Column Lock (new version of problem)
03-29-2006, 08:23 PM
#21
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by rwsr50
I'm no computer geek or anything, but...if the actuator just has micro switches, it seems almost TOO simple to me that the surefire fix would be to:
1. Remove either the locking plate OR the entire actuator to prevent steering wheel from ever locking up, and
2. Connect the two wires on the actuator micro switch (in other words bypass the switch) that tells the computer "column locked, shut off the fuel" thus preventing the fuel from ever shutting off.
I am obviously missing something as this would be WAY too easy and as cheap as it gets for GM. All that would be involved would be labor. No parts required.
1. Remove either the locking plate OR the entire actuator to prevent steering wheel from ever locking up, and
2. Connect the two wires on the actuator micro switch (in other words bypass the switch) that tells the computer "column locked, shut off the fuel" thus preventing the fuel from ever shutting off.
I am obviously missing something as this would be WAY too easy and as cheap as it gets for GM. All that would be involved would be labor. No parts required.
The best fix would be to remove the locking mechanism hardware and then reprogram the computer to ignore the column lock locked/unlocked position signal so then no relay would be required and there would be no chance of the fuel getting shut off due to a relay failure.
03-29-2006, 11:31 PM
#22
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
The new actuator is probably designed differently so it's failure rate is much much less than the other design. I bet it still has switches in it that talks to the computer to let it know if it's locked or unlocked. And if the computer sees that it's locked, and the car starts to move it will still shut down the fuel when 1 mph is reached.
That is what I still believe. GM has tried to make the actuator more reliable, but the function is still the same. I bet the new actuator still has a micro switch that opens and closes the circuit to indicate the locked or unlocked position.
I assume even the late 2004 models with the new actuators still had a locking column, so the BCM would still have to be able to determine if the column was locked or unlocked. A "always unlocked" signal would still be a safety hazard.
Last edited by TEXHAWK0; 03-29-2006 at 11:38 PM.
03-29-2006, 11:36 PM
#23
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
That's close to what the new GM fix is for those who got the right letter. They do remove the locking mechanism hardware, but put in a new wire harness that has relays in it that "fools" the computer into thinking the column lock is locked or unlocked. If the relay fails, as it did to someone posting above, then the computer will think something is wrong and the fuel will be shutoff as designed.
The best fix would be to remove the locking mechanism hardware and then reprogram the computer to ignore the column lock locked/unlocked position signal so then no relay would be required and there would be no chance of the fuel getting shut off due to a relay failure.
The best fix would be to remove the locking mechanism hardware and then reprogram the computer to ignore the column lock locked/unlocked position signal so then no relay would be required and there would be no chance of the fuel getting shut off due to a relay failure.
03-29-2006, 11:40 PM
#24
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by MrLeadFoot
People keep missing something key, here. When they replaced the actuator, they REMOVED the relay.
03-29-2006, 11:47 PM
#25
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by MrLeadFoot
People keep missing something key, here. When they replaced the actuator, they REMOVED the relay.
The actuator is the same as the late 2004 models used, so it must have been designed to be fully functional, that is, it must be capable of indicating both the locked and unlocked position to the BCM. (assuming all 2004 models still had a column that locked from the factory)
03-29-2006, 11:55 PM
#26
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by TEXHAWK0
That is what I still believe. GM has tried to make the actuator more reliable, but the function is still the same. I bet the new actuator still has a micro switch that opens and closes the circuit to indicate the locked or unlocked position.
I asked why they just didn't remove the actuator altogether, at the time the actual recall work was done, and the manager said that the design of the column was such that you can't just remove parts, because there would end up being excessive space, thus, play in the steering. The same reason they didn't just remove the locking plate. When they remove the plate, they replace it with a modified one, just so that there's no play in the steering column.
