Silverado OLM

Pennzoil motor oil
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: thomasew
I'm with you on the GM engineers and the AFM, and the OLM. I have a '13 Sierra with 4.8 and changed mine yesterday at 4,400. Put Valvoline Synthetic in it too. I've never lost a motor due to bearing failure, or other internal failure, and I always did 3k changes. I am 61 years old, and have been maintaining (oil changes) my own cars since I was 16, or 17 years old. I let them go a little further than 3k now, but to me, oil is cheap insurance. A lot cheaper than rebuilding a GM v8 engine, especially these days. I'm sticking to no more than 4k changes in my Sierra, call it wasteful, or ignorance, or whatever.



It's not "cheap insurance"
Oil is either good or it isn't. Dumping good oil isn't insurance. Its a fools errand and good for neither the environment and your wallet. The latter I couldn't care less about,the former I care much for.

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Ah, the same engineers that also developed the problem plagued Automated Fuel Management cylinder shut down system on almost all GM engines now. Yeah, placing my trust in GM engineers really makes me feel better.



Yep,and doesn't apply to his truck. Got any other useless tidbits for us.

I've got 270+ on mine. I ran amsoil signature series and changed it the second time the truck told me to,until that got too costly and now I run whatever on sale
And change according to the oil life monitor.

So trucker. You paid for a tune to lock out the cylinder deactivation. That's hilarious. You can lock it out by driving in 5th and not going up to drive. You coulda driven with it locked out for free.
Yep.and it's those GM engineers you've outsmarted
Good job.
 
Thomasew,

Own enough vehicles and eventually one will fail.

No offense, but I am a bit tired of the line "I've never had any failures" being some sort of justification for excessive oil changes...
 
Ah, the ASSumptions that go on in the forum! Nope, did not pay for a tune to disable the AFM. Wanna know how? Just figure it out for yourself. Nope do not need to lead foot around either. Nope, not just staying in manual 5th or lower. The AFM has been nonfunctional on my 2013 5.3L since mile 240 on the odometer, and it is now at just over 7500. And I can drive in 6th manual or in the Drive selection and not have the AFM kick on at any time, even on a nice leisurely excursion down a flat interstate with no wind. It just plain is non functional, in any gear or shift lever position, per my selection, not GM's. If the dealer were to dump the ECM, there is nothing to show the AFM as being disabled, just that it has not activated since mile 240. As if it doesn't even exist.

So you think it is hilarious that I got a tune, when in fact, I didn't. Been thinking about getting a Diablo tune for other reasons, but AFM is not one of them. The hilarity is when someone assumes what another has done and make a snotty comment without checking out the facts. But since you decided to take a shot at me, how I did it will remain in my own little drawer of learned techniques.

As to your oil dumping too soon comments. Not good for the environment? In what way? The only reason it would be bad for the environment is if it is being dumped on the ground or down a storm drain. All used oil is recycled for used for some other purpose. There is no waste, unless the owner who drained it wastes it in a non legal way. Recycled oil is BIG business. Except the oil labels that promote that they use recycled oil, I doubt anyone would be aware that recycled oil makes it into most all of the name brands on the shelf. And why shouldn't it? It has been re-refined and meets all the requirements and specs of whatever it is sold for. This idea that changing oil early is wasteful and bad for the environment shows a myopic understanding, or a willful intent to not become aware.
 
All opinions, weak on facts. That kind of stuff doesn't get too much respect around here IME.

That last line is a gem, perhaps it should be studied more closely...
 
Nothing to figure out just use this.

http://www.amazon.com/Range-Technology-A...8744324-2298859

Or you are doing the cheap way..
Quote:
To disable the AFM, put your transmission in manual (M) and tap shift up so 5th gear is the highest gear. (a 5 will show up next to the M on the DIC) Now drive like you normally would. No need to tap up or down. It's essentially a 5 spd auto with the AFM

Now if you know a way to disable the Honda system I'm all ears.
 
I know quite a few Honda IVTEC owners who would gladly buy something like if it were available and pay double the price.

Some people buy a V8 and they want a full time V8, i can understand that.
I can also understand where the manufacturers are coming from, if they want to continue to build the big engines they have to bring the CAFE numbers up somehow.

IMHO both arguments are legitimate.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing to figure out just use this.

http://www.amazon.com/Range-Technology-A...8744324-2298859



Great! A device that costs $200 that makes your engine more costly to operate. What WILL they think of next?


But, many that have disabled the AFM claim that they have experienced no reduction in mpg. A few claim they are actually getting a little bit better, but that is questionable. Even GM claimed only a few percent better mpg thru the AFM, but that is in controlled testing environments. There are just too many variables to fuel mileage.

