I have been reading all about the amp sound quality issues here. I have never posted a message, but thought I would let everyone know that I just came home from the dealer this morning and they replaced my old amp Model 10432572 with the new amp Model 10309548. WOW!!!!! What a difference!!!!! It sounds better than the amp by-pass I did. My Dealer was very happy to perform the change for me. They did it "no questions asked" They just wanted to make sure I was COMPLETELY satisfied. Good luck to all on this issue....
I have looked into pricing on several ranges of amps all falling within the $100-$200 range. Here is the make and models of what I found.
Sony: Xm-754HX/R $199.99 75watts X 4. Pioneer: GM-x354 $168.95 50watts x 4. Alpine: MRPF306 $129.00 30watts x 4.
The amps above are well known name brands. I did a search for them on the Internet; there will be many sites to look at. But I recommend checking out your nearest car audio store that stocks the brands in question.
Go to the stores to demo the amp, take some music you know very well and listen to it at the store with a display that approximates your car (front speakers: 2 way separates up front 6x9 rear (no sub). There are many different amps and makers. And price ranges. The amps I suggested are just the beginning. Just take a look at my previous post. That system I am putting in my car is going to cost in excess of $4,000.00, Yes, It is crazy to spend that much money on a car audio system.. But I am a stickler for EXTREME sound QUALITY.
I don't recommend to everyone to go to the extent that I am. I am only saying that anyone considering replacing the amp should stop and think about it. Make an informed decision. You don't have to accept the auto manufactures bland attempts at car audio.
I agree with you. If anyone who really want a "premium stereo system", I would never waste my time requesting GM for an amp replacement. I would go out and buy an aftermarket amp for lot less, yet better quality then the "103" amp.
While some may have the time and day to pursue warranty claims, time is money. The time to drive back and forth to the dealer, cost of gas, the anguish of talking to brick walls (service rep), dissatisfaction with the car because of one lousy amp, and overall grief with their experience dealing with inept GM service, can all be resolved quickly and painlessly by going to a small mom and pop audio stores and buy a decent amp for $75 or less.
My mission is to enjoy my Impala as much as possible. If I had problem with my amp (which I don't believe) I would immediately replace the amp myself and be done with. If I had to replace the amp, I would prefer aftermarket amp anyway.
My happiness is more important then dealing with something that cost miniscule to replace. While some people prefer to spend top dollars for Zaino products to keep their cars nice and shine, why not spend extra $$ for an amp replacement and be happy?
IF I have to pay for the "better" amp(which I believe I should NOT have to), I would buy an aftermarket amp instead of paying for the 103. However if they are willing to give me the 103 for free(warrenty) then I'll be just find with that.
I wonder if it might be possible to cause the 104 Amp to somehow fail, so that those of you stuck with it could get it replaced as a warranty item. If some dealers are taking the position that the Amp is working, even if it's working poorly, they might not be able to say the same thing if the Amp was broken.
Now, I'm not advocating "frying" your Amp by running power down the wrong lead or anything like that, but I'd be curious if there might be some way for owners to have it fail by, uhhh, "accident".
There's a problem with that scenario - even if the 104 just "broke", I'm pretty sure they would just replace it with another 104. Especially since the 103 seems to be marked "not available" on some dealers systems.
You must work for Gm or something, you seem to not want anyone to fix their poor amp situation if it means they go thru the dealer or GM service reps. I mean really, what's it to you? Stock in the company, worried about profits? If someone wants to fight for what is right then why chastise them for trying? Yes, you are right, 75.00 to a mom and pop stereo store is what you would do to improve your sound, we know that. You are happy with your sound, we know that too. You still keep forgeting that we paid extra already for the premmium sound system, that included a booster amp that the dealer charged 220.00 for, that is not the price for the entire system, that is the price for the booster. It's obvious someone within GM knew that the 104 amp was not what it was supposed to be, hence the change to the 103, which by every account of those that care, is worlds better than the 104. I don't "need" to blow my doors off, or hear every oboe in the concerto, what I want is what I paid for, others feel the same way.
Sorry for venting folks, and I apologize, Hvan for wanting value and for helping others to get satisfaction. I don't own GM stock, but if I did I'd be angry that the company treats their customers this way.
