2019 GM 6.2 AFM

Status
Not open for further replies.
I knew exactly what I was buying and no regrets - had a twin turbo and 30 feet of timing chain with the Ford ... engine sounded like a paper shredder ... all other components were very hard to service ...
Gee, did we put the CPU in this weeks endless bash parade ?

Once out of warranty I can consider the AFM delete, 5w30, whatever ... - the L83 has several good improvements and delivers power early compared to my 2010 - that's not just better on the road but in the soft stuff ...

The way I drive my pickup it seldom goes into 4 banger mode - both smooth as silk.
 
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by dave1251
Really do not need to eliberate the failure rate of the AFM is less than 1%. Yet the GM 5.3 is another example of internet over amplification of a very minor issue. A Volkswagen is much more likely to suffer engine issues then any GM 5.3.
You're really going to tell the owner of one who had major issues that it's "a very minor issue."?
crackmeup2.gif
crackmeup2.gif
crackmeup2.gif
crackmeup2.gif
crackmeup2.gif

Let me spell out how "minor" it is...

1. Burning a full quart of [synthetic] oil every 750 miles.
2. Constant heavy smoke out of the tailpipes when it re-engages the 4 AFM cylinders (from the burning oil).
3. Disgustingly oil-fouled Iridium spark plugs after 80k miles (should have been swapped AT LEAST 20k sooner).
4. Catalytic converter was oil-fouled and had to be replaced at 75k. Afterward, when I bought it at 76k, you could smell the new cat already being poisoned, and when I went to the dealer (because the cat was still under warranty) they told me to kick rocks and use top-tier (which I always do).
5. Terrible fuel economy (I averaged 21 - 85% highway. Now it's 23-24 with 8 cylinders full-time).

Shall I keep going? I certainly can.

When I disabled AFM at 78k, literally ALL of these problems disappeared instantly. Yes, even the oil burning. Hasn't burned any since. It's at the full mark before every oil change.

By your definition, I did not have a "failure" that counts toward your claimed 1%. But I certainly call that one.

I suppose you'll tell me the 4T65E(-HD) is a great trans too?
smirk2.gif




I do not understand how you get your rocks off lying. But this post is full of it. Keep going this is starting to become entertainment WWE style.
 
I want to defend the WWE ... I rode in the middle of several wrestlers on a Qantas A380 ... they were better mannered than many on this site ...
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
I want to defend the WWE ... I rode in the middle of several wrestlers on a Qantas A380 ... they were better mannered than many on this site ...



A spade is a spade. I'm not going to lie.
 
Originally Posted by XL1200RFan
I appreciate technical sophistication & solid engineering. As we discuss here every day, all day: oil quality, filter performance & OCI matters. Reliable performance from complex systems demand it.

If that's true, then what about the 0-20 oils these engines are calling for? What's that about?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Recently drove a rental 5.3 Silverado, and I couldn't tell at all when it did it. Seem to have figures out the drivability. Reliability? Who knows.



On current vehicles it is nearly seamless and you have to hunt to notice the shift from 3 to 6 or from 4 to 8. The ones complaining are the ones upset they do not have total control over vehicle operation.


That sounds like the whiners on the Corvette Forum! They hate the idea of their Corvettes ever running in 4 cylinder mode so many will immediately buy the Range technology AFM delete module. I actually love having AFM on my Corvette, I just think of it as an extra gear on the highway that allows me to get incredible gas mileage, and as soon as I put my foot into it, all 8 cylinders come back into play. I find the transitions from one mode to the next virtually seamless.
 
The government mandates we buy less reliable, more complex, and more expensive vehicles...regardless if we want it or not.

I had a 09 Ram with the 5.7. AFM was horrible...and very noticeable.
I had a 15 z71 with the 5.3. It was ok...but suffered serious fuel dilution issues.
I had a company F150 3.5 twin turbo that shelled both turbos to the tune of a 4grand repair at 185k

Sometimes the tail wags the dog...
 
Originally Posted by Doublehaul
The government mandates we buy less reliable, more complex, and more expensive vehicles...regardless if we want it or not.