But many who have disabled the AFM like the response of the engine a lot better. I only had the experience of the AFM when driving it home from the dealer. After disabling the AFM, I noticed the improvement right away. I know, perception is not always accurate, but I have no regrets having done it.

I have heard of many folks getting that Range module from Auto Anything for around $170. Anyone wanting to get one, that is the place to go. They don't list it at that price, but many have said if you do the "live chat" thing on the site and ask for a better price, they offer the $170 deal. Have no actual experience with that myself, only going by what I have read posted by others.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
I realize the government has had a lot of influence over GM the last few years, but I am not going to have my cylinders acting like government workers and having 4 of them standing around watching the other 4 work. I overrode that union contract the day after my new 2013 was brought home.


Is this a company vehicle where you have no choice to use it, or did you buy it yourself?
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing to figure out just use this.

http://www.amazon.com/Range-Technology-A...8744324-2298859

Or you are doing the cheap way..
Quote:
To disable the AFM, put your transmission in manual (M) and tap shift up so 5th gear is the highest gear. (a 5 will show up next to the M on the DIC) Now drive like you normally would. No need to tap up or down. It's essentially a 5 spd auto with the AFM

Now if you know a way to disable the Honda system I'm all ears.


I like the idea of that little gizmo. At least the owner of the vehicle has a choice. Too bad it isn't that simple with all the car brands.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing to figure out just use this.

http://www.amazon.com/Range-Technology-A...8744324-2298859



Great! A device that costs $200 that makes your engine more costly to operate. What WILL they think of next?


But, many that have disabled the AFM claim that they have experienced no reduction in mpg. A few claim they are actually getting a little bit better, but that is questionable. Even GM claimed only a few percent better mpg thru the AFM, but that is in controlled testing environments. There are just too many variables to fuel mileage.

But many who have disabled the AFM like the response of the engine a lot better. I only had the experience of the AFM when driving it home from the dealer. After disabling the AFM, I noticed the improvement right away. I know, perception is not always accurate, but I have no regrets having done it.

I have heard of many folks getting that Range module from Auto Anything for around $170. Anyone wanting to get one, that is the place to go. They don't list it at that price, but many have said if you do the "live chat" thing on the site and ask for a better price, they offer the $170 deal. Have no actual experience with that myself, only going by what I have read posted by others.



If the chev cylinder deactivation is anything like the dodge version then everything you've written is wrong.
The cylinders only shut off when cruising on the highway and will turn back on in milliseconds as soon as you throttle it,or if going up a hill the engine turns those cylinders back on for more power.
As far as fuel economy being the same or better can anything be more absurd.
If never driven on the highway I could see mileage being similar but better is impossible.
It looks to me like you're grasping at whatever hoopla you can find to back up your point when the truth of the matter is its absurd.
Buy a dodge next time. Their cylinder de-activation works just fine,and the hemi's got more power too.
Then you won't have to sit here and make excuses,but you probably will anyways.
 
Are you sure that on the last oil change the oil life monitor was set back to 100%? I had this system on 2003 yukon with the 5.3. Great engine. I do not see how you will have problems going 5000 miles on Mobil 1....especially since a couple times a week you are really heating the oil up really well.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy

If the chev cylinder deactivation is anything like the dodge version then everything you've written is wrong.
The cylinders only shut off when cruising on the highway and will turn back on in milliseconds as soon as you throttle it,or if going up a hill the engine turns those cylinders back on for more power.
As far as fuel economy being the same or better can anything be more absurd.
If never driven on the highway I could see mileage being similar but better is impossible.
It looks to me like you're grasping at whatever hoopla you can find to back up your point when the truth of the matter is its absurd.
Buy a dodge next time. Their cylinder de-activation works just fine,and the hemi's got more power too.
Then you won't have to sit here and make excuses,but you probably will anyways.


I didn't grasp at anything, Goober. Can you read? I stated that some claim they are getting better mpg, and that was questionable. I never stated I did. Yet another example of the failure of the public education system to teach reading comprehension. Go to any number of GM specific forums, especially the pickups, and folks there generally state they have not experienced any negative mpg due to disabling the AFM. And you will find an occasional post where some claim better mpg. I question that on it's face.

Now, it really doesn't matter who makes an engine. If it has a feature that deactivates cylinders, I am going to disable it. I don't want it. It isn't like the OEM's are giving me a choice to have it on or off. They want to decide what I need or want. That is why I like commercial semi trucks. I can spec right down to the brand of wheel seals in my axles. They don't force anything down my throat. I even had a choice of any color that Dupont makes. Not just some 6-7 choices by the OEM. And I didn't even have to swallow the emissions stuff! I bought a 2013 Freightliner and dropped in a pre-egr factory rebuilt Detroit engine. Saved $40K over the cost of an emission laden truck.