I had my amp replaced on Tuesday and I can't believe the difference. When I play CD's it's unbelieveable. I have played the same CD's with the old 104 and the new 103 and it's like night and day. I had no problem with my dealer, I printed out and brought in the response I got from GMCANADA. It stated they replaced the 102 amp with the 104 amp and finally the 103 amp. With that alone the dealer upgraded me to a 103 amp with no hassle. Now when I play the radio I have to leave it in manual mode because of all the bass, but when I play CD's I use the equalizer portion and it's unreal. Thanks for all your help. Frank
Glad it worked out for you licavy. Do you know what was involved with the swap out of AMPS? Did they have to take the back window shelf off or was everything done from within the trunk?
I did it myself, and I'm no electronics whiz believe me...Two plugs, can't mess them up they are different, and it snaps into place inside. Some say it's easier to get at it from the back seat, I did it thru the trunk, no sweat, well a little bit of sweat, it was 106 degrees that day.
Licavy, glad to hear there are more service dept. out there that are customer driven, your story should also help others who are getting the cold shoulder, print them out and bring them in to show your dealer.
I don't know if anyone else's radio is or was like this but before I did the radio bypass my head unit would get extremely hot. You couldn't hold a finger on it, that's how hot. BUT after I did the bypass from my amp, it's not that hot anymore. Not sure if it was just mine or not. I have 33,000 miles on my 2000 Impala LS (8/99) and I hope my dealer ship replaces my amp. If not, I'm going to use a barrier strip, radio shack, to make a more permanent amp bypass so my wires don't fall out, .
Very good observation. As I matter of fact, the 'Hot running Radio' was a *hot* discussion item way back in late '99 and early 2000. When I first got my '00 LS with the 'Premium Stereo' and the horrific '104' AMP I noticed that the face plate of the RDS head unit would get extremely warm to the touch.
Now my new '01 LS has the excellent '103' AMP and my radio head unit doesn't feel no where near as hot as the old radio did.
Another reason why the '104' is a piece of junk AMP.
Most of the problems reported here regarding with the radio AMP warranty swap are caused mainly by BAD dealers whose primary mission is to screw the customer real good. Some others have not encountered this resistance to obtain the new '103' AMP at no charge under warranty.
Suggestion: Post the bad dealer's name, location and contact names that way people can stay away from these businesses that don't want to provide the minimum standards of customer care and satisfaction.
Could you em-mail me, I want to ask you a few questions about the GMCANADA Response you mentioned, I may be on the verge of convincing My Svc Mgr, I just need some more clout so to speak, Or could you foward the response to me? thanks dman4ford@webtv.net Don't mind the ford in my address is has nothing to do with fomoco. Don
Was wondering if your previous amp was the 102 version? I heard it was the first amp installed before they switched to the 104 and subsequently the 103. That old number is 10289187, was curious.
I'm not sure how you came up with the idea that I work for GM. Absolutely NOT! Everything about GM, I hate (except for my Impala and the nice looking GMC Envoy).
You are accusing GM of conspiracy theory that they "knew" about amp 104 being inferior, and thus, the superior amp 103 replacement on 2001 Impala.
Well, have you ever heard of "continuous process improvement"? Whether you're buying a car, TV, computer, or electronic gadgets, every model tends to be improve in product features, styles, and performances year after year. Does this mean that everytime a company improves on a new product that they must "replace" existing products from their customers? Absolutely NOT! If it's NOT a liability issue, then they do NOT have to do anything (unless they want to satisfy their customers).
So if next year, Chevy improves on the Impala (more hp, quieter, faster, sleeker), are you going to request Chevy to "replace" your 2001 Impala because they "knew" that the 2001 vehicle is "inferior" to 2002? (same analogy as the amp).
Folks, this is not conspiracy theory created by GM. Lets stop this nonsense before this rumor gets out of hand.
Neither your reasoning nor your analogies hold up.
With the 104 amp, radios did/do get abnormally warm.
With the 104 amp, the sound quality was/is poor at best, especially for something called a "premium audio system" and costing an extra $220 or whatever it was.
GM did get a barrage of complaints or they would not have changed it. Because it a somewhat subtle but very real defect and nobody was getting killed by it (like Firestone SUV tires) GM hoped the amp issue would fall through the cracks, unnoticed. Corporations do things like that all the time.
The sound with the 104 was thin and tinny but GM did nothing for those of us who filed complaints. Instead they quietly fixed the design and never notified us who had brought the defect to their attention.
There is no way that GM would have changed the design if they had not gotten plenty of flack about the heat build up and the bad sound on the 104 amp.
Note that GM changed ONLY the amp - NOT the RDS head end unit in the dash NOR the speakers. To anyone thinking clearly, that serves as incontrovertible proof that the 104 model amp was "the weakest link" in the system, that it was defective in design and therefore replaced.
