Jump to content

Silverado won't consistently power trailer's rear camera

J-Stroke
 Share

Recommended Posts

J-Stroke Enthusiast

J-Stroke

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 hours ago, Jack D said:

My guess is that the truck is not supplying enough current to the trailer lights to power the camera and the lights. You may try wiring the camera directly to your trailer batteries. Our Lance trailer is a 2018, and I've been using it for two seasons. At first, I used the rear camera all of the time, but after a while, I found that it was more of an annoyance than it was beneficial. Someday I may want to use that camera again, but I have no immediate need for it, so I have time to watch and see how things turn out.

I agree, direct wire to the trailer's batteries is likely my only solution, at least for now. Also, I just returned from our maiden voyage to Florida and after 2,500 miles of relying on my side mirrors with no rear camera I, like you, don't feel the "need" for the camera any longer. BUT I paid for it and it's not pretty enough just to be an expensive ornament. Besides, I've been blown off by so many vendors and technicians by now that it's a matter of principle; I'm on a mission!

  • Like 1
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

duke3k
duke3k

If anybody's interested here's a Before and After electrical comparison when using the ASA -"at the camera" fix to the Trailer light circuit:   (A) Before:   The oscilloscope is confirming t

Jack D
Jack D

I may be facing the same issue with our trailer next month. We have a Lance trailer with rear-facing camera and dash monitor that plugs into a power outlet. Works well in our 2012 Silverado, but we're

J-Stroke
J-Stroke

Phil, you are sort of correct; a) is the key factor. With the trailer connected to any other vehicle, the system woks perfectly. With the trailer connected to the Silverado, the system won't work even

Posted Images

Jack D Enthusiast

Jack D

Posted
Posted

J-Stroke

I hope you get to the bottom of this. I will only have our new truck to test the trailer camera. Hopefully, this will be the last of everyone's '19 GM truck and trailering issues. If it is a power issue, I hope that we can convince Lance to find another power source for the rear-facing cameras, so that future buyers won't face the same issues.

 

Still waiting for our Silverado to show up at the dealership, so I can't be of any help to you on this end until it shows up. If it turns out that powering the camera directly from the battery solves the problem, then it's workable. I'm not sure if you can access the camera wiring somewhere inside the trailer, but William Leon at Lance may be able to help you. Otherwise, you'll have to cut & splice onto the 3" of exposed wire sticking out of the back of the trailer, while insulating the still-connected wire that runs inside. We have a 2375, and I don't see any way to access those wires without cutting a hole in the rear wall, inside the upper cabinets. Another option is to run a new power cable down the ladder to the frame, then forward to a 12v source.

 

Where did you find the backup light wire termination? I just got a pair of LED lights to connect to the rear frame. Just starting to get weather warm enough to go out and crawl around under the trailer.

 

GOOD LUCK!

J-Stroke Enthusiast

J-Stroke

Posted
  • Author
Posted
12 minutes ago, Jack D said:

J-Stroke

I hope you get to the bottom of this. I will only have our new truck to test the trailer camera. Hopefully, this will be the last of everyone's '19 GM truck and trailering issues. If it is a power issue, I hope that we can convince Lance to find another power source for the rear-facing cameras, so that future buyers won't face the same issues.

 

Still waiting for our Silverado to show up at the dealership, so I can't be of any help to you on this end until it shows up. If it turns out that powering the camera directly from the battery solves the problem, then it's workable. I'm not sure if you can access the camera wiring somewhere inside the trailer, but William Leon at Lance may be able to help you. Otherwise, you'll have to cut & splice onto the 3" of exposed wire sticking out of the back of the trailer, while insulating the still-connected wire that runs inside. We have a 2375, and I don't see any way to access those wires without cutting a hole in the rear wall, inside the upper cabinets. Another option is to run a new power cable down the ladder to the frame, then forward to a 12v source.

 

Where did you find the backup light wire termination? I just got a pair of LED lights to connect to the rear frame. Just starting to get weather warm enough to go out and crawl around under the trailer.

 

GOOD LUCK!

Jack, check out my reply on LOA, I included a pic of where the wire bundle is located (tucked in to the frame just behind the bumper). 

 

Here's an update, sort of, on the camera dilemma. I turned off all apps and electronics I could in order to see if there was an interference issue I could eliminate; no luck, no change. However, I did manage to end up with a blank Navigation screen. I called OnStar and they rebooted it; all is good on that front. But while we waited the 5 minutes for the reboot, I explained my camera issue to the OnStar tech support person. She said it is probably an incompatibility between my camera and the truck's IOT Radio System, which is GM's high-end system. She suggested that I could probably solve the problem by downgrading to the IO6 system, though it would be expensive to do so. I suggested OnStar do a software fix from their end instead. She laughed at me. "IOT", I assume from my Google search, refers to Internet of Things which I have seen some refer to as "Interference" of Things.

 

As to accessing the wiring in the trailer, I'll be checking with Leon soon, after he's had his coffee.

  • Like 1
bshort Enthusiast

bshort

Posted
Posted

The monitor itself only pulls 300 milliamps.  The camera has to be that or less.  As far as the truck's 12V supply to the trailer, it should think that the camera is just another running light.  Odd situation.  

