Looking to buy first Silverado and afm is making it hard

[diyer2]

Everything we buy is a crap shoot.

We spend our money and take our chances.

We spend our money on the things we need or want and the seller makes the rules in every case.

So why worry  about something that may never happen.

Buy it and put a Range device on it would be my thinking.

 

 

[Hate Work]

'16 w/ a 5.3L and my AFM works flawlessly. No drone, no lugging and zero issues. I checked the oil and pulled the plugs to check them for the first time. No oil consumption and no fouling. Do your standard maintenance and due dillegence and take these "Chicken Littles" FWIW. Sorry folks. No Chicken Little here.

[mookdoc6]

3 minutes ago, Hate Work said:

'16 w/ a 5.3L and my AFM works flawlessly. No drone, no lugging and zero issues. I checked the oil and pulled the plugs to check them for the first time. No oil consumption and no fouling. Do your standard maintenance and due dillegence and take these "Chicken Littles" FWIW. Sorry folks. No Chicken Little here.

Nice.....I bet those plugs looked really nice too!  GDI...Keep it clean son!  Junk the plugs @70-80K keep the nozzles from building up use 44K.  They do require somewhat more attention but the Ecotec3's are excellent!

[Hate Work]

2 minutes ago, mookdoc6 said:

Nice.....I bet those plugs looked really nice too!  GDI...Keep it clean son!  Junk the plugs @70-80K keep the nozzles from building up use 44K.  They do require somewhat more attention but the Ecotec3's are excellent!

Normally I start thinking about plugs at 90k, but may invest a little sooner. I am half way there at 45k... 

[cire0309]

so what I'm hearing overall is at the newer trucks with AFM seem to be more reliable than the older models and as long as I change the oil frequently and do proper maintenance these newer models, specifically 207,2018 seem to be pretty reliable and I shouldn't have too much to worry about or deter me from considering this truck

I had an 07 Avalanche with the Vortec 5.3 w/AFM. Used oil like a mofo but other than that, I didn’t have any problems with the motor.

The Ecotec 3 fixed most of the problems associated with AFM.

You could always wait for a 2019 and try out GM’s new DFM system. One can assume by the third iteration of cylinder deactivation they should have it pretty squared away.

[mookdoc6]

3 hours ago, Hate Work said:

Normally I start thinking about plugs at 90k, but may invest a little sooner. I am half way there at 45k... 

Use the AC DELCO rebate get the plugs for like 1.75$ after it's all said and done.....75K ish takes maybe 1hr if your lazy and it's 110f in the garage....Just watch out the plugs are really good quality although some honestly were off .100" from center on the +/- sides I just threw mine away?  Though that was awfully goofy looking?  What do I know the next vehicle I buy will be completely different and Learning Curve all over again...lol

[Grumpy Bear]

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 3:00 AM, Jon A said:

I disagree.  What failure rate are you looking for, failure rate of what compared with what?  One single AFM lifter failing and causing damage to one single engine in the fleet provides an infinitely higher failure rate than an otherwise identical engine that has no AFM lifters making that mode of failure impossible.  It's like arguing the odds of cutting yourself while juggling knives is very low if you are good at it.  Just one cut makes your rate of cuttage from juggling knives infinitely higher than somebody who does not attempt to juggle knives.  This line of reasoning would only work if you believed that no AFM lifter had ever failed and caused damage.  We all know that isn't true.

 

 

That's probably because information like that would be Proprietary (or ranked higher) GM information.  Anybody with access to it who released it would not only be fired for it, but held legally liable [just as it says in the Protecting Proprietary Information Agreement (or whatever GM calls it) that they likely make their employees with access to such information sign once a year].  Asking for information that is impossible to obtain is not a reasonable argument.

 

All we can do is read the tea leaves:

Didn't see that coming from an engineer. Okay lets start from the beginning...again.