Your "more hp, quieter, faster, sleeker" argument holds no water. They are NOT defects. No one would expect a replacement vehicle if those things changed. That's ludicrous.
However, the 104 amp is defective in design and/or manufacture. It is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than the engine cradle weld problems, the intermediate steeering shaft problem or replacing the early version rear wheel liners - ALL of which many of us have had done under warranty. Because the amp is defective, it too should be replaced - UNDER WARRANTY.
Well stated Dura. I haven't asked for onstar to be added to my 2k Impala, just because it is now standard for one year on the 2k1. My issue has only been with something I have felt was defective and not worth the extra money I paid for it. The idea I had that you worked for GM was sarcasim...
The purpose of my arguement is that companies go through "continous process improvements" when it comes to product features, styles, and performance year after year. If something doesn't pan out this year, they'll "improve" on it the following year. Otherwise, they lose out to their competitiors. Since the amp is not a product liability, they can choose to implement their engineering changes whenever they want (most cost effective to them).
Consider it a blessing that GM "recognize" the inferior 104 amp, and replace it with 103 amp on most of the 2001 Impala. They did what every other companies have done....they IMPROVED on their products from previous year . The KEY point is "IMPROVE"!! Does this mean that everytime a company "improves" on a new product that they must "replace" existing products from their customers? Again, absolutely NOT! If it's NOT a product liability issue, then they do NOT have to do anything (unless they want to satisfy their customers).
As for "premium audio system", that's all relative. I dont hear anyone complaining to GM about the poor quality of the antenna. That's another "inferior" product that needs to be improve. Maybe we need to open up another forum with 600 messages or so on "poor antenna" LOL
Says you have to read them? You seem to feel like people shouldn't talk about them. The purpose of the fourms are so that people can learn more about their vehicle choice, also people strike up friendships along the way. I've been on this fourm for over a year, information gathered here helped me make my decision to buy this car. I've been in the "radio" fourm since about post 55, you think if it wasn't an issue that people felt cheated on that it would have lasted this long?
Just don't read it if you find it ludicrous that people should want to waste their time on this issue. You were probably one of those that thought this shouldn't have been raised on the main board, so I've tried to keep my comments here, now if you don't like it, just don't read them!
I won my case with GM and it wasn't a hard fight, because I had a dealer who cared about customer satisfaction. To try and help others get the same satisfaction is all I hope to do. All you want to do is come up with arguments against what we are trying to do. I'm done arguing...
You are Both right, I see both points, and I have all along, They certainly Do Not have to replace the Amp since it was improved upon, But if they will then why not? I for one am not going to Stomp My Foot, Cry, and throw a Fit in the Service Dept , If I get one from GM Fine, If not I will get one somewhere else, I think the Point of this particular Forum came to be because of the Unique Radio RDS System , If it were a Normal Radio we would have Plenty of Options as far a Upgrading the thing, All most on here want is the Potential that the thing already has, with a minimum of effort and $$, Sure you can relocate the Head unit, If that is what you want then that is OK, I just want the thing the way it is, and to sound good like it has the By Pass But without the By pass wires exposed in my trunk, the 103 seems to Better do the work of the By Pass without the High Volume Distortion. PEACE! Don
To answer your question my Impala LS has the 102 amp and was built/bought 8/99.
I still remember the days when people would stare at my car and wonder what it was. Plus the look on my salesman wondering why a 22 year old wanted a 4 door sedan. I guess I wish I could of seen my face after the 5 hours that it took to buy the car.
Just wanted to ask everyone here who has had their impala (LS version) over a year if your center caps are holding up. Mine look like the finish is cracking and falling off. When I talk to my service manager about my amp I'm also going to show them to him. Plus I'm going to stress later that I'm still not happy with the shim fix on my engine cradle, or at least until someone who I can trust tells me that it's just as safe and strong as a nicely welded 2001 cradle.
I agree that GM doesn't HAVE to replace the amps. But I am still trying. Why? Because some folks have 2001 Impalas with the same 'premium' sound system as mine, except they've got a different part and they got a better system than I got. If I had a 2000 Impala I'd have a lot weaker argument because things can change with model years. I just think I deserve the good amp because I feel I bought it anyway. Only counterpoint to this is that I had a chance to listen to the system before I bought the car, and I still bought it. Trouble there is, that was the BEST DARN CAR I have ever driven and that's why I bought it. Having a decent radio would increase my satisfaction and decrease my dismay with the other problems I have.
That's my two cents.