So, it IS feasible that while they may still have a switch in the new actuator, maybe it's an "always on" type switch. That's the only thing it can be. I've been trying to figure out why else the Tech Center would tell the technician that the new actuator takes care of the fuel shut-off problem? And, why would they tell him that they've done this same procedure for hundreds of other similar cases like mine? And, again, why remove the relay that supposedly addressed the fuel shut-off issue, instead of replacing it? I mean, if you think about it, it makes sense, especially if you consider that the GM Tech Center went that route ONLY after hearing that I was coming from a long way off? (Remember, they told the technician they didn't want to take chance that a substitute relay might fail again, forcing me to come back yet again?)
And, if you think about it cost-wise, isn't it cheaper for them to retrofit recall-affected cars with an actuator that has an "always on" connection (if that is indeed the case for late '04's) than it would be for them to re-engineer a whole new actuator housing, just to take up space after removing our original actuators?
I dunno, it's anybody's guess at this point, but there HAS to be a reason for installing the actuator and removing their fuel shut-off bypass relay, right?
Since you already have a column lock actuator dissected, the only thing anybody can do is find a late '04 actuator, maybe from a wrecking yard or something, and open it up, just like you did, and compare the two. I would think you'd be able to see if the switch is the same, and/or if wiring has changed, right?
03-30-2006, 12:23 AM
#27
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by TEXHAWK0
It is also a key point that the actuator they are using when they removed the relay harness was not designed just for this recall.
The actuator is the same as the late 2004 models used, so it must have been designed to be fully functional, that is, it must be capable of indicating both the locked and unlocked position to the BCM. (assuming all 2004 models still had a column that locked from the factory)
The actuator is the same as the late 2004 models used, so it must have been designed to be fully functional, that is, it must be capable of indicating both the locked and unlocked position to the BCM. (assuming all 2004 models still had a column that locked from the factory)
You see, GM knows about us and custom tunes. They acknowledged that when the technician called and spoke to them on the phone. So, a re-flash, they know would ruin things for us.
Ok, now, GM knows that a stuck column lock is problematic, AND ALSO KNOWS the fuel shut-off thing is problematic. Regardless of whether fulet shut-off was added as part of a recall or was already programmed in older cars, the fact remains that if your column is locked, you can't turn your key. And, if you can't turn your key, how can you even get power to the car, let alone start it? So, maybe GM realizes now that the fuel shut-off was overkill, and acknowledges that it's not needed.
Scenario 1 - So, it is POSSIBLE that GM reporgrammed the late '04s to NOT sut-off fuel, right? If so, why install a late '04 actuator in my car? How would that alone help? Wouldn't just removing the locking plate eliminate the possibility of of a locked column? Yes, so why not address the relay issue instead of installing a new actuator? A relay is definitely cheaper than the actuator.
Scenario 2 - It is POSSIBLE that GM knows that a car with a locked column can't be started anyway, so wouldn't it make sense to just modify the actuator switch to be "always on" and plug those new actuators in on the assembly line in late '04? Maybe that was cheaper than re-programming code and updating a whole batch of computers they already had in stock. I mean, it's a business, right, so it could have even been something like they already had enough computers for the production run at the end of the C5's life, but they were short on column lock actuators. They also knew they problems with column locks and fuel shut-offs. Since they needed to order more actuators for the rest of the '04's, why not have them wired a little differently? Wouldn't have cost them any more.
Scenario 3 - What about the relay to begin with? If removing the actuator allowed the pin to work freely, then why would there be an issue where a relay was needed to begin with to talk/not talk to the BCM? Something's gotta be different with the new actuator, otherwise a relay would STILL be needed. Removing the locking plate alone would not have caused a need for the relay, right?
Yes, I am reaching, but it IS possible. Why else would they waste the money and install these '04 actuators in cars where people had fuel shut-off after 04006C's relays were installed? After all, GM pays dealerships every time a tech has to do a recall, or even a warranty repair, for that matter. So, it doesn't make sense that they would throw in a new actuator for nothing, knowing it wouldn't address the issue at hand.
