Grumpy Bear

There ya go, Your photo of chew toy.

I'm having some trouble with Windows 10. Go figure. As soon as I can get one to load, okay?

Talked to Ben Brazda at length today on the telephone and we concluded our business. Three to four weeks. (Filthy Motorsports) And we have a snag. Communication breakdowns in a three way project are bound to happen. I missed that the King OEM replacements are an automatic 2” leveling lift MINIMUM to compensate for a GM geometry error that leaves the front struts way off stroke center that requires a shim pack so stiff that it would undo everything I’m trying to accomplish. The work arounds all have issues I am unwilling to deal with. This is a huge issue as the rear is 2” lower. The leaf springs are in production and too late to change the direction of that boat. It left the harbor last week. After a hour looking at all possible solutions there was one that keeps the intent and execution of the project on task. 2” dropped spindles which only resorts stock ride height but keeps the geometry perfect and the valving on target. The spring selection balanced and the truck near neutral steering. Every project has cost overruns. I still get to keep my rear level and my wife almost happy. Eventually when parts start to show up I’ll have pictures. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************** On another note. Packed on the miles today killing another tank of fuel on an absolutely perfect Illinois day. Those are rare as hens teeth and we’ve had five in a row. Partly sunny, 80 F, 40% humidity and 0-3 mph winds all day except for two quick rain showers with short burst of 15 mph gust. Nothing really. The day started with 75 miles already on the tank and the indicator showing 29.5 mpg. Three trips to town but not IN town. Ended with 438 miles using 13.753 gallon of fuel for 31.85 mpg and there is more to go. To reach that number the remaining 363 miles were run at 32.54 mpg to get this result. That makes four tanks averaging 29.5 mpg and two over 30 mpg running 55 mph. Since the Red Line fill this thing has been crazy smooth and holding on to the AFM allot. Pulling 3% hills over 30 mpg into 5 mph winds sort of crazy. I am pretty sure that all the low hanging fruit is now picked and we wait for averages to peak. That may take a few years at this pace. Or a good winter weather set back.

So the pup thinks the shifter is a chew toy. Chewed it right down to the button while I was taking a 'break' that couldn't wait. It's hard to get mad at a dog for being a dog but boy do I try. This is a $200 fix. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

17.0 mpg = Federal Data base recorded for this truck. 24.0 mpg = EPA sticker high way estimates. *************************************************************** 24.6 mpg = Factory Fill Delco 5W30 as delivered to me. 26.0 mpg = Alignment 25.9 mpg = Quaker State UD 5W20 27.9 mpg = Quaker State Plus 180 F Thermostat 26.0 mpg = M5 AFM locked out 27.4 mpg = Mobil 1 28.8 mpg = Red Line 5W20 Plus 180 Thermostat The alignment was good for +5.7% increase The Switch to 5W20 Quaker State UD was a net loss as a stand-alone but when coupled with a cooler thermostat netted a 7.31% gain. I’ll come back to this. Running in M5 with the AFM off put it back to the alignment number erasing the gains of thinner fluids and cooler temperatures. Mobil 1 was a 1.8% looser but still gave a cooler running temperature. Not sure what to make of that. Red Line 5W20 was a 3.2% gain over the previous best QSUD numbers. Net gain, 17.7% over delivery numbers and an even 20% over the EPA sticker number. I may have said this before. If a lighter oil gives a cooler temperature as a stand-alone heat was viscosity friction related. If it gets hotter there is an increase in surface to surface contact. Not good. If a heavier oil provides a cooler temperature it is eliminating surface to surface contact. If the heavier oil gives a hotter temperature viscosity fiction is the primary. This is a preface to the ‘I’ll come back to this’ comment. Obviously the thinner fluid alone was not thick enough at operating temperatures to prevent metal to metal contact. Cooling the motor increased the viscosity enough no only to cool it back down but further than the thicker oil did uncooled telling me it was still thinner and more lubricous. In other words, fell in between the two. I get to benefit from the Polyol’s best features without sacrificing efficiency. A word about break in. It still isn’t done with this process and there has been some benefit from the break in adding to the efficiency all along. The numbers are ‘relative’ to each other and not absolutes. That said it is indeed well along. That little puff of morning blue smoke is no longer with us and has been absent for weeks. ​Not everything I try works but you see it fail here. So our winners are, and still rising……. (see red bold above).

