Jump to content

GM Performance Air Intake System Recall N212333800

Michael621
 Share

Recommended Posts

Josh M New Member

Josh M

Posted
Posted

I also just got this notice in the mail. My biggest concern is that this will reduce power/performance. Seems to be the consensus is that it hasn't affected anything, at least not noticeably.

Rodney James New Member

Rodney James

Posted
Posted

I had my truck in for a mode selector issue. When I got it back they said they took care of the recall. It’s a CA emissions issue so I was worried about affecting performance. I don’t live in CA so it kinda pissed me off. The factory cold air intake is CA approved. I don’t understand what exactly changes in the ECM program?

I don’t notice any difference in 0-100 WOT really but I haven’t tried towing yet

OnTheReel Senior Enthusiast

OnTheReel

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, milkmaster said:

IS this the same thing as the performance intake?  Mine has a bigger intake filter. 

image.png.1d0c5617185e11c5faf8996173c3df4e.png

No, the Z71/X31 use a deeper “high capacity” filter in the normal air box. The performance intake is totally different. Has a straight tube with no resonator, a clear lid, and a round filter.

milkmaster Enthusiast

milkmaster

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, OnTheReel said:

No, the Z71/X31 use a deeper “high capacity” filter in the normal air box. The performance intake is totally different. Has a straight tube with no resonator, a clear lid, and a round filter.

Ok thank you!

  • 4 weeks later...
L87Powered Enthusiast

L87Powered

Posted
Posted

Any other input on this recall? I don't want to do it, truck runs fine without it and don't want to negativity impact performance to comply with California emissions.

Rob Mugs Enthusiast

Rob Mugs

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, L87Powered said:

Any other input on this recall? I don't want to do it, truck runs fine without it and don't want to negativity impact performance to comply with California emissions.

Don't bother IMHO

 

I'm running an S&B which is even less restrictive with zero issues.

Anacortes Army Guy Enthusiast

Anacortes Army Guy

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, L87Powered said:

Any other input on this recall? I don't want to do it, truck runs fine without it and don't want to negativity impact performance to comply with California emissions.

This recall merely does the ECM update that is an integral part of the installation process for the performance intake, but some dealers failed to complete the installation properly and do the update, which is clearly stated in the installation instructions.  The ECM update accounts for the repositioned MAF sensor, and helps prevent potential issues, such as what Zane encountered after a week or so after installing his (see the mod sub-forum and his post (sticky) on installation of both the performance exhaust and intake - go to the 18:44 portion of the video).  Lots of people have installed cold air intakes of various makes without any kind of ECM update and apparently haven't had any issue, but GM's is designed to include the update.  My truck runs fine with it, and certainly better than when it was stock.  I imagine if you get a CEL and take it to the dealer, or for that matter take it to the dealer for anything, they'll know that this update hasn't been completed yet for your vehicle and will do it anyway.

Edited by Anacortes Army Guy
  • Like 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,770
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Paul8556
    Newest Member
    Paul8556
    Joined

  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 592 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      I hope to high heaven this is wrong. My Chevy farm trucks frame is lasting way longer than a newer Nissan Titan XD I got for a steal, and it only pulls trailers. A decade younger and it's frame is already way rustier than the waxed Chevy I drive across longs and ditches. Also, hasn't Ford been having tones of troubles with rusted frames? 
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      Batteries don’t always show signs of a few years ago my vehicle started fine in the morning and took me to work. After work the battery was completely dead and I needed a jump. No, I didn’t leave anything on and the battery was only a couple months old. It was replaced under warranty. 
    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      AFM is confirmed in the Corvette engine, so I'm assuming the higher volume trucks will get it as well
    • NDKoze
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By NDKoze · Posted

      If his battery was that bad I would think it would have been showing signs before this that were ignored. Stinks that it happened the way it did in rush hour traffic, but this seems like a pretty fringe scenario. I don't mind it that bad and never turn it off. The only slight annoyance for me is the slight delay between brake to gas, but I have gotten used to it and figure if it can save a little gas why not.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant. What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.” I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly. So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself. A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like: - new vs historical - active vs stored - repeated vs one-time - duration of the event - whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom - whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc. - whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority. For example: Misfire event: Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs. Oil-pressure event: Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison. Communication event: Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated. Voltage/reset event: Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first. That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system. I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom. For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be: - which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first - whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition - whether fuel trims were already moving - whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time - whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version. OBD is much easier for the average owner: - easier install - easier removal - inside the cabin - easier phone connection - easier data download - easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters. The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product. Maybe the split is: - OBD/DLC version for most consumers - ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get - shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem. Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality. Not “here are 50 parameters.” More like: “Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.” or “Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.” or “Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.” That is a much better way to think about the report.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...