles. The 5.3 make a lot of power but I guess GM thinks you should really have to goose the throttle to make that power.

Edited by HondaHawkGT
Waymon Enthusiast

Waymon

Posted
Posted

Well that escalated quickly

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
ChevyTech77 Senior Enthusiast

ChevyTech77

Posted
Posted

Sorry if I come off as trying to brag or act as if I have all the answers. I definitely don't. I'm also not trying to start an argument over some4hing as stupid as the throttle bracket. It makes complete sense that the bracket is designed to float away from the firewall to isolate AFM vibration. The idea of filing a lawsuit over it is indeed ridiculous.

 

A lot of guys that don't have a technical background come here to figure out why the first 15-20% of pedal movement produces barely enough engine power to pull out into busy traffic. It's something that bothered me since most of the previous vehicles I owned were cable throttles. The 5.3 make a lot of power but I guess GM thinks you should really have to goose the throttle to make that power.

Actually if you roll the throttle, torque management doesn't jump in and whoa things up so much. Try and drive it aggressively and it's a pooch. I learned that with my 6.2's.

cbrsilv15 Senior Enthusiast

cbrsilv15

Posted
Posted

It's simple. Drive an older truck and feel how responsive the has pedal is. Drive a 14+ and feel the ridiculous pedal travel. Shove something behind the pedal to stop flex, and problem solved.

  • Like 2
roadkill5.3 Enthusiast

roadkill5.3

Posted
Posted (edited)

i just drove my truck around, and what a difference and no vibration..feels as responsive as my 05 duramax without the tq obviously. very nice to drive..

 

if i had no warranty id have efilive done to wake it up more, but for now, this made a big difference and im happy how it gets up. especially since it took a ****ing panters stick. kind of hacky but hey, screw it. :driving:

Edited by jgreen2193
  • Like 1
FL335i Enthusiast

FL335i

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Not worth arguing over. Just put a paint stick or two behind it and enjoy. Only God knows why GM designed it this way. Even if we knew, would it change anything, no. I own four GM's, two late model and two from the mid 80's and let's face it. Gm products are not.... well... not precision built machines. But it's OK, we still have great V8's and a very work-able truck. My wife's enclave is great for the family vehicle. I'm sure if the K2XX was built like a E39 BMW it would cost a fortune, or they would have to move the assembly plant further south, from Mexico to Guatemala. Kinda funny, my K5 Jimmy doesn't have any gas pedal issues :) Speaking of which, I'm going to tinker on it now, you guys continue to bicker.

Edited by FL335i
zal15lt Enthusiast

zal15lt

Posted
Posted

i went outside, saw the flex, went inside, got a painters stick, broke it in 2 pieces 1" long, wedged under the gap on the bottom, holy shit, i cant believe it. i have motorized pedals 2016 1500. there is more play left and right and a little front and back on the assembly. but now there feels like there is no more play at all.

 

thanks for upping this thread where i would see it. when i see you at the bar, ill buy a round! :cheers:

You have a pic of where you placed your shims?

I want to do this to my '15 and want to be sure I'm

placing them in the correct spot for the adjustable pedals.

Thanks

sk Senior Enthusiast

sk

Posted
Posted

You have a pic of where you placed your shims?

I want to do this to my '15 and want to be sure I'm

placing them in the correct spot for the adjustable pedals.

Thanks

 

It's in the very first post ....

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,947
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Sothpaw27
    Newest Member
    Sothpaw27
    Joined

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 504 Guests (See full list)

  • 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...