Cabin Air Filter on 2004 Silverado?
One-Shot Scot
Silverado, please post the information here.
From the research that I have done, is appears that the cabin air filter
(also known as the "Interior Air Filter" was discontinued on the 2003
Silverado. Apparently, there were a few early 2003 Silverados which used up
the last of the 2002 under-dash units which had previously contained the
Interior Air Filter, but the actual air filter elements were not included.
For the last 2 years, I have assumed that my 2004 Silverado has no Interior
Air Filter.
Now, I am not so sure, because the Chevrolet website is claiming a victory
over the Ford F-150 by stating that the 2005 Silverado has an Interior Air
Filter, while the 2005 F-150 does not. From the Chevrolet website:
[Interior Air Filter is Standard on the Silverado 1500 Regular Cab 2WD
Work Truck Long Box while Not Available on F-150 Regular Cat 4X2
145-in. WB XL Styleside.]
Unfortunately, you need to go to the page below and punch in Model, Style
and Trim to get to the comparison page. Then, place your cursor over the
blue-highlighted word "Standard" on the line reading, "Interior Air Filter."
It's the same story for the 2006 Silverado:
But wait, It gets better! Go to the 2007 Chevrolet comparison page and punch
in any Tahoe model (which is the only 2007 vehicle available) and you will
see that the "More Responsible, More Capable, More Refined" 2007 Tahoe has
no Interior Air Filter, but this item is listed as "Standard" on the 2006
Toyota Sequoia SR5 4X2.
(Incidentally, the Interior Air Filter is not even mentioned on the 2005 and
2006 Tahoe comparison pages.)
So, did Chevrolet discontinue the Interior Air Filter on the 2003 and 2004
Silverados only to bring it back on the 2005 and 2006 models? This hardly
seems likely when drum brakes replaced disk brakes on the rear of 1500
series Silverados in 2005. For more on this, see my post noted below:
Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:31 AM
Silverado: Same Truck For Less Money???
Jonathan
There is no cabin air filter on the 2004 Silverados, or at least there isn't
in my 2004 2500HD crew cab (and Yes, I've looked). For whatever reason, the
trim cover that you have to remove under the dash in the 2004's has the
fasteners placed where you can't get to them, so I guessing that GM thought
if it was too difficult then people wouldn't routinely change the cabin
filter, which in turn causes reduced vent performance and an increase in
service work from neglected filters. It appears that in the newer models
the cabin air filter is back because the access to it is easier. Is a cabin
air filer a genuinly needed item or just another selling point? Oh My God,
how did we ever live without them before?!?!?
As for your assumption of rear disc brakes making the truck cheaper both in
cost and quality, that is way off base. From a production aspect, it cost
less to produce a disc brake unit than a drum brake unit so per-unit costs
in materials and labor alone are higher for drums. However, GM realized
that the vast majority of their trucks spend the vast majority of their time
with an empty or lightly loaded bed - one consequence of having more and
more people buying trucks but using them like cars. Since discs are much
more powerful than drums two things were happening with rear disc brakes.
First, they had to use a valve that reduced the power to the rear disc
brakes when unloaded (a cause of poor pedal feel that was often complained
about), and second the antilock braking system was activating more often
because the rear wheels wanted to lock up too easily under hard braking with
no load over the rear axle (another complaint). Remember, a typical car has
about a 50:50 to 60:40 front-to-rear weight distribution ratio, while a
truck runs in the range of 80:20.
On the other hand, you will notice that the 2500 and 3500 series trucks
retained rear disc brakes mostly for two reasons as well. First, the rear
end is heavier and less prone to lock-up and ABS activation, and second the
2500/3500's are expected to tow and haul more frequently (and more heavily)
than the 1500's so rear disc brakes were a necessity because of their
strength and other qualities.
The fact is GM listened to their customers and corrected the issues that
were causing the most complaints. Everyone always gripes about how they
think GM never listens to them, and yet here we have a prime example that
they do. In fact, it would have been a case of them NOT listening if they
chose to make no corrections and keep the rear disc brakes in the 1500
series trucks. The moral of this story is be very careful just how loud you
choose to bitch about an issue because someone just may be listening and
take steps to correct it, and you may not always be happy with how they do.
Cheers - Jonathan
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
news:NridneBFK6y...@comcast.com...
One-Shot Scot
news:OzMJf.1713$VI6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<<Greetings, There is no cabin air filter on the 2004 Silverados, or at
least there isn't in my 2004 2500HD crew cab (and Yes, I've looked). For
whatever reason, the trim cover that you have to remove under the dash in
the 2004's has the fasteners placed where you can't get to them, so I
guessing that GM thought if it was too difficult then people wouldn't
routinely change the cabin filter, which in turn causes reduced vent
performance and an increase in service work from neglected filters. It
appears that in the newer models the cabin air filter is back because the
just another selling point? Oh My God, how did we ever live without them
before?!?!?>>
Thanks for the reassurance that there (probably) isn't a cabin filter in the
2004 Silverado. There may not even be cabin filters in the 2005 and/or 2006
Silverados, even though the Chevrolet website mentions them.
