Jump to content

Nav install issues on a '16 LT

Miweber929

By Miweber929
in Troubleshooting & Recalls

Recommended Posts

Miweber929 Enthusiast

Miweber929

Posted
Posted

Hoping someone has run into this before because I'm being told the dealer and Chevy are stumped. I do trust the dealer, they are EXTREMELY apologetic and have been hounding GM on this mercilessly.

 

A few weeks ago I picked up a 2016 Silverado Double Cab Z71 with the Bose stereo in it that was built during the time GM ran out of the iO6 modules so it has/had the iO5 module in it and the CarPlay rebate on it. Part of the deal I made with the dealer (who was sure they could install it via software) was to install CarPlay. So I buy the truck, they try to install CarPlay before delivery and it doesn't go, they get a software error as they try to load. Since that didn't work, after a little "discussion" they decide to order the iO6 module and install it to give me Nav and as a bonus I get CarPlay as well since I either wanted Nav or CarPlay.

 

Here's where things went wrong.

 

So they order the iO6 in, I bring them the truck LAST Wednesday for them to install it and while it physically goes in fine, works SO MUCH better than the old unit and I had CarPlay they cannot get Nav to load. The dealer assures me they tried everything and even has GM engineering working on it yet still, a week later, they just can't get it to work. Mid last week GM made them swap the human interface module (better known as the display, I guess) and still no luck. The dealer, and GM apparently, are at a loss and cannot make it work to the point there is discussion they might give me a new truck.

 

Anyone run in this? Anyone else deal with something like this? Dealer said its not uncommon for programming things to be a pain but this is excessive according to them. I suggested to the dealer they order a new iO6 module but since they gave customer service involved they say they can't do something GM doesn't direct them to do so here I sit. I have a loaner truck so in the end I'm fine, I just want this done and I've seen my truck 4 days since I bought it.

 

Any help would be appreciated, especially if anyone has run into this before. My worry is they'll get it working and at some inopportune time it'll crap out on me and it'll be after the warranty is up. GM is supposed to get back to the dealer Monday or Tuesday with a solution but I'm skeptical it'll be fixed.

 

Thanks!!!

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted

Sounds like they are taking some odd steps here. 84000725 is the nav upgrade kit they should have installed. If you don't have Carplay/Android Auto from the factory, and have the IO5 radio, you have the 2015 hardware in the truck. Where I think you have an issue here is the fact that you have CarPlay now. It sounds like the dealer has installed some incorrect hardware. Also, GM didn't run out of I06 hardware. If the truck had I06 from the factory, you would have had Carplay/Android Auto and nav. The constraint supply was on I05 radios. See the bulletin below. Your truck was and is an I05 truck, but with 2015 hardware.

 

16-NA-156: Information on Replacement HMI Modules for Vehicles Built Without Apple CarPlay and Android Auto - (Sep 20, 2016)

 

Due to supply issues, it is necessary to build a certain quantity of 2016 Silverado and GMC Sierra 1500 and HD trucks without Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility.

 

The affected trucks will be built with the 2.0 HMI module, which was previously used on 2015 Silverado and Sierra 1500 and HD trucks.

 

If for any reason the dealer needs to replace the HMI, it needs to be replaced with the correct HMI 2.0 part.

 

The five ways in which you can identify the affected trucks:

  1. The window label will display a line in the optional equipment section indicating that a credit of $200 ($225 in Canada) has been applied for the deletion of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility.
  2. The Vehicle Invoice will contain the RPO code "CPO" (letter O) and the $200 ($225 in Canada) credit.
  3. The main menu screen of the radio will not have the "projection" icon.
  4. The Service Parts Identification (SPID) label in the glove box will contain the RPO code "CPO" in addition to the RPO code IO5.
  5. The RPO list in Warranty History (IVH) will also show “CPO” since it is part of the as built RPO string.

 

It appears to me that the dealer is installing the 2016 Mylink hardware and or Mylink nav kit, when they should be using the 2015 kit with the part number I provided above as that kit is for 2014-2015 I05 radios. The 2016 kit is 84093239. This is for trucks with I05 and factory Carplay/Android Auto.

Miweber929 Enthusiast

Miweber929

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Sounds like they are taking some odd steps here. 84000725 is the nav upgrade kit they should have installed. If you don't have Carplay/Android Auto from the factory, and have the IO5 radio, you have the 2015 hardware in the truck. Where I think you have an issue here is the fact that you have CarPlay now. It sounds like the dealer has installed some incorrect hardware. Also, GM didn't run out of I06 hardware. If the truck had I06 from the factory, you would have had Carplay/Android Auto and nav. The constraint supply was on I05 radios. See the bulletin below. Your truck was and is an I05 truck, but with 2015 hardware.

 

 

 

It appears to me that the dealer is installing the 2016 Mylink hardware and or Mylink nav kit, when they should be using the 2015 kit with the part number I provided above as that kit is for 2014-2015 I05 radios. The 2016 kit is 84093239. This is for trucks with I05 and factory Carplay/Android Auto.

Ok, that is sort of the direction I thought they might be going in but didn't want to get too much into it unless I had the right part numbers so thanks for that. The release helps as well.

 

The only possibility this might not still be the issue would be the human interface module they replaced could/should have been the 2016 which should match the incorrect iO6 module, though there might be other 2015 hardware in there that's causing an issue still.

 

Thanks too for clarifying the iO5 vs. iO6 thing; I was mixing up what is what. So the. iO6 hardware is the nav unit and iO5 can be 2015 (no CarPlay) or 2016 (with CarPlay)?

 

I'll call on Monday and go over part numbers with them. If anyone else has ideas or has been through this please let me know.

Miweber929 Enthusiast

Miweber929

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So I called the dealer this morning and we went over all the part numbers and everything they've done has been assured by GM was correct using the correct parts. The GM rep also told the service department that according to their information they've had over 1300 vehicles equipped like one that have installed navigation without issue.

 

Which while nice doesn't explain wtf is going on with mine!!!

 

Going on the second the week it's been sitting at the shop, no resolution. I'm out of ideas. NOT a happy guy right now.

Miweber929 Enthusiast

Miweber929

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Update: Just got a call from the dealer, supposedly fixed and working fine, GM engineering got it working for them. I will pick the truck up tomorrow morning and see.

  • 2 weeks later...
Miweber929 Enthusiast

Miweber929

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So what parts did they use? I just picked a 2016 with the -200 credit and no carplay.

 

I'll look it up when I get home on Sunday; out of town for the holidays. I do know none of the part numbers above were what was installed. From what they told me it was a programming thing on GM's part and once they sent the right install file everything worked fine.

 

So far it's been great though I really have noticed poor audio quality with my XM stations as a whole. Not sure why but all of them sound like a badly encoded MP3 where the same stations in my 16 Malibu sound fine. I didn't have the truck long enough to remember if it was like that before in the install or not but next time it goes in I'll mention it. The parts replaced should not have made a difference from what I was able to find, though.

Miweber929 Enthusiast

Miweber929

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So looking at the paperwork I see that they installed part number 84043873 for the nav.

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • 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...