Reduced Engine Power warning at track
07-26-2017, 08:34 PM
#101
Standing by anxiously for the complete, entire, full, thorough, replete, lock stock and barrel, unabbreviated, unabridged, uncondensed, uncut, whole enchilada, whole-hog explanation from GM.
But, I'm not very confident we're gonna get it!!!
If they do come up with a problem that may be across the whole model year, I hope they'll be offering a solution to every owner of the affected cars!!
Hope you got some good news!! here you go!
Umm, no. they reviewed the data. they do not have an answer. they think it might be in the airbox or a setting. they didn't have the P0106 codes with the 16's. Tadge is involved and wants answers ASAP. they took a 2017 Z06 out to run at Milford today at 1pm to try and replicate. they are in process of reviewing data. I remain 100% confident that they will find the fix very soon. although I know several of us are having the same issue and others are not on the forum I believe if you take the percent of Z06 owners that track their car, then take a percentage of that for those who hit in excess of 140mph, THEN take that percentage of who kept the car STOCK I think we may be talking about a low number. These guys will fix it.
.
But, I'm not very confident we're gonna get it!!!
If they do come up with a problem that may be across the whole model year, I hope they'll be offering a solution to every owner of the affected cars!!
Hope you got some good news!! here you go!
Umm, no. they reviewed the data. they do not have an answer. they think it might be in the airbox or a setting. they didn't have the P0106 codes with the 16's. Tadge is involved and wants answers ASAP. they took a 2017 Z06 out to run at Milford today at 1pm to try and replicate. they are in process of reviewing data. I remain 100% confident that they will find the fix very soon. although I know several of us are having the same issue and others are not on the forum I believe if you take the percent of Z06 owners that track their car, then take a percentage of that for those who hit in excess of 140mph, THEN take that percentage of who kept the car STOCK I think we may be talking about a low number. These guys will fix it.
.
Last edited by goshendad; 07-26-2017 at 08:36 PM. Reason: missed most of reply
07-26-2017, 08:36 PM
#102
Umm, no. they reviewed the data. they do not have an answer. they think it might be in the airbox or a setting. they didn't have the P0106 codes with the 16's. Tadge is involved and wants answers ASAP. they took a 2017 Z06 out to run at Milford today at 1pm to try and replicate. they are in process of reviewing data. I remain 100% confident that they will find the fix very soon. although I know several of us are having the same issue and others are not on the forum I believe if you take the percent of Z06 owners that track their car, then take a percentage of that for those who hit in excess of 140mph, THEN take that percentage of who kept the car STOCK I think we may be talking about a low number. These guys will fix it.
.[/QUOTE] maybe we will know something tomorrow.
.[/QUOTE] maybe we will know something tomorrow.
07-26-2017, 08:47 PM
#103
Pro
Umm, no. they reviewed the data. they do not have an answer. they think it might be in the airbox or a setting. they didn't have the P0106 codes with the 16's. Tadge is involved and wants answers ASAP. they took a 2017 Z06 out to run at Milford today at 1pm to try and replicate. they are in process of reviewing data. I remain 100% confident that they will find the fix very soon. although I know several of us are having the same issue and others are not on the forum I believe if you take the percent of Z06 owners that track their car, then take a percentage of that for those who hit in excess of 140mph, THEN take that percentage of who kept the car STOCK I think we may be talking about a low number. These guys will fix it.
maybe we will know something tomorrow.
maybe we will know something tomorrow.
Regardless I'm booked (and paid) for my next track day Monday so fixed or not I'm going. But it's upsetting... frustrating actually. The suggestion that it's only a problem for a very small percentage of owners is BS... there's a defect in the car and they need to fix it... and I'm starting to feel that they need to find a way to reimburse some of us for tge costs we've incurred in helping to diagnose and pinpoint these issues.
I'm tired of being one of the guys who spends his own time and money doing the research and testing that GM should have done before selling us a product that won't do what it's advertised to do. I'm not talking about heating issues or "race car"... my car can't be driven uphill at full throttle... it's as simple as that.
