"over-active" Lifters On Smoking 2009 Silverado 5.3l Afm

[BigBlueLB756]

The squeaky wheel sometimes gets replaced, too.

[Willshire]

I know nothing about this AFM/DoD stuff I probably won't for some time. I've never been a fan of being the first owner (too much money for me). When i bought my 2000 in 09, it had a rattle on start up but it i was well aware of the piston slap. I rebuilt a 350 tbi to a 355 (320+hp) and it slapped the first time i rolled it over. But i'm old school, i grew up rebuilding a 51 ford coupe with my dad (who was a wiz at bodywork). I just let it warm up to N.O.T. and i can beat on it like it was my dog (kidding) 285000kms and counting. Sorry, getting away from the thread. If GM told me that losing a qt and a half between oil changes was normal i'd have to question it, are the piston rings smaller than the pistons? Piston slap is tolerable once you find out it's only harmful if you go WOT when cold but blowing smoke out the tailpipe or turning a 6 qt oil change to an 8 seems unacceptable to me. You wouldnt lose that much oil in a 72 chevelle (unless the pan leaked). Has anyone tried reverting back to dino oil or going with 10w30 synth? Just askin. I haven't used synthetic so i can't form an opinion on it but i've put 350k miles on a vehicle and it ran on dino castrol. It may still be runnin.

[pm26]

I know nothing about this AFM/DoD stuff I probably won't for some time. I've never been a fan of being the first owner (too much money for me). When i bought my 2000 in 09, it had a rattle on start up but it i was well aware of the piston slap. I rebuilt a 350 tbi to a 355 (320+hp) and it slapped the first time i rolled it over. But i'm old school, i grew up rebuilding a 51 ford coupe with my dad (who was a wiz at bodywork). I just let it warm up to N.O.T. and i can beat on it like it was my dog (kidding) 285000kms and counting. Sorry, getting away from the thread. If GM told me that losing a qt and a half between oil changes was normal i'd have to question it, are the piston rings smaller than the pistons? Piston slap is tolerable once you find out it's only harmful if you go WOT when cold but blowing smoke out the tailpipe or turning a 6 qt oil change to an 8 seems unacceptable to me. You wouldnt lose that much oil in a 72 chevelle (unless the pan leaked). Has anyone tried reverting back to dino oil or going with 10w30 synth? Just askin. I haven't used synthetic so i can't form an opinion on it but i've put 350k miles on a vehicle and it ran on dino castrol. It may still be runnin.

 

I use regular Castrol GTX oil too and it seems to keep engines healthy and sludge free for a long time.

[Z'06]

I get really, really tired of seeing people misplace their anger and aggression and throwing blame where it isn't deserved.

 

Face it - the real problem is that GM overdid it when they tried to improve upon the Gen III engine by adding in a feature (AFM/DOD) that people are tuning out and finding little to no benefit mileage-wise to keeping. The electronic fix is simple (tune it out via PCM tuning) and may be all that is needed to ensure Gen IV engine longevity rivals that of Gen III.

 

However, mechanically speaking, the Gen IV lifters are demonstrably weak, requiring the removal of the heads on engines with sometimes extremely low mileage, so the question remains whether the Gen IV lifters are up to the task of holding on as long as the Gen III lifters have been capable of running.

 

On the one hand, you state that the electronic fix of tuning AFM functionality out of the ECM "may be all that is needed to ensure Gen IV engine longevity," but you then go on to say that mechanically speaking "Gen IV lifter are demonstrably weak."

 

How does that logic follow? If the parts are mechanically weak, it should not matter whether the ECM is commanding the engagement of V4 mode or not. Mechanically weak parts will fail or otherwise cause eventual problems no matter what a piece of software is commanding them to do.

