ChevyMgr

I know the OP stated he is changing to EBC rotors but an FYI to anyone else that has a dealer stating that brake pulsation is not covered, refer them to bulletin #00-05-22-002K. I am not going to post the entire 15 or so pages but it simply states this:

• Brake rotor warranty is covered under the terms of the New Vehicle Bumper-to-Bumper warranty. Reference the vehicle's warranty guide for verification.

So the dealers refusal to fix the puslation is contrary to GM policy.

Also, I have seen a CGS cause the Traction Control code too. Customer went back to stock and I covered the new MAF sensor.

Snoopy

Wow, haven't looked at that for a while. So it's all the way up to a "k" revision?

ksfis43

Dealer turned my rotors under warranty and I had 21,000 miles

Lee3333

I know I could have fought for them to be turned again, or even replaced. But that would still be just putting off the invevitable, which is getting stronger rotors.

When I got the car, I spoke to the mechanic. I was called on Tuesday to get the car originally, and that the battery checked out fine. I went there Wednesday and refused to take the car until they checked the battery again. He said he did and it tested good again. Then, he checked it with an older tester and it showed a problem. After that, the battery died and needed to be boosted. Finally, he checked it and found one of the cells was bad and then he said it had to be replaced. I reminded the service manager that I had been complaining about this for over 1 1/2 years, and even had to buy a booster battery to make starting the car easier when the battery failed (3 or 4 times a week in the winter). Well, at last that nightmare is over.

Now I just have to figure out what to do about the other problem. The mechanic explained that when the computer gets a MAP or MAF code, it sends a message to the transmission that something is wrong then the T/C code follows. They changed the MAP sensor and checked the MAF sensor but it did not solve the problem (I had already changed the MAP myself several months ago). I am waiting to hear back from TuneTyme to see what they think about my trying the fore mentioned MAF high performance sensor sold by HHRBoutique. That may be my salvation. Either that, or ditch the CGS and get the GMPP set up.

Lee3333

I just checked out the pictures of the GMPP and dont see how it could solve the code problem. If it is due to oil from the K&N filter's oil getting on the MAF sensor, then with the GM system the filter is MUCH closer to the sensor than with the CGS system. Plus, if you need the factory back bracket I am out of luck because I got rid of my stock system last year.

The HP MAF says that it works well with CGS and tuned cars, so I am more inclined to go with it. Plus, I really think the CGS looks like a much cleaner install. And I do not like the idea of the filter and air box sitting on top of the hot engine. The air box would heat up along with the volume of air inside. At least with the CGS it is just a tube so it is flowing past the top of the engine, and not just stagnating there waiting to be sucked into the air filter.

Lee3333

I just spoke to Jet Performance and was told that their MAF gives better throttle response over stock, but my tune already did that. He also said that the aftermarket one would be more sensitive to any oil on it from the K&N filter, so it would not solve that problem. But he did suggest switching to a paper element filter to keep the MAF clean. Sounds simple enough. It would be no different than the factory setup, except less restriction with the CGS tube. I may just go to Pep boys and get the right size clamp on filter, then use MAF spray cleaner and see if my problem is fixed.

hhrcrafty

The CGS sucks in hot air from the engine compartment. The stock intake brings in cooler air from the fenderwell and the plastic box doesn't heat up that much, especially compared to a metal tube. I'm actually kind of curious as to the actual gains with even the GMPP intake as the stock airbox is said to have no restriction other than the filter.

Lee3333

What to you think it is that causes the code with the CGS? Is it the less restrictive air flow of the tube, or the oil from the filter? I can always clean the filter and just not apply oil to it if that is the problem? And like I noticed, the GMPP has their filter even closer to the MAF sensor. Does the GMPP create the code, also? And why is it that only some of the people with the CGS have this problem????? By the way, I used the filter out of the box, without applying any additional oil. Perhaps it is a QC issue with too much oil being applied to the filter at the factory.

One additional thought-I am not using the supplied filter that came with the CGS. Rather, I am using the 'Outlaw' one from Mike SoCal that is opened in the middle for additional air flow. Maybe that is the problem, and the people using this filter and the CGS are the ones having the code issue. Just thinking outloud.

Snoopy

GM, in their marketing material, specifically states that the GMPP air box will not cause "code" isssues., like most of the other brands.

Additionally, I have not heard of, or seen, any owners of the GMPP having codes. Of course, there is not that many of the GMPP's on the road AND they are much more expensive (but possibly built better).

As far as only some people HAVING problems with the CGS......incorrect install, incorrect combination of additional add-ons, improper application of oil solution.

The GMPP filter is ALMOST the exact same distance from the MAF as the standard OEM air box. But the filter is a different material and has much more surface area. Maybe it does matter.

An additional note.......I was told GM designed the GMPP with SOME additional performance characteristics in mind. This included the use of the OEM air intake tube to provide a source of the air.....instead of allowing the intake to injest heat soak air.


You have some problems Lee...and I do wish you success.

Lee3333

Does the GMPP filter need to be oiled like the K&N?