Jump to content

All Hail! Kyle Spicer for telling me about the Duramax 3.0 bulletin

winnemucca
 Share

Recommended Posts

winnemucca New Member

winnemucca

Posted
Posted

While surfing Youtube one day I came across Kyle Spicer's video on the 3.0 LM2 Duramax TSB  22-NA-027. I had been experiencing what I thought was excessive oil consumption. I had already learned about bulletin 21-NA-272, which discusses reasons why there might be excessive oil consumption and lays out exactly how much oil use has to occur before it's considered excessive. My 2020 Sierra 1500 AT4 with the LM2  (77k miles) was right at the limit of oil consumption, meaning it didn't go over the line to be considered "excessive". Besides, the 21-NA-272 doesn't say what should happen if I did meet the criteria. Kyle's video got me wise to the game, and told me about a new bulletin. I raced outside to check the sticker on the side of my valve cover and, yes!, the code met the parameters laid out in 22-NA-027. So I called my dealer and told them about this. They had no idea what I was talking about, and told me to bring it in. They took 4 hours to determine that yes, my truck met the criteria for a new camshaft cover. 

 

It was there all week, just picked it up today. We'll see how it goes in terms of oil consumption. Oh, and right before I took it in I got a CEL P133a, for glow plug #3. Once they looked at the CEL, they found that all the glow plugs needed to be replaced, so they did that too. None of this was billed to me, it was billed to GM.

 

So, if you have an earlier LM2, watch the video.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • 3 weeks later...
danielkrebs New Member

danielkrebs

Posted
Posted
On 8/31/2024 at 8:15 AM, winnemucca said:

While surfing Youtube one day I came across Kyle Spicer's video on the 3.0 LM2 Duramax TSB  22-NA-027. I had been experiencing what I thought was excessive oil consumption. I had already learned about bulletin 21-NA-272, which discusses reasons why there might be excessive oil consumption and lays out exactly how much oil use has to occur before it's considered excessive. My 2020 Sierra 1500 AT4 with the LM2  (77k miles) was right at the limit of oil consumption, meaning it didn't go over the line to be considered "excessive". Besides, the 21-NA-272 doesn't say what should happen if I did meet the criteria. Kyle's video got me wise to the game, and told me about a new bulletin. I raced outside to check the sticker on the side of my valve cover and, yes!, the code met the parameters laid out in 22-NA-027. So I called my dealer and told them about this. They had no idea what I was talking about, and told me to bring it in. They took 4 hours to determine that yes, my truck met the criteria for a new camshaft cover. 

 

It was there all week, just picked it up today. We'll see how it goes in terms of oil consumption. Oh, and right before I took it in I got a CEL P133a, for glow plug #3. Once they looked at the CEL, they found that all the glow plugs needed to be replaced, so they did that too. None of this was billed to me, it was billed to GM.

 

So, if you have an earlier LM2, watch the video.

 

geometry dash lite

I have a 2020 and it’s been plagued with some issues. First 40 000 km we had the no start long crank issue. Dealer wouldn’t do anything because it wouldn’t do it there. Then at 40k the engine light came on and the truck went into limp mode and they replaced the charge air cooler. Had a few more engine lights that didn’t result in anything other than software issues. Then at 100000 km another engine light and the charge air cooler replaced again under warranty. 

SC4R3C120W Enthusiast

SC4R3C120W

Posted
Posted

Saw this recently too, but already too late. I got a check engine light for cylinder 5 glow plug, not 2, and already had 126,000miles on the truck. Never had an oil consumption issue, but still had to shell out roughly $3k for all 6 glow plug replacements and new brakes (front and back).

peterson tyler New Member

peterson tyler

Posted
Posted
On 8/31/2024 at 8:15 AM, winnemucca said:

While surfing Youtube one day I came across Kyle Spicer's video on the 3.0 LM2 Duramax TSB  22-NA-027. I had been experiencing what I thought was excessive oil consumption. I had already learned about bulletin 21-NA-272, which discusses reasons why there might be excessive oil consumption and lays out exactly how much oil use has to occur before it's considered excessive. My 2020 Sierra 1500 AT4 with the LM2  (77k miles) was right at the limit of oil consumption, meaning it didn't go over the line to be considered "excessive". Besides, the 21-NA-272 doesn't say what should happen if I did meet the criteria. Kyle's video got me wise to the game, and told me about a new bulletin. I raced outside to check the sticker on the side of my valve cover and, yes!, the code met the parameters laid out in 22-NA-027. So I called my dealer and told them about this. They had no idea what I was talking about, and told me to bring it in. They took 4 hours to determine that yes, my truck met the criteria for a new camshaft cover. 

 

It was there all week, just picked it up today. We'll see how it goes in terms of oil consumption. Oh, and right before I took it in I got a CEL P133a, for glow plug #3. Once they looked at the CEL, they found that all the glow plugs needed to be replaced, so they did that too. None of this was billed to me, it was billed to GM.