As for Hunter and Dura, I have no problem with either of your arguments. It's not worth getting worked up though. You have both contributed greatly to the value of this forum and I sure appreciate it.
I haven't got any flaking yet (11,100 miles) but do have a couple of blemishes that came from the factory. They look nice when they're perfect but I hate to think they'll start looking ratty.
BTW did you notice the owner's manual says to wash/wax the alloy wheels just like the paint? I remove the wheels and clean them up really well/wax them each time I rotate the tires (6000 mile increments).
I was wondering if you could also mail me the letter from GMCANADA. It would help to convince my service dealer.
WWNF, My girlfriends parents liked to make fun of me because I prefer 4 door cars. I'm 21 by the way. I told them I wanted an Imp and Her step-dad said, "What in the heck you want a big boat like that for". Welp they changed their minds when I pulled up in my 2001 navy blue LS.
BTW What are you talking about when you say center caps?
Greetings from a Monte Carlo owner. I guess we've been so tied up on our Yahoo club that many of us have forgotten our roots. You have to imagine my surprise when I checked Edmunds tonight to find that there were over 200 new messages since the last time I logged in. I thought there must have been something wrong with the counter...that was until I discovered the fact that there has been much afoot over here.
I like the idea of a new amp. A co-worker of mine recently bought a new 2001 Monte SS with the premium sound system. I told him the day after he picked it up that he would need to bypass the amp. He asked why, as he thought the radio sounded excellent. I assured him that it would get better. Then, on the way to lunch a few days later, he popped in this CD he wanted me to hear, and to my surprise, it sounded great. I thought it must have been a fluke. Just the CD sounded good, and I wanted to do a side by side comparison. Never got the chance to, but I think it's probably because he's got the new amp. I'm going to have to check.
All this being said, I have to visit my dealership and see what I can find out. I have to get my rear wheel well liners fixed (they installed them wrong...the pocket still exists...). If they can't do the liners right, I'm wondering about the amp. We'll see.
Duraflex was right, after all...the bypass was a band-aid...something else needed to be done, and I think that something has arrived...
Good luck in your effort, The new car manager at my dealership has a 2000 Monte and he was the first person I talked to about this issue when I brought it up( he called me on another issue and as long as I had his ear...) to him. He agreed he thought his sound system was lacking as well, since I had learned from this board that the Monte and Impala shared the same problems in regards to the amp. The numbers were a bit different Monte being 10432571 and the Impala being 10432572, but the result was the same. Now I never checked to find out if the 2k1 Montes got a new amp in the trunk, you might want to do some comparison number checks on the amp before you mention something to your dealer. It's also possible if not probable that the 103 amp for the Impala will work in your Monte. For a free call to John Bolls at that warranty shop here in Phoenix, you might be able to find the information you want. 1-800-227-7234, It's worth a try and tell all your Monte Carlo fans over on Yahoo about what happened here, I believe it was a Monte Carlo owner who came up with the initial bypass?
Many of the early posts in this topic have been deleted - by whom and when - I do not know.
As I remember - the idea of bypassing the amp came from a guy who used the nickname "humahuma". It made sense because the head end radios in the non-premium audio systems had no trunk amp and they sounded fine (also different speakers). HH e-mailed the factory schematic to me which I tried but did not decipher. I believe he was an Impala owner.
Another good fellow - jojo28 - aka jjmahler - did manage to figure it out and posted the jumping configuration. I believe he was the first to do the bypass and I followed his lead. Joe is an Impala owner.
Others jumped on board. The "AMP BYPASS" was never considered a real fix - rather a workaround or an interim solution. The new 103 amp seems to have solved both the issue of sound quality and the excessively warm radio when connected to an operating 104 amp.
BTW, in re-reading earlier posts, I thought the earliest version 102 amp sounded pretty good - especially compared to the 104.
About that 102 amp myself, I'm wondering about the progression of the numbers, I think I brought this up before. Does anyone else find it unusual that they skipped the 103 version and went to a 104 after the intitial 102 amp? Maybe it has nothing at all to do with the numbers on the amp, it just seemed odd, coming from a military background it always seemed they put numbers that coincide with each version, so the natural progession to me would be 102, 103,104 etc...now I don't believe I will ask for a new stereo system if they come out with a 2002 with a gold series Bose system, but hey you never know, we might be able to wrangle one out of them!
I couldn't remember back that far concerning who might have proposed the bypass, either way it wa s fine fix until they came up with a solution, which I still believe they knew was a bad set up (the 104)when they put it in. BTW, I don't think Oswald acted alone either...