Yes, I know, they tried to address this column lock thing before, but remember, before they were trying to adjust clearances. Now, they seem to be trying to actually fix the problem. That's why they removed the lock plate and installed the relay to begin with.
Just MORE thoughts.
Last edited by MrLeadFoot; 03-30-2006 at 12:28 AM.
03-30-2006, 09:25 AM
#28
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by MrLeadFoot
My previously posted theory covered that... sort of. Let me elaborate.
You see, GM knows about us and custom tunes. They acknowledged that when the technician called and spoke to them on the phone. So, a re-flash, they know would ruin things for us.
Ok, now, GM knows that a stuck column lock is problematic, AND ALSO KNOWS the fuel shut-off thing is problematic. Regardless of whether fuel shut-off was added as part of a recall or was already programmed in older cars, the fact remains that if your column is locked, you can't turn your key. And, if you can't turn your key, how can you even get power to the car, let alone start it? So, maybe GM realizes now that the fuel shut-off was overkill, and acknowledges that it's not needed.
"I am not sure where you are getting this information. On my car, the actuator is not tied to the the ignition switch. Even if the actuator does not unlock the column, the key will turn, and the car will start. That is the whole reason for the fuel being cut, to keep someone from driving the car with the column locked." - TEXHAWK
Scenario 1 - So, it is POSSIBLE that GM reporgrammed the late '04s to NOT shut-off fuel, right? If so, why install a late '04 actuator in my car? How would that alone help?
"Because they cannot get the relays matched to the system well enough to be reliable, and the '04 actuators are mechanically more reliable." - TEXHAWK
Wouldn't just removing the locking plate eliminate the possibility of of a locked column? Yes, so why not address the relay issue instead of installing a new actuator? A relay is definitely cheaper than the actuator.
Scenario 2 - It is POSSIBLE that GM knows that a car with a locked column can't be started anyway, so wouldn't it make sense to just modify the actuator switch to be "always on" and plug those new actuators in on the assembly line in late '04?
"I assume all the '04 models still had a locking column, so an actuator that is "always on", by which I take it you mean is always sending an unlocked signal, would not work. The actuator would have to be capable of showing locked or unlocked to the BCM. Otherwise, the car could still be driven while the BCM thinks the column is unlocked." - TEXHAWK
Maybe that was cheaper than re-programming code and updating a whole batch of computers they already had in stock. I mean, it's a business, right, so it could have even been something like they already had enough computers for the production run at the end of the C5's life, but they were short on column lock actuators. They also knew they problems with column locks and fuel shut-offs. Since they needed to order more actuators for the rest of the '04's, why not have them wired a little differently? Wouldn't have cost them any more.
Scenario 3 - What about the relay to begin with? If removing the actuator allowed the pin to work freely, then why would there be an issue where a relay was needed to begin with to talk/not talk to the BCM?
Something's gotta be different with the new actuator, otherwise a relay would STILL be needed. Removing the locking plate alone would not have caused a need for the relay, right?
"Exactly right. As long as the actuator works as designed, there is no need for a relay. The design would not have to be changed for this to be true. The relay was only added to mimick the actuator's signal from the micro switch, so that if the actuator failed, the BCM would still get the correct signal." - TEXHAWK
Yes, I am reaching, but it IS possible. Why else would they waste the money and install these '04 actuators in cars where people had fuel shut-off after 04006C's relays were installed? After all, GM pays dealerships every time a tech has to do a recall, or even a warranty repair, for that matter. So, it doesn't make sense that they would throw in a new actuator for nothing, knowing it wouldn't address the issue at hand.
Yes, I know, they tried to address this column lock thing before, but remember, before they were trying to adjust clearances. Now, they seem to be trying to actually fix the problem. That's why they removed the lock plate and installed the relay to begin with.
Just MORE thoughts.