Last edited by Questar; 07-26-2017 at 08:48 PM.
07-26-2017, 08:54 PM
#104
Burning Brakes
Worst, worst case is just cut off p0106 with HPT. But that is a GM cop out and a warranty issue. I'm still convinced it's a maf map relationship via programming issue.
07-26-2017, 09:30 PM
#105
07-26-2017, 09:35 PM
#106
Well I've told the dealership I want my car back tomorrow. They have no answers yet from GM either ��
Regardless I'm booked (and paid) for my next track day Monday so fixed or not I'm going. But it's upsetting... frustrating actually. The suggestion that it's only a problem for a very small percentage of owners is BS... there's a defect in the car and they need to fix it... and I'm starting to feel that they need to find a way to reimburse some of us for tge costs we've incurred in helping to diagnose and pinpoint these issues.
I'm tired of being one of the guys who spends his own time and money doing the research and testing that GM should have done before selling us a product that won't do what it's advertised to do. I'm not talking about heating issues or "race car"... my car can't be driven uphill at full throttle... it's as simple as that.
Regardless I'm booked (and paid) for my next track day Monday so fixed or not I'm going. But it's upsetting... frustrating actually. The suggestion that it's only a problem for a very small percentage of owners is BS... there's a defect in the car and they need to fix it... and I'm starting to feel that they need to find a way to reimburse some of us for tge costs we've incurred in helping to diagnose and pinpoint these issues.
I'm tired of being one of the guys who spends his own time and money doing the research and testing that GM should have done before selling us a product that won't do what it's advertised to do. I'm not talking about heating issues or "race car"... my car can't be driven uphill at full throttle... it's as simple as that.
07-27-2017, 10:22 AM
#107
This is not happening with the 2016's. GM thinks it is "Airbox" related or a setting. What did you guys do on the 2017 to fix?
07-27-2017, 10:39 AM
#108
Burning Brakes
The problem he describes is not related to your p0106 problem. Totally different issue. That problem is a low coolant issue with the Hx reservoir that causes air bubbles. That creates a cavitation and the Hx pump shuts down for 3 minutes to protect the pump from over heating. You do not set a code (GM mistake) , but power output is decreased big time due to high IAT and majorly reduced Ignition timing. That potential exists for all model years. A proper Vac/Fill of the res generally will fix it.
The following users liked this post:
goshendad (07-27-2017)
07-27-2017, 10:41 AM
#109
Burning Brakes
i agree with everything you are saying. I have been very patient only because I absolutely love the car and I want it fixed. I too lost 3 track dates and the money along with it so I am not happy either. GM will either fix the car or I will have to say goodbye and move to another platform using a full refund to do it. I don't think that will happen. My money is on GM.
The following users liked this post:
goshendad (07-27-2017)
07-27-2017, 01:11 PM
#110
Le Mans Master
I'm no rocket scientist, but there are only going to be so many places (read: likely very few) where this code is set, and you could be able to figure out why from inspection. But you'd need the code.
Basically, throwing a code is like asserting a condition should never happen. So somewhere in the code it measures something and says "This shouldn't ever be" and it throws a code.
I've not seen the code, of course, so it's a blind opinion but I can't imagine it's that hard to work backwards from the throw points. That said, I've had some really tough ones... like you add a bunch of percentages together and they exceed 100%. Then what? Which one is wrong? That'd be hard to reverse. But it's usually pretty simple.
Basically, throwing a code is like asserting a condition should never happen. So somewhere in the code it measures something and says "This shouldn't ever be" and it throws a code.
I've not seen the code, of course, so it's a blind opinion but I can't imagine it's that hard to work backwards from the throw points. That said, I've had some really tough ones... like you add a bunch of percentages together and they exceed 100%. Then what? Which one is wrong? That'd be hard to reverse. But it's usually pretty simple.
Last edited by davepl; 07-27-2017 at 01:12 PM.
