Jump to content

AT4 service brake assist

Shaker

Recommended Posts

Shaker Enthusiast

Shaker

Posted
Posted

Power assisted brakes failed in the drive-thru this morning, almost rear ended the guy in front of me. Basically power brakes became manual brakes. Drove into work and called the dealer. After sitting off for 30 minutes I drove to the dealer and the brakes seemed to work properly. Check engine light remained on. Dealer found a bulletin, but the solution was noted as they don't have one. Great to know my brakes could become manual brakes at any minute. 1300 miles on the odometer.

IMG_20181121_062256.jpg

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
flowbytwo Enthusiast

flowbytwo

Posted
Posted

Wow. That’s serious. As in life threatening—easy to imagine scenarios with more speed where something like that would be very bad. I will be very interested to hear how this turns out given I should have the exact same truck in another week or so. 

Sierra Dan Senior Enthusiast

Sierra Dan

Posted
Posted

Must be something relating to the new electronic-hydro braking, as they did away with the vacuum pump that K2 had.

GMCustomerService Senior Enthusiast

GMCustomerService

Posted
Posted
On 11/21/2018 at 8:39 PM, Shaker said:

Power assisted brakes failed in the drive-thru this morning, almost rear ended the guy in front of me. Basically power brakes became manual brakes. Drove into work and called the dealer. After sitting off for 30 minutes I drove to the dealer and the brakes seemed to work properly. Check engine light remained on. Dealer found a bulletin, but the solution was noted as they don't have one. Great to know my brakes could become manual brakes at any minute. 1300 miles on the odometer.

IMG_20181121_062256.jpg

Hey, Shaker. I'm sorry to hear about this recent brake situation associated with your AT4. If you'd like to further discuss your concern, feel free to send us a private message. Thanks! 

 

Anthony J.

 

Shaker Enthusiast

Shaker

Posted
  • Author
Posted

If anyone was curious bulletin #PIT5638 and code #C058E. The issue hasn't returned, but I'll let you know if it does.

IMG_20181128_181335~2.jpg

AT4guy Enthusiast

AT4guy

Posted
Posted

I just got my AT4 2 weeks ago. 100 miles into the truck check engine light came on. Took to dealer. Code came up master cylinder for brakes was having an electrical issue. Light went off code cleared. 600 miles later engine light on again this time with a notification service brake assist. Took to dealer had to replace master cylinder and reprogram my instrument cluster as it was blinking on and off while driving. 

 

Driving the truck 300 miles so far so good since shop “fixed” and replaced master cylinder on a brand new truck. Said it was a defective part nothing wrong with truck. We will see. I’m definitely trading in before 36k miles.  This has kinda shaken my faith in GMC. I have always driven sierras had a 2015 that was amazing.  This one “top of the line” AT4 not so much. 

AT4guy Enthusiast

AT4guy

Posted
Posted

I understand issues come about with any truck or vehicle but when you charge $60,000 for a truck you need to make dang sure your customers aren’t spending the first 1,000 to 2,000 miles going from home to dealers service shop. IMO. You can’t tell me no one knew about the issues and just pushed the truck out anyway. These guys are experts. They make billions off of expertise in design and engineering. They knew they had and issue if this many people are having this brake code come up. I work damn hard for my money and putting it into a truck I’ve already had in the shop 2 times and before it’s even close to being time for an oil change is a little subpar to say the very least. Don’t get me wrong. My dealer has done their best to fix the issue but in hindsight I don’t know that I would’ve given so much money to this truck knowing the issues I’m having now. Because now I’m super paranoid about something else going wrong. I know under warranty gmc will take care of me but I wanted to keep this truck for a while. Not going to be that way now. 

AT4guy Enthusiast

AT4guy

Posted
Posted

Let me shut up and say one last bit. I love absolutely love my AT4. Drives great looks amazing rough rugged and the 5.3 has more than enough power for my use. The heads up display and camera mirror is genius unlike in any other truck. I literally have been researching and watching news reviews reports on this since March when they were shown in New York. I guess having this issue affect my truck less than 500 miles into it made me sour. But without the master cylinder issue , this truck has been everything is hoped it would be. 

txsokie New Member

txsokie

Posted
Posted

Setting at the dealer right now.  Bought a new AT 4 yesterday. Started it up this morning and the service brake assist light pops up. 

txsokie New Member

txsokie

Posted
Posted

Mine was built last week of October. The dealer decided it was air in the brake line left over from the build .  Bleed the brakes added new fluid and reset the code.  So far so good but time will tell.

CaliDenali Enthusiast

CaliDenali

Posted
Posted

Just picked up my truck for “service break assist” message. Like other said dealer cleared code and have no further info. Dealer gave me the bulliten and gave me GM CS number. I already called and filed a complaint.

 

IMO no way any 57k (mine isn’t fully decked out LOL) AT4 should be having these issues at 217 miles. 1-866-522-9559 is the CS number. Of course my VIN didn’t come back to a recall or defect, I laughed and said she was right because there isn’t a fix for the problem. I will continue to follow up on this with you all. 

j-ten-ner Senior Enthusiast

j-ten-ner

Posted
Posted
On 2018-11-29 at 9:49 PM, AT4guy said:

I understand issues come about with any truck or vehicle but when you charge $60,000 for a truck you need to make dang sure your customers aren’t spending the first 1,000 to 2,000 miles going from home to dealers service shop. IMO. You can’t tell me no one knew about the issues and just pushed the truck out anyway. These guys are experts. They make billions off of expertise in design and engineering. They knew they had and issue if this many people are having this brake code come up. I work damn hard for my money and putting it into a truck I’ve already had in the shop 2 times and before it’s even close to being time for an oil change is a little subpar to say the very least. Don’t get me wrong. My dealer has done their best to fix the issue but in hindsight I don’t know that I would’ve given so much money to this truck knowing the issues I’m having now. Because now I’m super paranoid about something else going wrong. I know under warranty gmc will take care of me but I wanted to keep this truck for a while. Not going to be that way now. 

 

On 2018-11-30 at 4:56 AM, AT4guy said:

Let me shut up and say one last bit. I love absolutely love my AT4. Drives great looks amazing rough rugged and the 5.3 has more than enough power for my use. The heads up display and camera mirror is genius unlike in any other truck. I literally have been researching and watching news reviews reports on this since March when they were shown in New York. I guess having this issue affect my truck less than 500 miles into it made me sour. But without the master cylinder issue , this truck has been everything is hoped it would be. 

lol

 

That's why I want to have one of the trucks they've used for Zillions of miles of testing.

They must be flawless.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

  • 2 weeks later...
SS502 Senior Enthusiast

SS502

Posted
Posted
On 12/4/2018 at 8:30 PM, j-ten-ner said:

 

lol

 

That's why I want to have one of the trucks they've used for Zillions of miles of testing.

They must be flawless.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

Won’t ever happen, they are using customers for the R&D...

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...