Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • Drew Dowdell
    Drew Dowdell

    By Drew Dowdell •

    GM Recalling 3.46 Million Trucks For Brake Issues

      ...A vacuum pump failure could make it harder to stop...

    General Motors announced a recall Wednesday of 3.46 million GM trucks and SUVs for a braking issue that has been linked to 113 accidents and 13 injuries.  The problem arises from a vacuum pump issue where the pump make less vacuum over time, thereby increasing the braking effort. The pump is lubricated by engine oil and can accumulate debris and oil sludge lessening the pump's effectiveness.

    The recall covered model years 2014 - 2018 of Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Silverado, Suburban, and Tahoe, and GMC Sierra and Yukon. 

    GM told the NHTSA that the pump design was only used during those years of manufacture. 

    In a smaller recall, GM is recalling 177,000 2018 Chevrolet Malibus with the 1.5-liter Turbo engine where an error in the engine control computer could disable the fuel injectors. 

    Go to articles

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    USA-1

    I heard GM engineers fixed this in early 2017. I have an '18 K2 Silvy Crew Z71 4x4 built 9/18 that is not a part of the recall with my VIN, according to NHTSA and I haven't had any issues. I have a buddy with a late 2017 Silvy with no issues and is not a part of the recall and a sister with a 2015 Tahoe with no problems, but will get it looked at. I would venture to say that half or more of the 113 accidents are distracted drivers that needed an excuse to get out of the liability of a rear-ender bender because they were on the phone or worse yet, texting. Really not bad that out of 3.4 Mil trucks and SUV's since 2014 that there are only 113 "claimed brake failure" accidents. I think our MSM just gets bored and needs the next big headline because it was all over every News outlet yesterday...meanwhile at Ford multiple widespread problems with their cash-cow SUV's...https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/2020-ford-explorer-has-top-secret-problems-disrupting-dealer-delivery/ar-AAHfr3m?li=BBnb7Kz

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Drew Dowdell
    1 hour ago, USA-1 Vortec 6.2 said:

    I heard GM engineers fixed this in early 2017. I have an '18 K2 Silvy Crew Z71 4x4 built 9/18 that is not a part of the recall with my VIN, according to NHTSA and I haven't had any issues. I have a buddy with a late 2017 Silvy with no issues and is not a part of the recall and a sister with a 2015 Tahoe with no problems, but will get it looked at. I would venture to say that half or more of the 113 accidents are distracted drivers that needed an excuse to get out of the liability of a rear-ender bender because they were on the phone or worse yet, texting. Really not bad that out of 3.4 Mil trucks and SUV's since 2014 that there are only 113 "claimed brake failure" accidents. I think our MSM just gets bored and needs the next big headline because it was all over every News outlet yesterday...meanwhile at Ford multiple widespread problems with their cash-cow SUV's...https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/2020-ford-explorer-has-top-secret-problems-disrupting-dealer-delivery/ar-AAHfr3m?li=BBnb7Kz

    Yeah, we have an article about it here.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    smk4565

    You wonder if they know this stuff is faulty and sell it anyway or if they just don't test this stuff up front and then learn 4 years later that it doesn't work.  You'd think with the massive profit margins on GM's big trucks they would put more money into the R&D and testing side to make sure they got everything right before putting it on sale.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    USA-1
    1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Yeah, we have an article about it here.

     

     

    35 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    You wonder if they know this stuff is faulty and sell it anyway or if they just don't test this stuff up front and then learn 4 years later that it doesn't work.  You'd think with the massive profit margins on GM's big trucks they would put more money into the R&D and testing side to make sure they got everything right before putting it on sale.

    Nah, that's what Ford does (see above) talk about lack of funding for R&D.

    GM spends a ton of cash on R&D, especially on their full-size trucks and SUV's and this brake booster issue with GM trucks is not faulty equipment, it's mostly a software bug and debris from dirty engine oil (sludge) from a poorly maintained engine can get in the booster pump valves. It's blown out of proportion, 113 out of 3.4 mil trucks/SUV's isn't a normal Recall threshold, but GM dealers are instructed by GM to update the program software and/or replace parts if need be just to be safe. All the bad or distracted drivers out there and the sue happy society we live in doesn't help either.  

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    USA-1
    13 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Still shouldn't be making excuses for brake failures. Look how many people actually had issues with the GM key thing in relation to how many cars were sold. 