BMEP, aka Brake Mean Effective Pressure. The effective mean pressure in the cylinder. The mean pressure is a guideline we use that can be calculated and measured but it is not the peak cylinder pressure. A production engine with a compression ratio of 11:1 may have a peak cranking pressure of maybe 135 to 150 psig. That same pressure range could be obtained with a motor whose mechanical ratio was only 8.5:1. The difference is in the point ABDC the inlet valve closes and the butterfly is WOT. In a running motor the peak pressure ranges 300 to 1000 psig. Race motors a bit higher. It takes a minimum of 90 psig to get the motor to start. When a cylinder deactivates, AFM equipped motors, the valves close in order to trap a volume of air to be used as an air spring. As it is repeatedly cycled it heats up and the pressure comes near the low load operating pressure. For this to work right the cylinder must be near zero percent leak down. Today’s rings and cylinder wall compositions are very capable of creating this condition. Food for thought: Oil rings don’t ‘scrape off oil’ they are the mechanism that applies it at a controller rate from splash in the crankcase. The second ring is the scrapper. Rings don’t ‘break in’, cylinder walls do. Rings are much harder than the walls they ride on. The rings spring or preload pressure does not seal a cylinder. Gas pressure from above the ring migrates to the space behind the ring to force it against the cylinder wall. Spring tension just makes the introduction to get things started. As physics would have it the higher the cylinder pressure the higher the ring sealing load meaning AFM deactivated cylinders get the same oil as the active cylinders in a cooler lower pressure environment that promotes LONGER ring life…not shorter. The more lightly loaded the motor is, on average over time, the longer the motor lives. Com'on man, that’s just common sense. Loaded cylinders are not under ‘more load’ or at least extreme loads that would wear them out. They operate in this V4 condition only when under low enough loads to permit safe engagement…unless someone is forcing them by a program to operate outside their designs. What is safe? No idea but I would have started testing at 500 psig. If you want your AFM on more you need to find ways to lower the motors load enough to keep it in the ‘safe zone’ GM designed it to operate in. This is its own topic and the subject of my person truck build thread. Finally, rings don’t ‘plug’ due to high oil volumes. But they can be flooded to the point that the scrapper ring is unable to remove it effectively. Think of it as hydroplaning. They can gum due to abnormally high temperatures that promote varnishing and gumming. Also from contamination. But not from flooding or AFM operation where flooding is well controlled. Something GM has addresses successfully.

Am I reading this right. Your commenting on new trucks but you own a 2009? Anyway, if your using that much oil AFM isn't your issue.

So we have a thicker spring package with more leaves that are thinner and smaller length steps. We have reversed eyes. Flatter arches. Blocks removed and Sulastic hangers. We have our drop, enough load capacity and enough axle frame clearance and we have a very progressive spring. All this monkey motion was to give a spring rebound force that was within a hydraulic shock absorbers capability to control…effectively…and prevent the suspension from ratcheting down to the bumpers on a washboard. It also enhanced compression rate progression without giving up capacity. If I would have allowed stock ride height, load and tow capacity would have remained unaffected. I don’t tow so I didn’t care. And if I ever do it can be bagged. Violent rebound is what makes the trucks ride harsh and uncontrolled. They just cannot dial in enough rebound dampening in any shock, stock or otherwise for the way these stock springs are engineered. It’s why your Bilstein, Bell or Fox modify but cannot correct nor reflect a good dollar value for what they bring to the table. Nothing off the self is going to match the new spring package thus some custom valving is in order but I digress… Up front we have the same issues for different reasons with similar but different solutions. Stock ride height means I get to keep stock geometry and a level truck with what’s going on out back. But it too needs a change of spring from linear to very progressive and that requires new dampening rates as well. This is where Ben earns his money. He’s picking the front spring to balance the new rears and custom valving the King shocks and struts that will be dampening this combination. $$$$ ticket items. Yes I know this is taking a nine pound hammer to drive a thumb tac but what other choice do I have? None…none worth their money. None I care to make. In essence I’m not paying for the King Shocks quality or its tunability or its infinite rebuildability. I’m paying for Bens ability and expertise in sorting this thing out finitely. Okay, I am…but Boys, I will have my cake and eat it too. It’s just going to cost me.