<<As for your assumption of rear disc brakes making the truck cheaper both
in cost and quality, that is way off base. From a production aspect, it
cost less to produce a disc brake unit than a drum brake unit so per-unit
costs in materials and labor alone are higher for drums. However, GM
realized that the vast majority of their trucks spend the vast majority of
their time with an empty or lightly loaded bed - one consequence of having
more and more people buying trucks but using them like cars. Since discs
are much more powerful than drums two things were happening with rear disc
brakes. First, they had to use a valve that reduced the power to the rear
disc brakes when unloaded (a cause of poor pedal feel that was often
complained about), and second the antilock braking system was activating
more often because the rear wheels wanted to lock up too easily under hard
braking with no load over the rear axle (another complaint). Remember, a
typical car has about a 50:50 to 60:40 front-to-rear weight distribution
ratio, while a truck runs in the range of 80:20.>>
Disc brakes do not suffer nearly as much from heat fade as drum brakes. And
disc brakes recover their stopping ability quickly after getting wet, while
drum brakes do not. GM should have concentrated only on improving pedal feel
and lock up characteristics of its rear disc brakes rather than designing a
whole new archaic rear-drum system. I'm still not convinced that GM actually
had a pedal-feel problem. They may have just used this as an excuse to go
back to rear drum brakes.
Whether pedal feel is improved or not, the new BOSCH Hydro-boost brake
assemblies introduced in the 2005 Silverado have been a complete disaster
and are the subject of a safety recall:
http://autoextra.com/vehicledetail/adid-29498842/do-safetyrecall
I have not been able to validate that drum brakes cost more than disc
brakes. All I have been able to find are references, such as these:
...pickups – whose rear wheels typically don’t contribute much to the
act of slowing the truck – traditionally used less-powerful, less-costly
drum brakes for the rear wheels.
http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_gm_pickups_brake/index.htm
Drum vs. Disc: Today
In today's automotive pantheon, it's not uncommon to find four-wheel
disc brakes as standard equipment on medium-priced, non
performance-oriented models. The majority of new vehicles, however,
continue to utilize a front-disc/rear-drum brake setup... Are these
manufacturers sacrificing vehicle safety in order to save a few bucks by
installing disc brakes on only the front wheels?
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/43857/article.html
Disc brakes are still more expensive than drum, and few buyers are
willing to pay extra for just greater stopping power — that is, unless
they regularly travel over mountainous terrain with heavy loads.
http://www.farmindustrynews.com/mag/farming_stopping_power_2/
Discs have now become standard in most passenger vehicles, though
some retain the use of drum brakes on the rear wheels to keep costs
and weight down.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/disc_brake
<<On the other hand, you will notice that the 2500 and 3500 series trucks
retained rear disc brakes mostly for two reasons as well. First, the rear
end is heavier and less prone to lock-up and ABS activation, and second the
2500/3500's are expected to tow and haul more frequently (and more heavily)
than the 1500's so rear disc brakes were a necessity because of their
strength and other qualities.>>
Chevrolet also kept its rear disc brakes on the 1500 HD, Tahoe, Suburban and
Avalanche models. The first three vehicles in the list support your argument
as to heavier rear ends and more even weight distribution. However, it
appears to me that the Avalanche would have the same overall weight
distribution as a 1500 series pick up.
<<The fact is GM listened to their customers and corrected the issues that
were causing the most complaints. Everyone always gripes about how they
think GM never listens to them, and yet here we have a prime example that
they do. In fact, it would have been a case of them NOT listening if they
chose to make no corrections and keep the rear disc brakes in the 1500
series trucks. The moral of this story is be very careful just how loud you
choose to bitch about an issue because someone just may be listening and
take steps to correct it, and you may not always be happy with how they do.
Cheers - Jonathan>>
My only response to this is from an earlier post that I made:
Two of the seven 2005 Silverado recall items involve the "improved" BOSCH
brake system that premiered in the 2005 C/1500 Silverados. The new BOSCH
Hydro-boost brake assemblies can explode and flying fragments can injure
people nearby. Worse yet, the failed, leaking system can cause both steering
and braking problems and "a crash may occur without prior warning."
http://autoextra.com/vehicledetail/adid-29498842/do-safetyrecall
I would prefer to deal with poor pedal feel and occasional deployment of the
rear disc brake anti-lock system rather than deal with steering and braking
problems -- caused by failure of the hydro-boost brake assemblies -- which
may result in a crash.
One-Shot Scot
news:OzMJf.1713$VI6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<<Discussion regarding Silverado 1500's switch back to rear drum brakes in
2005 snipped.>>
Here is a case where GM fixed its mushy, vague-feeling brakes without
putting drum brakes on the rear:
*** *** ***
BETTER BRAKES
Speaking of significant improvements, the days of the mushy, vague-feeling
GM brake pedal feel are also gone.
Step on the pedal in the ’07 Tahoe and the larger disc brakes give the
driver the instant braking response one expects more from a sports car than
a big SUV. The brake feel is very linear; the moment your foot touches the
pedal you feel the brakes begin applying, and the harder you step on the
pedal, the faster the new Tahoe slows down.
http://www.gulfcoastnews.com/RT2007ChevyTahoe.htm
*** *** ***
From the Chevrolet website, the 2007 Tahoe has:
Brakes: four-wheel antilock disc with Dynamic Rear Proportioning (DRP)
benick
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
> Silverado Z71 5.0 have one?Checked a couple of sites and did not see one
> listed for my truck,just need to be sure as sometimes the airflow
> fades,especially on wet days..Thanks...
Earl
>
>