You see, GM knows about us and custom tunes. They acknowledged that when the technician called and spoke to them on the phone. So, a re-flash, they know would ruin things for us.
Ok, now, GM knows that a stuck column lock is problematic, AND ALSO KNOWS the fuel shut-off thing is problematic. Regardless of whether fuel shut-off was added as part of a recall or was already programmed in older cars, the fact remains that if your column is locked, you can't turn your key. And, if you can't turn your key, how can you even get power to the car, let alone start it? So, maybe GM realizes now that the fuel shut-off was overkill, and acknowledges that it's not needed.
"I am not sure where you are getting this information. On my car, the actuator is not tied to the the ignition switch. Even if the actuator does not unlock the column, the key will turn, and the car will start. That is the whole reason for the fuel being cut, to keep someone from driving the car with the column locked." - TEXHAWK
Scenario 1 - So, it is POSSIBLE that GM reporgrammed the late '04s to NOT shut-off fuel, right? If so, why install a late '04 actuator in my car? How would that alone help?
"Because they cannot get the relays matched to the system well enough to be reliable, and the '04 actuators are mechanically more reliable." - TEXHAWK
Wouldn't just removing the locking plate eliminate the possibility of of a locked column? Yes, so why not address the relay issue instead of installing a new actuator? A relay is definitely cheaper than the actuator.
Scenario 2 - It is POSSIBLE that GM knows that a car with a locked column can't be started anyway, so wouldn't it make sense to just modify the actuator switch to be "always on" and plug those new actuators in on the assembly line in late '04?
"I assume all the '04 models still had a locking column, so an actuator that is "always on", by which I take it you mean is always sending an unlocked signal, would not work. The actuator would have to be capable of showing locked or unlocked to the BCM. Otherwise, the car could still be driven while the BCM thinks the column is unlocked." - TEXHAWK
Maybe that was cheaper than re-programming code and updating a whole batch of computers they already had in stock. I mean, it's a business, right, so it could have even been something like they already had enough computers for the production run at the end of the C5's life, but they were short on column lock actuators. They also knew they problems with column locks and fuel shut-offs. Since they needed to order more actuators for the rest of the '04's, why not have them wired a little differently? Wouldn't have cost them any more.
Scenario 3 - What about the relay to begin with? If removing the actuator allowed the pin to work freely, then why would there be an issue where a relay was needed to begin with to talk/not talk to the BCM?
Something's gotta be different with the new actuator, otherwise a relay would STILL be needed. Removing the locking plate alone would not have caused a need for the relay, right?
"Exactly right. As long as the actuator works as designed, there is no need for a relay. The design would not have to be changed for this to be true. The relay was only added to mimick the actuator's signal from the micro switch, so that if the actuator failed, the BCM would still get the correct signal." - TEXHAWK
Yes, I am reaching, but it IS possible. Why else would they waste the money and install these '04 actuators in cars where people had fuel shut-off after 04006C's relays were installed? After all, GM pays dealerships every time a tech has to do a recall, or even a warranty repair, for that matter. So, it doesn't make sense that they would throw in a new actuator for nothing, knowing it wouldn't address the issue at hand.
Yes, I know, they tried to address this column lock thing before, but remember, before they were trying to adjust clearances. Now, they seem to be trying to actually fix the problem. That's why they removed the lock plate and installed the relay to begin with.
Just MORE thoughts.
I think the cheapest fix was to install a relay harness, but GM cannot seem to get the relay to work reliably, so they have had to resort to removing the relays and reconnecting the actuator as it was originally designed, hoping that the newer actuators combined with no lock plate to jam the pin, will make the system more reliable than the relay fix.
Last edited by TEXHAWK0; 03-30-2006 at 04:37 PM.
03-30-2006, 10:18 AM
#29
Burning Brakes
What you are saying about excessive space and play in the steering resulting if the parts were removed all together only seems to make sense for the locking ring. Doesn't seem like the actuator should have any load on it. And if the actuator was removed, the locking ring could stay and would be no problem.
