Jump to content

2019 Suburban has plastic wheel covers, not aluminum polished wheels

Sigma BF2

By Sigma BF2
in Troubleshooting & Recalls

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sigma BF2 New Member

Sigma BF2

Posted
Posted (edited)

I just bought a 2019 Suburban that I can still return.  Washing it for the first time I realized it has plastic wheel covers and not aluminum polished wheels.   

image.png.f051bf6d59a67c5ef964b87237a110f0.png

 

 

 

image.png.b2e82c4b80755017ba40b0bd9c131ece.png

They look like the real thing, but they are not.

 

 

 

Do I return it because of this?  I can get rims for $1200 so I'm not sure this is worth returning the truck, but I just have to wonder why the original wheels were removed.  

image.png

Edited by Sigma BF2
CamGTP Senior Enthusiast

CamGTP

Posted
Posted

Those are factory rims. They have been using the plastic cladding for years, like all the way back to 2007 on these trucks.

 

You'd need to see the original window sticker or decode the RPO codes to see what was actually equipped on that truck off the assembly line. My guess is that those are factory rim. It just adds some bling to a LT model.

  • Like 1
Sigma BF2 New Member

Sigma BF2

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I've been looking for a replacement part, all I see are aluminum rims, no wheel covers like this.  They are not listed like this on the 2019 brochures, they all say 18-inch polished aluminum wheels.  I look up GM parts and only get wheels, no wheel covers like these.....  

CamGTP Senior Enthusiast

CamGTP

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

Take a wheel off and get the part number off the back of the rim, that should tell you what GM number to look for. There is a guy on here that works for a dealership, maybe he'll see this thread.

Edited by CamGTP
newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 4/13/2022 at 9:50 PM, Sigma BF2 said:

I just bought a 2019 Suburban that I can still return.  Washing it for the first time I realized it has plastic wheel covers and not aluminum polished wheels.   

image.png.f051bf6d59a67c5ef964b87237a110f0.png

 

 

 

image.png.b2e82c4b80755017ba40b0bd9c131ece.png

They look like the real thing, but they are not.

 

 

 

Do I return it because of this?  I can get rims for $1200 so I'm not sure this is worth returning the truck, but I just have to wonder why the original wheels were removed.  

image.png

 

 

Those are aftermarket chrome skins over the factory wheel.

 

This is what is underneath those skins:

 

OEM 14 to 18 Silverado Tahoe GM 18in Wheel Alloy Rim 20937964 PZM AAJF for sale online | eBay

 

 

The dealer you got it from or the previous owner placed those skins on there.  They are clearcoated machined/polished faces with silver painted pockets and sides of the spokes.  

 

Here is a link to the chrome skins:  '14-19 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 18" 10 Spoke Chrome Wheel Skins | IMP-377XN (suburbanwheelcover.com)

 

And here is what they look like:

 

Image 21 - 2014-2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 18" Chrome Wheel Skins # IMP-377XN NEW SET/4

Edited by newdude
newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted (edited)

To remove the skins, you will have to pop out the Chevy center cap from the skin.  Underneath you should find a wing nut.  Turn it counterclockwise and it should loosen the skin from the wheel.

 

Some dealers install these for one of two reasons.  Reason 1 being the wheels are showing minor or moderate corrosion.  Reason 2 would be to "dress up" a vehicle.  More commonly used are the black skins to "black out" wheels. 

Edited by newdude
CamGTP Senior Enthusiast

CamGTP

Posted
Posted

Well thank goodness they stopped gluing those to the wheels like the GMT-900 trucks were.

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, CamGTP said:

Well thank goodness they stopped gluing those to the wheels like the GMT-900 trucks were.

 

 

GM stopped the cladding a while back with one exception.  K2XX for 2017-2019 on the Silverado Custom trim level, those had a 5 spoke chrome clad wheel.  

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

    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...