2005 Silverado improvements

[Mr. Merk]

I just acquired a 2005 Silverado 2500. The forward lamps appear to be in good condition which leaves me to believe that they've been replaced at some point, likely with aftermarket garbage. I'll inspect further.

Unlike my 2005 GMC Sierra, I'm unaware of any better lamp options other than standard OEM replacements. I plan to use the Phillips Xtreme Vision 9006 in the lows and 9011 in the highs. Would it be best to enable high+low beam operation via relay or add auxiliary driving lamps enabled with the high beams?

I also plan to replace the Silverado tail lamps with the better design of the GMC lamps with 3457 bulbs in place of 3157.

Any other suggestions?

 

[Alaric Darconville]

I just acquired a 2005 Silverado 2500. The forward lamps appear to be in good condition which leaves me to believe that they've been replaced at some point, likely with aftermarket garbage. I'll inspect further.

Make sure they're factory lamps before doing much with them, although I've heard tell that DEPO makes some acceptable lamps for GM vehicles.
Also, of course make sure the lamps are aimed correctly.

I plan to use the Phillips Xtreme Vision 9006 in the lows and 9011 in the highs. Would it be best to enable high+low beam operation via relay or add auxiliary driving lamps enabled with the high beams?

I'm surprised they don't leave the lows on with the high beams. Depending on the foreground saturation of the low beams, shutting them off with the high beams may still be desirable.

With auxiliary high beams, wire them so they can only be turned on when the high beams are on, but not to *automatically* turn on with high beams.

I also plan to replace the Silverado tail lamps with the better design of the GMC lamps with 3457 bulbs in place of 3157.

I'm not aware of the differences between the lamps right off hand, unless by "better design" you mean separate yellow turn signals, instead of separate red ones, or the turn signals incorporated with the stop and tail lamp functions.

 

[Mr. Merk]

I'm not aware of the differences between the lamps right off hand, unless by "better design" you mean separate yellow turn signals, instead of separate red ones

Yes. To quote Virgil: The GMC lamps

give a much wider-angle view of all the lamp functions (drivers next to you in the next lane can see your brake lights, turn signals, back-up lights, which they can't with the Silverado lamps), and they have the safer amber turn signals instead of red.

GMC vs Chevrolet

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Definitely upgrade!

 

[Mr. Merk]

The turn signal bulbs were flaking off the amber coating, I had an intermittent DRL failure and a side marker bulb out. I went ahead and installed new 4114 DRLs, 3457NA signals and just some plain jane 194s in the side markers. While I was there I installed a relay to enable low beams with high beams and replaced the 9006s with Philips X-treme Visions. I ordered a pair of Toshiba 9011 bulbs and a Cibie rear fog lamp from Daniel Stern. All low hanging fruit. I probably won't mess with the forward fog lamps. They turn on but will probably only use them when on trails, if ever.

Next up will be the tail lamps, but first I have to replace the pitman arm as it sheared off on my wife yesterday. Luckily she was in a parking lot, and not driving down the highway when it occured.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Sounds like you've been busy!

just some plain jane 194s in the side markers.

Plain Jane 168s would be so much better than 194s in sidemarker lamps.

I have to replace the pitman arm as it sheared off on my wife yesterday. Luckily she was in a parking lot, and not driving down the highway when it occured.

Yikes!

 

[-Virgil-]

Alaric's right (again). Compared to a 30-lumen 194, a 50-lumen 168 would be better in the side markers, and an 85-lumen 2886X would be even better still. Those lights flash to provide at least a modicum of side visibility for your turn signals, so brighter = better.

(He's also right about "yikes" about the pitman arm!)

 

[Mr. Merk]

Alaric's right (again). Compared to a 30-lumen 194, a 50-lumen 168 would be better in the side markers, and an 85-lumen 2886X would be even better still. Those lights flash to provide at least a modicum of side visibility for your turn signals, so brighter = better.

(He's also right about "yikes" about the pitman arm!)

I was trying to find the 2886x. Do y'all have a good source?

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Alaric's right (again). Compared to a 30-lumen 194, a 50-lumen 168 would be better in the side markers, and an 85-lumen 2886X would be even better still.

I hesitated to recommend the 2886 because of the additional heat when steady burning but the car isn't in motion and it's still hot outside, although sidemarker lamps get lots of cooling when the vehicle is underway. And yes, the brighter 2886 would really be helpful when the turn signals or hazard flashers are on.

 

[-Virgil-]

I hesitated to recommend the 2886 because of the additional heat

Not nearly enough of it to even think about making any potential problem.

 

[Mr. Merk]

I was trying to find the 2886x. Do y'all have a good source?

Ordered a handful from Daniel Stern.

I was going to install some Toshiba 9011 bulbs in my 2005 GMC Denali high beams this weekend and learned two things:

• The existing Philips 9011 bulbs fit the high beam holes without issue. Toshiba/Toyota 9011 fit the low beam holes without issue. Toshiba/Toyota do not fit high beam holes, as they are. According to Daniel Stern, the holes must be massaged with a bit of 150 grit sandpaper wrapped around your finger.
• The 9011 bulb bases do not need to be modified for the Denali projectors. They are an exact fit, as if GM intended to use HIR1 bulbs but spec'd them with 9005 instead.

I decided to wait until the Silverado is out of the shop to see if the Toshibas will fit in it's high beams without modification. I'd prefer to test on it's lamps instead of my brand new OEM Denali lights on my GMC.

 

[-Virgil-]

Sandpaper like that is the correct fix. If I'm not mistaken there was even a GM TSB recommending it at one point. Maybe for the C5 Corvette? Or one of the Cadillacs, I don't recall. It's a stackup (stackdown?) of tolerances: some headlamps were made with marginal compliance to the specification for the bulb hole dimensions. The hole is supposed to be 20.22 +/- 0.12 mm (so, 20.10 to 20.34 mm), while the spec for the bulb diameter at the relevant area is 20.00 +/- 0.07 mm (that is 19.93 to 20.07 mm). If you happen to have the headlamps that were made with bulb holes that were just a hair too small, some bulbs might fit, but maybe not a bulb that happens to find itself near the high end of the diameter spec.

 

[LeanBurn]

I have a 2003 GMC Sierra and wired the lows to stay on with the highs when on high beam. I found it produced lack luster results as the foreground was still flooded with so much light that the high beams so to only provide highlights of things out in the distance. My eyes tended to return focus repeatedly to the foreground. When I reverted back (to separate lows and highs) I found when on high beam I could see and focus more in the distance scanning of the road and had much better results. It was also less fatiguing. No facts or numbers to back up my claims, just my perception, please be gentle mods.:candle:

 

[-Virgil-]

I have a 2003 GMC Sierra and wired the lows to stay on with the highs when on high beam. I found it produced lack luster results as the foreground was still flooded with so much light that the high beams so to only provide highlights of things out in the distance. My eyes tended to return focus repeatedly to the foreground.

That is exactly in accordance with the science on the subject.