Afm problem

[KARNUT]

While I understand your point Karnut, I still like my 2012 a lot more than my 1993. 

When I bought my 14 GMC I had a 92 Chevy. It was a cream puff. It was also lowered and highly modified. I already had it several years. My 14 was going to be the replacement and modified. My long term toy. The cylinder deactivation engine spooked me and killed the project. I kept the 92. I recently found its replacement with my Avalanche a cream puff. The 92 went to a family member still a cream puff. My need for extreme HP subsided. I would drive both those trucks anywhere. I wouldn’t be able to say the same for a 7 year old GMC. That’s the difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grumpy Bear]

Well we have now kicked the can from 135 K to failure to 150 K to failure. Where is Cadillac Luke? He's well past both markers. Do I hear a bidder for 200 K? When I first jointed this community is was just past 36 K (warranty) then the can was kicked to 60, (old warranty) then 75 and then 100K. And every time someone crosses that line the can gets another boot down the road.  Imagine that will ya. 

 

We have guys that drive 70 to 80 mph and claim AFM is a waste. And it is at those speeds. Then there are a few, me included, that drive 50-55 and reap 30% AFM caused gains over EPA numbers with ease. And at these speeds this is also true. Now the slow crowd has no trouble understanding the claims of the fast but the fast and furious.....blind as a bat to the reality of load based systems. 

 

I'm starting to have trouble believing anyone wants a workable solution to anything. Just want what ya want and complain.

 

Not really the function of a forum like this me thinks. 

 

 

[KARNUT]

Pretty simple really. If I want gas mileage I’ll buy the engine for that. If I want a 400 HP engine I’ll buy that. I don’t want a V6 or 8 pretending to be otherwise. Or the hardware making it so. Or the higher maintenance cost associated with that basically nullifying the alleged fuel savings. True to form people who have it think it’s wonderful. Justifying it. Until it isn’t. Some people loved the 5.7 diesel too. Or the 8-6-4. Or the 2.4 GM engine.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grumpy Bear]

How much less could I spend than $0 on AFM related issues in 130,000 miles? Fact is it has cost me a pinion seal and and plastic starter shield that was rubbing on the flywheel ring gear in repairs not considered 'wear items'. Maybe $20 in parts. 

 

The AFM has saved me over these miles (compared to Fuelly.com's national average) about $1500 based on $2 a gallon. 

 

Think I'm right side up and clear of the woods here. I've already owned this truck longer than most ever will. So....what now? 

[KARNUT]

You are still a ways from break even. Counting thermostat change. More frequent oil changes. Most people don’t drive 55-60 mph. 200K will probably be break even. I guess it’s ok if it just last the first owner. So much for resale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daly]

35 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

 

The AFM has saved me over these miles (compared to Fuelly.com's national average) about $1500 based on $2 a gallon. 

 

 

I'm betting that has more to do with your driving habits then AFM. My 14, and 17 saw no MPG difference after AFM was disabled. And my 18 actually saw a slight increase, likely due to the lowering kit. All hand calculated over the coarse of ownership. 

You might not be having a problem with your truck, but there are plenty out there that are having and have had problems. Is it the mass majority, no. Is it enough to cause alarm, yes. This also isn't a GM thing, it's cylinder deactivation technology in general, Dodge/Fiat has the same problem. 

The way I see it, it's planned obsolescence under the guise of Fuel Economy. 

 

[KARNUT]

I'm betting that has more to do with your driving habits then AFM. My 14, and 17 saw no MPG difference after AFM was disabled. And my 18 actually saw a slight increase, likely due to the lowering kit. All hand calculated over the coarse of ownership. 
You might not be having a problem with your truck, but there are plenty out there that are having and have had problems. Is it the mass majority, no. Is it enough to cause alarm, yes. This also isn't a GM thing, it's cylinder deactivation technology in general, Dodge/Fiat has the same problem. 
The way I see it, it's planned obsolescence under the guise of Fuel Economy. 
 

Six family owned Chrysler’s with cylinder deactivation. One hemi Car a timing chain failure at 40K. Blamed on cylinder deactivation. One truck top end rebuild under 100K. 2 out 6, not good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[14burrito]

I would like to jump in here...

 

DIC shows really not much of change in fuel economy for me, that I have noticed - (don't frequent the page enough though to really have a solid say, so take this with salt)...

 

I have a theory to this...

 

V8 mode, fuel is being introduced into all cylinder - all cylinder firing.

V4 mode, fuel is being delivered into 4 cylinder (2,3,5,8).

 

Moving past all other factors ie increase in engine load working on 4 cylinders vs 8, etc...

 

Would not someone still have the opportunity to be averaging 20mpg within those 4 cylinders as they would otherwise be in V8?

You are still using less fuel getting 20mpg during 4 cylinder burn than you would otherwise be getting 20mpg burning all 8.

 

Is this why there is a perception of no gains simply based off DIC?

Does the algorithm in the DIC take this into account?

