Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
14 hours ago, 64BAwagon said:

My understanding on the HD trucks is that its not all that different between the diesel and gas. https://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/263193-perhaps-i-have-missed-this-in-prior-conversations-concerning-the-10-speed-behind-the-gasser/

 

Check @newdude post in that thread. 

 

 

True, but, gas trucks from 2020-2023 still were using the 6L90 so for 2020-2023 the gas use a different transmission.  So far the problem years on these 10 speed valve bodies is mostly 2020-2022 but, some are showing up in 2023 now.  

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, newdude said:

True, but, gas trucks from 2020-2023 still were using the 6L90 so for 2020-2023 the gas use a different transmission.  So far the problem years on these 10 speed valve bodies is mostly 2020-2022 but, some are showing up in 2023 now.  

 

Do you know what the P/N's are for the old and new valve bodies, ND?

 

As I mentioned above, my dealer diag'd the problem as the valve body, and I believe I've read that there is a revised VB, which carries a different P/N than the original VB.

 

If true, I'd really like to ensure the new/revised VB is installed.

 

Thanks much,

Dan

Edited by Dan H 2023 HC
Posted

Day 51 and my valve bodies finally showed up at the dealer today. Hopefully the end is near for me. I did a whole lot of complaining to GM customer service and made several escalations. I have no idea if that helped move things along or not. 

Posted

51 days...oh boy, that doesn't bode well for me or others that are waiting on the same thing.

 

I've been in constant contact with GMCS as well, no idea if that effort will move the needle.

 

When you get yours back, Stan, please share the VB part number from the work order.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Posted

We complained to GMCS as well and have been getting constant "so sorry" emails with no ETA on a replacement valve body.  58 days since transmission failed.  I've done the NHTSA reporting, have threatened to go the "lemon law" route and GM offered me some GM rewards points for our inconvenience..  corporate greed has definitely gotten in the way of customer service.

Posted

Second time we have had to have our 2020 towed with transmission issues. Silverado 1500. First time with under 7,000 miles, transmission module was replaced, it took a month for the dealer to get the part. This time, with 45,000 miles, the transmission valve body has to be replaced. Hearing horror stories that the part is on backorder, and no clue when it will be there. Anybody have any ideas about back ordered valve bodies.  Hoping they don't have our truck for months, and they put in the new redesigned part.

Sandy

Posted

Second time we have had to have our 2020 towed with transmission issues. Silverado 1500. First time with under 7,000 miles, transmission module was replaced, it took a month for the dealer to get the part. This time, with 45,000 miles, the transmission valve body has to be replaced. Hearing horror stories that the part is on backorder, and no clue when it will be there. Anybody have any ideas about back ordered valve bodies.

Sandy

Posted

Which transmission does your 1500 have, Sandy, the 10 speed?

 

If the 10 speed, you know about as much as the rest of us do, it appears GM has not provided anyone (consumers or their own franchise dealers) with an ET of when these valve bodies might be available.

 

Given that GM continues to manufacture 1000's of new vehicles, every day, with the 10 speed transmission, and all those new builds of course require a valve body, it certainly appears to us owners that GM is prioritizing new vehicle sales for dealer stock and customer orders over providing replacement parts for current owners. While perhaps not surprising, since GM makes no money on replacement parts covered under warranty, it is incredibly frustrating for existing owners.

Posted
On 12/24/2024 at 3:48 PM, Dan H 2023 HC said:

Which transmission does your 1500 have, Sandy, the 10 speed?

 

If the 10 speed, you know about as much as the rest of us do, it appears GM has not provided anyone (consumers or their own franchise dealers) with an ET of when these valve bodies might be available.

 

Given that GM continues to manufacture 1000's of new vehicles, every day, with the 10 speed transmission, and all those new builds of course require a valve body, it certainly appears to us owners that GM is prioritizing new vehicle sales for dealer stock and customer orders over providing replacement parts for current owners. While perhaps not surprising, since GM makes no money on replacement parts covered under warranty, it is incredibly frustrating for existing owners.

Maybe someone in this forum is or knows an attorney…this is awful business practice. Maybe a class action lawsuit would help?

Posted
20 hours ago, Frmol835 said:

Maybe someone in this forum is or knows an attorney…this is awful business practice. Maybe a class action lawsuit would help?

I think that is overdue.

Posted

Fingers crossed for ya, Stan.

 

Has been 21 days since mine was diagnosed as needing a VB. While not nearly as long, yet, as you and others have been waiting it's still way too long.

 

Dan

Posted (edited)
On 12/20/2024 at 12:49 PM, Dan H 2023 HC said:

51 days...oh boy, that doesn't bode well for me or others that are waiting on the same thing.

 

I've been in constant contact with GMCS as well, no idea if that effort will move the needle.

 

When you get yours back, Stan, please share the VB part number from the work order.

 

Dan

 

Here are my part numbers

 24065351 : SL-N-VALVE (04265 -CT)

 24065351-C : SL-N-VALVE

(04265-CT) - Cor

24047734

: SL-N-SEAL (04226-CKT)

Installed 24050764 : SL-N-BOLT (04265 -CKT)

Installed 24294355: SL-N- FILTER KIT (04197-CKT)

Installed

19352619

:N-FLUID (08800-BOPCKT)

Installed 15035747 : SL-N-SEAL ( 03611-CT)

Installed 15077362

: SL-N-SEAL (03611-CT)

 

IMG_3785.jpeg

IMG_3786.jpeg

Edited by stan hopkins
Posted
11 hours ago, stan hopkins said:

 

Here are my part numbers

 24065351 : SL-N-VALVE (04265 -CT)

 24065351-C : SL-N-VALVE

(04265-CT) - Cor

24047734

: SL-N-SEAL (04226-CKT)

Installed 24050764 : SL-N-BOLT (04265 -CKT)

Installed 24294355: SL-N- FILTER KIT (04197-CKT)

Installed

19352619

:N-FLUID (08800-BOPCKT)

Installed 15035747 : SL-N-SEAL ( 03611-CT)

Installed 15077362

: SL-N-SEAL (03611-CT)

 

IMG_3785.jpeg

IMG_3786.jpeg

I really hope this fixes your problem. Please keep us updated if the new valvebody solved the problem.

Posted
On 12/19/2024 at 9:12 AM, Dan H 2023 HC said:

Steve, I had my 2023 for less than 24 hours before the failure. I feel your pain. Did you open a case with GM? Send an email to [email protected], include your VIN, name and location of the dealer the truck is at, and request a case be opened.

 

DD, what recall notice are you referring to? From what I've read there doesn't appear to be an active recall for the 10 speeds.

 

Dan

 

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined
  • Who's Online   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,633 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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. 😄
    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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...