I bought 8 cylinders, and I want them all to work, all of the time. No slackers, no taking union breaks, no cylinders taking a break while the others work. That is my choice. If I wanted 4 or 6 cylinders, I would have bought something with one of those. Be it any of the OEM's and cylinder deactivation, will do the same thing and find a way to deactivate. It is just adding complexity and a greater risk of a problem. So, it is a total waste of R&D on my part. It is not required, like say, the emissions package on a vehicle. I also disabled the daytime running lights on my pickup. Again, not mandated, not required. Not the greatest thing when evening time and dealing with cattle. I really don't need them bolting because some automatic daytime running lights spook them. But, GM knows best. After all, the coyote down in the draw on the back 40 might not be able to tell where I am and risk running out in front of me. I know how to turn my lights on in low light, rain, and snow. I fell for the parking assist sensor stuff, as it seemed like a good idea on a dealer lot, but after putting the pickup in the real world of my farm, I have disabled that feature also. Left the backup camera for the wife, but I don't use it.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing to figure out just use this.

http://www.amazon.com/Range-Technology-A...8744324-2298859



Great! A device that costs $200 that makes your engine more costly to operate. What WILL they think of next?


But, many that have disabled the AFM claim that they have experienced no reduction in mpg. A few claim they are actually getting a little bit better, but that is questionable. Even GM claimed only a few percent better mpg thru the AFM, but that is in controlled testing environments. There are just too many variables to fuel mileage.

But many who have disabled the AFM like the response of the engine a lot better. I only had the experience of the AFM when driving it home from the dealer. After disabling the AFM, I noticed the improvement right away. I know, perception is not always accurate, but I have no regrets having done it.

I have heard of many folks getting that Range module from Auto Anything for around $170. Anyone wanting to get one, that is the place to go. They don't list it at that price, but many have said if you do the "live chat" thing on the site and ask for a better price, they offer the $170 deal. Have no actual experience with that myself, only going by what I have read posted by others.


Good price if someone elects to go that route. I don't know enough about the GM or Chrysler systems to comment about their real world performance.

I think it would be good if it could be turned off if thats what the owner wants for one reason or another.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing to figure out just use this.

http://www.amazon.com/Range-Technology-A...8744324-2298859



Great! A device that costs $200 that makes your engine more costly to operate. What WILL they think of next?


But, many that have disabled the AFM claim that they have experienced no reduction in mpg. A few claim they are actually getting a little bit better, but that is questionable. Even GM claimed only a few percent better mpg thru the AFM, but that is in controlled testing environments. There are just too many variables to fuel mileage.

But many who have disabled the AFM like the response of the engine a lot better. I only had the experience of the AFM when driving it home from the dealer. After disabling the AFM, I noticed the improvement right away. I know, perception is not always accurate, but I have no regrets having done it.



This is the first of your opinions I've ever disagreed with. I used to work at Eaton Corporation, in the department that engineered the AFM system. The most common number quoted there is the AFM system is worth 6% in fuel economy. This would be on the Federal test cycle that measures the CAFE rating. 6% on this cycle is huge, especially when you consider that at GM, pickup trucks are the largest-selling vehicles, and have the biggest impact on their Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

The fact that many people don't notice a change in fuel economy when they disable AFM is beside the point because the standard disclaimer of "Your Mileage May Vary" applies. I would say that 90% of those people couldn't detect 6% fuel economy difference given the relatively low accuracy of the instruments they have available to make that determination.

As far as response of the system is concerned, I can state with 100% dead solid authority that the AFM system changes from V4 to V8 mode within two revolutions of the crankshaft. At 2000 rpm, this is 15 milliseconds. If you can detect that time lag, you have miraculous cognitive ability. I ask you to consider the possibility that you didn't take enough time to get used to the feel of the engine with AFM during the one trip you made to home from the dealer before disabling the system.
 
That's great. I still have a standard position with my cylinders that none of them get to go on a smoke break while the others work. I did not desire the option for my engine, it was forced on me by the OEM, so I did what I needed to do to provide an equal playing field for all my cylinders and disabled the AFM function. I really could care less about some CAFE standards. My pickup rarely ever sees a 4 lane road. It primarily is driven on gravel roads, two lane hilly roads, and in crop land and pasture. I don't need AFM, I don't want AFM, and so essentially it does not function.

After seeing the laundry list of TSB's, the various procedures for addressing oil consumption issues that relate to the AFM, and then also seeing what others are going thru for GM to rectify the problem, I decided to do an end run and try to avoid the problem to begin with. I really don't care if it is less than 1% of those that have the problem with the AFM. I decided to do my best to not even play the odds and fall into that 1%.