    Not excuses, just the facts of the issue at hand. I know several people with these trucks and SUV's with zero problems, that's the reason I said distracted drivers are probably half of the claims, late on the brakes whether working at full power or not is never a good thing.

    The ignition switch debacle was one senior engineer making the call to continue on with the poor ignition switch design without bringing the GM board into it, he kept it under wraps, he and anyone else involved should be in prison for a long time. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    balthazar
    On 9/13/2019 at 8:50 PM, smk4565 said:

    You wonder if they know this stuff is faulty and sell it anyway or if they just don't test this stuff up front and then learn 4 years later that it doesn't work.  You'd think with the massive profit margins on GM's big trucks they would put more money into the R&D and testing side to make sure they got everything right before putting it on sale.

    I wonder that too.

    Screen Shot 2019-09-16 at 6.05.45 PM.png

    • Haha 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    ×



  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • G. David Felt
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By G. David Felt · Posted

      Personally I think GM is too late to the Hybrid party and rather than spend and write off all the billions of dollars on their EVs that are actually selling well, they should have stayed the course and not followed Stupid Ford and Idiot47. GM has a 'handful of hybrids' coming - but are they the ones you want? I do not see GM actually doing well in this space as they are already too far behind.
    • trinacriabob
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By trinacriabob · Posted

      On a more positive note, travel related stuff ... A historic milestone was achieved by Cunard Line within the last week.  When she was built, Queen Mary 2 (QM2) was too big to transit the Panama Canal.  The same was true for other supersized passenger ships.  In the interim, new larger locks were engineered and put into service. https://travelweekly.com.au/queen-mary-2s-first-transit-through-panama-canal-on-way-to-australia/ I saw the QM2 enter San Francisco Bay in 2007 because I was living out West.  It came in on a Sunday and I spent the weekend south of the city and near SFO.  I went there in a rented 2007 Monte Carlo costing less than $25 a day and stayed at one of the cheap chain hotels near SFO costing about $50 a night, which was ridiculously cheap even then. The ship went around South America and sailed northward up the Pacific.  As such, it's not a trip they would be making too often with the QM2. QM2 transited the Panama Canal for the first time just days ago.  She is headed to Los Angeles AND San Francisco.  To clarify the article's headline, Australia is just its next leg - this is the full world cruise.  She was last in Los Angeles in 2006 when she saluted her namesake Queen Mary and last in San Francisco in 2007 and seeing the passage under the Golden Gate Bridge was unforgettable.  These were the only visits to these ports.  With the new Panama Canal locks, her visiting the North Pacific Ocean and its major ports is much more likely to be on future world voyages. In the Panama Canal transit, the nail biter was supposedly going under the Bridge of the Americas - the one with the curved top.  I saw this YouTube with passengers cheering and motorists up above honking. I blame my parents for this!  They took us across the Atlantic a time or two too many when we were kids and this fascination began.
    • oldshurst442
      Airplanes

      By oldshurst442 · Posted

    • oldshurst442
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By oldshurst442 · Posted

      RIP
    • ccap41
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By ccap41 · Posted

      WTF kind of article is this? Piss-poor grammar and sentences. "By the time the odometer ticked past that 160,000 kilometre mark, equivalent to 160,000 kilometres, 99,000, the pack still retained over 90 percent of its original net capacity." Then it jumps to 91% remaining capacity somehow...? And when jumping to 91% capacity remaining, I don't think they did any math at all. See below for a paragraph that shouldn't be made as evidence of anything. As an engineer, this kind of "facts" should infuriate you.  "Battery health statistics can sound abstract until you translate them into the range figure you see on your dashboard. In this case, the Volkswagen ID. 3 Pro S started life with a usable pack of 77 kWh, and independent testing recorded an initial real world range of 77 k and 272 miles on a full charge. After the long term trial, the car still had 91% of its battery capacity, a figure that aligns with separate reporting that the Volkswagen ID 3 retained 91% battery capacity in a 160,000 kilometre test. In practice, that meant the car lost only around eight miles of usable range, a change small enough that you would struggle to notice in daily driving." 272 x .09 = 24.5 miles. Theoretically losing 9% would lose the owner about 25 miles of range, not 8 miles. It is now a 248-mile range EV.  This looks like some garbage AI-generated article.  Just for the record, I'm not saying that EVs don't have good battery management and degradation. I'm just saying this article was an embarrassing example to stand by.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search