I stopped by my local Chevy dealer where I bought my 2001 LS to compare my 104 amp to a 103 amp. The only newer built car they had on their lot was a 2001 Monte Carlo. The sound quality, in my opinion, was like night and day. Much richer sounding bass. The amp number was 10309547, which makes sense being that the Impala is 10309548, one number greater than the Monte Carlo, just as with the previous amp model numbers (10432571 & 10432572).
While I'm not trying to offend anyone, I find it pretty ironic that many, throughout the last year or so, have been complaining about the sub-par amp. It appears that GM finally fixed the problem with the 103 AMP found in the newer models. Instead of everyone being happy, now they're upset because there wasn't a massive recall or free replacement. While many may have complained here, few have gone through the proper channels to make GM aware of this global problem with the older AMPS.
That being said, I am also a victim of the 104 piece of junk AMP. I heard about the bypass, performed it several months ago and have been happy with it ever since. I too did not go through the formal process of registering a complaint. Shame on me.
Since the 103 AMP appears to have addressed the issue, I'm doing what I feel is the only option I have available to me. That is lay out the $186 for the 103 AMP. Why, do you ask. Because my time is much more valuable to me than the $186 bucks. If you folks added up the time you spent complaining here, you'll find that you spent a bunch of cycles, without a solution. For me, my time is more important and it's far easier and cheaper for me to shell out the $$$. Even if I spent countless hours fighting with a service manager or writing letters, 2-hours worth of that effort cost more for me the the $$$ for the 103 amp.
First of all, you're right about the time involved, but if I added up all the time spent on this issue, not counting what is posted here, I mean this is stuff I'm doing at home besides watching TV, I would say I've spent about total, 1 hour of time, and the time spent to drive to and from the dealership I don't count because I had the car there for another problem initially ( the wheel liners). to each their own of course but I don't get 186.00 per hour for my work, wish I did but hey, even if it took me two hours, or three, it would still have been worth it to ME.
By the way, you can get that booster amp from the source I listed earlier for 165.86, but I don't know what shipping will cost you, so Hutton might be the right deal for you at 186.00. Kim at Hutton has been pretty good to us...
I did register a formal complaint with GM by phone and by e-mail. I am sure I was one of the first people to put them on to the bad amp that eventually caused its review, redesign and replacement. I got nothing for my effort. Others got a good working amp in the form of the new 103 product. My quest for a warranty replacement is not over.
I already paid my $186 and then some and got nothing but a worthless, unconnected, box mounted up in the trunk for my money. Not to mention the grief, agg and TIME I've already invested in something as simple as a radio. This should be a non-issue since car radios have been around for over 60 years.
Would you be willing to email me your response from GMCANADA for the new amp so I can use it with my dealer. Just click on my profile for the address. thanks
For those that are interested my 2K LS has a build date of 8/99 and has the amp part no. 10289187. The radio doesn't sound "tinny" perse but does seriously lack any real bass (I have the bass all the way up). This is a defect in that the amp does not work as designed or intended. I think we should be pushing GM for a TSB on this.
At this level most music sounds OK I guess. But, as we get older the first part of our hearing that goes is the lower freqs. The bass response is even more important if your trying to listen to things such as talk shows, sports, etc.. at low volume.
I talked with my service manager about this last Monday and so far have not heard back from him. I doubt that I will. We all need to keep up the pressure on GM. I intend on calling him back. I paid for a "premium" stereo and I want it.
I thought to myself when I sent them a well thought out e-mail the other day, if I should be sending it to GM USA or something, I have waited 3 days and just got a response,. You geussed it, Since you live in the United States..Contact GM in the USA" Thanks for nothing GMCANADA......Don
Please, dont' bother renting an Impala just to get the newer amp. It cost you $35-40 to rent an Impala for one day. Why not do the ethical thing and just buy the aftermarket amp!
Well, here is an update on the car audio installation that I was going to have done on my Impala during the July 1-7th week.
At this time the install has been postponed due to the possibility I may be part of a "downsizing in staff" in my company. I will not know when until after July 9th (hopefully). So, as a prudent course of action I will postpone the install till august.
Also at this point all the equipment is in hand and awaiting the install. So this will happen, not just when I had planned.
I am disappointed I had to postpone this installation. But you can never be too safe. As the details emerge in this, I can then make a better decision at that time.
Thanks to all who may be following. And have a great day!
Is the amp defective? This question is difficult to quantify. If Chevy said the amp would meet a specified response curve then we could test it and see if it did. If we had no sound coming from the rear speakers, the sound was noticibly distorted (static, etc), or something obvious to point to and say, "This is why the amplifier is defective" then we could hold their feet to the fire. The quality of music is subjective. I may feel the stereo system in my car is not up to snuff while my wife thinks it's wonderful.