07-27-2017, 01:22 PM
#111
I'm no rocket scientist, but there are only going to be so many places (read: likely very few) where this code is set, and you could be able to figure out why from inspection. But you'd need the code.
Basically, throwing a code is like asserting a condition should never happen. So somewhere in the code it measures something and says "This shouldn't ever be" and it throws a code.
I've not seen the code, of course, so it's a blind opinion but I can't imagine it's that hard to work backwards from the throw points. That said, I've had some really tough ones... like you add a bunch of percentages together and they exceed 100%. Then what? Which one is wrong? That'd be hard to reverse. But it's usually pretty simple.
Basically, throwing a code is like asserting a condition should never happen. So somewhere in the code it measures something and says "This shouldn't ever be" and it throws a code.
I've not seen the code, of course, so it's a blind opinion but I can't imagine it's that hard to work backwards from the throw points. That said, I've had some really tough ones... like you add a bunch of percentages together and they exceed 100%. Then what? Which one is wrong? That'd be hard to reverse. But it's usually pretty simple.
07-27-2017, 01:28 PM
#112
Melting Slicks
For what it's worth, at 80F to 105F ambient temps, I have ran my 18 for sustained periods above 100 and then bursts up to 150 and 170. It hasn't thrown the code or reduced power. It has however shut off the rear axle, which is a pain when you get to corners.
07-27-2017, 01:31 PM
#113
Thanks I had that electronic issue with the rear axle. It ended up being a bad connection (terminal fretting) in the SDM module. Took 2 1/2 months for them to find.
07-28-2017, 04:03 AM
#114
Seeing this issue and other issues is concerning towards a prospective new buyer. I've been in the market for a major purchase. I usually don't join the forums unless papers are signed. Kinda makes me feel like a troll. I was doing speeds like this in a modded GT and Cobra starting in the 02-06 range. Much cheaper cars than a stock C7. I had alot of seat time in a heads/cam 02 Z06 back in the day and fell in love with everything C5 and beyond.
I don't see why GM has not figured out this problem. If they need someone else to do datalogging and testing to replicate the problem kinda looks like they never really tested these specific cars to the limits to claim it's a 195mph car. They either didn't expect anyone in stock trim with a warranty to really track or drag their cars or assumed just rich eldery would buy them and never know. Obviously there are fail-safes in the computer programming. In my opinion these cars are running hotter than other cars getting pounded on. I have a G35 beater car I will keep forever that I've pounded on that doesn't go over 205 coolant temps. It's a different car, but I think people are so used to running 280 degree oil temps, 240 degree coolant temps, etc. They expect 230 to be normal. Not in my experience but that's another debate. Like mentioned above, a car should never go into limp mode unless something happened that was never intended to happen to protect the engine. Like boiling over coolant, excessive oil pressure. 18 volts straight into the maf, etc etc. The basics of tuning is all the same. Speed, rpm, load, volumetric effiency, fuel pressure, iat, maf, map (sorry can't remember if Chevy uses both, I haven't owned a car with a MAP sensor in over 10 years) Than calculated in tables in 250, 500, increments. Manufacters program failsafe characteristics of course. GM knows exactly what fail safe are programmed into the computer. It's not random so they either way overly programmed some things kinda like an over engineered tune or only a very small amount of GM guys even did the actual tuning. Like guy 1 and guy 2 developed the ECU program that went into all C7's and Guy 3 and Guy4 programmed the Z06. Guy 1 dies and guy 2 went to Porshe. Than Guy 3 and 4 are left to figure out the previous fail-safes but ecu programmed is locked with pin. Just giving possibilities on why it's taking so long to figure out an issue on a computer controlled car. This is why they have a computer to rule out unanswered issues.