I hate to embarrass myself. It’s why I’ve been sketchy with the suspension project. I was unsure of my ability to close the deal. It’s a lot of $$$$. However springs are ordered and financing assured and it seems I have a clear path to completion. What I don’t have is a huge amount of construction detail to share as it hasn’t been fully shared with me. But in broad strokes: I went to Ben Brazda at Filthy Motorsports for a conference outlining my project goals to see if this was something he could help me with and as it happened, he could. He could because while not what they do it is a project he just completed for himself. How fortuitous. We wanted the same thing. Remove the harshness and provide the control the factory left out on his truck. Ben explained the issues involved and number of ways they could be addressed and then I complicated things…I asked for a suspension drop instead of a lift. Not in their wheelhouse. Further the methods used to enhance a firm controlled ride are counter to a drop. My truck is equipped with springs that are rated to carry 2200 lbs. each. That doesn’t translate directly to a spring rate. Rate is the number of pounds required to deflect the spring one inch. The coils up front for example say have a 300lb/inch rate and say 4 inches of travel to just before coil bind. So the springs load capacity is then 1200 lbs. Doesn’t work that way with leaves. Leaves are progressive by nature. Takes more load to compress the second inch than the first and more for the third than the second. How much depends on the number of leaves in the package and the thickness and length of each leaf. GM on the cheap says do it in as few leaves as possible which means thick leaves with large initial rates and huge length steps. You can build a spring either way and still get 2200 load capacity over say 4 inches but one has a softer initial rate with a more progressive nature than the other. It means allot of thin leaves with progressively shorter lengths. It also means the spring package is allot thicker and there lies the rub to a drop. Ride height is affected by the thicker package and in the wrong direction for a drop. The possible remedies are, remove the 1-1/4” spacer and/or flatten the leaf arch. I’m asking for a 2” drop. The arch has to be allot flatter and there is the snag. A leaf spring has a minimum arch height for a given leaf perch distance. Is this possible? That needed to go to engineering at Deaver Springs in California and they came up with a killer plan that they say is a go. Scott the project guy there says the engineers say; Yes remove the block. Yes flatten the arc but to keep it workable, the spring eye are going to be flipped. So why not just use a lowering shackle? Because the truck is receiving Sulastic isolation hangers that are one eye to eye length only. Their value in helping accomplish the project goals is too large to ignore in Ben’s opinion. There is also a minimum distance requirement between the axle and frame to be considered. This is getting long so I’ll leave the rest for a second post. I've exceeded my 500 word limit.

I was quoting for two Camaro's.

Better be a difference Stan. 3.6 has 50 hp on the 2.0T.

Note: Chage paint sealant to Turtle Wax Ice. Blue tint will help on white truck assure even coating. Consumer Reports rates it #2.

Install Scan Gauge. Helped me identify the AFM triggers. Quantify the mpg/mph curve. Learn how weather effected the systems. See things in the system that are otherwise hidden. Linear Logic sent a data logger to help find all hidden PID addresses on ECU to maximize data acquisition. Used Scan Gauge to identify poor driving habits and refine. HUGE dividends for some rather minor tweaks. Real time graphing would help more and an option to be gathered up soon. Have an alignment performed. Not just to get in “within spec’ but to perfect the spec for lowest drag. Still tweaking this one. Scan Gauge helped find the best settings along with tire wear tracking. Also improved ride quality immensely. Major step change. Install Jet 180 F thermostat and Red Line water wetter to lower coolant temperature. Scan Gauge readings of water, trans and oil temperatures showed the factory DIC water gauge was highly inaccurate and insensitive. Pointed out the ridiculously high temperatures they are asked run at AND the effect that has on oil temperature vs speed and load. Confirmed lower operating temperatures allows use of 5 or even 0W20 lubricants. Sorted oils to find the slickest coolest running oil that kept the AFM active the highest percentage of the time. Red Line by the case. Results in about the same step increase in mileage as sorting the alignment. A biggie. Quicker heat ups and quicker cool downs. Next case will be 0W20. Suspension changes are in the works. Ordered and paid for. This is mainly a comfort thing but I did not waste the opportunity to lower the truck to level via the new rear leaf package. I have some moves left in tire selection and pressure refinements and gearing and lubrication changes in the trans and differential as time and resources permit. Some refinement in coolant concentrations and aux oil/water cooling/preheat. If that all pans out, and I expect it will then on to a trans tune and further ECU AFM enhancements. Some minor aero tweaks I put on the back burner that were promising. 55 mph is now giving better mileage returns even in moderate winds on undulated ground than stock did at 45 mph. 60 mph Interstate speeds are often possible now and stay over 27 mpg. Graph is running life time fuel consumption by tank cumulative. (blue) Orange is the last combine 24 tank rolling average. As long as orange stays above blue, blue continues to rise an as you can see the amount it is above is significant. FYI: The last six tanks combine have produced 27.5 mpg over 2750 miles. I was asked if I thought that was possible…there’s the answer.

