Huge GM Truck Brake Recall Announced by NHTSA - Is Yours On The List?

[KARNUT]

For the rest of you. I'll pass. Do as you like. Believe what you like. Maintain as you wish. Hate as you will. Why would it matter to me? Seriously will your views change how my truck responds to my maintenance? Only if I drink the Kool-Aid. 
 
You guys have any idea how many things this forum has told me were unavoidable catastrophes just waiting to happen? What a piece of junk the six speed is. My vacuum pump. My AFM. The VLOM. Catch Can. The fact it's a V6. Factory tires. Over 100K miles and a pinion seal....that's it. Even my wiper blades made it nearly 80K and this truck sits outside 24/7/365. I'll keep my eye's open, my ear to the ground but I will let results (data) do the guiding. Hate away.  

Your my man I mean that sincerely. You have the luxury to drive the way you drive maintain the way you maintain. You’ll probably make the engine last a lifetime if you want. Most people still working don’t have that luxury. They may want to change their oil this weekend but life got in the way. They may want to drive 65 but the traffic flow is 80 and somehow their late to work and pedal to the metal. GM engines used to take that in stride. Maybe even lose a few miles at the end of their life cycle as a result. Not lose a lifter or a add on vacuum pump at mid life. I’m pissed and mourning the death of the GM small block as I knew it. I know get over it, move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TwoBallScrewBall]

My 30 year old Tuned Port Injection 305 in my old Camaro is still going strong.   We all agree on one thing here, they don't make them like they used to. 

[Yondu]

3 hours ago, TwoBallScrewBall said:

We have also had the issue since about 10,000 miles, that's when we first saw this warning on the dash.   It would happen on startups, and we would just shut the truck down and restart it, which always cleared the problem. 

 

It was not until I was almost unable to make a stop pulling my boat at a crossroad with a 50mph highway a couple weeks ago that we made the appt to get it looked at, and I started digging further. 

It certainly sounds like it CAN be due to lack of maintenance but I wouldn't say it IS caused by lack of maintenance. 

[Jsdirt]

1 hour ago, BrianBrianBrian said:

I'm not a certified mechanic nor have I stayed in any Holiday Inn Express hotels lately.  That said, yes.  The mechanical vacuum pumps sole purpose is to pick up the slack when your engine is operating in V4 mode because the engine can't sufficiently supply enough vacuum pressure to the brakes.  I'm just guessing on this but, if you've deleted AFM or your vehicle doesn't have this feature than I would suspect you are less susceptible to encounter the "hard brake assist" issue.    

Just FYI, there is no V4 mode on the new ones - it's multi-cylinder, and random. From what I understand, any one of the 8 can be deactivated when called upon by the ECM.  

 

 

 

And another FYI to everyone else - they've been making vacuum pumps for diesels for 50+ years. You don't hear of those failing after the first 2 years of life. Just sayin' ...

 

Even VW uses vacuum pumps in their small cars. The most catastrophic thing I've seen with those are a major oil leak, which can be fixed in a hour or so if you don't follow service info, and have a little ingenuity.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Jsdirt

[Yondu]

47 minutes ago, TwoBallScrewBall said:

My 30 year old Tuned Port Injection 305 in my old Camaro is still going strong.   We all agree on one thing here, they don't make them like they used to. 

As someone who is very familiar with the car you're referring to I am so thankful they don't make them like they used to. 

 

I wouldn't have paid what I paid if they did. 

[Jsdirt]

5 minutes ago, Yondu said:

As someone who is very familiar with the car you're referring to I am so thankful they don't make them like they used to. 

 

I wouldn't have paid what I paid if they did. 

You mean get 300k miles out of one engine without ever having to open it up? I know- that kind of quality was terrible! I love paying $60 LARGE and having major engine failure. That's progress.

 

 

[KARNUT]

As someone who is very familiar with the car you're referring to I am so thankful they don't make them like they used to. 
 
I wouldn't have paid what I paid if they did. 

My 92 is the best I’ve ever owned. That’s saying something, I’ve owned many. Never this long 9 years. Probably never sell it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yondu]

14 minutes ago, Jsdirt said:

You mean get 300k miles out of one engine without ever having to open it up? I know- that kind of quality was terrible! I love paying $60 LARGE and having major engine failure. That's progress.

 

 

Mine was actually tpi, 305. Needed a engine around 100.  Trans issues but never needed a rebuild.  

 

Squeaky, crappy gas mileage, never ran super smooth.  Slooooooow.   Poor build quality and panel alignment.  Lots of little plastic pieces and what not broke. Leaky t tops.  

 

They were better in memory than reality.  Most people remember them as tire burning monsters.  Reality was they were far slower than a new Cruze. 

[Yondu]

17 minutes ago, Jsdirt said:

You mean get 300k miles out of one engine without ever having to open it up? I know- that kind of quality was terrible! I love paying $60 LARGE and having major engine failure. That's progress.

 

 

I also paid 36k for my loaded LT crew 4wd, 5.3. Sticker was 51 but no one pays that.  

 

I can't think of even a High Country with every option being 60 large.  I assume you're referring to the price you didn't actually pay?   Let's ignore inflation too. I'd have been loaded if I made in 1989 what I make now.  

[diyer2]

We are test pilots for the majority of the products we buy.