From what I've seen so far, seems the issue hasn't occurred on a Dyno in tuning sessions. Making long runs like that are harder on an engine than anything. So probably isn't anything to do with certain temp readings, map, load, etc. If it's happening on long stretches and sustained high speeds it's some kind of timer variable. This is basically a problem solving. We see there arent any patterns to it really except is doesn't happen on a Dyno. I don't see anyone doing any type of basic datalogging. I run Torque Pro Android app with OBD2 in my cars anytime I drive. I record all my sensors, maf cfm or grams a sec, fuel pressure, timing, and so on when I hit spirited driving. The PDR seems pretty limited. Y'all gotta get past the oil, coolant, iat sensor readings. It's obviously something else causing limp mode. I guarantee without GMs help if someone ran torque or dashcommand and datalogged the rest of the sensors you could pinpoint the issue. Meaning fine that pattern, whether it's when fuel pressure does this at that 176 or 167, or timing hits this number for 5 seconds, etc.
I guarantee this issue is tiny to fix. GM was probably waiting til a certain number of people had this complaint before they ever looked at the issue seriously. Or tell they thought it would have a negative effect on sales. My research has shown there is a huge amount of unsold C7s on the lots nationwide, the rebates we're what drew me into a serious C7 inquiry instead of a Mustang GT or. Camaro SS.
If GM actually discovers the problem and how to address that problem without masking the problem. I will purchase a C7 but with how much I've been researching various cars the last few months. How can anyone committ to a dice game. I plan to drag 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 mile, and roll race, track, road race, spirit drive this car and it be my daily driver. I expect to have much better performance and reliablity than I had with LT-1 cars from the 90s and 2 valve and 4 valve Mustangs in the early 2000s. All of those were still 100% at 75-100k miles and never once went into a fail safe, lack of performance mode. At 35 years of age I expect the best now. Definitely for 50-100k.
I don't see why GM has not figured out this problem. If they need someone else to do datalogging and testing to replicate the problem kinda looks like they never really tested these specific cars to the limits to claim it's a 195mph car. They either didn't expect anyone in stock trim with a warranty to really track or drag their cars or assumed just rich eldery would buy them and never know. Obviously there are fail-safes in the computer programming. In my opinion these cars are running hotter than other cars getting pounded on. I have a G35 beater car I will keep forever that I've pounded on that doesn't go over 205 coolant temps. It's a different car, but I think people are so used to running 280 degree oil temps, 240 degree coolant temps, etc. They expect 230 to be normal. Not in my experience but that's another debate. Like mentioned above, a car should never go into limp mode unless something happened that was never intended to happen to protect the engine. Like boiling over coolant, excessive oil pressure. 18 volts straight into the maf, etc etc. The basics of tuning is all the same. Speed, rpm, load, volumetric effiency, fuel pressure, iat, maf, map (sorry can't remember if Chevy uses both, I haven't owned a car with a MAP sensor in over 10 years) Than calculated in tables in 250, 500, increments. Manufacters program failsafe characteristics of course. GM knows exactly what fail safe are programmed into the computer. It's not random so they either way overly programmed some things kinda like an over engineered tune or only a very small amount of GM guys even did the actual tuning. Like guy 1 and guy 2 developed the ECU program that went into all C7's and Guy 3 and Guy4 programmed the Z06. Guy 1 dies and guy 2 went to Porshe. Than Guy 3 and 4 are left to figure out the previous fail-safes but ecu programmed is locked with pin. Just giving possibilities on why it's taking so long to figure out an issue on a computer controlled car. This is why they have a computer to rule out unanswered issues.
From what I've seen so far, seems the issue hasn't occurred on a Dyno in tuning sessions. Making long runs like that are harder on an engine than anything. So probably isn't anything to do with certain temp readings, map, load, etc. If it's happening on long stretches and sustained high speeds it's some kind of timer variable. This is basically a problem solving. We see there arent any patterns to it really except is doesn't happen on a Dyno. I don't see anyone doing any type of basic datalogging. I run Torque Pro Android app with OBD2 in my cars anytime I drive. I record all my sensors, maf cfm or grams a sec, fuel pressure, timing, and so on when I hit spirited driving. The PDR seems pretty limited. Y'all gotta get past the oil, coolant, iat sensor readings. It's obviously something else causing limp mode. I guarantee without GMs help if someone ran torque or dashcommand and datalogged the rest of the sensors you could pinpoint the issue. Meaning fine that pattern, whether it's when fuel pressure does this at that 176 or 167, or timing hits this number for 5 seconds, etc.