 

I have read some accounts here where people have said that ECM tuning to disable AFM has stopped their problems with smoking engines and/or oil consumption, but I don't consider that a true fix. It's merely masking the mechanical problem that still exists within the engine. I may be quick to dismiss the sentiment that any problems are widespread (keep reading to understand why), but I believe in cases where a problem does occur, a band-aid fix is far from adequate. A problem with mechanical parts warrants those parts being replaced.

 

The logic follows because I stated that the electronic fix "may be all that is needed to ensure Gen IV engine longevity rivals that of Gen III," with the term "may" implying a Band-Aid solution. I then stated, as did you, that the mechanical issue (lifters) still has the potential to surface. I think we are on the same page after reading your attempt to counter my statements.

 

You've been lucky so far, possibly the result of disabling AFM in one of the two vehicles listed in your sig. Perhaps you will fare well on the engine on which you have not yet disabled AFM.

 

You may be right dismissing all of these reported instances as mere exceptions, but there still remains a possibility that your engines might be the exception. Only time and mileage will tell.

 

I don't deny that it is possible that I could encounter a problem at some point, but if I do I at least have enough perspective to realize it's not GM's fault that a mass-produced part failed.

 

In addition to the two AFM-equipped engines I have now, I've had a couple others in the past that had higher mileage on them, and I work with several people who also have vehicles with AFM-equipped 5.3s that are treated much worse than I treat any of mine. I know of no problems whatsoever that any of them have had, even those with significantly higher mileage (100K+).

 

That is the sole reason I get so sick of seeing bitch-fest threads like this. Until I see proof of a major problem that is affecting a large number of trucks, I have no cause to think that a mechanical engineering blunder has occurred on the part of GM's powertrain division.

 

 

Then whose fault is it? Driver error?

[Z'06]

I know nothing about this AFM/DoD stuff I probably won't for some time. I've never been a fan of being the first owner (too much money for me). When i bought my 2000 in 09, it had a rattle on start up but it i was well aware of the piston slap. I rebuilt a 350 tbi to a 355 (320+hp) and it slapped the first time i rolled it over. But i'm old school, i grew up rebuilding a 51 ford coupe with my dad (who was a wiz at bodywork). I just let it warm up to N.O.T. and i can beat on it like it was my dog (kidding) 285000kms and counting. Sorry, getting away from the thread. If GM told me that losing a qt and a half between oil changes was normal i'd have to question it, are the piston rings smaller than the pistons? Piston slap is tolerable once you find out it's only harmful if you go WOT when cold but blowing smoke out the tailpipe or turning a 6 qt oil change to an 8 seems unacceptable to me. You wouldnt lose that much oil in a 72 chevelle (unless the pan leaked). Has anyone tried reverting back to dino oil or going with 10w30 synth? Just askin. I haven't used synthetic so i can't form an opinion on it but i've put 350k miles on a vehicle and it ran on dino castrol. It may still be runnin.

 

The electronic part of the fix (disabling AFM/DOD via PCM tuning) seems to stop the oil burn issue based on many posts on the topic.

[C. Charles Hahn]

The logic follows because I stated that the electronic fix "may be all that is needed to ensure Gen IV engine longevity rivals that of Gen III," with the term "may" implying a Band-Aid solution. I then stated, as did you, that the mechanical issue (lifters) still has the potential to surface. I think we are on the same page after reading your attempt to counter my statements.

 

What I was getting at there was to say that when you implied "the Gen IV lifters are mechanically weak," appeared to me to mean "since the lifters are mechanically weak due to engineered design, all of them will inevitably encounter a mechanical failure."

 

I was trying to point out that not every single lifter they produce is destined to fail, or at least not in any different time frame than a Gen III lifter would fail.

 

Then whose fault is it? Driver error?

 

Could be driver error for beating on the engine too much, could be due to improper maintenance, or could be due to defects during the manufacturing process. With any mass produced part, defects during manufacture are a possibility regardless of how the part is engineered. Unfortunately, there isn't any cost effective way to maintain QC procedures that are capable of catching every possible source of a manufacturing defect.