I had a 09 Ram with the 5.7. AFM was horrible...and very noticeable.
I had a 15 z71 with the 5.3. It was ok...but suffered serious fuel dilution issues.
I had a company F150 3.5 twin turbo that shelled both turbos to the tune of a 4grand repair at 185k

Sometimes the tail wags the dog...


Keeping a twin turbo motor that long is ASKING for repairs. If you would have had the 5.0-V8 there wouldn't have been issues (most likely). That's a motor choice at the time you buy it.

I had a friend ask me which motor to buy (will keep it a very long time) when he was looking at F150s about a year ago. I told him the V8.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dave1251
I do not understand how you get your rocks off lying. But this post is full of it. Keep going this is starting to become entertainment WWE style.
So now I'm a liar about factual events and observations that happened with MY car that YOU have never seen? Are you [censored] serious? I would offer to upload the 2" binder full of maintenance records, documentation, and information I've collected over the last 5.5 years proving you're an idiot, but you'll call that a lie too. If I'm a liar, please elaborate how I'm lying, and be sure to provide proof (read: factual evidence, not from the land of make-believe). This will be amusing (but you can't, and won't. You'll just type some stupid one-liner and say something like 'I have better things to do' or 'this is too ignorant' and cower & disappear).

I'll be waiting if you manage to muster up something intelligent. Good luck!
24.gif
 
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by dave1251
I do not understand how you get your rocks off lying. But this post is full of it. Keep going this is starting to become entertainment WWE style.
So now I'm a liar about factual events and observations that happened with MY car that YOU have never seen? Are you [censored] serious? I would offer to upload the 2" binder full of maintenance records, documentation, and information I've collected over the last 5.5 years proving you're an idiot, but you'll call that a lie too. If I'm a liar, please elaborate how I'm lying, and be sure to provide proof (read: factual evidence, not from the land of make-believe). This will be amusing (but you can't, and won't. You'll just type some stupid one-liner and say something like 'I have better things to do' or 'this is too ignorant' and cower & disappear).

I'll be waiting if you manage to muster up something intelligent. Good luck!
24.gif



So you received a replacement catalytic converter yet the cause for the failure which was the engine never was addressed. 750 miles a loss of a quart of oil is well beyond a warranty replacement. The a thousand miles later you can smell the converter going bad. The best part is through no mechanical repair the miracle happens and you suddenly beat EPA fuel economy buy 20% .
 
Originally Posted by CKN
Originally Posted by Doublehaul
The government mandates we buy less reliable, more complex, and more expensive vehicles...regardless if we want it or not.

I had a 09 Ram with the 5.7. AFM was horrible...and very noticeable.
I had a 15 z71 with the 5.3. It was ok...but suffered serious fuel dilution issues.
I had a company F150 3.5 twin turbo that shelled both turbos to the tune of a 4grand repair at 185k

Sometimes the tail wags the dog...


Keeping a twin turbo motor that long is ASKING for repairs. If you would have had the 5.0-V8 there wouldn't have been issues (most likely). That's a motor choice at the time you buy it.

I had a friend ask me which motor to buy (will keep it a very long time) when he was looking at F150s about a year ago. I told him the V8.



The twin turbo was a company rig...not my choice. FWIW the coyote 5.0is also a POS. They've had valve and head issues since day one. Well known in Ford enthusiasts circles.

Alas...you just can't win...
 
Originally Posted by Doublehaul
Originally Posted by CKN
Originally Posted by Doublehaul
The government mandates we buy less reliable, more complex, and more expensive vehicles...regardless if we want it or not.

I had a 09 Ram with the 5.7. AFM was horrible...and very noticeable.
I had a 15 z71 with the 5.3. It was ok...but suffered serious fuel dilution issues.
I had a company F150 3.5 twin turbo that shelled both turbos to the tune of a 4grand repair at 185k

Sometimes the tail wags the dog...


Keeping a twin turbo motor that long is ASKING for repairs. If you would have had the 5.0-V8 there wouldn't have been issues (most likely). That's a motor choice at the time you buy it.

I had a friend ask me which motor to buy (will keep it a very long time) when he was looking at F150s about a year ago. I told him the V8.



The twin turbo was a company rig...not my choice. FWIW the coyote 5.0is also a POS. They've had valve and head issues since day one. Well known in Ford enthusiasts circles.

Alas...you just can't win...