  • Confused 1
Rocz3cqg Enthusiast

Rocz3cqg

Posted
Posted (edited)

For 2019 GM has three levels of Radio Systems that are built for the trucks Gen 3 IOR, IOS and IOT. IOR is a 7" unit, IOS is a 8" HD unit while the IOT is a 8" HD with Nav. The 2019 trucks have two types of Trailering connections. One is just a standard wiring without the Trailer Lighting Module and the othe includes the Module.The camera should work with the standard wiring [which basically would be a straight connection to the 12 volts] while the module presents an interface between the battery and the end connector.

Edited by Rocz3cqg
  • Like 1
Jack D Enthusiast

Jack D

Posted
Posted

Comments by bshort and Rocz3cqg follows a rational line of thinking - it just doesn't make sense. The camera should draw minimal power, but the problem has to lie within the trailer lighting module, somehow. Or, did Lance somehow wire the camera so that only part of the wiring is connected to the running lights? I still believe that wiring the camera directly to a 12v circuit that is not monitored by the trailer lighting module, or directly to the battery and a chassis ground, should be the cure.

 

Good luck J-Stroke!

  • 1 month later...
GormanAZ Enthusiast

GormanAZ

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have gone down the rabbit hole on this issue and talked to all levels of GMC even Echomaster support.  The 2019 IOT Radio system in the SLT and Denali, was not developed by Echomaster and they had no input unlike other model years and even lower models of current year. GMC system they did internally is not compatible with wireless cameras for 2019.  The TPMS system they decided to use is generating interference in the same wireless range as the cameras.  The solution they used for Denali was to install RCA plugs in the back (admission of the issue) and expect people to run a wire to the back of the trailer to avoid the interference so they could keep promoting the trailer integration features.  This is not a solution for something like an Airstream where running wires is not easy. They did not install the RCA plug in the other non Denali models with the IOT Radio so they have no towing camera option solution to hardwire it.  The interference seems to be across the 2.5 to 5 Ghz range, so no aftermarket wireless system will work that uses that range (being all but wifi systems).  Echomaster said to try and run an antenna from the rear camera to the front of the trailer to see if it will cut thought the TPMS interference.  I just order a wifi based camera that connects to the phone, but this is not what was promoted by GMC!  No integration. You can build the truck with the hard wired camera as an add-on online, but it does not really exist and does not ship on the non Denali trucks. Not a Happy customer!  GMC will need to make a custom camera that can handshake with the bastardized version of bluetooth they implemented in the IOT radio system to avoid the interference.  I doubt this will happen! Hopefully I saved people the 5+ hours of phone calls to arrive at that answer.

 

Edited by GormanAZ
J-Stroke Enthusiast

J-Stroke

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks, GormanAZ, you did a heck of an investigation! This is quite a mess. I though I would solve the  problem by having my trailer service center rewire the camera directly to one of my trailer batteries. But they estimated four hours at $75/hr and I refuse to pay that.

 

It seems to me that this is a design defect that GM should be legally obligated to fix. But I'm just a retired lawyer, what do I know? 

  • Like 1
GormanAZ Enthusiast

GormanAZ

Posted
Posted

GM left it as "We understand that you were promised a trailer camera but we don't have a solution for you, you will need to discuss this with your sales team at your dealership, or you can try various third party devices that may provide similar capabilities." The Echomaster guy was excellent and gave me some ideas to try regarding remote antennas on the trailer but said he is not aware of any camera that will not have the interference from the TPMS as an issue as they are all made by same Chinese companies.   Don't direct wire your camera, that will not fix this issue and you will be wasting money.  

flowbytwo Enthusiast

flowbytwo

Posted
Posted

I have an airstream with the review camera and I am also experiencing this issue. I had planned to see if the issue was related to ripple on the dc line to the camera by using a direct feed (tapped in at the wiring junction for the 7-wire pig tail. If that fixes it I would simply put a relay (and probably a load resister to fool the computer that the lights still work) to switch parking lights over to the constant hot DC system. 

 

If this is an interference issue then I wonder how they got approval for these components from the FCC? I mean anyone driving their new GMC past someone else with a review camera would cause it to cut out. That seems like a pretty serious issue (and I would be surprised if that is the case).

  • Like 1
Brad Schuette New Member

Brad Schuette

Posted
Posted

I am having the same problem with my 2019 GMC Sierra 1500. I took the camera down and it works perfectly fine inside the truck next to the monitor. if I plug the camera back into the trailer and take the monitor to the back of the trailer to view it, it does not work. This is not a Bluetooth or wireless interference problem. I can actually hear a buzzing noise on the camera if it is plugged into the trailer power powered by the Sierra running lights. It seems to me that this is dirty power coming from the truck.. Not sure if it is has some kind of AC signal riding over it and not a clean 12 volt DC power or what, but this is definitely a power issue that is being provided by the truck. The camera uses so little power, I don't think it is a current draw issue.

geddy76 New Member

geddy76

Posted
Posted

We brought home our new truck last weekend and discovered this issue a few days later when we hooked up our camper for a test tow. 

 

I just got got off the phone with ASA Electronics tech support. They are aware of the issue and are actively looking for a fix. She said what GM did caught the entire industry off guard. No estimate for a fix at this point, but it’s good to hear they are looking for a solution. 

Jack D Enthusiast

Jack D

Posted
Posted

Since GM said that the new trucks would be camera-compatible, and it's obvious that they did not thoroughly investigate existing camera systems during their infotainment design, they should provide us with the stand-alone hard-wire cameras that they sell as an accessory. At a significant discount, of course.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined

  • Who's Online   6 Members, 1 Anonymous, 1,658 Guests (See full list)

  • 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...