I guarantee this issue is tiny to fix. GM was probably waiting til a certain number of people had this complaint before they ever looked at the issue seriously. Or tell they thought it would have a negative effect on sales. My research has shown there is a huge amount of unsold C7s on the lots nationwide, the rebates we're what drew me into a serious C7 inquiry instead of a Mustang GT or. Camaro SS.
If GM actually discovers the problem and how to address that problem without masking the problem. I will purchase a C7 but with how much I've been researching various cars the last few months. How can anyone committ to a dice game. I plan to drag 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 mile, and roll race, track, road race, spirit drive this car and it be my daily driver. I expect to have much better performance and reliablity than I had with LT-1 cars from the 90s and 2 valve and 4 valve Mustangs in the early 2000s. All of those were still 100% at 75-100k miles and never once went into a fail safe, lack of performance mode. At 35 years of age I expect the best now. Definitely for 50-100k.
07-28-2017, 09:48 AM
#115
Seeing this issue and other issues is concerning towards a prospective new buyer. I've been in the market for a major purchase. I usually don't join the forums unless papers are signed. Kinda makes me feel like a troll. I was doing speeds like this in a modded GT and Cobra starting in the 02-06 range. Much cheaper cars than a stock C7. I had alot of seat time in a heads/cam 02 Z06 back in the day and fell in love with everything C5 and beyond.
I don't see why GM has not figured out this problem. If they need someone else to do datalogging and testing to replicate the problem kinda looks like they never really tested these specific cars to the limits to claim it's a 195mph car. They either didn't expect anyone in stock trim with a warranty to really track or drag their cars or assumed just rich eldery would buy them and never know. Obviously there are fail-safes in the computer programming. In my opinion these cars are running hotter than other cars getting pounded on. I have a G35 beater car I will keep forever that I've pounded on that doesn't go over 205 coolant temps. It's a different car, but I think people are so used to running 280 degree oil temps, 240 degree coolant temps, etc. They expect 230 to be normal. Not in my experience but that's another debate. Like mentioned above, a car should never go into limp mode unless something happened that was never intended to happen to protect the engine. Like boiling over coolant, excessive oil pressure. 18 volts straight into the maf, etc etc. The basics of tuning is all the same. Speed, rpm, load, volumetric effiency, fuel pressure, iat, maf, map (sorry can't remember if Chevy uses both, I haven't owned a car with a MAP sensor in over 10 years) Than calculated in tables in 250, 500, increments. Manufacters program failsafe characteristics of course. GM knows exactly what fail safe are programmed into the computer. It's not random so they either way overly programmed some things kinda like an over engineered tune or only a very small amount of GM guys even did the actual tuning. Like guy 1 and guy 2 developed the ECU program that went into all C7's and Guy 3 and Guy4 programmed the Z06. Guy 1 dies and guy 2 went to Porshe. Than Guy 3 and 4 are left to figure out the previous fail-safes but ecu programmed is locked with pin. Just giving possibilities on why it's taking so long to figure out an issue on a computer controlled car. This is why they have a computer to rule out unanswered issues.
From what I've seen so far, seems the issue hasn't occurred on a Dyno in tuning sessions. Making long runs like that are harder on an engine than anything. So probably isn't anything to do with certain temp readings, map, load, etc. If it's happening on long stretches and sustained high speeds it's some kind of timer variable. This is basically a problem solving. We see there arent any patterns to it really except is doesn't happen on a Dyno. I don't see anyone doing any type of basic datalogging. I run Torque Pro Android app with OBD2 in my cars anytime I drive. I record all my sensors, maf cfm or grams a sec, fuel pressure, timing, and so on when I hit spirited driving. The PDR seems pretty limited. Y'all gotta get past the oil, coolant, iat sensor readings. It's obviously something else causing limp mode. I guarantee without GMs help if someone ran torque or dashcommand and datalogged the rest of the sensors you could pinpoint the issue. Meaning fine that pattern, whether it's when fuel pressure does this at that 176 or 167, or timing hits this number for 5 seconds, etc.