Chevy says that the LS can be equipped with an 8-speaker premium sound system with auxiliary amplifier. The Impala does have an auxiliary amplifier. So strictly speaking, they have provided what they said they would. What is the purpose of the amp? It could be boosting the signal to the back speakers to relieve the stress on the internal amp of the head unit. [We can (and have) discuss the finer points on what is a speaker, but I am concentrating on the amp issue today.]
It really comes down to customer service. The owners are not satisfied with the sound quality of the amplifier. Is Chevy willing to change out the amplifiers to meet their need?
Swapping an amp from a rental car may solve your immediate problem. However, it is the rental car company's fault that Chevy is not keeping their customers satisfied? Two wrongs do not make a right (but three lefts will).
Personally, I would like to swap out the factory amp with an aftermarket one. The thing holding me back is the unique connector in the harness. Sure, I paid for the amp, but I want MORE POWER. Arr, arr, arr! (Tim Allen impression).
Licavy, could I get you to send me a copy of that letter or email that you got from GMCanada in regards to the replacement of the inferior amp? My email address is jweeks@taylorbigred.com. I think this will be the only way I can convince the dealership I bought my 2001 Impala LS from to replace my 104 amp with a 103. Thanks for your help. Have a great day!
Comments
Sony: Xm-754HX/R $199.99 75watts X 4.
Pioneer: GM-x354 $168.95 50watts x 4.
Alpine: MRPF306 $129.00 30watts x 4.
The amps above are well known name brands. I did a search for them on the Internet; there will be many sites to look at. But I recommend checking out your nearest car audio store that stocks the brands in question.
Go to the stores to demo the amp, take some music you know very well and listen to it at the store with a display that approximates your car (front speakers: 2 way separates up front 6x9 rear (no sub). There are many different amps and makers. And price ranges. The amps I suggested are just the beginning. Just take a look at my previous post. That system I am putting in my car is going to cost in excess of $4,000.00, Yes, It is crazy to spend that much money on a car audio system.. But I am a stickler for EXTREME sound QUALITY.
I don't recommend to everyone to go to the extent that I am. I am only saying that anyone considering replacing the amp should stop and think about it. Make an informed decision. You don't have to accept the auto manufactures bland attempts at car audio.
While some may have the time and day to pursue warranty claims, time is money. The time to drive back and forth to the dealer, cost of gas, the anguish of talking to brick walls (service rep), dissatisfaction with the car because of one lousy amp, and overall grief with their experience dealing with inept GM service, can all be resolved quickly and painlessly by going to a small mom and pop audio stores and buy a decent amp for $75 or less.
My mission is to enjoy my Impala as much as possible. If I had problem with my amp (which I don't believe) I would immediately replace the amp myself and be done with. If I had to replace the amp, I would prefer aftermarket amp anyway.
My happiness is more important then dealing with something that cost miniscule to replace. While some people prefer to spend top dollars for Zaino products to keep their cars nice and shine, why not spend extra $$ for an amp replacement and be happy?
Different strokes, for different folks.
GO LAKERS!!
Now, I'm not advocating "frying" your Amp by running power down the wrong lead or anything like that, but I'd be curious if there might be some way for owners to have it fail by, uhhh, "accident".
Sorry for venting folks, and I apologize, Hvan for wanting value and for helping others to get satisfaction. I don't own GM stock, but if I did I'd be angry that the company treats their customers this way.
Licavy, glad to hear there are more service dept. out there that are customer driven, your story should also help others who are getting the cold shoulder, print them out and bring them in to show your dealer.
later
wwnf
Now my new '01 LS has the excellent '103' AMP and my radio head unit doesn't feel no where near as hot as the old radio did.
Another reason why the '104' is a piece of junk AMP.
Most of the problems reported here regarding with the radio AMP warranty swap are caused mainly by BAD dealers whose primary mission is to screw the customer real good. Some others have not encountered this resistance to obtain the new '103' AMP at no charge under warranty.
Suggestion: Post the bad dealer's name, location and contact names that way people can stay away from these businesses that don't want to provide the minimum standards of customer care and satisfaction.
You are accusing GM of conspiracy theory that they "knew" about amp 104 being inferior, and thus, the superior amp 103 replacement on 2001 Impala.
