Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted



Watch this video or skip to 7:37. The stuff quiets this truck down significantly. According to the Lucas bottle, you could add up to 1.6 quarts of the stabilizer to 6.4 quarts of 0W-20 for a 20% concentration.

Yes I am having the same issue however I don’t really think of it as an issue. The engine is operating normally, it’s just a bit of an annoying loud design.

The only other thing I can think of that it might be is if you drive around in 4hi or 4auto all the time and eventually the front diff fluid broke down and you’re now hearing gear noise from the front differential.
  • 3 months later...
Posted

Has anyone been able to resolve this issue? Chevy has told me it's normal time and time again but now at 106K miles it got louder and this time when I dont hear it the check engine light remains off and give it about 30 miles later the ringing/Chattering gets louder and the check engine light comes on. Obviously theres a code being generated but some how no one knows what it is because the code is a rough idle code... its frustrating to say the least...

  • 6 months later...
Posted

Good day,

 

Not sure if anyone is following this topic still however I had a very similar noise on the drivers side of my 2018 Yukon with 5.3. They changed the oil pump and the fuel lines (fuel line has a check valve that sometimes rattles) and on the 3rd visit to the shop the Tech started taking parts off and going for a drive to check for noise. He discovered it was the heat shield on the drivers side exhaust manifold that was making the noise. I took it for a drive while the shield was off and yep no noise anymore. He is putting back the heat shield and ordering a new which he'll change once in. So if the new one rattles then I will up date this post later but for now looks like my mystery is solved.

  • Like 2
Posted

Hi, I believe I have the same issue. Can you confirm that replacing the heat shield resolved chatter/fluttering noise? 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, cnghe said:

Hi, I believe I have the same issue. Can you confirm that replacing the heat shield resolved chatter/fluttering noise? 

I will post soon as the part just came in so they will be installing it in next day or two. Once I have a chance to drive it for a day or so I will let you know if it is for sure gone.

 

Posted

Hopefully your heat shield replacement will fix it. Can’t wait to hear more about it.

I’m sick of this fluttering noise...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • 4 weeks later...
Posted
Problem is fixed now!!! No more fluttering noise. Get the Range AFM!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Explain what you mean by this please, did you have it serviced and if so what was done to fix it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted

18-NA-349: Ticking Noise Inside Vehicle While Driving

 

 

Condition

Some customers may comment a noise that may be described as a spark, knock, detonation, tick or an exhaust may be heard when driving the vehicle. The noise will be most pronounced near the driver’s side footwell area. This noise will not be observed outside of the vehicle.

Cause

The cause of the condition may be that the steering shaft seal was incorrectly connected.

Correction

Remove and reattach the steering shaft seal.

  • 3 months later...
Posted

Did anyone ever figure out a fix or what exactly shattering noise is? I have a 2019 Suburban and this noise is driving me crazy! So obnoxious! 

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 year later...
  • 2 months later...

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

    • 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. 😄
    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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...