I guarantee this issue is tiny to fix. GM was probably waiting til a certain number of people had this complaint before they ever looked at the issue seriously. Or tell they thought it would have a negative effect on sales. My research has shown there is a huge amount of unsold C7s on the lots nationwide, the rebates we're what drew me into a serious C7 inquiry instead of a Mustang GT or. Camaro SS.
If GM actually discovers the problem and how to address that problem without masking the problem. I will purchase a C7 but with how much I've been researching various cars the last few months. How can anyone committ to a dice game. I plan to drag 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 mile, and roll race, track, road race, spirit drive this car and it be my daily driver. I expect to have much better performance and reliablity than I had with LT-1 cars from the 90s and 2 valve and 4 valve Mustangs in the early 2000s. All of those were still 100% at 75-100k miles and never once went into a fail safe, lack of performance mode. At 35 years of age I expect the best now. Definitely for 50-100k.
I don't see why GM has not figured out this problem. If they need someone else to do datalogging and testing to replicate the problem kinda looks like they never really tested these specific cars to the limits to claim it's a 195mph car. They either didn't expect anyone in stock trim with a warranty to really track or drag their cars or assumed just rich eldery would buy them and never know. Obviously there are fail-safes in the computer programming. In my opinion these cars are running hotter than other cars getting pounded on. I have a G35 beater car I will keep forever that I've pounded on that doesn't go over 205 coolant temps. It's a different car, but I think people are so used to running 280 degree oil temps, 240 degree coolant temps, etc. They expect 230 to be normal. Not in my experience but that's another debate. Like mentioned above, a car should never go into limp mode unless something happened that was never intended to happen to protect the engine. Like boiling over coolant, excessive oil pressure. 18 volts straight into the maf, etc etc. The basics of tuning is all the same. Speed, rpm, load, volumetric effiency, fuel pressure, iat, maf, map (sorry can't remember if Chevy uses both, I haven't owned a car with a MAP sensor in over 10 years) Than calculated in tables in 250, 500, increments. Manufacters program failsafe characteristics of course. GM knows exactly what fail safe are programmed into the computer. It's not random so they either way overly programmed some things kinda like an over engineered tune or only a very small amount of GM guys even did the actual tuning. Like guy 1 and guy 2 developed the ECU program that went into all C7's and Guy 3 and Guy4 programmed the Z06. Guy 1 dies and guy 2 went to Porshe. Than Guy 3 and 4 are left to figure out the previous fail-safes but ecu programmed is locked with pin. Just giving possibilities on why it's taking so long to figure out an issue on a computer controlled car. This is why they have a computer to rule out unanswered issues.
From what I've seen so far, seems the issue hasn't occurred on a Dyno in tuning sessions. Making long runs like that are harder on an engine than anything. So probably isn't anything to do with certain temp readings, map, load, etc. If it's happening on long stretches and sustained high speeds it's some kind of timer variable. This is basically a problem solving. We see there arent any patterns to it really except is doesn't happen on a Dyno. I don't see anyone doing any type of basic datalogging. I run Torque Pro Android app with OBD2 in my cars anytime I drive. I record all my sensors, maf cfm or grams a sec, fuel pressure, timing, and so on when I hit spirited driving. The PDR seems pretty limited. Y'all gotta get past the oil, coolant, iat sensor readings. It's obviously something else causing limp mode. I guarantee without GMs help if someone ran torque or dashcommand and datalogged the rest of the sensors you could pinpoint the issue. Meaning fine that pattern, whether it's when fuel pressure does this at that 176 or 167, or timing hits this number for 5 seconds, etc.
I guarantee this issue is tiny to fix. GM was probably waiting til a certain number of people had this complaint before they ever looked at the issue seriously. Or tell they thought it would have a negative effect on sales. My research has shown there is a huge amount of unsold C7s on the lots nationwide, the rebates we're what drew me into a serious C7 inquiry instead of a Mustang GT or. Camaro SS.
