# Reduced Engine Power Stabilitrak Near-Death Experience



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Out of curiosity, did the dealer perform this?

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/25-s...al-coverage-14311-negative-battery-cable.html


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

There is a known and widespread problem with the crimp on the negative battery cable that is known to cause all sorts of intermittent electrical problems. Getting that taken care of under warranty is the first thing I would do under the circumstances described. More about that in another thread at:

http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/25-s...al-coverage-14311-negative-battery-cable.html


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

Jim Frye said:


> Out of curiosity, did the dealer perform this?
> 
> http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/25-s...al-coverage-14311-negative-battery-cable.html


Beat me to it while I was still typing. Anytime anything remotely electrical happens, I think all the regulars have come to realize the first question to ask is "Have you had the negative battery cable done yet?"


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Gagilmer said:


> turned on front and rear defrosters


If you're looking for a common thread, I'd start there. That's quite a load on the electrical system.


----------



## Gagilmer (Mar 29, 2013)

Service Manager mentioned the neg cable as soon as I starting telling him what happened. That was the first thing that they checked. As far as having climate control on defrost and switching the rear defroster on being an electrical drain...? It's a 2 year old modern GM product, not a Yugo.


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

Gagilmer said:


> Service Manager mentioned the neg cable as soon as I starting telling him what happened. That was the first thing that they checked. As far as having climate control on defrost and switching the rear defroster on being an electrical drain...? It's a 2 year old modern GM product, not a Yugo.


Meaning additional electrical needs make the problem more pronounced…..same questions a good diagnostician would ask.

Rob


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Gagilmer said:


> Service Manager mentioned the neg cable as soon as I starting telling him what happened. That was the first thing that they checked. As far as having climate control on defrost and switching the rear defroster on being an electrical drain...? It's a 2 year old modern GM product, not a Yugo.


Checked, or replaced?


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Gagilmer said:


> Service Manager mentioned the neg cable as soon as I starting telling him what happened. That was the first thing that they checked. As far as having climate control on defrost and switching the rear defroster on being an electrical drain...? It's a 2 year old modern GM product, not a Yugo.


OK they may have checked the cable, but did they follow the instructions in the special coverage bulletin and replace the cable? The problem with the cable is known to be an intermittent one most times.

It may be a two year old modern GM product, but it still has some Chinese wiring in it (i.e. the negative battery cable)


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Gagilmer said:


> As far as having climate control on defrost and switching the rear defroster on being an electrical drain...? It's a 2 year old modern GM product, not a Yugo.


I didn't say "you shouldn't do that". I was just pointing that that the two heaters add a strain on the system and could bring to light defective components. The car _should_ be able to handle that, but then if everything was working right, the car wouldn't have died on you.

Also, if one is trying to replicate the problem, it makes sense to replicate the same load situation that caused it to appear. Otherwise, you're not really repeating the same situation. I'd look first to the load being an issue rather than the weather. If nothing else, it's far easier to duplicate.

And, I'll agree with the others. Unless the dealer has a later bulletin that shows how to check the cable, it should be replaced as per #14311 and not just "checked".


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ChevyGuy said:


> And, I'll agree with the others. Unless the dealer has a later bulletin that shows how to check the cable, it should be replaced as per #14311 and not just "checked".


That's what I was thinking, how do you visibly check for a bad crimp in the cable? Might look just fine and connections look tight but your still left with the intermittent electrical issue. This is why GM extended the warranty on the part and just calls for replacement.


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

Nothing changed,
The dealer is to follow the bulletin guidelines any time the complaint matches those the bulletin describes.

The failure occurs in the crimped section where the cable meets the terminal…..not crimped tight enough.
As a result, resistance builds inside at the crimp and will not always be reproducible.

Some dealers act like the part price is coming out of their own pocket for petes sake……just DO IT!

Rob


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Perhaps the Chevy Customer Care folks here could provide a clue bat to the OP's dealer service department?


----------



## Gagilmer (Mar 29, 2013)

Thanks for all the input gang. Rob: I understand what you're saying about the electrical load...I just couldn't resist the Yugo comment  The tech that drove it home overnight did indeed try to replicate the actions that I took, but to no avail. Combining everything I've gathered from others that have posted on various forums is what leads me to think that it is moisture/temp related. As far as the neg bat cable issue: My understanding from the SM is that the cable corrodes not at the battery but at the block/frame end of the cable. They did not replace the cable but did check to see that it was firmly attached and not corroded. I can only assume that they checked for proper crimping. I am still a fan of the car, but really am concerned that this is going to happen again. There is quite a bit of evidence out there that this is a known issue. I feel that GM needs to step up to the plate, acknowledge the problem, and issue a TSB on the throttle body.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Gagilmer said:


