Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, jflan23 said:

First attempt at vinal wrap. Took 3 tries, and I broke too many clips. Another bezel on order emoji20.png

24e29209ce345bbd096c37247c5dc9f2.jpg

Before

66ad3b7c5a6c9d07d3c2b8008109e666.jpg

After

@jflan23 that looks like some solid work you did there, congrats! Any advise on wrapping the bezels? It has a number corners and I’d imagine that I would have quite a bit of issues.

Posted
[mention=166400]jflan23[/mention] that looks like some solid work you did there, congrats! Any advise on wrapping the bezels? It has a number corners and I’d imagine that I would have quite a bit of issues.

 

 

Looks good from far, but far from good. I tore the vinyl in a couple spots and didn’t have enough for the other one.

 

I would order two extra bezels from GM parts and wrap those, then put them on. Take your time and go slow, get good vinyl that stretches and go for it. I’m no pro that’s for sure but it was a fun learning experience. The grill is the next project...

Posted
5 hours ago, jflan23 said:

 

I would order two extra bezels from GM parts and wrap those, then put them on. 

 

Do they not make Body colored bezels? If you have to order new ones, seems you could just order them in the color you wanted...

 

Or do they only come in Chrome and Black Chrome?

Posted
 
Do they not make Body colored bezels? If you have to order new ones, seems you could just order them in the color you wanted...
 
Or do they only come in Chrome and Black Chrome?


GM parts only has chrome and black chrome. Black chrome was $80 or something a piece vs chrome was $50 ish.
Posted

Installed an Undercover Ultraflex tonneau cover last week. It's pretty slick, really please with it. Had to adjust the tension a tad for the tailgate to continue to come down remotely, but haven't had an issue with leaks like that besides a few drops in the downpours we had a few days ago.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

Posted

Not big into too much in the way of mods but have done some small stuff to my new 3.0 LT.  Removed front air dam, installed factory fogs, not yet wired to fuse box or flashed, installed black bow tie on front, black abs letter inlays in tail gate,  took off the goodyear fortitudes and replaced with Dura Tracs. Have a hood protector yet to be installed, weather not cooperating.

IMG_0536 black bowtie.jpg

IMG_0537 tail gate.jpg

Posted
56 minutes ago, Booger T said:

Not big into too much in the way of mods but have done some small stuff to my new 3.0 LT.  Removed front air dam, installed factory fogs, not yet wired to fuse box or flashed, installed black bow tie on front, black abs letter inlays in tail gate,  took off the goodyear fortitudes and replaced with Dura Tracs. Have a hood protector yet to be installed, weather not cooperating.

IMG_0536 black bowtie.jpg

IMG_0537 tail gate.jpg

What hood protector did you go with?

Posted
6 hours ago, vonrokker said:

What hood protector did you go with?

Aero Skin in smoke, #322168

  • Like 1
Posted

Sorry for the crappy formatting, I copied and pasted from detailres website.  MY 2020 AT4 got some love yesterday with a nice Ceramic Coating.

Decon. pre-rinse

Degrease engine bay

Sealant foam bath

Clean wheels & tires

Dress plastics & tires

Streak-free glass

Ceramic infused paint sealant

Synthetic clay paint prep.

Interior air blow out

Vacuum

Hand scrub seats & panels

Fine brush vents & crevices

Clean windows, screens & mirrors

Deoderizer

Scratch, scuff, scrape reduction

Hard water spot removal

Oxidation removal

Paint swirl removal

Application of Feynlab’s V2.0 9H Ceramic Coating

Includes 3yr warranty

Covers all painted, plastic trim and piano trim panels

125% Gloss boost compared to factory new finish

Ease of cleaning maintenance

Cost savings by eliminating quarterly wax/ sealant

IMG_5852.jpg

IMG_5853.jpg

IMG_5854.jpg

  • 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

  • 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...