I

Yep can't win with engines with a .05% or less failure rate. Might as well go back to old fashion pig iron and carbs. They only failures 10 times as much.
 
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by dave1251
I do not understand how you get your rocks off lying. But this post is full of it. Keep going this is starting to become entertainment WWE style.
So now I'm a liar about factual events and observations that happened with MY car that YOU have never seen? Are you [censored] serious? I would offer to upload the 2" binder full of maintenance records, documentation, and information I've collected over the last 5.5 years proving you're an idiot, but you'll call that a lie too. If I'm a liar, please elaborate how I'm lying, and be sure to provide proof (read: factual evidence, not from the land of make-believe). This will be amusing (but you can't, and won't. You'll just type some stupid one-liner and say something like 'I have better things to do' or 'this is too ignorant' and cower & disappear).

I'll be waiting if you manage to muster up something intelligent. Good luck!
24.gif



So you received a replacement catalytic converter yet the cause for the failure which was the engine never was addressed. 750 miles a loss of a quart of oil is well beyond a warranty replacement. The a thousand miles later you can smell the converter going bad. The best part is through no mechanical repair the miracle happens and you suddenly beat EPA fuel economy buy 20% .
This wasn't intelligent, but...
hooked.gif


1. I did not receive a new catalytic converter. A Chevy dealer did it 1k before I bought it. I agree the engine (AFM specifically) killed the first cat. Why they didn't fix the culprit and instead replaced a recipient? Take it up with them. Not my choice.

2. I smelled a strong sulfur-like smell coming from the car when I first took it home. I said it was being poisoned, didn't say it was going bad (as it's been untouched since and still fine). So I decided to take it to the dealer that replaced it (which wasn't the one I purchased from) and see what their thoughts were.

3. There was indeed a mechanical change, AFM was disabled. AFM is a mechanical function. Apparently tuners are miracles now? Well, compared to GM's horrible AFM engineering, sure.

4. Or, by "miracle", did you mean my mpg numbers? The only miracle here is convincing me that you passed the fifth grade. My engine is tuned for 91, and I do ~85% highway driving (as I already stated). Even ignoring the fact that I ALWAYS outperform EPA numbers, they claim 16 city, 24 highway. So when you average my 85% highway to their numbers, the EPA claims I should get 22.8 (Here, I'll help you. (24x8.5)+(16x1.5)=228. 228÷10=22.8). I claimed 23-24mpg. So even giving you the maximum benefit of the doubt by claiming I average 24, that comes to a whopping 5.3% over EPA, not 20%.

5. Perhaps you should watch less wrestling and take a math course (bonus would be an English/proofreading course). Here, this will allow you to do both and teach you how to count to five:
07.gif
 
Originally Posted by GMBoy
The transition from 4/8 cyl mode on my Ram Hemi is seamless and I do notice a worthwhile MPG increase if I drive trying to stay in the ECO mode. All the GM versions I have driven (many!) are also smooth and not noticeable. My 6.0L LQ9 Sierra Denali doesn't have it and I appreciate it's chances of being trouble free longer down the road.


Same with my 2018 Hemi- I can tell by the exhaust note but it's pretty seemless. My Dad has a 2014 GMC it's seemless as well.
 
You said the dealer replaced the cataytic converter before you bought it and you also had 5 plus years of documents of this problem. Also you did not say anything about a 91 octane tune in this and you are still well above the EPA fuel economy. This means you should share this with GM. Please continue because the more information you are posting because it gets less logical.
 
Originally Posted by dave1251
You said the dealer replaced the cataytic converter before you bought it
Correct
Originally Posted by dave1251
and you also had 5 plus years of documents of this problem.
Fixed. I approached the dealer one time and they shrugged me off. So I had to find the culprit for myself, which I later found was AFM, so I purchased a tuner and shut it off. Problem solved.
Originally Posted by dave1251
Also you did not say anything about a 91 octane tune in this
Any moron should have connected the dots based on my sig which hasn't changed.
Originally Posted by dave1251
and you are still well above the EPA fuel economy. This means you should share this with GM. Please continue because the more information you are posting because it gets less logical.
33.gif
So no more than 5.3% which equals one, ONE mile per gallon is now considered "well above" and worthy of reporting to GM? Yeah, I bet their corporate execs will be lining up to find out more
smirk2.gif

Originally Posted by dave1251
Please continue because the more information you are posting because it gets less logical.
Just wanted to double quote this for emphasis. Look at it. A good, long look. Because I'm the one reading whatever that thing is while 'showing my work' and explaining the math, yet I'm the one not being logical here.