> Thanks for all the input gang. Rob: I understand what you're saying about the electrical load...I just couldn't resist the Yugo comment  The tech that drove it home overnight did indeed try to replicate the actions that I took, but to no avail. Combining everything I've gathered from others that have posted on various forums is what leads me to think that it is moisture/temp related. As far as the neg bat cable issue: My understanding from the SM is that the cable corrodes not at the battery but at the block/frame end of the cable. They did not replace the cable but did check to see that it was firmly attached and not corroded. I can only assume that they checked for proper crimping. I am still a fan of the car, but really am concerned that this is going to happen again. There is quite a bit of evidence out there that this is a known issue. I feel that GM needs to step up to the plate, acknowledge the problem, and issue a TSB on the throttle body.


Take your car to a different dealership and tell them you are experiencing intermittent electrical issues. Make sure to mention stabilitrak warnings. The dealership you went to can't be bothered to apply corrective actions listed in existing TSBs - they won't bother to look at a new TSB either.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

Gagilmer said:


> I feel that GM needs to step up to the plate, acknowledge the problem, and issue a TSB on the throttle body.


GM has stepped up to the plate, acknowledged the problem and issued a warranty coverage for the battery cable for 10 years/120,000 miles to anyone who complains about certain symptoms. If the dealer doesn't comply, is that GM's fault or the dealers?




Gagilmer said:


> issue a TSB on the throttle body.


What's wrong with the TB?


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

Galimer: if you look at the thread that we have about the negative cable you'll realize how wrong your dealership was. Another incident like this can be EASILY avoided if you follow what every other member does. Please go to another dealership.


----------



## Eddy Cruze (Jan 10, 2014)

It would be hard to organize a group of dead people for a class action law suit, they might be uncooperative. You can always sue on behalf of yourself!


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

iKermit said:


> Galimer: if you look at the thread that we have about the negative cable you'll realize how wrong your dealership was. Another incident like this can be EASILY avoided if you follow what every other member does. Please go to another dealership.


I still find this puzzling. Here we are 5 model years into the life of the Cruze and we are still having to deal with Chevy service departments that can't/won't do the due diligence on customer problems. I'm probably flogging a dead horse, but I'm gob smacked given all of the support GM provides for service folks. TSBs, PIs, emerging issue web casts, tech support phone lines, web based learning classes, and the list goes on, but we still see weekly stories of service departments that should be avoided like the plague. How many posts have members directed the confused and shafted to visit another dealer? Even worse, we still have no way of determining which ones are OK and which ones aren't fit to change your oil. After 5 years, there seems to be no Chevy/GM program to improve franchised dealer service that is working. Climbs down off of his soapbox.


----------



## Gagilmer (Mar 29, 2013)

As I said "my *heir" *can join or start the suit. Gents, I understand what you're all saying about the battery cable, but that isn't what I'm posting about. From the service report: "The ECM showed a P2101 code for the throttle body performance..." If you do an internet search, search this forum, or other Chevy forums using the search terms "engine reduced power stabilitrak" you'll find numerous cases of this happening on GM vehicles with the end result being a problem with the TB. I appreciate the fact that the neg bat cable is being addressed, but that's not the solution to this particular problem.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

You do realize that if you had provided this information initially, this thread would have taken an entirely different direction?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

So did your dealership replace the throttle body?


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

Gagilmer said:


> As I said "my *heir" *can join or start the suit. Gents, I understand what you're all saying about the battery cable, but that isn't what I'm posting about. From the service report: "The ECM showed a P2101 code for the throttle body performance..." If you do an internet search, search this forum, or other Chevy forums using the search terms "engine reduced power stabilitrak" you'll find numerous cases of this happening on GM vehicles with the end result being a problem with the TB. I appreciate the fact that the neg bat cable is being addressed, but that's not the solution to this particular problem.


I remember contributing to a few of those threads you're mentioning--not because of my Cruze (Diesel), but because of my experience of the problem with the car I traded in for it, which was a 2007 Grand Prix. I had repeated intermittent codes related to the electronic throttle system on that car. Only problem was that there was no way to tell whether it was the throttle body, the accelerator pedal/sensor unit, the ECU, or the wiring between the 3; except to start replacing parts and see what stopped the codes. My opinion on the matter is that the electronic throttle is an experiment gone bad that ought to be abandoned. In 20 years with a dozen or so vehicles, I never had a problem with the old reliable cable throttle system that was used for decades. First one I bought with an electronic throttle drove me nuts with all its antics.


----------

