Jump to content

2022 Suburban diesel wheel lock up

EngineNoO9
 Share

Recommended Posts

EngineNoO9 Enthusiast

EngineNoO9

Posted
Posted

At a loss and frustrated. Our 2022 suburban is great and we love it. However, I’ve had lock up issues now 3 separate times over a year. At first I thought it was an issue with my boat trailer. Then it happened again and I got to reading more. It lines up perfectly to what’s described in the wheel lock up recall. It’s so random that a dealer can’t find anything too. We had the trans flushed at 50,000 miles after the first incident and I was hoping that may cure it. It’s also happened when towing and not towing, and happened at different speeds. 
 

Trying to figure out my next play as the recall to add software doesn’t include my vehicle as it’s a 2022 vs a 2021.  Now to me, an engineer; it seems silly not to do the recall on all diesel years as it’s only a software patch to detect potential failure. But of course that’s getting me nowhere. I tried calling GM customer satisfaction and that was a waste of time. Likely going to install a dash cam to hopefully catch video when it happens again (vehicle violently shakes with a loud bump noise) but that’s my only play right now. Selling isn’t really an option as the market sucks and getting a model year newer with same options just won’t happen without decent money out of pocket. I guess eventually we may have to look closer at this option if we can’t get it figured out. 
 

I am going to chat with a friend of a friend that’s a mechanic at a Cadillac dealer to get his opinion on the issue. But basically kindve stuck. Anyone else actually had this happen? It’s not a hard shift or anything. It has happened when driving steady speed (not towing going up a mountain at 35 mph, towing a boat ~2500 lbs going 60 mph, towing a utility trailer with a motorcycle on it ~1500 lbs at 60 mph). 
 

-Frustrated

fondupot Senior Enthusiast

fondupot

Posted
Posted

Isn't this related to the valve body issue that has been affecting many GM diesel trucks? 

EngineNoO9 Enthusiast

EngineNoO9

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I assume so but it’s not the same year as they have in the existing TSB. They can’t at March 2022 build date but mine is June 2022. Though I explained to GM that my camshaft cover had an updated part number but was the original design that caused major oil consumption issues. Dealer had to work direct with GM engineers to determine that and correct. So clearly there’s some overlap on parts. 

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted (edited)

Needs a valve body.  

 

The recall with the software was to add software to detect the cause of rear wheel lockup before it happens, not actually fix the concern which requires replacing the valve body.  Its just added detetction/diagnostics to the software.

 

I would waste no further time pushing for reprogramming since you've had lockup.  I'd be going right for replacing the valve body.  

 

This bulletin fits your issue more so but is for 2020-2021 21-NA-275 1..2

 

 

Edited by newdude
newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, EngineNoO9 said:

I agree but all we’ve gotten so far is them taking it for a test drive and nothing. I’m gonna push the service dept for something more. 

 

 

Bring the trailer and take the service manager for a ride and try and duplicate it.  

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   5 Members, 0 Anonymous, 596 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...