Well, have you ever heard of "continuous process improvement"? Whether you're buying a car, TV, computer, or electronic gadgets, every model tends to be improve in product features, styles, and performances year after year. Does this mean that everytime a company improves on a new product that they must "replace" existing products from their customers? Absolutely NOT! If it's NOT a liability issue, then they do NOT have to do anything (unless they want to satisfy their customers).
So if next year, Chevy improves on the Impala (more hp, quieter, faster, sleeker), are you going to request Chevy to "replace" your 2001 Impala because they "knew" that the 2001 vehicle is "inferior" to 2002? (same analogy as the amp).
Folks, this is not conspiracy theory created by GM. Lets stop this nonsense before this rumor gets out of hand.
GO LAKERS!!!
With the 104 amp, radios did/do get abnormally warm.
With the 104 amp, the sound quality was/is poor at best, especially for something called a "premium audio system" and costing an extra $220 or whatever it was.
GM did get a barrage of complaints or they would not have changed it. Because it a somewhat subtle but very real defect and nobody was getting killed by it (like Firestone SUV tires) GM hoped the amp issue would fall through the cracks, unnoticed. Corporations do things like that all the time.
The sound with the 104 was thin and tinny but GM did nothing for those of us who filed complaints. Instead they quietly fixed the design and never notified us who had brought the defect to their attention.
There is no way that GM would have changed the design if they had not gotten plenty of flack about the heat build up and the bad sound on the 104 amp.
Note that GM changed ONLY the amp - NOT the RDS head end unit in the dash NOR the speakers. To anyone thinking clearly, that serves as incontrovertible proof that the 104 model amp was "the weakest link" in the system, that it was defective in design and therefore replaced.
Your "more hp, quieter, faster, sleeker" argument holds no water. They are NOT defects. No one would expect a replacement vehicle if those things changed. That's ludicrous.
However, the 104 amp is defective in design and/or manufacture. It is absolutely
NO DIFFERENT than the engine cradle weld problems, the intermediate steeering shaft problem or replacing the early version rear wheel liners - ALL of which many of us have had done under warranty. Because the amp is defective, it too should be replaced - UNDER WARRANTY.
Lakers? Who cares?
Consider it a blessing that GM "recognize" the inferior 104 amp, and replace it with 103 amp on most of the 2001 Impala. They did what every other companies have done....they IMPROVED on their products from previous year . The KEY point is "IMPROVE"!! Does this mean that everytime a company "improves" on a new product that they must "replace" existing products from their customers? Again, absolutely NOT! If it's NOT a product liability issue, then they do NOT have to do anything (unless they want to satisfy their customers).
As for "premium audio system", that's all relative. I dont hear anyone complaining to GM about the poor quality of the antenna. That's another "inferior" product that needs to be improve. Maybe we need to open up another forum with 600 messages or so on "poor antenna" LOL
Yeah, how bout them LAKERS!
Just don't read it if you find it ludicrous that people should want to waste their time on this issue. You were probably one of those that thought this shouldn't have been raised on the main board, so I've tried to keep my comments here, now if you don't like it, just don't read them!
I won my case with GM and it wasn't a hard fight, because I had a dealer who cared about customer satisfaction. To try and help others get the same satisfaction is all I hope to do. All you want to do is come up with arguments against what we are trying to do. I'm done arguing...
I still remember the days when people would stare at my car and wonder what it was.
later
wwnf
Oh well. Later
wwnf
That's my two cents.
As for Hunter and Dura, I have no problem with either of your arguments. It's not worth getting worked up though. You have both contributed greatly to the value of this forum and I sure appreciate it.
BTW did you notice the owner's manual says to wash/wax the alloy wheels just like the paint? I remove the wheels and clean them up really well/wax them each time I rotate the tires (6000 mile increments).
Oops, I should put this on the main board.
WWNF, My girlfriends parents liked to make fun of me because I prefer 4 door cars. I'm 21 by the way. I told them I wanted an Imp and Her step-dad said, "What in the heck you want a big boat like that for". Welp they changed their minds when I pulled up in my 2001 navy blue LS.
BTW What are you talking about when you say center caps?
I like the idea of a new amp. A co-worker of mine recently bought a new 2001 Monte SS with the premium sound system. I told him the day after he picked it up that he would need to bypass the amp. He asked why, as he thought the radio sounded excellent. I assured him that it would get better. Then, on the way to lunch a few days later, he popped in this CD he wanted me to hear, and to my surprise, it sounded great. I thought it must have been a fluke. Just the CD sounded good, and I wanted to do a side by side comparison. Never got the chance to, but I think it's probably because he's got the new amp. I'm going to have to check.