Can't see how they could have a lockable steering wheel and not retain the safeguard of the fuel shutoff in the event the steering lock failed.
BUT, since they apparently are not required to maintain a lockable steering column any longer, as they are removing the locking rings with this latest recall, why bother to keep the fuel shutoff feature and ask for problems.
Can't see how they could have a lockable steering wheel and not retain the safeguard of the fuel shutoff in the event the steering lock failed.
BUT, since they apparently are not required to maintain a lockable steering column any longer, as they are removing the locking rings with this latest recall, why bother to keep the fuel shutoff feature and ask for problems.
03-30-2006, 11:00 AM
#30
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by rwsr50
What you are saying about excessive space and play in the steering resulting if the parts were removed all together only seems to make sense for the locking ring. Doesn't seem like the actuator should have any load on it. And if the actuator was removed, the locking ring could stay and would be no problem.
Can't see how they could have a lockable steering wheel and not retain the safeguard of the fuel shutoff in the event the steering lock failed.
BUT, since they apparently are not required to maintain a lockable steering column any longer, as they are removing the locking rings with this latest recall, why bother to keep the fuel shutoff feature and ask for problems.
Can't see how they could have a lockable steering wheel and not retain the safeguard of the fuel shutoff in the event the steering lock failed.
BUT, since they apparently are not required to maintain a lockable steering column any longer, as they are removing the locking rings with this latest recall, why bother to keep the fuel shutoff feature and ask for problems.
I think you are right that the actuator assembly could be removed with no problems in the steering column operation. The smaller plate that replaces the lock plate also serves to cancel the turn signal, so it has a function.
I think most agree that the best solution would be to re-program the BCM to eliminate the check for actuator position, but it appears that GM is trying to resolve the problem mechanically first. It could be that they are taking this approach because they know a lot of owners are reluctant to take their cars in for the recall if they know it involves re-programming, which could cause other problems.
03-30-2006, 11:42 AM
#31
Melting Slicks
Maybe I am giving GM too much credit.
Maybe because I'm HOPING they did something right this time out, because my caar has had the recall done, and more...AND I sold my CLB, so I hope I didn't srew myself. That's why I'm beating this dead horse. Does that make sense?
Maybe because I'm HOPING they did something right this time out, because my caar has had the recall done, and more...AND I sold my CLB, so I hope I didn't srew myself. That's why I'm beating this dead horse. Does that make sense?
03-30-2006, 04:47 PM
#32
Le Mans Master
Hope the new actuator solves the problem for you.
In the mean time, my '04 Z06 has had the lockplate removed and the original Harness K kit installed, and has worked flawlessly with no error codes for over 2 years, so obviously, I will keep what I have.
(I carry a spare relay harness just in case.)
Hope the actuators turn out to be fool proof in case my harness ever fails.
In the mean time, my '04 Z06 has had the lockplate removed and the original Harness K kit installed, and has worked flawlessly with no error codes for over 2 years, so obviously, I will keep what I have.
(I carry a spare relay harness just in case.)
Hope the actuators turn out to be fool proof in case my harness ever fails.
03-30-2006, 06:30 PM
#33
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by TEXHAWK0
Hope the new actuator solves the problem for you.
In the mean time, my '04 Z06 has had the lockplate removed and the original Harness K kit installed, and has worked flawlessly with no error codes for over 2 years, so obviously, I will keep what I have.
(I carry a spare relay harness just in case.)
Hope the actuators turn out to be fool proof in case my harness ever fails.
In the mean time, my '04 Z06 has had the lockplate removed and the original Harness K kit installed, and has worked flawlessly with no error codes for over 2 years, so obviously, I will keep what I have.
(I carry a spare relay harness just in case.)
Hope the actuators turn out to be fool proof in case my harness ever fails.
