Jump to content

Bakflip MX4 issue

GearHead71
 Share

Recommended Posts

GearHead71 Enthusiast

GearHead71

Posted
Posted

Just installed the MX4 tonneau cover today on my 2020 GMC 2500 with the 6.9" bed. Only weird part is when I try and fold the cover forward it doesn't rest against the cab like it should:

8ab963ba404f80ef9974adc02fe57182.jpg

 

0f8ac3ede8edfe03670657f17ef7c800.jpg

 

f02c9635893b79c02f8b9aa4b7471210.jpg

 

They did send two different sets of bumpers and I would assume I need to use the thicker rectangular ones but they still aren't thick enough to get the cover to rest against the cab

 

6dc6a8f9d0d16aaae8f160b900fe9a97.jpg

 

Can anyone with this cover tell me if there's rests against the cab?

 

Thanks

 

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

 

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

cNate
cNate

If you force it to the cab and then crank down the holders, it’ll stay against the cab. It also won’t obstruct the view of the review and bed view camera. I specifically choose this cover for that rea

cNate
cNate

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cNate
cNate

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted Images

Thankful Enthusiast

Thankful

Posted
Posted

I have the similar Undercover Ultra Flex and mine doesn't rest against the cab.  Why do you want it to rest against the cab?  Surely, you won't be driving with it in this position.  I've only driven my truck with the cover fully open one time and I used the support arms to hold it into place.   Doesn't your Bakflip MX4 have these support arms?

UnderCover-Ultra-Flex-Tonneau-Covers.jpg

Thankful Enthusiast

Thankful

Posted
Posted (edited)

I looked at the photos of the MX4 here  https://bakflip.com/p/bakflip-mx4-tonneau-cover/  and I believe it's because the beds of our trucks are 6' 8".   I could be wrong but the cover will probably only rest against the cab if the bed is the shorter 5' 8" in the half tons.

BAK.JPG

Edited by Thankful
Thankful Enthusiast

Thankful

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry.  I was wrong.  I went out and opened my cover and it will rest on the back of the cab.  However, I've never allowed it to do that.  I simply have always used the support arms on both the right and left to secure the cover in the fully opened position.

sdelam Enthusiast

sdelam

Posted
Posted

Mine will touch the cab if I force it to. I can then lock it there with the arms.  I normally dont got that far with it, I just make sure it isnt blocking the camera and call it good. 

Thankful Enthusiast

Thankful

Posted
Posted

It does block my camera when I open it up completely.  But I've only done it once, so no big deal.

GearHead71 Enthusiast

GearHead71

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'm sorry.  I was wrong.  I went out and opened my cover and it will rest on the back of the cab.  However, I've never allowed it to do that.  I simply have always used the support arms on both the right and left to secure the cover in the fully opened position.
Mine will touch the cab if I force it to. I can then lock it there with the arms.  I normally dont got that far with it, I just make sure it isnt blocking the camera and call it good. 
I'm not planning on driving like this often, but if I need to I was just worried about it "flapping" back and forth. It does have those rods but there's still some motion in it since I can't snug it against the cab.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Alan Juden Enthusiast

Alan Juden

Posted
Posted

@GearHead71, I'd be interested to see what the bed view camera and the rear view mirror look like from inside when you have the MX4 up like that. That's the bed cover I'm looking to get as well and haven't found any pics of the cover up like that. Any chance you'd be willing to either let me know whether or not those cameras are blocked or post a couple pics of the camera views with that up?

 

Thanks,

 

Alan

cNate Enthusiast

cNate

Posted
Posted

If you force it to the cab and then crank down the holders, it’ll stay against the cab. It also won’t obstruct the view of the review and bed view camera. I specifically choose this cover for that reason. Moving from a bumper pull to a fifth wheel and wanted to be able to have the cover out of the way and hitch up. It’s also convenient when filling the bed with stuff to have almost full access to the entire bed space. My old truck and cover took up half a foot or so of bed space fully folded up, which only mattered when I had bikes in the back. That half foot meant I couldn’t close the tailgate. Not an issue on the longer standard bed of this gen truck though and this style cover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
GearHead71 Enthusiast

GearHead71

Posted
  • Author
Posted
[mention=240335]GearHead71[/mention], I'd be interested to see what the bed view camera and the rear view mirror look like from inside when you have the MX4 up like that. That's the bed cover I'm looking to get as well and haven't found any pics of the cover up like that. Any chance you'd be willing to either let me know whether or not those cameras are blocked or post a couple pics of the camera views with that up?
 
Thanks,
 
Alan
I'll take a picture when I get home. Not sure it will be much help since mine doesn't fold all the way to the cab yet though.
If you force it to the cab and then crank down the holders, it’ll stay against the cab. It also won’t obstruct the view of the review and bed view camera. I specifically choose this cover for that reason. Moving from a bumper pull to a fifth wheel and wanted to be able to have the cover out of the way and hitch up. It’s also convenient when filling the bed with stuff to have almost full access to the entire bed space. My old truck and cover took up half a foot or so of bed space fully folded up, which only mattered when I had bikes in the back. That half foot meant I couldn’t close the tailgate. Not an issue on the longer standard bed of this gen truck though and this style cover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Even if I push on it I can't force it to the cab. It starts to bend up the small panel at the bottom. There's only those two bolts holding it to the side rails.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

GearHead71 Enthusiast

GearHead71

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think this is the problem. Here is a picture of my truck, see how the top of the cover slants away from the cab:

82d4a88871f2d17b134cae71a06438d6.jpg

Here's my buddy's truck. See how the top of the cover slants towards the cab:

a8716593b9fa448637710136145f1ad9.jpg

Basically, mine is binding up on itself while his still has room to fold forward and rest against the cab.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

cNate Enthusiast

cNate

Posted
Posted

82cfd1dedd885b3984a186774f9096b7.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cNate Enthusiast

cNate

Posted
Posted

4112e36567cea7ee3dd8af1a1cc5b120.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Thanks 1
cNate Enthusiast

cNate

Posted
Posted

7edee3347d265d0abd06dbcc3b922c98.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Thanks 1

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

    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...