All this being said, I have to visit my dealership and see what I can find out. I have to get my rear wheel well liners fixed (they installed them wrong...the pocket still exists...). If they can't do the liners right, I'm wondering about the amp. We'll see.
Duraflex was right, after all...the bypass was a band-aid...something else needed to be done, and I think that something has arrived...
As I remember - the idea of bypassing the amp came from a guy who used the nickname "humahuma". It made sense because the head end radios in the non-premium audio systems had no trunk amp and they sounded fine (also different speakers). HH e-mailed the factory schematic to me which I tried but did not decipher. I believe he was an Impala owner.
Another good fellow - jojo28 - aka jjmahler - did manage to figure it out and posted the jumping configuration. I believe he was the first to do the bypass and I followed his lead. Joe is an Impala owner.
Others jumped on board. The "AMP BYPASS" was never considered a real fix - rather a workaround or an interim solution. The new 103 amp seems to have solved both the issue of sound quality and the excessively warm radio when connected to an operating 104 amp.
BTW, in re-reading earlier posts, I thought the earliest version 102 amp sounded pretty good - especially compared to the 104.
I couldn't remember back that far concerning who might have proposed the bypass, either way it wa s fine fix until they came up with a solution, which I still believe they knew was a bad set up (the 104)when they put it in. BTW, I don't think Oswald acted alone either...
That being said, I am also a victim of the 104 piece of junk AMP. I heard about the bypass, performed it several months ago and have been happy with it ever since. I too did not go through the formal process of registering a complaint. Shame on me.
Since the 103 AMP appears to have addressed the issue, I'm doing what I feel is the only option I have available to me. That is lay out the $186 for the 103 AMP. Why, do you ask. Because my time is much more valuable to me than the $186 bucks. If you folks added up the time you spent complaining here, you'll find that you spent a bunch of cycles, without a solution. For me, my time is more important and it's far easier and cheaper for me to shell out the $$$. Even if I spent countless hours fighting with a service manager or writing letters, 2-hours worth of that effort cost more for me the the $$$ for the 103 amp.
By the way, you can get that booster amp from the source I listed earlier for 165.86, but I don't know what shipping will cost you, so Hutton might be the right deal for you at 186.00. Kim at Hutton has been pretty good to us...
I already paid my $186 and then some and got nothing but a worthless, unconnected, box mounted up in the trunk for my money. Not to mention the grief, agg and TIME I've already invested in something as simple as a radio. This should be a non-issue since car radios have been around for over 60 years.
And it's more than money - it's also a principle.
All I want is the product I paid for.
I feel I am close to having my dealer replace the amp in my '01, and that message from GM would really help. Thanks in advance!
At this level most music sounds OK I guess. But, as we get older the first part of our hearing that goes is the lower freqs. The bass response is even more important if your trying to listen to things such as talk shows, sports, etc.. at low volume.
I talked with my service manager about this last Monday and so far have not heard back from him. I doubt that I will. We all need to keep up the pressure on GM. I intend on calling him back. I paid for a "premium" stereo and I want it.
I feel I am close to having my dealer replace the amp in my '01, and that message from GM would really help. Thanks in advance!
At this time the install has been postponed due to the possibility I may be part of a "downsizing in staff" in my company. I will not know when until after July 9th (hopefully). So, as a prudent course of action I will postpone the install till august.
Also at this point all the equipment is in hand and awaiting the install. So this will happen, not just when I had planned.
I am disappointed I had to postpone this installation. But you can never be too safe. As the details emerge in this, I can then make a better decision at that time.
Thanks to all who may be following. And have a great day!
Chevy says that the LS can be equipped with an 8-speaker premium sound system with auxiliary amplifier. The Impala does have an auxiliary amplifier. So strictly speaking, they have provided what they said they would. What is the purpose of the amp? It could be boosting the signal to the back speakers to relieve the stress on the internal amp of the head unit. [We can (and have) discuss the finer points on what is a speaker, but I am concentrating on the amp issue today.]
It really comes down to customer service. The owners are not satisfied with the sound quality of the amplifier. Is Chevy willing to change out the amplifiers to meet their need?
Swapping an amp from a rental car may solve your immediate problem. However, it is the rental car company's fault that Chevy is not keeping their customers satisfied? Two wrongs do not make a right (but three lefts will).
Personally, I would like to swap out the factory amp with an aftermarket one. The thing holding me back is the unique connector in the harness. Sure, I paid for the amp, but I want MORE POWER. Arr, arr, arr! (Tim Allen impression).