 

So, if you have an earlier LM2, watch the video.

 

 

uno online

 

 

My Sierra is scheduled for this service bulletin on Monday.  My local dealer did not know about the service bulletin.  I have complained about the high oil consumption and high DEF useage to no avail.  My son looked up the service bulletin and your info is spot on. 

BIGDOGx Senior Enthusiast

BIGDOGx

Posted
Posted

Dealers and service writers are lazy as @#@# today and wont lift a finger for you. Gm is banking on owners to just listen to the dealership who will just push the problems beyond the warranty period so you can then be declined and have to pay out of pocket yourself.

 

These bulletins are literally hidden from the customer by GM, it takes work to dig and find them and even then it is a hassle for the dealers to respond the correct way to them. It's absolute horse crap that a dealer who has probably sold 5,000 of these baby diesel 1500's by now claiming these bulletins are new to them, yeah i think they are full of @#@# if you ask me.

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

    • richard wysong
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By richard wysong · Posted

      I had an 88 K1500 with a 5.7 that had those symptoms, I know totally different, it ended up being the ECM. Once you get the fuel system fixed if it still runs lousy you may want to investigate that. it didn't set any codes, stalled ,ran rough at times etc
    • James Beyer
      Trading 7.3 (Godzilla) for G.M.C gas

      By James Beyer · Posted

      Congratulations Isttype, on your gmc. Really like my 2024 2500hd sle doublecab now with 85,500 miles.  I checked the oil today at 4800 miles since last oil change and barely reading on the stick.  I don't care if GM says it's Acceptable adding a quart every 2000 miles because that is 100% BS, It is not a 1966 Harley Shovelhead! Sounds like it's setting up a future failure like I had with my 1500 6.2l. Other than oil consumption problems, I really like the 6.6l gas and 10 speed is really nice.  Towed a light 4000 pound trailer last week and averaged 14 mpg.  I was pretty impressive that a 7300 pound gas truck did 14mpg towing, Later-
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Long Term Cold Cycle Limited Testing   Back to the 1990's and XOM's million mile test. Since then there have been others and there will be more. Schaeffer's, AMSOIL to name two. Of these Schaeffer's is the stand alone which I will explain in a bit later.    http://papers.sae.org/600190/:   http://papers.sae.org/850215/:   Up to 75% of  engine wear occurs on cold starts. These two links (above) provide the technical reasons for engine wear. In a nut shell, and by a large margin, cylinder wear is what takes out most motors and even with a pre-oiling system that part of the engine is dry enough on cold starts and cold warm up to pierce Stribeck.   So when you put a motor, or a car, on a dyno for a million miles stopping only for oil changes, (yes fuel is uninterrupted) or break down maintenance, you are depriving the test of the most important part of it's wear cycle. Yes a million is then a pretty easy walk even for a mineral oil under those conditions.    How about cleanliness during the long test cycles? Same thing. Varnishes that stick rings and insulate parts are laid down by repetitive 'heat cycles'. It's the cool down the precipitates the varnishes. These long runs also hinder acidic attack caused by cold start richness and less than optimal cold start ring sealing. They hinder water formation and enhance breathing of the crankcase; the petri dish of acid formation, the first step in sludge formation, amalgamation and precipitation. These motors are also monitored and controlled for water and oil temperatures to within the "normal operating range".      https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf Note the test sequence in some boutique oils literature for testing, API IIIH, is not the standard used for the ILSAC G7 testing. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No, not as used. As used as a 'visual guide' it makes it's point. The G7 weighted piston deposit minimum is lower.      Back to Schaeffer's. That was a cyclical test of an engine in fleet service and not a dyno mule and if you saw the video it was not mirror clean but wear was low.    There are oils like BioSyn and other 'Renewable" source oils that taught cleanliness and have proven themselves in fleet testing. Havoline an other example.    The newest ILSAC G-7 test prioritize cleanliness, LSPI mitigation and fuel economy OVER WEAR. In comparison Porsche C30 Specification Verses ILSAC G-7 Specification below:      Some will balk that this graph isn't apples to apples and I will challenge that in that this graph represent the SPECIFICATION and not the any One Oil Performance.   It is absolutely possible to minimize wear, maximize cleanliness and mitigate LSPI etc., It just isn't cheap and currently I see none that are not walking toward profit over performance.     
    • asilverblazer
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      I don't think you will need a split, separate product, etc., the OBD port should be able to deliver everything you need. Since your device would be plugged into it all the time, it wouldn't miss anything.    Hardware in this case will be the easiest part of your project - ELM 327 devices will already deliver all the data you need. Reporting/software is where your advantage/marketability is.
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      I do too. I’ll never be stuck again 😂

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...