[TXGREEK]

Think the best solution would be selling the truck and buying a truck with a performance oriented engine where all these epa driven systems are not installed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jsdirt]

Now you're talkin', TXGREEK. That will be my next "new" truck, built by ME.

 

 

I've seen zero difference in fuel mileage between driving without the Range device, to driving with it plugged in. I got zero benefits from AFM. Started using the Range at somewhere between 70k-75k miles. I can only hope that I bought myself an additional 30k miles of lifter life.That would be well worth the $140 I paid for it. I'd like the funds to recover from this transmission before I go replacing an engine and bolting on a supercharger. In a perfect world, lol.

[Jsdirt]

53 minutes ago, 14burrito said:

I would like to jump in here...

 

DIC shows really not much of change in fuel economy for me, that I have noticed - (don't frequent the page enough though to really have a solid say, so take this with salt)...

 

I have a theory to this...

 

V8 mode, fuel is being introduced into all cylinder - all cylinder firing.

V4 mode, fuel is being delivered into 4 cylinder (2,3,5,8).

 

Moving past all other factors ie increase in engine load working on 4 cylinders vs 8, etc...

 

Would not someone still have the opportunity to be averaging 20mpg within those 4 cylinders as they would otherwise be in V8?

You are still using less fuel getting 20mpg during 4 cylinder burn than you would otherwise be getting 20mpg burning all 8.

 

Is this why there is a perception of no gains simply based off DIC?

Does the algorithm in the DIC take this into account?

I would hand-calculate your mileage - that DIC has a weird way of calculating it. It's cumulative, meaning, if you reset it right now, it might be close. If you look at it 15 months from now, it's an average of those 15 months - not real world at all. That's factoring in winters with winter blend fuel, summers, towing, driving empty, etc.. I calculate mine tank to tank. Always averages around 15 -15.5 MPG per tank if I'm not towing.

 

Right now it's getting ZERO MPG, since it hasn't been driven in 3 weeks. If the rest of my parts ever make it out of Detroit, I'll get started on the transmission install. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Jsdirt

[Grumpy Bear]

5 minutes ago, Jsdirt said:

 If you look at it 15 months from now, it's an average of those 15 months - not real world at all.

 

Interesting idea that....

[14burrito]

11 minutes ago, Jsdirt said:

I would hand-calculate your mileage - that DIC has a weird way of calculating it. It's cumulative, meaning, if you reset it right now, it might be close. If you look at it 15 months from now, it's an average of those 15 months - not real world at all. That's factoring in winters with winter blend fuel, summers, towing, driving empty, etc.. I calculate mine tank to tank. Always averages around 15 -15.5 MPG per tank if I'm not towing.

 

Right now it's getting ZERO MPG, since it hasn't been driven in 3 weeks. If the rest of my parts ever make it out of Detroit, I'll get started on the transmission install. 

I'm stating instantaneous. 

 

I'd be hard to pressed to find a compilation of people able to 100% drive the same routes representatively with AFM active vs inactive...let alone have ambient conditions be exactly the same. Too many variables IMHO.

Edited October 15, 2020 by 14burrito

[KARNUT]

I'm stating instantaneous. 
 
I'd be hard to pressed to find a compilation of people able to 100% drive the same routes representatively with AFM active vs inactive...let alone have ambient conditions be exactly the same. Too many variables IMHO.

I came pretty close driving from Texas to Fayetteville with my 14 GMC. I had hypertec hand held. I would make my trip 4 times a year. I would go one way on then reverse with cruise on set at 72 MPH. I would set by my phone GPS and truck read out. I was excited at first I wanted it to work. I even changed my exhaust back to quiet so the V-4 didn’t sound weird. When there wasn’t any change I was disappointed, I wanted it to work. My best was a detour on a 60 MPH road at 24 MPG with it off. I didn’t run that route with the cylinder deactivation on. My average was 22 mpg with a 342 gear at 72 on or off. Then of course I started reading about failures and the cost associated. After being involved with costly GM experiments in the past I unloaded before the warranty ended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[14burrito]

19 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

I came pretty close driving from Texas to Fayetteville with my 14 GMC. I had hypertec hand held. I would make my trip 4 times a year. I would go one way on then reverse with cruise on set at 72 MPH. I would set by my phone GPS and truck read out. I was excited at first I wanted it to work. I even changed my exhaust back to quiet so the V-4 didn’t sound weird. When there wasn’t any change I was disappointed, I wanted it to work. My best was a detour on a 60 MPH road at 24 MPG with it off. I didn’t run that route with the cylinder deactivation on. My average was 22 mpg with a 342 gear at 72 on or off. Then of course I started reading about failures and the cost associated. After being involved with costly GM experiments in the past I unloaded before the warranty ended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amb temp, humidity, wind, tire pressures, cargo weight, etc were ALWAYs the same for those 4 drives?

 

Stated detour would already be a variable making it a "throw away" result when using it as a comparative marker.