Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
15 minutes ago, JimCost2014 said:

they extended the mileage on the extended warranty to 60000 miles I believe.

 

Make sure you tell them the brake pedal is "very hard" to depress at times, and how loud the pump has become.

 warranty on them for 6 years from in service date the of truck or 72,000 miles

Posted
1 hour ago, wforrest08 said:

 warranty on them for 6 years from in service date the of truck or 72,000 miles

Good to know, thought I was wrong on the mileage.

Posted

I posted this on another thread but wanted people to know what my dealership told me when I brought my 2014 gmc for recall. They said that that vacuum pump part number 12669488 is being replaced by a new pump. Part# 12696313. They quoted me over $600 to replace pump. I brought truck home and said I would do it myself. I was able to order this new pump part # from an online GM dealership out of North Carolina. Still waiting for it. But it appears to be a new part as I could only find it from GM dealerships. Amazon or rock auto didn’t have this part only the superseded part. I’ll post a pick of the new pump when I get it. I have no clue what the difference between 12669488 and 12696313 is. I found one on eBay from a dealership and they both appear exactly the same from the pics. 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Darkwolf7 said:

I posted this on another thread but wanted people to know what my dealership told me when I brought my 2014 gmc for recall. They said that that vacuum pump part number 12669488 is being replaced by a new pump. Part# 12696313. They quoted me over $600 to replace pump. I brought truck home and said I would do it myself. I was able to order this new pump part # from an online GM dealership out of North Carolina. Still waiting for it. But it appears to be a new part as I could only find it from GM dealerships. Amazon or rock auto didn’t have this part only the superseded part. I’ll post a pick of the new pump when I get it. I have no clue what the difference between 12669488 and 12696313 is. I found one on eBay from a dealership and they both appear exactly the same from the pics. 

Looking forward to the pics of this new part number.  For reference below is my faulty original compared to the 12669488.  

20190917_114021.jpg

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, aaronarf said:

Looking forward to the pics of this new part number.  For reference below is my faulty original compared to the 12669488.  

20190917_114021.jpg

Wouldn't let me upload both to the same post.

20190917_114155.jpg

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Thanks Gentlemen!  I will have to do this nonsense here shortly.  Hope the Job does not suck too bad?

Edited by mookdoc6
Posted
On 9/17/2019 at 8:05 AM, parthery said:

Anyone had any luck getting reimbursed?

 

I had this exact issue with my '17 back in July.  GM agreed that there was an issue (they had a special coverage at the time) and that the fix was to replace the vacuum pump.  I had to pay for it ($100 on my extended warranty) as I was outside the special coverage.

 

GM now hiding behind an "it's not the same thing" excuse...I've escalated my case but may have no choice but to file a complaint with NHTSA.

I picked up my check today. I had an independent shop do the work with me supplying the part. (Pump, brake booster, line, and master cylinder). Total cost and reimbursement was $823 and some change. Because I used and independent shop there were a few hoops to jump through, but they did reimburse me. 

Posted
23 hours ago, Darkwolf7 said:

I posted this on another thread but wanted people to know what my dealership told me when I brought my 2014 gmc for recall. They said that that vacuum pump part number 12669488 is being replaced by a new pump. Part# 12696313. They quoted me over $600 to replace pump. I brought truck home and said I would do it myself. I was able to order this new pump part # from an online GM dealership out of North Carolina. Still waiting for it. But it appears to be a new part as I could only find it from GM dealerships. Amazon or rock auto didn’t have this part only the superseded part. I’ll post a pick of the new pump when I get it. I have no clue what the difference between 12669488 and 12696313 is. I found one on eBay from a dealership and they both appear exactly the same from the pics. 

so you took it in for the recall and instead of doing the recall they said you need a new pump, which you have to pay for? Was your pump bad to begin with?

If i take mine in i just want them to do the recall job, not try to sell me on service and part replacements. Mine has no issues as of now.

Posted

No. My brakes went stiff on me twice. But I only brought it in for the recall. I was planning on getting the part and doing the pump change myself and only getting the reprogram done at dealership. They tested the pump and confirmed what I already knew,That the pump was starting to fail. In fact they didn’t want to let me take the truck home because of the bad pump. They made a note on my paperwork that the truck was unsafe to drive but returned to customer. The funny thing is that the dealerships are admitting that the problem is unsafe yet there is no recall to fix it. 

Posted
43 minutes ago, Darkwolf7 said:

No. My brakes went stiff on me twice. But I only brought it in for the recall. I was planning on getting the part and doing the pump change myself and only getting the reprogram done at dealership. They tested the pump and confirmed what I already knew,That the pump was starting to fail. In fact they didn’t want to let me take the truck home because of the bad pump. They made a note on my paperwork that the truck was unsafe to drive but returned to customer. The funny thing is that the dealerships are admitting that the problem is unsafe yet there is no recall to fix it. 

Right, it almost seems like a bait and switch deal where they want you to come in for the free fix but they know most of the pumps will be bad and they scare you with the unsafe to drive part to get them to fix it, when in fact it should be a recall for sure.

Bunch of BS!

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

    • I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
    • Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...