Me too. I buy them and drive them till they drop. A quarter million miles isn't hard. My last three Honda's all are 200K plus cars that use no oil and have silly low leak down test numbers. They spoiled me to big mileage numbers though so I squeeze what I can from them. My 3.8 Buick knocks down 30 mpg plus like clock work at 65-70 mph. It's harder with the Trucks aero and all so I like the AFM and drive to keep it on when conditions and traffic allow good use of it. Dad's 98 is an iron 4.3. Looks and drives new. His previous one that was the trade for this one had 450K on it and was used as the dealerships chase truck for another 10 years and still wasn't rotted out. Early 80's model also an iron 4.3. Both logged 24+ mpg but neither were 2 foot off the ground and big as a school buss either.

I love the flavor of this. Seriously. Not being funny or cute. I long myself for simple, reliable and affordable. I do wish you hadn't limited your comment on 25 years truck life to the 5.3 though as mine is a 4.3 with the same system. I fully intend to give 25 years a try with this one. IF I live that long. It's going to be a push at my age.

Well I can see the difference right away. I don't have much flat ground and around here, Chicago area big wind is life. That said. Being on and staying on is quite something else. Yea, it turns on but it has to say on enough to add it's contribution to the tanks fuel usage. Being on down hill when the fuel map says 'off' or 135 mpg doesn't add anything to something already using nothing. As for cargo and staying on; once your rolling cargo doesn't take any extra energy. It's take extra to accelerated it and to slow it. But not at steady speed. Karnut's tuner may turn on and off the ability of the AFM to active but it can't make it turn on if the base map is saying no. Simply saying on doesn't make it turn on. So if driving style or conditions dictate the AFM is naturally off make this point mute. Don't know if I'm being clear there but..... Lets nut shell this. Conditions dictate it's usefulness. Those conditions include prevailing weather. Topography. Your right foot and mind set and personal choices. The trucks condition and layout. and so on. There is no blanket statement that fits all cases. It works period. It being useful to your situation is something else. Too complicated? Roller cams are complicated in design and execution. So is VVT and computer controlled vacuum advance and all give your motor the ability to make a torque curve as flat as a billiard table. Rhodes lifters have been in use for decades. AFM is just a switchable bleed down Rhodes with more range. Not that complicated. Being I'm in the mood. The early issue of AFM with the oil redirect. Saying that this caused rings to 'gum up or plug up" needs some thought. Nope...it doesn't...they were being flooded beyond their ability to control the volume. If they found any plugged flooding wasn't the reason. You can't gum up a ring with volume. You can however do so by cooking the oil to varnish. That is not the fault of the AFM. They made the right correction. Redirect it. This is entertaining though. Like watching two dogs fight over which end of the rag taste better.

At 72 the AFM isn't going to active. AFM is load triggered and a box car at 72 mph provides plenty of load to keep it off line unless your going down hill with a 30 mph tail wind. Northern hemisphere prevailing winds are west to east. People look at AFM like it's Nexium. They take it so they can continue doing what the medicine is trying to fix then wonder why it doesn't work.

A graphic posted to my build thread. Note the 50 mph marker. Tow 5 and M5. Yellow and gray. The difference is the AFM is active during the tow mode and disabled in manual. The mileage difference in this test was 6.5%. Is that significant or a 'tiny fraction'? The amount of difference it makes doesn't hinge on it's design. It hinges on its use and that friends is controlled by your right foot. Just sayin.

Here’s the oil type temperature results graphed. Looks better than the raw table data looked. I’m happy. Wish I had thought to gather data in the beginning with the GM 5W30 oil and the 207 F thermostat. It would have been scary and I’m not about to digress now. So…here’s your disclaimer. Kids, don’t try this at home. Don’t use this study or this data to cry over or blame me for a burnt up motor if you decide to run 20 weight group 2 lubricants while towing the max on the speed limiter on a hundred degree plus day crossing Death Valley. I know someone will try cause it‘s what we do. Why does this work? Heat management. Think I’ve said it before. Motor doesn’t care what the API says or what the viscosity is in the bottle on the self on in some test apparatus. It lives in the moment and in the real world.

