Afm And Oil Consumption

jimbrown1 · January 3, 2011

Anyone know if GM has fixed this ol consumption issue yet? Thinking about getting a 2011 Silverado today with 5.3 and AFM but not if I have to put 1-2 quarts of oil in the crankcase eery 2,000 miles. Thakns for the input.

pm26 · January 3, 2011

Based on what I have read in various threads on the subject, the probablity of getting an AFM equipped truck that is an oil burner is not that high. However, it is still a crap shoot, so your concern is valid. I believe that they started using upgraded lifters on 2011 trucks, which should eliminate the oil burning issue. However, you should verify this before deciding which engine to go with.

It is amazing that GM still offers Colorado and Canyon mid size pickups with the 5.3 liter option with no AFM. It seems that these smaller trucks could benefit more from the AFM than the full sized ones.

Just the other day I looked at new 20011 Cadillac Escalades and they use the 6.2 liter engine in them with the AFM. Trucks with the 6.2 do not have the AFM. Go figure.

jimbrown1 · January 3, 2011

Based on what I have read in various threads on the subject, the probablity of getting an AFM equipped truck that is an oil burner is not that high. However, it is still a crap shoot, so your concern is valid. I believe that they started using upgreaded lifters on 2011 trucks which should eliminate the oil burning issue. However, you should verify this before deciding which engine to go with.

Think GM HQ can verify this?

pm26 · January 3, 2011

Wouldn't hurt to send them a written inquiry.

MikeNH · January 3, 2011

Based on what I have read in various threads on the subject, the probablity of getting an AFM equipped truck that is an oil burner is not that high. However, it is still a crap shoot, so your concern is valid. I believe that they started using upgreaded lifters on 2011 trucks which should eliminate the oil burning issue. However, you should verify this before deciding which engine to go with.

Think GM HQ can verify this?

Could they? Probably. Will they? I doubt it. They won't want to admit there is a problem in a case like this I'd imagine.

Hoe-n-it · January 3, 2011

I have a 2011 Tahoe with the 5.3 and AFM. I checked the oil yesterday and at almost 3K miles it has not used any oil. I can't say none of them won't or that it won't use oil in the future but for now I'm good.

jimbrown1 · January 3, 2011

Wouldn't hurt to send them a written inquiry.

I e-mailed them but probably won't hear back in a quick time frame.

gnet158 · January 3, 2011

Don't the oil burning issues take a while to show up?

jblakeney · January 3, 2011

The people I know when AFM engines burn oil...... I have been toying with the idea of a new truck for a while..... 6.2L is my choice... NO AFM........ A brand new vehicle should not burn oil for well over 100k a lot nearer 200k....

Jbo

jimbrown1 · January 3, 2011

That's exactly why I just killed a deal on a 2011 with a 5.3 engine and AFM. Rather keep the '05 without any issues than get more than I'm bargaining for. GM better correct this issue soon.

music · January 3, 2011

What's funny is that for every post on here about "AFM motors burn oil", less than one in ten is actually a 5.3/AFM owner (edit: made up number there, but you get the idea). By far, most of the 5.3 and 6.0 AFM owners on this board report no issues. I'm one of 'em.

jblakeney · January 3, 2011

What's funny is that for every post on here about "AFM motors burn oil", less than one in ten is actually a 5.3/AFM owner (edit: made up number there, but you get the idea). By far, most of the 5.3 and 6.0 AFM owners on this board report no issues. I'm one of 'em.

Mileage being??? Lifters been replaced?? Oil Change intervals? Towing?

Jbo

music · January 3, 2011

Mileage being??? Lifters been replaced?? Oil Change intervals? Towing?

odom = 25k miles

Full synthetic since first change (change myself). Zero indication of consumption thus far.

All stock.

Tow 7k lb camper a few times per year; tow utility trailer once in a while for lumber, etc.

This is the kind of data I'd like to see more of when discussing the issue, especially from the few that have come to post actual consumption issues. I'm not questioning that AFM may lead to oil consumption on some motors (or that it may make it worse on a motor that was prone to it to begin with... e.g., poor tolerance rings), but I haven't seen nor read anything to convince me that it's a big problem. Every time the topic comes up here, there's a wave of anti-AFM posts... but no tangible data about the owners experiencing the problem. I started to put together a poll to collect some data like the above, and compile the results. I don't think there's enough people with the issue frequenting this board to even make a poll worthwhile

mhenshaw · January 3, 2011

The few people that are unfortunate to have oil burners, post in here to get advice (so we see it a lot, however we will not post if we don't have a problem). If we ran a poll on it then you would see it is not that common.

My truck 08, my brothers 10, my buddies 07 all dont burn oil. Mine has 71,000 miles now too.

dogzapper · January 3, 2011

I was wondering the same, myself.

In 2006, I bought a brand new 2006 Silverado 2500HD Duramax/Allison CC/SB LT-3 with literally ALL of the bells and whistles.

Then, I made the mistake of joining DieselPlace.com. Holy Crap, my brand-new $50,000 MSRP rig was a pile of shit, with heads that warped, fuel filters that needed doubling, injectors that popped by the dozen and a quiet recall on everything from seat heaters to the glow plugs. Honestly, it was that bad.

So I posted a thread: "Why Did I Even Bother Buying This Piece of Junk?" And, of course, the responders informed me that my new Duramax was a wonderful piece of equipment and not to worry.

Sure, "not to worry" ... I pay only cash for my trucks and after the negotiations were over, I was 46 Big Ones short ... and my fellow Duramax owners are crying the blues about what an awful rig GM is duping the public with.

And, to be absolutely honest, DieselPlace absolutely spoiled my enjoyment of my Duramax.

Flash forward four years, and maybe I'm a little more Internet savvy than I was back then.

Now, I have a 2010 Silverado 1500 4X4 CC/SB LBZ Z-71 in Victory Red. I knew that the Internet mavens had their tighty-whiteys in a wad and pulled up their azz about the AFM and it's possible relationship with excessive oil-consumption. Did it bother me? Not particularly.

The Internet is a problem-magnet. Not only that, you're going to have some lurkers & trolls who try to spoil other's enjoyment of a new truck.

MY 2010 5.3 AFM ENGINE IS NOW NINE-MONTHS OLD AND IT HAS NOT BURNED AN OUNCE OF OIL.

That's all I know. And that's all I care about.

Would I buy a new 2011 Silverado or Sierra truck with the 5.3-liter engine with AFM. Hell yes I would ... in a heartbeat. The 5.3-liter engine, especially when linked to a 3.42 rear end and the new six-speed tranny is not only a powerhouse, but it gets fabulous fuel mileage. It tows my 6,000 pound trailer wonderfully and it's a dream in every possible way.

If you want an oil-burner, the 8.1-liter Big Block that is the darling of this site was horrid in my 2002 - 2500 Avalanche. It started out burning 1-quart per 1,000 miles when it was new and by the time I had 10,000 miles on the odo, it was up to 3-quarts of oil per 1,000. And GM never fixed it and they never fixed my neighbor's 3500/Allison with the same 8.1-liter.

Would I ever want another 8.1-liter? Not likely.

I'm awfully happy with my 5.3s (we have two) and I wouldn't let a few folks bellyaching over the Internet stop me from buying one.

Steve