I bought it. I own it. I make the decisions. That happens with my semi trucks or my pickups. I will never get much of anything close to what others get for average fuel economy, because my pickup is not used as a car on steroids. It is a pickup. It is designed to haul and pull things. I don't play around with what polish makes the wheels look neat, because I can't keep the vehicle clean longer than 24 hrs. Those that buy pickups for daily drivers and to shine it up, God bless 'em. There might be a case for them not messing with the AFM.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing to figure out just use this.

http://www.amazon.com/Range-Technology-A...8744324-2298859



Great! A device that costs $200 that makes your engine more costly to operate. What WILL they think of next?


But, many that have disabled the AFM claim that they have experienced no reduction in mpg. A few claim they are actually getting a little bit better, but that is questionable. Even GM claimed only a few percent better mpg thru the AFM, but that is in controlled testing environments. There are just too many variables to fuel mileage.

But many who have disabled the AFM like the response of the engine a lot better. I only had the experience of the AFM when driving it home from the dealer. After disabling the AFM, I noticed the improvement right away. I know, perception is not always accurate, but I have no regrets having done it.



This is the first of your opinions I've ever disagreed with. I used to work at Eaton Corporation, in the department that engineered the AFM system. The most common number quoted there is the AFM system is worth 6% in fuel economy. This would be on the Federal test cycle that measures the CAFE rating. 6% on this cycle is huge, especially when you consider that at GM, pickup trucks are the largest-selling vehicles, and have the biggest impact on their Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

The fact that many people don't notice a change in fuel economy when they disable AFM is beside the point because the standard disclaimer of "Your Mileage May Vary" applies. I would say that 90% of those people couldn't detect 6% fuel economy difference given the relatively low accuracy of the instruments they have available to make that determination.

As far as response of the system is concerned, I can state with 100% dead solid authority that the AFM system changes from V4 to V8 mode within two revolutions of the crankshaft. At 2000 rpm, this is 15 milliseconds. If you can detect that time lag, you have miraculous cognitive ability. I ask you to consider the possibility that you didn't take enough time to get used to the feel of the engine with AFM during the one trip you made to home from the dealer before disabling the system.


Thank you for some FACTS for this thread.

Note that I am able to detect the operation of the AFM in my new vans but I think what we really feel is the extremely different throttle program that kicks in as you go from a 6 liter V8 to a 3 liter V4!
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
That's great. I still have a standard position with my cylinders that none of them get to go on a smoke break while the others work. I did not desire the option for my engine, it was forced on me by the OEM, so I did what I needed to do to provide an equal playing field for all my cylinders and disabled the AFM function. I really could care less about some CAFE standards. My pickup rarely ever sees a 4 lane road. It primarily is driven on gravel roads, two lane hilly roads, and in crop land and pasture. I don't need AFM, I don't want AFM, and so essentially it does not function.

After seeing the laundry list of TSB's, the various procedures for addressing oil consumption issues that relate to the AFM, and then also seeing what others are going thru for GM to rectify the problem, I decided to do an end run and try to avoid the problem to begin with. I really don't care if it is less than 1% of those that have the problem with the AFM. I decided to do my best to not even play the odds and fall into that 1%.

I bought it. I own it. I make the decisions. That happens with my semi trucks or my pickups. I will never get much of anything close to what others get for average fuel economy, because my pickup is not used as a car on steroids. It is a pickup. It is designed to haul and pull things. I don't play around with what polish makes the wheels look neat, because I can't keep the vehicle clean longer than 24 hrs. Those that buy pickups for daily drivers and to shine it up, God bless 'em. There might be a case for them not messing with the AFM.


I appreciate your posts and agree with your views on trucks and AFM. Thanks for sharing.

I currently drive in M5. I'll tune out the AFM in the future.

Whether people want to believe me or not. I notice the transition from V4 to V8. Go to the Instant MPG on the DIC and you can see when it makes the transition. If you pay attention you can feel it and hear it.

My truck also used to consume oil until I started driving in M5.

I bought a V8, I will get a full-time V8.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Fellow Honda J35 owners, how long you running Valvoline Restore and Protect for?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
TomYoung
B
Terrible picture inside oil pan (2001 Silverado)
Replies
8
Views
1K
Blang
Yukon_2A_FTW
Which oil for 2003 Silverado 6.0L?
2
Replies
21
Views
547
heavy260
L
Acura RDX in need of Valvoline Restore and Protect?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
UncleDave
J
0w-20 Semi Synthetic
Replies
11
Views
926
Hermann
Back
Top Bottom