Quote of post #14. I'm going to add a little tidbit in here as well. I had a 2007 Tahoe LTZ that suddenly went into limp mode and threw codes. Traction Control and Stabilitrak lights came on. I had a misfire on cylinder 1, because the intake valve was not opening. I brought it in and they found the issue to be caused by the AFM. They said that it wore out the rockers and wore a lobe off the camshaft. They also told me this was a common problem due to the fact that you're essentially "dragging" along four cylinders when the motor goes into 4 cylinder mode. That sir is a lubrication issue and not an AFM issue. Your pistons get drug up and down a cylinder at a rate of about 20 feet per second on the highway. Stop that from happening with some tuner. Ever notice how it takes a non-second to come to a wrong conclusion or accept a false premise and a lifetime to get rid of them?

The change to Red Line Lubricant has been a game changer. Cliché I know but…I so was not expecting what changes. Yea, I expected it to run cooler. I expected it to be a bit freer. I did not expect the effect it would have on the AFM and frankly, I should have. Also didn’t see the effect it would have on water temperature. On air cooled motors oil temperature reduction is direct reading and astounding. Just the Mineral oil to Ester change lowered the oil temperature 15 F in my 2005 HD FLHC. You don’t get that directly with a water cooled motor as oil isnt’ the leader in the cooling deparment. So unlike the change from Quaker State to Mobil one that showed a step change. The change from Mobil 1 to Red Line did give a few degrees relief at both ends of the speed range but was the same +/- 1 degree in the middle. Where the improved lubricity and increased thremal capacity showed up was at the water temperature gauge of all places. Under 50 mph the thermostat wont thottle. Wont stay open. The engine heat load is so low that with out a thermastat I have no idea how cold it would run. Oil temperatures will however remain below 208 F even at 60 mph on a 95 F day. That’s huge. Increased thermal capacity not only makes it run cooler. It makes it heat up qicker too. About 15-20% quicker. Qucker heat ups help short trip mileage. To the heart of it then. The AFM is load triggered and what happenes when you reduce the load? It stays on a larger percentage of the time. I’d say magic but it isn’t. It’s good ol fashion physics. In two days I already have a thousand miles on this oil change and the 30 mpg I hit once in the previous 25,000 recorded miles on a perfect day at 45-50 mph highway is now turn key easy at 50 . In fact at 45 mph 33 mpg isn’t hard. Over 30 mpg in tow mode and 5th gear at this speed. Something else unexpected. The better mileage I had been getting in 5th gear AFM active is no longer the case. The advantage has shifted entirely to the 3.23 gear set with one oddity. 4.5% better in fact for the entire speed range avearged. 7% better at 45 mph 2.7% at 50 mph and 4.1-4.5% at 55 mph and above. That little dip in the curve is the oddity. In a head wind it will get better mileage with the 4.1 gear than the 3.23. But with the wind at your back the advantage is significantly bias to the 3.23 meaning tow 5 might have an impact on fuel economy as a situational stratigey in stong head winds. I broke even on this day of 5 mph winds. More test will be needed to quanify and satisty myself. So don’t need a cooler now and the gear change for sake of the ratio is off the table. Still need a new set though for the Torsen Diffrenetial install. So will stay closer to factory.

