GM's going to try to build them, however they can...

[tbm5690]

With 1 kid.

Also likely in debt up to the eyeballs

 

[tyman]

Strictly based on my experience with my 2018 Silverado 1500 with the 5.3, I doubt there is any way the cylinder deactivation or whatever the term is for it, would save any fuel. I monitored the fuel consumption on the dashboard (instant MPG) while on the highway. Even with a double cab the 4 cylinder mode rarely was able to move the truck at highway speed limits. It never stayed in 4 cylinder for very long. When it switched back and forth the MPG would drop considerably for several seconds. Even when switching to 4 cylinder mode it rarely showed any increase in MPG after it settled in. The principle that a too small engine has to work harder than it should was pretty evident. Based on all of this I cant help but believe that just leaving the truck in 8 cylinder mode and leaving all this junk off the engine would probably net exactly the same MPG. This is aside from the fact that the switch back and forth is annoying. Mine was operating as designed but the constant shift in throttle mapping is annoying. The shifts feel similar to a torque converter going in and out of lockup. Clearly I am not a fan and very happy the 6.6 gas in my new HD doesnt have all this mess.

You could have disabled the AFM.

 

[CKN]

You could have disabled the AFM.

I have a pictured that shows 32 mpg-over a 50 mile stretch in my Silverado 5.3. Spent the vast majority of time in 4 cylinder mode. The AFM DOES make a difference.

 

[tyman]

I have a pictured that shows 32 mpg-over a 50 mile stretch in my Silverado 5.3. Spent the vast majority of time in 4 cylinder mode. The AFM DOES make a difference.

Makes a difference destroying lifters, absolutely.

 

[CKN]

Makes a difference destroying lifters, absolutely.

The issue is the lifters are there whether you disable them or not. Plenty of high mile FLEET Silverados out there with nothing special done to them.

 

[tyman]

The issue is the lifters are there whether you disable them or not. Plenty of high mile FLEET Silverados out there with nothing special done to them.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

 

[ls1mike]

Having done some AFM deletes to include my Caprice I can tell you just programing it out does not guarantee you will not have a failure. It may increase your chances of it lasting loner. Unless you get rid of the AFM parts the stuff that fails is still in there.

 

[tyman]

Having done some AFM deletes to include my Caprice I can tell you just programing it out does not guarantee you will not have a failure. It may increase your chances of it lasting loner. Unless you get rid of the AFM parts the stuff that fails is still in there.

Yes, an AFM delete is always the best option but not very plausible for most people. So the disable becomes the next best thing. Not disabling it is the very last thing and worst option a person can do.

 

[64bawagon]

It was a lease, no way was I going to mess with deleting it, had I owned it the entire hot mess would have been gone.


I will also say that there are 2 things that guys are usually guilty of measuring inaccurately, one is gas mileage.

 

[CKN]

Strictly based on my experience with my 2018 Silverado 1500 with the 5.3, I doubt there is any way the cylinder deactivation or whatever the term is for it, would save any fuel. I monitored the fuel consumption on the dashboard (instant MPG) while on the highway. Even with a double cab the 4 cylinder mode rarely was able to move the truck at highway speed limits. It never stayed in 4 cylinder for very long. When it switched back and forth the MPG would drop considerably for several seconds. Even when switching to 4 cylinder mode it rarely showed any increase in MPG after it settled in. The principle that a too small engine has to work harder than it should was pretty evident. Based on all of this I cant help but believe that just leaving the truck in 8 cylinder mode and leaving all this junk off the engine would probably net exactly the same MPG. This is aside from the fact that the switch back and forth is annoying. Mine was operating as designed but the constant shift in throttle mapping is annoying. The shifts feel similar to a torque converter going in and out of lockup. Clearly I am not a fan and very happy the 6.6 gas in my new HD doesnt have all this mess.

This is over a 50 mile stretch. Can't get this mpg with the AFM Off. Same truck as yours.

 

[10WSmuckers]

Your attitude and sense of cheapness fit right in on here......Do you wish to eliminate electronic ignition, fuel injection, ABS, the the ECM's and TCMs in vehicles all together? You would definitely need a vehicle built before the 70's.....

I could live nicely without the auto-stop, AFM and DOD garbage. All 8 cylinders should be firing at all times.

 

[dareo]

I could live nicely without the auto-stop, AFM and DOD garbage. All 8 cylinders should be firing at all times.

I would even pay extra for a good old honest V8 without any funny business!

 

[Falcon_LS]

In my neck of the woods there are tons of GM SUV'S everywhere. The 2021's are sold before they get off the trucks.

Used 2007+ Tahoe,Suburban,Yukon and Silverado [even with over 200K miles] sell quickly.

Leos who have been assigned the Explorer Utility or Duuango all want to get back into a Tahoe or Silverado. Some agencies are buying used Tahoe/Yukon without the police package to hold them over until they can get the new ones.

They're doing very well over in my neck of the woods, too. They always have.

For me, having owned a Ford Expedition before, one drawback is the new IRS. I don't buy a full-size SUV for handling, and I'm not going to autocross or track it, so I prefer a solid rear axle for the long haul. Less parts, less to go wrong. Nothing wrong with offering IRS in higher up trim levels, like a Suburban RST, Yukon Denali or the Escalade for their intended purposes, but I feel it should have been retained for other models in the lineup.

 

[64bawagon]

This is over a 50 mile stretch. Can't get this mpg with the AFM Off. Same truck as yours.

You are misrepresenting what that data shows. Your average is around 21+, all that says regarding the 32 is that you got that for a short period. It does not say you averaged 32 over the entire 50 miles. Mine used to say 99 mpg while going down long hills, that doesnt mean the average is 99.

Please refer to the second part of my post

 

[tyman]

You are misrepresenting what that data shows. Your average is around 21+, all that says regarding the 32 is that you got that for a short period. It does not say you averaged 32 over the entire 50 miles. Mine used to say 99 mpg while going down long hills, that doesnt mean the average is 99.

Please refer to the second part of my post

beating your head against a wall is no fun

 

[64bawagon]

beating your head against a wall is no fun

Its only fun when you stop.

 

[tyman]

Its only fun when you stop.

I feel like it's the opposite bc when you stop, that's when the pain sets in.

 

[4WD]

Yes, an AFM delete is always the best option but not very plausible for most people. So the disable becomes the next best thing. Not disabling it is the very last thing and worst option a person can do.

ordered Range plug in … after a simple tire change … the 8>4>8 became overly active at 70 mph …
(not installed yet)

 

[tyman]

ordered Range plug in … after a simple tire change … the 8>4>8 became overly active at 70 mph …
(not installed yet)

Get it, boyo! I had the Range before pulling the trigger on an actual tune for my truck. Worked great.

 

[CKN]

You are misrepresenting what that data shows. Your average is around 21+, all that says regarding the 32 is that you got that for a short period. It does not say you averaged 32 over the entire 50 miles. Mine used to say 99 mpg while going down long hills, that doesnt mean the average is 99.

Please refer to the second part of my post

I understand that. I got 32mpg over a 50 mile stretch-that's the range I have it set out for fuel average. That's unobtainable without the AFM. Im not misrepresenting anything. The truck does what it does. You can actually get a solid 25 mpg at 65-70 w/Interstate driving.

I have proof and you are still arguing.