Jump to content

Adaptive charging system won't drop down to 12v

GMC2018

By GMC2018
in Troubleshooting & Recalls

 Share

Recommended Posts

GMC2018 New Member

GMC2018

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm not sure how far ill get with this but here goes. I have a 2018 GMC Sierra 1500 5.3L C engine code non flex. Its got 20k on it when i bought it had a crappy napa battery in it but the adaptive charging system worked fine with the napa battery it would be a 14.4 volts on start up and then drop down to 12 as it should and the back up to 14 per the conditions listed in the service info well i replaced the 94r napa battery with a 94r oriellys agm battery and the voltage would inky stay at 14.4 not drop down to 12 when electrical loads are low so i hooked up the scan tool at my shop and see that according to the BCM the battery was at 67%charged (all other data was normal and in the right conditions for the charging sytem to drop down to 12 volts) but the state of charge has to be at least 80% so i tried charging the battery and state of charge on the scan tool never changed so i attributed it to the fact that i put an agm battery in the truck and the BCM didnt like this so i went and exchanged it for a non agm 94r battery and intalled it well after driving it for a bit the charging system still did not drop down to 12 volts despite low electrical load. Ill hook the scan tool back up tomorrow and see what the BCM thinks the state of charge is but has anyone else encountered this? Thanks.

Edited by GMC2018
Snowcamo Senior Enthusiast

Snowcamo

Posted
Posted

You so don't have an issue... I never really see it 12v either. It'll do as its supposed when the time is.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

  • 1 year later...
Roberto Donoso New Member

Roberto Donoso

Posted
Posted

Hi. Here from Chile. I have the same issue. 2014 Silverado LTZ crew cab 1500 and suddenly the GM Smart charging system doesn't works. It's fixed 14.9 - 15 Volt. I changed alternator, ground cable with battery current sensor and battery. No change. I scanned several times and no DTC'S. Scanner display battery charge 65% and the BCM is command 80%. The next step, i Will look for a disrupt wire at side of PCM. Sorry for my english. I pulled up the battery current sensor connector AND not changes. I thinking is a wire shorted or the BCM

 

  • 1 month later...
zachdill5 Enthusiast

zachdill5

Posted
Posted
On 11/21/2021 at 6:17 PM, Roberto Donoso said:

Hi. Here from Chile. I have the same issue. 2014 Silverado LTZ crew cab 1500 and suddenly the GM Smart charging system doesn't works. It's fixed 14.9 - 15 Volt. I changed alternator, ground cable with battery current sensor and battery. No change. I scanned several times and no DTC'S. Scanner display battery charge 65% and the BCM is command 80%. The next step, i Will look for a disrupt wire at side of PCM. Sorry for my english. I pulled up the battery current sensor connector AND not changes. I thinking is a wire shorted or the BCM

 

did you ever figure this out?

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      He is not saying that an SAE *W20 will have more viscosity than a *W40 due to MORE VII polymers. He is saying that although multiple *W40 may post in the PDS the same or similar 100 C and 150 C viscosities that the blenders choice of modifier TYPE and AMOUNT to get his chosen base to grade will not give identical real world viscosities in shear and at temperature. All will pass the SII test but not all will pass the 100 C HTHS (unpublished value) testing the blender does and relies on to get the required by law "percentage improvement' referenced to his last great work.    Tis the problem with the lie. Once told others are required to support it. 
    • PunchT37
      Parking Brake - Automatic Engagement Questions

      By PunchT37 · Posted

      I have a `25, 1500 that auto sets on incline. Never knew that at first. I have the electronic shifter. Just think if it didn`t do that? Unlike a mechanical shift that you can muscle out of park, how would you get this thing out? That would be a problem.   What I found out later is, I don`t have to push the button to release. Just put it in gear.   Setting parameters? Don`t know if it`s possible.
    • SoCal Angler
      Parking Brake - Automatic Engagement Questions

      By SoCal Angler · Posted

      2023 GMC 3500 HD, SLE, 6.6L Gas, 4x4, 6 Spd Options:  SLE Convenience Package; Driver Alert Package 1; Spray on Bedliner; X31 Off Road Package; TRAILERING MIRRORS, HEATED POWER -ADJUSTABLE, AUTO DIMMING, WITH TURN INDICATORS WHEELHOUSE LINERS, REAR INC. REAR AXLE - 3.73 RATIO INC. GVWR, 11,350 LBS. (5148 KG) INC. FRONT AND REAR PARK ASSIST, INC. ULTRASONIC     I have been launching my new boat and noticed some things related to the parking brake.. I usually set the parking brake (habit) when on flat ground for typical driving.    When backed down on the launch ramp to launch the boat and I place gear selector into Park, the parking brake activates automatically. My second nature is to set parking brake manually and noticed I was turing the parking brake off.  The parking brake appears to be setting itself automatically.   I looked all over my owner's manual and only found references to being on an incline and manually setting parking brake, or at times parking brake will be auto engaged, but nothing specific to my situation.    When is the parking brake automatically engaged?  Under what specific circumstances?  Can the auto set parameters be changed?     I like the auto set feature.  It would be nice if always engaged when shifted into Park and released when shifted out of Park (like my wifes 2025 RAV4).   Thanks!    
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...