You can keep trying. I'll keep shutting your b.s. down
24.gif
 
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by dave1251
You said the dealer replaced the cataytic converter before you bought it
Correct
Originally Posted by dave1251
and you also had 5 plus years of documents of this problem.
Fixed. I approached the dealer one time and they shrugged me off. So I had to find the culprit for myself, which I later found was AFM, so I purchased a tuner and shut it off. Problem solved.
Originally Posted by dave1251
Also you did not say anything about a 91 octane tune in this
Any moron should have connected the dots based on my sig which hasn't changed.
Originally Posted by dave1251
and you are still well above the EPA fuel economy. This means you should share this with GM. Please continue because the more information you are posting because it gets less logical.
33.gif
So no more than 5.3% which equals one, ONE mile per gallon is now considered "well above" and worthy of reporting to GM? Yeah, I bet their corporate execs will be lining up to find out more
smirk2.gif

Originally Posted by dave1251
Please continue because the more information you are posting because it gets less logical.
Just wanted to double quote this for emphasis. Look at it. A good, long look. Because I'm the one reading whatever that thing is while 'showing my work' and explaining the math, yet I'm the one not being logical here.

You can keep trying. I'll keep shutting your b.s. down
24.gif



I have never read your signature. How could I? This would require me to read your profile which I have no desire to do. How long was the engine consuming a quart of full synthetic PCMO? You said you have 5 plus years of proof of this issue yet now we find out you are not the orginal owner and you bought a truck with a blown engine. Tony you have been called Tony Baloney since childhood that must caused some issues for you and your still holding on.
 
Originally Posted by Slick17601
Originally Posted by GMBoy
The transition from 4/8 cyl mode on my Ram Hemi is seamless and I do notice a worthwhile MPG increase if I drive trying to stay in the ECO mode. All the GM versions I have driven (many!) are also smooth and not noticeable. My 6.0L LQ9 Sierra Denali doesn't have it and I appreciate it's chances of being trouble free longer down the road.


Same with my 2018 Hemi- I can tell by the exhaust note but it's pretty seemless. My Dad has a 2014 GMC it's seemless as well.



Our 14 hemi RAM is near 80k miles and runs flawlessly both in and out of Eco mode. I have never been able to detect it in operation.


AFM on GM V-8's was a real problem but only for a very small percentage of owners. Never a problem here despite several Silverado 5.3's being used and abused by employees. I feel bad for the owners of the problematic ones as the stealerships simply do not take care of these problems quickly and completely. I know a fellow who had his engine torn down THREE TIMES by a dealer and still has a screwed up rig. So my sympathies to the affected.
 
Originally Posted by dave1251
I have never read your signature. How could I? This would require me to read your profile which I have no desire to do.
Wrong. Apparently you use a phone (like I do). Just click "desktop site" and voila. Not rocket science. It's much better. How do you not know this while having more than 10x the posts I do? I'll give the benefit of the doubt.
Originally Posted by dave1251
How long was the engine consuming a quart of full synthetic PCMO?
33.gif
This has already been answered. Add reading comprehension to the list. 4 full quarts in 3K. Once the AFM disable occured, not a drop. Clearly not a coincidence.
Originally Posted by dave1251
You said you have 5 plus years of proof of this issue["records, documentation, and information"]
Fixed (for a second time). Again with the reading comprehension...
Originally Posted by dave1251
yet now we find out you are not the orginal owner
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
3rd time! I said that I bought it at 76K, where were you?
Originally Posted by dave1251
and you bought a truck with a blown engine.
Okay, clearly I'm dealing with a drunk. No blown engines here. No trucks either. This hasn't changed.
21.gif

Originally Posted by dave1251
Tony you have been called Tony Baloney since childhood that must caused some issues for you and your still holding on.
That's it! I'm calling Jeff Foxworthy. There's no way you made it past the fifth grade.

You just don't give up, do you? All good, I'm enjoying embarrassing you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top