[Yz2k20]

I have a 2007 Silverado 5.3L with AFM that is burning lots of oil. It smokes on startup occasionally. The problem started when I had about 33k miles on it earlier this year. I brought the truck to the Chevy dealer with the TSBs for reference and they topped it off and told me to come back in 1k miles. I told them my oil light would come on before I got that far and sure enough it did today after about 800 miles. We'll see what they say on Monday. I have 36k miles now.

[Klink]

Went through the same thing. They are starting you on an oil consumption test that you are going to fail. More than likely you will end up with new lifters and they will check piston slop. If there is too much side-to-side play in the pistons oil is getting by and you are burning it. Sounds like you are already. Probably new pistons and rings too. And once this is done you will still burn oil. Just not as much. Until they come out with "The Fix" this summer, it will still burn oil. This problem seems to be hit or miss on the 5.3 with AFM. One thing is for sure, make sure your dealer has this documented. It sounds to me that the only motors that will get "The Fix" will be the ones with documented oil consumption problems.

[gnet158]

Are these Aluminum or Iron block engines were talking about?

[nitrohorse]

FWIW, I was down at my local dealership Saturday to pick-up the receiver and ball for my trailer. I inadvertently left it on the truck I traded in. I was speaking to the service manager and asked him about the issue with the 5.3's burning oil. He told me that he heard that there was a batch of parts (pistons, lifters) that were not quite in tolerance. He said that his dealership has not seen one 5.3 with the burning oil issue. I don't know if the trucks with the suspect parts were shipped to a certain area or if it's luck of the draw. We also discussed "tuning" the engines with aftermarket chips, etc. He told me that he has a 2005 5.3 and has a tune in it. He also said that it voids the warranty and that the shop can detect that a tuner was install even if the original ECM is replaced when the truck is brought in for service. I asked him if they void the warranty on all the trucks they discover with tunes and he said that it was up to the individual mechanic to report the tune. On a happier note, he said that from what he heard, the '09's and '10's have not had the burning oil issues??

Just thought I'd pass along what I heard.

[pm26]

FWIW, I was down at my local dealership Saturday to pick-up the receiver and ball for my trailer. I inadvertently left it on the truck I traded in. I was speaking to the service manager and asked him about the issue with the 5.3's burning oil. He told me that he heard that there was a batch of parts (pistons, lifters) that were not quite in tolerance. He said that his dealership has not seen one 5.3 with the burning oil issue. I don't know if the trucks with the suspect parts were shipped to a certain area or if it's luck of the draw. We also discussed "tuning" the engines with aftermarket chips, etc. He told me that he has a 2005 5.3 and has a tune in it. He also said that it voids the warranty and that the shop can detect that a tuner was install even if the original ECM is replaced when the truck is brought in for service. I asked him if they void the warranty on all the trucks they discover with tunes and he said that it was up to the individual mechanic to report the tune. On a happier note, he said that from what he heard, the '09's and '10's have not had the burning oil issues??

Just thought I'd pass along what I heard.

 

If this is true, then GM is responsible for accepting and installing defective parts and should initiate a recall. (fat chance of that happenning). (They will remove the lifters and pistons from your engine and give you a check for $ 250. You can look for replacement lifters and pistons on your own).

[C. Charles Hahn]

If this is true, then GM is responsible for accepting and installing defective parts and should initiate a recall. (fat chance of that happenning). (They will remove the lifters and pistons from your engine and give you a check for $ 250. You can look for replacement lifters and pistons on your own).

 

You're being an idiot as usual, I see.

 

If you don't have anything useful/intelligent/sensible to say, why don't you go on over to the Ronald McDonald forums and post about the latest toy you got in your happy meal? I can hear you now, "Ewww, this says 'Made in China' on it! McD's should initiate a recall because there's lead in the toy and it will kill me! They'll probably just take the toy back, give me a box of fries and make me find something else to play with on my own...."

