Jump to content

2020 and up, dpf system recall

shadow gray 2020 hd
 Share

Recommended Posts

GMCustomerService Senior Enthusiast

GMCustomerService

Posted
Posted
On 8/15/2022 at 6:12 PM, crspangenberg said:

I too have insane brake squeal issues, my dealership told me it was normal. I don't think so, not on an $80k truck.

This is certainly not what we like to hear, crspangenberg.  Please know, customer satisfaction is extremely important to us. Our team would be more than happy to take a closer look into the concerns with your 2022 GMC Sierra 2500HD AT4. To do so, please send an email to [email protected] with ATTN: crspangenberg/GM Trucks in the subject line.

Please include your contact information, VIN, a brief description of your concern, and the name of your preferred dealership. We look forward to hearing from you. To learn more about GM’s privacy policy, please visit https://www.gm.com/privacy-statement.html.
 
Privacy Statement | General Motors
Your privacy is important to General Motors. This Privacy Statement addresses the personal information GM collects and how GM handles that personal information.
www.gm.com
 

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

shadow gray 2020 hd
shadow gray 2020 hd

Go to the gm recall center online and enter your vin.  It should pull up the same info I copied here above for recall number N212354170.  You can print it out and take it with you.  

Hutcher11
Hutcher11

I had mine updated in early June and could not be more disappointed.  When not towing I was getting 17-18 in mix of city and rural driving and now I am getting 14.5.  It is running a regen cycle twice

shadow gray 2020 hd
shadow gray 2020 hd

Calls for a reprogram of the ecm and tcm.   GM Recall #: N212354170   Date Issued:

TripDad Enthusiast

TripDad

Posted
Posted

I had the recall done and I have a 1-2 mpg drop.  I was averaging 18-20 now 17-18.  towing my TT was getting 10-12 now 8-9.

 

Brake squeal also.

 

Not pleased.

Libertized Enthusiast

Libertized

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, BMEMSE said:

This recall killed gas mileage on my truck.  Anyone else have this issue?

Yup! I’ve been trying to fight with GM for months now to no avail. They “don’t go backwards” with the ECM or TCM. All I want it to reset it back to stock. Never had issues before this (besides the ridiculously loud brakes and upper i-shaft 3x). We need to make enough noise to have them do a new update because this one sucked!! Made a post about it a while ago. 

  • 2 weeks later...
Hutcher11 New Member

Hutcher11

Posted
Posted

I had mine updated in early June and could not be more disappointed.  When not towing I was getting 17-18 in mix of city and rural driving and now I am getting 14.5.  It is running a regen cycle twice as often as before the update.  I’m fortunate to have a great dealer and they checked everything yesterday, but unfortunately had to point back to the software update.  They spoke to GM on my behalf and we’re not given any indication that a solution is on the way.  Will be calling GM tomorrow to file a complaint. Considering what these trucks cost it’s ridiculous that a software update would reduce fuel MPG by 20% or more, 3 years after buying the truck. The impact on MPG should have been communicated in the recall notice.

  • Like 2
scostanzo68 New Member

scostanzo68

Posted
Posted

I too am having the fuel mileage issue and I have been fighting with GM for months.  I have had my truck at the dealer to do "diagnostics" but without a check engine light everything is now within the GM specs.  I lost about 25% fuel mileage and I am not letting this go with GM.  I was told to contact the NTS to get a recall done on the recall.  The emission recall should have made the truck more efficient but obviously when you lose 25% the truck is running less efficient.  With enough people we can probably get a class action law suit going and force GM to correct this.    

  • Like 1
  • 3 weeks later...
Steven Hurley New Member

Steven Hurley

Posted
Posted

I have a 5 of the 2020 Duramax's in my fleet.  Yes they loose mileage after the update. Dealer has been of no help

Noisy brakes, Yes there is a dealer bulletin about the brakes. Now getting your dealer to fix it is a joke. 

I just ordered new brakes after the dealer commented that GM will not cover it with 50k miles.  I have reported it for the a two plus years I've had them. 

  • 1 month later...
Jaytee1 New Member

Jaytee1

Posted
Posted

So those of you that took a hit in mpg and shifting after the recall, did any of you ever get it resolved. I’m experiencing it right now and extremely pissed, especially with fuel costs. I’m losing about 100 miles per tank since the recall. I called the dealership and they play dumb. A update would greatly be appreciated!

  • 3 weeks later...
sealberta Enthusiast

sealberta

Posted
Posted

Had the recall software installed.  I want to thank General Motors for keeping my truck up to date and operating safely.  I now understand what a Ford owner feels like by getting such shitty fuel economy.  Instantly dropped by 3-4 l/100 km.  I was hoping that it would get better like it did after 5000km when new.  I have an Edge CTS3 monitor installed, the EGTs are running higher on normal cruise, but cooler during a burn.  I also do burns at least twice as often as before the upate.  Thank you GM for screwing us during the highest fuel cost ever.