 

Units per thousand. That would be trucks that experience an AMF related RING failure (not lifters) per thousand trucks sold. Stay on task and don't get silly. You know full well how to calculate probabilities and their significance.  Pretty standard engineering 'stuff'. Even us "not real engineers" Stationary Power Plant Engineers can do it.  Your argument is senseless. It's the same question as how many yellow marbles are in the bag based on a sampling of a fraction of the marbles chosen at random. You took Stats. If it made any sense then your second paragraph is truly absurd. Would GM classify information that is in your estimation of no value? They wouldn't even collect it but you seem to think they do so it must not be useless at all. You sound confused. Well and argumentative. 

 

An unreasonable request isn't asking for the information, it's asking anyone to believe that this is such a huge issue that the entire technology should be shelved based on zero empirical data. Read Tea Leaves? Really? Your idea of sound engineering is to make intuitive deductions based on inductive reasonings.  I had no idea anyone with your background would play such a silly card.  

 

The conversation you jumped into the middle of was about RING failures. Not lifters. I can't even count the logic traps in that set of paragraphs. There is no need to draw my conclusions for me saying things I didn't say nor infer. I said it isn't COKE. I also said it isn't the result of cycling. And that coke, if it could be made, would be at a HIGHER temperature, not lower. You don't cook steak in the freezer. (but you can burn one there )

 

If the people that hate AFM could catch a breath and chase down a rational thought it might occur the them that these ring failures, are not the result of the AFM cycling but a symptom of something else. You guys are blaming a devises symptom and missing the dis-ease entirely. It's what happens when you reason inductively. 

 

Put on your engineers hat an ask a real simple question. Are this rings worn out (?) or sticking in their lands?

 

Read the TBSB on the ring and piston replacement policy and ask yourself how many engine builders you would be willing to deal with would hone ONLY and re-ring a block with over 100K on the clock and expect to get an useable motor? Ring and piston replacement cures, for awhile, the symptom but does nothing for the ROOT CAUSE. It gets you out of their shop and uses up your one card and sets you up for a repeat on your dime. 

 

The questions you guys should be asking you're not but you're willing to argue about something that isn't the problem at all to the death. Over and over and over and over and over...….

 

SierraHD17 was almost there...almost. But he wanted to argue about what is was instead of what it meant and hang the messenger. So close.....

 

What is the ROOT CAUSE?  More importantly, how do you prevent it from biting you personally. It can be done and it isn't that hard. 

 

OEM Bulletin, Piston Ring Wear and Oil Consumption

GM Service Bulletin No. 10058791-5041 reads: “Subject: Special Coverage Adjustment — Excessive Engine Oil Consumption … engine may exhibit excessive engine oil consumption due to piston ring wear … This special coverage covers the condition described above for a period of 7 years and 6 months or 120,000 miles (193,000 km), whichever occurs first … Dealers are to replace the 4 piston assemblies. The repairs will be made at no charge to the customer.”

 

Ring wear? Is it now? You sure? SierraHD17 said 'stuck in the lands and he's done MANY of these procedures.  Some one is willing to do this for ring WEAR on a 120,000 motor. 

 

 

[txab]

Don't let the thread devolve. I think everything has pretty much been covered. Go to off topic if you're just going to argue

[Jon A]

On 7/13/2018 at 8:49 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

Read Tea Leaves? Really? Your idea of sound engineering is to make intuitive deductions based on inductive reasonings.  I had no idea anyone with your background would play such a silly card. 

 

CUSTOMERS don't do "sound Engineering."   They can't.  I am not a Powertrain Engineer for GM working in the group responsible for the valvetrain of the Ecotec3 engines.  Neither are you.  They have the data they need to do actual Engineering.  We don't.  And we'll never get it.  I clearly said CONSUMERS are relegated to reading the tea leaves.  Simply having an Engineering degree does not mean I can call up a company and tell them to give me their data so I can conduct an independent evaluation of their design.  That would be fantastic, I would love it if they would, but the world doesn't work that way.  As an Engineer who has actually done this sort of work for a large corporation, I can explain how it works.  If you don't want to believe me that's fine. 