 

A "bad batch of parts" does not constitute the need for a recall to be initiated -- especially depending on the size of said batch of parts. It does constitute the need for a TSB to be put into SI so that in the event that a truck built with these parts does experience mechanical issues directly linked to said parts, the reason is documented. That's all. Either way it would be covered under the powertrain warranty.

[J-man67]

I have had the problem for 2 years now. It doesn't happen too often though. Maybe once every 2 months. My stealership has it documented. I even have videos. They said they would call me as soon as new parts are available to rid my truck of the problem. No oil has been consumed, so I am not too worried about it.

[MikeInCtown]

OK brand new here, So my 2010 silverado 5.3l crew cab is destined for a life in the service dept? It has been in 2x for the exhaust cloud they just replaced the valve cover and intake gasket on one side. The cloud is significantly smaller but it is still there. It's pretty embarrasing if nothing else to have people look at your new truck like its an old jallopy. And I just clicked 6,000 miles. Had a rattle in the dash that they said was a kinked heater hose still have the rattle.

 

Your truck has a problem, and has been in twice for the dealer to try correcting it. If it goes back in again, it's time to inquire about the lemon law and getting your truck bought back by GM. Then just buy another one of the same that won't have these problems and be done with it.

 

No sense in crying about it or making "doom and gloom" statements like that; you had the misfortune of buying a truck that has issues and/or may be a lemon. It happens. Deal with it and move on.

 

 

 

Until you have had to deal with a lemon and getting it replaced I wouldn't be so quick at just saying go do this. Each state has laws that vary and the auto manufacturers, especially GM and Ford (they are in the news here often) will defy theh findings of the arbitrator. Its also quite common for the manufacturer to charge the person for the mileage already placed on the vehicle and then the consumer is told to pony up more $$$ for the new vehicle becausse well, the one was used and the new one is new. Just like any other large corporation they push the envelope and at times deserved to get slapped around for it by someone.

 

I also notice that you keep saying "statistically insignificant" Well how exactly do you know this? It may be that half of all trucks will experience problems before 100,000 miles. I am sure you would have said the people who had injector problems on the 4.3s or who had the blown intake gaskets were also statistically insignificant. The problem with that was the court didn't see it that way, and the thousands or even tens of thousands of people got their vehicles fixed. That doesn't even count the people who fixed their stuff on their own.

 

And that info that MS3Dale posted back a few pages... Is GM serious? If you tow or run the engine over 3,000 RPMs that it would be "normal" to use a quart of oil every 500 miles? I don't care who you are, thats some funny shiite. Sounds like GM knows that they have produced a bomb and that they are CYA so to speak. I have had cars with mileages totalling nearly a million miles by the time I got rid of them. Not a single one ever used a quart of oil between oil changes. If someone tried to tell me that was normal, I'd laugh in their face.

[pm26]

If this is true, then GM is responsible for accepting and installing defective parts and should initiate a recall. (fat chance of that happenning). (They will remove the lifters and pistons from your engine and give you a check for $ 250. You can look for replacement lifters and pistons on your own).

 

You're being an idiot as usual, I see.

 

If you don't have anything useful/intelligent/sensible to say, why don't you go on over to the Ronald McDonald forums and post about the latest toy you got in your happy meal? I can hear you now, "Ewww, this says 'Made in China' on it! McD's should initiate a recall because there's lead in the toy and it will kill me! They'll probably just take the toy back, give me a box of fries and make me find something else to play with on my own...."

 

A "bad batch of parts" does not constitute the need for a recall to be initiated -- especially depending on the size of said batch of parts. It does constitute the need for a TSB to be put into SI so that in the event that a truck built with these parts does experience mechanical issues directly linked to said parts, the reason is documented. That's all. Either way it would be covered under the powertrain warranty.

 

 

Just how much is GM paying you to attack and ridicule people who don't say what you like on this forum?

 

What I said was obviously meant as a joke. I am quite sure most people took it this way.