So, what were the pics you posted earlier of? An actuator, for sure, but what was it from, if you don't mind me asking.
03-30-2006, 08:53 PM
#34
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by TEXHAWK0
Hope the new actuator solves the problem for you.
In the mean time, my '04 Z06 has had the lockplate removed and the original Harness K kit installed, and has worked flawlessly with no error codes for over 2 years, so obviously, I will keep what I have.
(I carry a spare relay harness just in case.)
Hope the actuators turn out to be fool proof in case my harness ever fails.
In the mean time, my '04 Z06 has had the lockplate removed and the original Harness K kit installed, and has worked flawlessly with no error codes for over 2 years, so obviously, I will keep what I have.
(I carry a spare relay harness just in case.)
Hope the actuators turn out to be fool proof in case my harness ever fails.
03-31-2006, 09:17 AM
#35
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by MrLeadFoot
Ahhh, I did not know you had an '04. But, obviously, yours is an early '04, correct? Otherwise, you would not have had the recall performed, right?
So, what were the pics you posted earlier of? An actuator, for sure, but what was it from, if you don't mind me asking.
So, what were the pics you posted earlier of? An actuator, for sure, but what was it from, if you don't mind me asking.
I ordered my '04 and took delivery in Sept. 2003, but no recall has ever been done on it.
When I read about the column lock failures, I researched the problem, and decided to buy the Harness K kit that GM was using on the automatics, and install it on my car. I removed the lockplate and installed the relay harness, instead of using the aftermarket CLB. The original Harness K kits were part #8952427 which had a black relay in the harness, and I have not heard of the relays in this kit failing. This part number was superceeded by #89023816, which had a white relay, and there were reports of these relays experiencing premature failure.
Usually, when there is a part number change, GM has made a technical change, but I am not sure why they cannot seem to get reliable relays any more.
I did not take pictures of the actuator. They (along with lots of other information like wiring diagrams) were in the sticky about the column lock problem at the top of the TECH section.
03-31-2006, 09:25 AM
#36
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by rwsr50
I'm happy for you, and hope your good luck continues, but I'm wondering if that means a whole lot, since I can say the same thing. My 04 has been working flawlessly for over 2 years also...and NOTHING has ever been done to it. I'm still wondering how many cars ever experience this problem.
From what I have read, there are many cases where the actuators have worked for years, the owners thought they were safe, and then one day without warning the actuator fails.
I do like having the lock plate removed so I don't have to deal with that problem. If my relay harness ever fails, and the actuator still works, I would first just try to unplug the harness and reconnect the actuator. If that did not work, I would probably just connect a spare relay harness I have to make the car driveable. At least if the column cannot lock, you only have to deal with the fuel shut off problem, and don't also have to try to get the column unlocked to get the car home.
03-31-2006, 10:48 AM
#37
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Dec 1999
Location: Anthony TX
Posts: 32,736
Received 2,182 Likes
on
1,585 Posts
CI 6,7,8,9,11 Vet
St. Jude Donor '08
I have the CLB installed and it works fine. i think I will leave sleeping dogs alone.
BC
BC
03-31-2006, 04:10 PM
#38
Advanced
Member Since: Oct 2005
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TEXHAWK0
The actuator does not actually send a signal to the BCM to tell it what action to take. The BCM reads the position of the actuator based on limit switches that are closed when the actuator travels to the "locked" or "unlocked" position, so it is just a matter of closing a switch.
NO CLB REQUIRED!
Read the above quote about how the "limit switch" is wired. Use some logic. Bingo
As long as the green wire is grounded, the BCM thinks everything is O.K.
and the fuel will not be cut off. The only requirement in making everything TRULY O.K. is to be sure that the actuator is not hung-up in the LOCKED POSITION, since you don't want to try to drive the car with the steering wheel locked. This is the whole point of cutting off the fuel if the system INDICATES that the wheel IS LOCKED.
