Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Well finally got the truck back after it being in the shop again for 5 days. This is already after their last final repair attempt, with the new half shaft, fixed it for 350 miles before the jingle returned.

This fix did not work for me. 40 miles after pickup, the noise is back and louder. Each time they take the axle out it gets worse.

I am praying they will buy it back next week. Not sure how much longer I can deal with the noise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

I have the SU4 and I can hear the noise a little bit but it’s not enough to bother me. The 6.2 engine makes enough noises that it all blends nicely like an orchestra of testosterone and tornados. 

  • Like 3
Posted
35 minutes ago, themightywrench said:

Just curious - I'm having my first attempt at repair tomorrow - has anyone had the fix actually work? It seems like most people got it fixed and it didn't work.

How long did it take for the dealership to get the repair kit in? I called my dealership last Friday to have them order it.

Posted
1 minute ago, Aycock1987 said:

How long did it take for the dealership to get the repair kit in? I called my dealership last Friday to have them order it.

It took several months. I tried to get it fixed back in May but was told they couldn't get the parts for a few months. They finally got the parts in yesterday

  • Like 1
Posted

I just got word that my parts came in today and I am scheduled for the repair on the 9/29. It was about 2 weeks from ordering to the call today. I will say I don’t know if my call to Chevy customer support made any difference in the part delivery timing. The rep said they were expediting. Will report back after Tuesday how it goes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  • Like 1
Posted

So I just read over the updated PIP5653G and I am shocked at how they are attempting to fixing this. 

They are putting a O-RING on the stub shaft first and then a retainer ring. They essentially want the O-RING to push up on the retainer ring so it will be forced into the diff housings notch to prevent lateral movement of the stub shaft...

Am I crazy or does this sound absolutely retarded?

Posted
So I just read over the updated PIP5653G and I am shocked at how they are attempting to fixing this. 

 

They are putting a O-RING on the stub shaft first and then a retainer ring. They essentially want the O-RING to push up on the retainer ring so it will be forced into the diff housings notch to prevent lateral movement of the stub shaft...

 

Am I crazy or does this sound absolutely retarded?

 

It doesn’t inspire confidence but it’s the first thing they have done since just keep replacing the axle with another one that is prone to the problem. I was told they changed the axle. I tried to get a part revision history from a few part suppliers but they weren’t able to tell me anything. So if this is coupled with a change in the stub shaft and is just an insurance policy.. maybe not so crazy. If it’s just this and nothing else.. yeah it’s crazy and why I am nervous this doesn’t fix it. Some have said it doesn’t in this thread and some have said it did work but for how long is the unknown.

 

I just can’t believe they screwed this up so bad and can’t fix it. Its not like this is the first 4wd system they ever built. And only seems to be from one supplier so it should be easy from a quality perspective to figure out what the hell is going on. Get one of the good ones and one of the many buy backs and play the “what’s different game”.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Posted
6 minutes ago, Mcropper514 said:

 

It doesn’t inspire confidence but it’s the first thing they have done since just keep replacing the axle with another one that is prone to the problem. I was told they changed the axle. I tried to get a part revision history from a few part suppliers but they weren’t able to tell me anything. So if this is coupled with a change in the stub shaft and is just an insurance policy.. maybe not so crazy. If it’s just this and nothing else.. yeah it’s crazy and why I am nervous this doesn’t fix it. Some have said it doesn’t in this thread and some have said it did work but for how long is the unknown.

 

I just can’t believe they screwed this up so bad and can’t fix it. Its not like this is the first 4wd system they ever built. And only seems to be from one supplier so it should be easy from a quality perspective to figure out what the hell is going on. Get one of the good ones and one of the many buy backs and play the “what’s different game”.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Im really hoping they come up with a better solution than a .02 o ring that will need to be replaced over time... Good things its a PIP and not a TSB at this point... I am really hoping...

Posted

That little o ring has now failed on me two times. Give it a few hundred miles. Drive the truck for at minimum 45 to 60 min. It will come back


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

This is just to get you thru the warranty after which the say, change the oring for 750.00. 

It is a geometry issue where the stub shaft falls to the low point. The oring is just a temp cushion until it fails. Get an extended warranty or learn to replace yourself or just turn up the Bose

Posted
2 minutes ago, Chevy sad said:

This is just to get you thru the warranty after which the say, change the oring for 750.00. 

It is a geometry issue where the stub shaft falls to the low point. The oring is just a temp cushion until it fails. Get an extended warranty or learn to replace yourself or just turn up the Bose

The stub shaft isnt "falling" to a low point, its moving laterally causing it to hit the center pin. The o ring is keeping the "clip" expanded so nothing moves... If anything, im going to buy the SU5 axle and just replace it myself.

Posted
35 minutes ago, jqcitizen said:

That little o ring has now failed on me two times. Give it a few hundred miles. Drive the truck for at minimum 45 to 60 min. It will come back


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I figured this and had not intention of believing it would work in the first place.

Posted

Buy what you want, it’s a design flaw. I agree it moving laterally, but to the low point which is the pumpkin. it’s called gravity. If they new a simple fix like replacing an axle, they would have done fixed it. 
 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Chevy sad said:

Buy what you want, it’s a design flaw. I agree it moving laterally, but to the low point which is the pumpkin. it’s called gravity. If they new a simple fix like replacing an axle, they would have done fixed it. 
 

I looked at mine with the diff cover off, it was flush with the center pin

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

    • 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?
    • I went to the county a few years back to dispute my property taxes. To do that I hired an appraiser and a lawyer. The County Assessor wished to argue that the homes in my neighborhood the appraiser used were all 'distressed properties" and not representative of the "Market Average".    My response was," Of the 50 homes in our subdivision 43 of them were "distressed properties" under bank foreclosure and as such "Distressed IS the market". Lawyer about choked on his coffee and handed the Assessor the 'receipts'.    I won that case on the evidence provided by the Lawyer and the Appraiser.    We have the same thing going on here. My statements were based on the GOVERNMENTS NATIONAL DATA and yours on local markets in areas of your interest. They are both correct....   Thing is, this divergence was based on NATIONAL and not on LOCAL. I think you even understand that. But like you said, we are both stubborn and hardheaded.    I do not see any advantage to disengagement.  But that said we can step back to compose ourselves. 
    • Trust me I appreciate the comments and concerns. It's what I was looking for to help me evaluate the situation and what I want to do. I have decided to move forward with the BORA hubcentric slip on 3/8" (.375") with the extended lugs nuts. Fedex says they should be here Monday :). Meanwhile, the dealer got the remote start and Patriot spray in bed liner done over the last couple of days. Also, I installed an inline stop/start eliminator today. Starts back up in what whatever mode you shut it off in, so you don't have to hit the button every time you fire up.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...