Some times we get 

[TwoBallScrewBall]

11 minutes ago, Yondu said:

Mine was actually tpi, 305. Needed a engine around 100.  Trans issues but never needed a rebuild.  

 

Squeaky, crappy gas mileage, never ran super smooth.  Slooooooow.   Poor build quality and panel alignment.  Lots of little plastic pieces and what not broke. Leaky t tops.  

 

They were better in memory than reality.  Most people remember them as tire burning monsters.  Reality was they were far slower than a new Cruze. 

Well I can't argue with you about the squeaks, the rattles, the plastic, or almost anything else you said.     But I love the car, and she runs great.   It was fast for it's time.  I've got a 2017 2SS if I want to go fast   And the 700R4 in the 1989, well yeah I've had that out 4 or 5 times before I finally gave up and let a hot rod shop rebuild it.

 

But the little 305, I get an average 20mpg overall, and I can get 25 if it's all highway.   Sounds great and is 'quick' enough to be fun.   She's a cruiser.   

 

Regarding the tire burning.....  

Edited September 12, 2019 by TwoBallScrewBall

[Jsdirt]

13 minutes ago, Yondu said:

I also paid 36k for my loaded LT crew 4wd, 5.3. Sticker was 51 but no one pays that.  

 

I can't think of even a High Country with every option being 60 large.  I assume you're referring to the price you didn't actually pay?   Let's ignore inflation too. I'd have been loaded if I made in 1989 what I make now.  

I paid $30K for mine ... and it's still a piece of shit. I'm not even at 100k miles yet, and have already had to replace the rear differential. Started burning oil at 50k miles, and had a strut, both upper ball joints, and both hub bearings fail. Lower ball joints failed at 38k, and the thing was in and out of the dealership under warranty for FIVE brake jobs, due to pulsating brakes which started at FORTY FOUR miles, not to mention the door trim was peeled back and hanging off the truck as it sat on the lot. Had several random no crank, no start incidents since year 3, due to poor wiring connectors under the driver's side kick panel that I only found by accident. Not to mention all the squeaks and rattles in the interior that made my 266K mile 1994 K1500 sound new in comparison.

 

I don't know about  you, but I'd gladly go back to low power output and so-so handling to get reliability back again ... 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Jsdirt

[Yondu]

6 minutes ago, TwoBallScrewBall said:

Well I can't argue with you about the squeaks, the rattles, the plastic, or almost anything else you said.     But I love the car, and she runs great.   It was fast for it's time.  I've got a 2017 2SS if I want to go fast   And the 700R4 in the 1989, well yeah I've had that out 4 or 5 times before I finally gave up and let a hot rod shop rebuild it.

 

But the little 305, I get an average 20mpg overall, and I can get 25 if it's all highway.   Sounds great and is 'quick' enough to be fun.   She's a cruiser.   

 

Regarding the tire burning.....  

Good looking vert.  You're right though, mine could do a burnout, especially holding the brakes. And then fell on its face and had a 0-60 around 8 seconds. 

 

Funny how you could do a wicked burnout but still be so slow.  I do love the 3rd gens in the right package.  I always wanted a 350 / 5 speed. But alas, you got  the 350 or 5 speed.  I had the 305 auto :(. 

[bg1988]

On 9/11/2019 at 7:08 AM, Gorehamj said:

John Goreham
Contributing Writer, GM-Trucks.com
9-11-2019

 

General Motors has announced that NHTSA is mandating a safety recall for the following vehicles:

• 2014-2018 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra Pickups (1500 / 2500 / 3500)
• 2015-2018 Chevrolet Suburban, Tahoe, GMC Yukon vehicles 
• 2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade

 

NHTSA reports that the amount of vacuum created by the vacuum pump may decrease over time. The group says that as the vacuum level drops, the brake assist decreases, and that this increasing braking effort, extending the distance required to stop the vehicle, thereby increasing the risk of a crash. This new recall covers 3.4 million vehicles. 

 

The Problem: The brake pump uses engine oil to lubricate itself. If the pump becomes clogged with engine oil sludge the units ability to create vaccum is diminished over time. As a result, braking force and ability also drops. The issue is usually accompanied by a "Service Brake Assist" warning message in the dash. 

 

The Fix: GM will reprogram the computer that controls the secondary brake assist pump. The secondary pump will now activate at lower speeds and different situations quicker to compensate for any lost output from the main pump. Since the pumps are not failing, GM has decided not to replace them.

 

GM's number for this recall is N192268490. In compliance with federal law, GM will notify owners, typically by snail mail. GM says that its dealers will reprogram the Electronic Brake Control Module. However, GM has not yet provided a notification schedule. Owners may contact Chevrolet customer service at 1-800-630-2438, Cadillac customer service at 1-800-458-8006 or GMC customer service at 1-800-462-8782.

 

If you own one of these vehicles and wish to check to see if your vehicle is included (or not) you can do so at this link immediately.

 

As with every safety recall, customers will not be charged by GM for the needed repairs or modifications. 

 

NHTSA's public information on this issue indicates that many accidents have been reported to NHTSA including some with injuries. This recall is the result of a NHTSA investigation that lasted nearly a year. In its investigation report, NHTSA noted the following details about the problem:

 

 

I think i told you guys too keep your engine oil clean

[Jsdirt]

I'll trade HP for making it to my destination any day. 

 

Or, if automakers would just build a quick engine that was RELIABLE, we'd be in great shape!