  • 3 weeks later...
2500W/T Enthusiast

2500W/T

Posted
Posted (edited)

The recall was supposed to lower the temps on the SCR and extend the regen cycle. To me, I have lost 2MPGs on all conditions. I was able to hit 20, now hovers on the 18s.

 

I went to get it done a year ago because for what I read it made sense on lowering fuel consumption, not increasing.

 

There is a way to roll back a software update? I am assuming... Nope, but I hope so.

 

I am contemplating on a PCM/ECM replacement that can be tuned.

Edited by 2500W/T
Libertized Enthusiast

Libertized

Posted
Posted
On 11/25/2022 at 6:56 PM, Jaytee1 said:

So those of you that took a hit in mpg and shifting after the recall, did any of you ever get it resolved. I’m experiencing it right now and extremely pissed, especially with fuel costs. I’m losing about 100 miles per tank since the recall. I called the dealership and they play dumb. A update would greatly be appreciated!

No resolve whatsoever except to be tossed back and forth between GM and the dealership, wasting time and even more fuel. So pissed. 

 

Libertized Enthusiast

Libertized

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, 2500W/T said:

The recall was supposed to lower the temps on the SCR and extend the regen cycle. To me, I have lost 2MPGs on all conditions. I was able to hit 20, now hovers on the 18s.

 

I went to get it done a year ago because for what I read it made sense on lowering fuel consumption, not increasing.

 

There is a way to roll back a software update? I am assuming... Nope, but I hope so.

 

I am contemplating on a PCM/ECM replacement that can be tuned.

 

@2500W/T I've pushed and pulled in every direction short of class action/attorney talk and to quote GM: "Sir, General Motors never goes backwards, only forward" and then she proceeded to tell me that IF Gm were to do anything about it, I'd have to wait 8months to a year to see if they push out a refreshed update/recall. Pathetic. 

I'm curious on what replacements you would go with... Not out of possibility once my warranty is up. 

 

  • 1 month later...
Maligator New Member

Maligator

Posted
Posted (edited)

I've had this problem since the recall/update was done. 2020 2500 and I've had it at the dealership at least 3 times to be checked. I've noticed city driving to be around 15-16 and highway around 18. Previously I was getting around 18 city and 20-23 highway depending on road/driving conditions. I also now get an average of about 9 when towing my 32' 10K lb 5th wheel.

 

I've also really noticed how little DEF seems to be used since this was done. 

 

GM has been involved recently and it appears that they are acknowledging a problem. They said that a new update has to be pushed out, but they can't say when that will be. Who knows if this is BS or not, but I'm probably going to start a lemon law claim.

 

Anybody else noticing the DEF consumption?

Edited by Maligator
  • Like 1
  • 3 weeks later...
blamkin86 Enthusiast

blamkin86

Posted
Posted

My MPG were also worse after the recall.

 

As a data point, I later had a DEF tank replaced under warranty, and now the mileage seems to be back where it was.

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

    • 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?
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      I went to the county a few years back to dispute my property taxes. To do that I hired an appraiser and a lawyer. The County Assessor wished to argue that the homes in my neighborhood the appraiser used were all 'distressed properties" and not representative of the "Market Average".    My response was," Of the 50 homes in our subdivision 43 of them were "distressed properties" under bank foreclosure and as such "Distressed IS the market". Lawyer about choked on his coffee and handed the Assessor the 'receipts'.    I won that case on the evidence provided by the Lawyer and the Appraiser.    We have the same thing going on here. My statements were based on the GOVERNMENTS NATIONAL DATA and yours on local markets in areas of your interest. They are both correct....   Thing is, this divergence was based on NATIONAL and not on LOCAL. I think you even understand that. But like you said, we are both stubborn and hardheaded.    I do not see any advantage to disengagement.  But that said we can step back to compose ourselves. 
    • revmanii
      Looking at ordering a '26 WT because I want a std cab, std bed

      By revmanii · Posted

      Trust me I appreciate the comments and concerns. It's what I was looking for to help me evaluate the situation and what I want to do. I have decided to move forward with the BORA hubcentric slip on 3/8" (.375") with the extended lugs nuts. Fedex says they should be here Monday :). Meanwhile, the dealer got the remote start and Patriot spray in bed liner done over the last couple of days. Also, I installed an inline stop/start eliminator today. Starts back up in what whatever mode you shut it off in, so you don't have to hit the button every time you fire up.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Gas Prices

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      $2.20 E-85 down from $2.59 Around $3.80 for regular and about $5 on average for Premium.  Propane $3.99 a gallon. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...