If GM actually discovers the problem and how to address that problem without masking the problem. I will purchase a C7 but with how much I've been researching various cars the last few months. How can anyone committ to a dice game. I plan to drag 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 mile, and roll race, track, road race, spirit drive this car and it be my daily driver. I expect to have much better performance and reliablity than I had with LT-1 cars from the 90s and 2 valve and 4 valve Mustangs in the early 2000s. All of those were still 100% at 75-100k miles and never once went into a fail safe, lack of performance mode. At 35 years of age I expect the best now. Definitely for 50-100k.
07-28-2017, 10:52 AM
#117
Yes:
Specific - "Paul we are not sure." They took a 2017 Z06 out to Milford Proving Grounds on Wednesday wired up at 1pm to try and replicate the issue. They don't know and have been silent since Wednesday. They think either Airbox or a setting.
Specific - "Paul we are not sure." They took a 2017 Z06 out to Milford Proving Grounds on Wednesday wired up at 1pm to try and replicate the issue. They don't know and have been silent since Wednesday. They think either Airbox or a setting.
The following users liked this post:
goshendad (07-28-2017)
07-28-2017, 11:27 AM
#119
Melting Slicks
Well, while you wait for an answer maybe you can help me with the rear diff.
Per GM dealer messed with the connector on top of the rear diff. That's probably the one to the eLSD clutch control module. The tech said he didn't think it was the problem. I was getting all kinds of lost communication to control module codes. I go test the car and its okay for 5 minutes then the diff stops locking so it stays open and shows 0% lock on the eLSD screen. This only happens when the car is hot. Go back to the dealer, but its too late for the tech to test it.
So yesterday I get the car hot give it the tech to test. The car will not repeat the issue and no more codes, no more 0% diff, etc. Then the tech and I drove the car for awhile. Still no issue. So maybe the connector fixed the connectivity issue. However, the tech agreed with me the diff is not locking like it should. When the car is cold, in first gear, TC and STB off, I can take a corner and step the rear out as much as I want using throttle. When it is hot it won't step out because one tire spins. What is going on? My next step is to change diff fluid.
I have asked others and no one answers this for me. If you can help I would appreciate it. When you go to the eLSD screen and watch the sweeping bar at the bottom. Does it sweep to 30% and turn red when starting and coming to a stop? And does it occasionally sweep to red when just letting the car slowly roll forward or backward when in neutral.
Per GM dealer messed with the connector on top of the rear diff. That's probably the one to the eLSD clutch control module. The tech said he didn't think it was the problem. I was getting all kinds of lost communication to control module codes. I go test the car and its okay for 5 minutes then the diff stops locking so it stays open and shows 0% lock on the eLSD screen. This only happens when the car is hot. Go back to the dealer, but its too late for the tech to test it.
So yesterday I get the car hot give it the tech to test. The car will not repeat the issue and no more codes, no more 0% diff, etc. Then the tech and I drove the car for awhile. Still no issue. So maybe the connector fixed the connectivity issue. However, the tech agreed with me the diff is not locking like it should. When the car is cold, in first gear, TC and STB off, I can take a corner and step the rear out as much as I want using throttle. When it is hot it won't step out because one tire spins. What is going on? My next step is to change diff fluid.
I have asked others and no one answers this for me. If you can help I would appreciate it. When you go to the eLSD screen and watch the sweeping bar at the bottom. Does it sweep to 30% and turn red when starting and coming to a stop? And does it occasionally sweep to red when just letting the car slowly roll forward or backward when in neutral.
Last edited by djnice; 07-28-2017 at 11:27 AM. Reason: typo
07-28-2017, 01:51 PM
#120
Update: Recalibration is required. GM has determined that the 2017 Z06 needs re-calibration. Meeting next Tuesday to obtain approvals. This will take a couple of weeks to get approvals done. I will wait and then test the car again at Pocono to verify.