35,000 miles went by quickly enough. Let’s start with the tires. Bought a new depth gauge. Analog direct reading dial type that measures in quarters of 1/32 inch or 1/128th of an inch. As such the reads are quick and easy to read making multiple reads per tire per tread averaged easy peasy in the noggin. We have .2265 of the original .3125 left. A self-imposed 1/8th inch minimum bound by the lower readings from the outside groves gives 41K left or 76K estimated tread life. Too bad I didn’t discover the toe issue until it was too late. Note to self. Adjust toe to .04+ from .04- to counter mild negative camber. Safety checks, check. Fluids, check. Projected numbers are declining as I’ve elected to run lower air pressures for comfort sake. 32 psig cold. Mobil 1 testing finished I moved on to the Red Line 5W20 fill and then went driving taking notes as I went to add to the graph. After hours of driving and nearly 300 miles I felt good about what I was seeing, feeling and hearing. Did I mention today was a blister? 93 degrees F, humid and dead still air or nearly so. Giving 20 miles per 5 mph increments I logged air, water, trans and oil temperatures along with the incremental mpg numbers along with some notes and observations. Did this twice. Once in Drive and once in M5 after a cool down. The 50, 55 and 60 mph numbers actually in Tow Mode 5th gear to keep the AFM active. It will stay in 5th between those speeds. Then….I opened the window to let out a fly the pup was after before we end in a ditch…and…out the window my notes go…Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. I’m out of time. Out of patients and just out of it in general. So in generalities until I can recreate the file: First and foremost. Here’s the 411 on the OLM. It’s 75 miles per 1% no matter what. Three oils, two thermostats and 45 degrees of range. Run it in 4th if you like. It’s still 75 miles per 1 percent. Run what ya like for oil but I’m keeping the Redline. I’m keeping the 5W20 not matter what GM says; no matter what the bloggers say. K thermocouples don’t lie and neither do calculated mpg numbers over long distances. Especially in back to back to back test. I could care less about GM’s warranty. I’m keeping the 180 F thermostat. I can run 70 mph as cool than as stock at 40 mph and at significantly higher fuel efficiency. After today I have to really rethink the re-gearing. I was stunned over the results. Enough so this goes on the back burner until I find the break point. Which is telling you that below a certain speed the lower gear is a significant help and above a noticeable hindrance. At least without a cooler. Not unsafely so but enough so to make you give your oil choice a good hard look. The question is...what speed do I see me running on average for the next 20 years.

I've run 4.30's back in the day when I was both younger and dumber. The 66 Ford wasn't sporting a double over drive though. It also didn't have a 4.03 first gear in it either. You could run a 4.56 in these on factory tire sizes and still run 75 mph all day. Not that I would. The Ford was spinning 3K at 60 mph. Busy big blocks. I looked briefly at the 3.48's and 3.73's. Spent some considerable time looking at the 3.90, 4.10, 4.3 and 4.56 sets. Last night I tossed the 4.56 gears. First gear would just be to low. Who thought a 4.03 first was a good idea? 2.80/2.90 would have been more than enough. Anyway, of the remaining three the 3.90 is looking iffy for what I want to do with it.

I was fuming. Had to make about five trips into town this week on this tank as my other car is in the shop getting serviced. The last night I decided we (I) needed some things (truck supplies) from Wally World in Rochelle some 20 miles away. Get some Interstate miles on. Yea between the two exits is a accident that has us sitting for about 20 minutes. While I was on the ball and shut it off the two mile snail crawl didn’t do this tank any favors. Lord…might as well knock a hole in the tank…down to 26.6 mpg Then is hit me…ONLY???? On the return trip I let her go doing the twenty miles at the limit. 70 MPH. Reset the trip meter. That will normally run the gauge down to 17 or 18 mpg. Nope, 22 mpg. This little motor likes to be spun it seems. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen a little motor geared too tall to be efficient at nothing; mileage, towing or climbing mountains. Won’t be the first time I’ve regeared shorter and reaped a mileage increase as well as a bit more fun to drive. Not a common modification as it is a bit pricey and not every shop can do it. Related but different. In fifth gear running 55 on the primary roads I, for the first time, can sense the AFM coming in and out over hill and dale. A small change in tone and a slight change in harmonics. Feels almost like the converter lock up of a Turbo 700R. Watching the instant gauge you can see it. Like on a mild hill where it wants to stay active 25 mpg then near the crest it disables 17 mpg. It use to do this as soon as the you reached the bottom of the hill. So Diablo and Range AFM extenders move the trigger points further out to keep the AFM active. OR…we regear and limit the time the motor runs over, past or near the factory set points. OR…we do both and have a motor swap to a four banger.

Know what happens in tow mode at 52-60 mph? Truck stays in 5th gear AND the AFM remains active! First off I was under the impression that the AFM was disabled both in manual 5 or lower and in tow mode. Second I was told or heard maybe that the trans only worked the bottom 4 gears in tow mode. That 5 and 6 were unavailable. I love being wrong. Now I can learn what it will do in tow simulating the 4.10 gear set while the AFM is working. Already started and it looks promising indeed. Climbs the normal undulations of the Interstate without tripping out. Spends more time on that it does in D6. Oil temp is a few degrees lower too. I only have one point and as much of a factor as wind and weather are I better not say a number just yet but...it looks promising. I’m excited. Not just for this but the springs are in the schedule and the car sold. Sale closing on Monday. More toy money! I feel 18 again! LOL. Okay maybe not that young; but I am excited.