Jump to content

Wireless Charging Pad in 2016 Sierrra HD Console TOO SMALL!!

AUTOGUY

By AUTOGUY
in Troubleshooting & Recalls

Recommended Posts

Rock1500 Senior Enthusiast

Rock1500

Posted
Posted

hey guys, i just bought and installed one of these:

 

http://www.amazon.com/wireless-charging-charger-Silverado-FDMC-1270/dp/B00VU1FWO2

 

install was about an hour, was pretty easy. and it works great.

 

heres a pic of my install:

 

13312617_10157142281055713_5205878616366

 

also, bought it for only 150 on savinglots.com

 

 

 

How do you like it? It seems to fill in the slot completely, i kinda like the slot as it keeps things from sliding off. Plus for $150, it seems a lot when people have done their hacks for like than $30 or $40 to do a similar thing.

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply
tom18287 Enthusiast

tom18287

Posted
Posted

I love it. It's still recessed, its just the angle of the picture. Its a much larger charging mat so it doesn't need to be precisely in one spot. And it's very anti slip

AUTOGUY Enthusiast

AUTOGUY

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This thread is about the 2016 Sierra/Silverado Wireless Charging pad Specifically. not a retrofit on older ones.

tom18287 Enthusiast

tom18287

Posted
Posted

I believe this thread was about the charging pad being too small, then it went to retrofitting trucks with larger pads from other GM vehicles. This pad is larger. And what's the big deal anyways?

sdog4127 Enthusiast

sdog4127

Posted
Posted

My wife's iPhone 6 fits with a charger case on. She has a '16 suburban. My 6s Plus does not fit with or without a case as eluded in this post.

I understand the Escalade has adopted a larger charger area to address this problem, but likely will take a Year Model or two to have this "convenience" trickle down to GMC And further Chevrolet. It's a bummer, cause travel a lot and would like to utilize the feature of not having wires and keeping the phone topped off. I guess the iPhone needs to be tethered USB to use CarPlay in the infotainment anyway and couldn't use the wireless charger pad

time as my wife anyway so i am content at this point since it is primarily her car. My Silverado is 1 year too old to have the charger in the armrest, so I guess I'll wait to trade till they make the pad bigger. I think this is a big overlook by GM at this point cause as the responses above show, there are s lot of us that use the large screen phones, albeit android or Apple. Nonetheless this is an awesome option to have even if they designed it before the larger phones became prominent. If only Apple would integrate this into their phones so we didn't need a receiver case!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6s Plus using Tapatalk

tom18287 Enthusiast

tom18287

Posted
Posted

I believe this thread was about the charging pad being too small, then it went to retrofitting trucks with larger pads from other GM vehicles. This pad is larger. And what's the big deal anyways?

AUTOGUY Enthusiast

AUTOGUY

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My wife's iPhone 6 fits with a charger case on. She has a '16 suburban. My 6s Plus does not fit with or without a case as eluded in this post.

I understand the Escalade has adopted a larger charger area to address this problem, but likely will take a Year Model or two to have this "convenience" trickle down to GMC And further Chevrolet. It's a bummer, cause travel a lot and would like to utilize the feature of not having wires and keeping the phone topped off. I guess the iPhone needs to be tethered USB to use CarPlay in the infotainment anyway and couldn't use the wireless charger pad

time as my wife anyway so i am content at this point since it is primarily her car. My Silverado is 1 year too old to have the charger in the armrest, so I guess I'll wait to trade till they make the pad bigger. I think this is a big overlook by GM at this point cause as the responses above show, there are s lot of us that use the large screen phones, albeit android or Apple. Nonetheless this is an awesome option to have even if they designed it before the larger phones became prominent. If only Apple would integrate this into their phones so we didn't need a receiver case!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6s Plus using Tapatalk

 

 

Even without the case, my 6 plus does not fit in the current standard charger. I was told by GM Engineers that the size and design was done 2 years ago, and they went with the three or four most popular phones at that time. I still think they should have know enough to give it some headroom for upcoming phones. The fact that the iPhone 6 Plus was out before they released the trucks with this charger is a huge fail in my book!!

kylercochran361 Enthusiast

kylercochran361

Posted
Posted

 

Typical useless keyboard cowboy reply. What I choose to use for a phone is nowhere near a tablet, and probably 90% of the current smartphones are this size. ';m trying to make a point that when this feature was added to the truck, these phones were already on the market and popular. Now, go find your 2" flip phone and call someone that cares about your smart ass attitude.

You are getting a little mad there sir. But BTW I have a galaxy s7. One of the biggest phones and mine still fits fine. You have a tablet.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

KMGZ400 Senior Enthusiast

KMGZ400

Posted
Posted

The biggest trend in cell phones is large phones such as the iPhone plus.. Besides the point that the phone should be able to fit, GM should at least offer a replacement part to fix the problem.

Rock1500 Senior Enthusiast

Rock1500

Posted
Posted

The biggest trend in cell phones is large phones such as the iPhone plus.. Besides the point that the phone should be able to fit, GM should at least offer a replacement part to fix the problem.

I don't know if they can get any bigger than they are now, it is already hard enough to keep them in your pocket. But I do agree it would be nicer for gm to offer the option. Hopefully in next year's model.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Rock1500 Senior Enthusiast

Rock1500

Posted
Posted

This thread is about the 2016 Sierra/Silverado Wireless Charging pad Specifically. not a retrofit on older ones.

The option can still work on 2016 trucks just as well as older models. As I imagine I could get this option from the 2016 and fit it in my 2014 as well.

 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

tom18287 Enthusiast

tom18287

Posted
Posted

just remove about 10 screws, drill 6 holes, tap into wiring into cigarette outlet in console. took me an hourish. had to run to lowes to get tap splices, that was the only delay.

  • 1 month later...
Johnc1949 New Member

Johnc1949

Posted
Posted

I have a Samsung Galaxy S5 I am trying to use in my 2016 Sierra 1500. I have the same problem as described here. After some investigation I found several issues with the charging pad the prevent the wireless receiver in the phone from make making an adequate inductive coupling connection to the wireless transmitter in the console.

 

1. The size/shape of the cut-out in the console prevent the phones receiver from being positioned directly over the consoles transmitter. There is only a small tollerence to achieve this coupling.

2. The ribbed lines on the rubber charging mat raise the phone. For inductive coupling to occur the receiver and transmitter need to be in very close proximity to one another. I don't know the exact spec, but 1/8" or less seems to be the norm. This ribbed design already raises the phone up half that

3. The raised areas on bothe end of the charging pad raise the phone about 1/4"..see item 2

4. The charging pads area is exceptionally small. A larger effective area would provide a greater tolerance to align the phones receiver's antenna pad on more modern and typically larger phones

 

The GM design is outdated and will only support smaller phones or larger phones that have either an exceptionally large receiver antenna or just by chance happen to line up well with the transmitter's antenna. Come on GM, a system offered on a 2016 vehicle should work with popular phone for the same time period or older!

 

I am going to look into either repositioning the transmitter to align with my phones receiver or trim the rubber mat's ribs and raised portions ( areas on the top and bottom) so my phone will align and lay flat. Both are a bit risky and I really hate trying this on a brand new $50k truck. If I decide to go forward I will post my results. Bottom line..Pull your head out GM and fix this for customers

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...