 

Unless an issue is has a direct impact on safety, (where there are regulatory reporting requirements), the company collects the data and uses it internally.  Sometimes well, sometimes not.  But they certainly don't give that data to customers and their competition.  They just don't.  That would be a really dumb thing to do.  If you have "Units per thousand" failure data on any part or system on any passenger car ever made, please post it here.  Show us all the data you've been able to collect.  If you have none, you must believe no passenger car in history has ever had a poorly designed part or system with a high failure rate...because nobody has given you the data.

 

On 7/13/2018 at 8:49 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

An unreasonable request isn't asking for the information, it's asking anyone to believe that this is such a huge issue that the entire technology should be shelved based on zero empirical data. 

 

A company doesn't issue a Technical Service Bulletin based upon zero empirical data.  The issuance of the bulletin indicates the data has shown them there is, in fact, a problem.  Just because we don't have it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Assuming the data says the failure rate is zero just because you don't have the data is an illogical assumption.

 

On 7/13/2018 at 8:49 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

an AMF related RING failure (not lifters) ....The conversation you jumped into the middle of was about RING failures. Not lifters.

Uhm, the thread you jumped into was about AFM issues on Ecotec3 engines.  In the post I quoted you were speaking of mechanical complication in general and tire failures....

 

The OP asked about problems related to the AFM system.  That's what I was answering.  There were some changes to the AFM system on the Gen 5's from the older LS engines.  These changes may have made the oil consumption/ring failure problem less of an issue on the newer engines.  I have some ideas why but haven't studied the old systems in enough detail to say anything definitive...other than the Tea Leaves seem to indicate lifter failure is the big worry with AFM on the new engines.  It's possible that may change as they get older and more accumulate high miles and more are torn down and rebuilt....but as of right now it seems every single person reporting an issue is rooted in a valvetrain failure.  Maybe an engine being destroyed by a lifter failure is acceptable to you and one that needs a rebuild due to ring failure is not (why don't you want to talk about lifter failure?), I'm simply answering the question asked--on these engines, lifter failure is your primary concern.

 

On 7/13/2018 at 8:49 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

What is the ROOT CAUSE?  More importantly, how do you prevent it from biting you personally. It can be done and it isn't that hard.

 

And that's what I answered in my first post.  According to TSBs printed on Tea Leaves, the ROOT CAUSE is the AFM lifter getting stuck in the collapsed position.  This can destroy the valvetrain and in some cases the entire engine with it.

 

To keep it from biting me personally, I deactivated the system.  This may or may not be a 100% solution.  It may be significantly less.  But understanding the ROOT CAUSE and reading the tea leaves (those who deactivate the system don't seem to be the ones having AFM related vavletrain failures) indicate it's very likely going to significantly reduce one's odds of a failure.  Removing the system entirely and replacing the AFM lifters certainly is 100%.  It's more expensive, of course, but can easily be done if somebody really likes a truck and wants to make the valvetrain bulletproof.

 

[curver900]

my only advice is if you buy one turn it off... I was in the camp of it is just fine.. then at 5xk miles I had a lifter collapse AFM #4, all new lifters and cam on right side, all new lifters on left side...  3 weeks in the shop... pulled motor, not everything put quiet back right 3 more trips to the dealer.. put on the AFM disable after it was all fixed... Mine is the 6.2, I tow and use it not for groceries but for what it is, a tool.  I am hoping they were able to fix it right but I am leery of it now... I am lucky I have the 72/100k warranty from the factory.  I thought about trading it in but the cost delta was (even with 20% off MSRP on a 18) north of 10k ... I can get a new motor installed for around 7k... so I would just go with a new motor at this point everything else is good.  Besides you can't get the 3.73's any more... which I really like for towing....