Jump to content

Cylinder Deactivation Issues?

VeronaGMC
 Share

Recommended Posts

Gotsumpnferya Enthusiast

Gotsumpnferya

Posted
Posted

I'm a bit conflicted about AFM . It is very dependent upon your driving style and load whether it is active . I drive the truck normally

95% of the time , but from time to time like to open the throttle and feel that V8 pull . On the highway trips , I don't mind

the V4 activation as long as it isn't causing undue wear on the components and that it is actually saving gas .

I'm trying to be confident with the evolution of these engines over the last several years that they've eliminated most issues ,

but the ticking I get at cold idle (post in another thread) has me cautious .

I live in the mountains of W NC and have driven many of the roads here which is fun , but I don't care for the AFM

coming on during those times .

 

I thought about one of the AFM disabler , but if I'm going to apply the money towards one , why not apply that

to a tuner so I can approach the transmission constantly trying to find the right gear or lugging as well ?

 

What I'd like is to have economy when I want it . I just wish GM had given us the option .

So hopefully a tuner will help with that once warranty is out . It's hard not pulling the trigger now .

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

pickmeup
pickmeup

One simple button with a choice . Economy or Sport mode . I believe it would have saved many many complaints .

j-ten-ner
j-ten-ner

You're not the only one. Because it's easier to turn of AFM than adding two cylinders.   so long j-ten-ner

Grumpy Bear
Grumpy Bear

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

Loco-diablo Senior Enthusiast

Loco-diablo

Posted
Posted

In the 6 weeks/3000 miles I owned my 5.3 AFM, I must say I'm very happy with it's seamless operation. I see it go from 4>8 and 8>4 but it's barely noticeable imo. I have no desire to inactivate it or modify it. So far, so good.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Orlando8 Enthusiast

Orlando8

Posted
Posted

In the 6 weeks/3000 miles I owned my 5.3 AFM, I must say I'm very happy with it's seamless operation. I see it go from 4>8 and 8>4 but it's barely noticeable imo. I have no desire to inactivate it or modify it. So far, so good.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:thumbs:

  • Like 1
B_SKY33 Enthusiast

B_SKY33

Posted
Posted

Very first thing I did was by a tuner and turn off the AFM, I don't like it or need it. Not to mention the exhaust sounds terrible when it goes into V4 mode. I've heard a lot of guys run the Range AFM disable tool but have had issues with it because it stays plugged into the OBD2 unlike a tuner.

dorkweed Enthusiast

dorkweed

Posted
Posted

Very first thing I did was by a tuner and turn off the AFM, I don't like it or need it. Not to mention the exhaust sounds terrible when it goes into V4 mode. I've heard a lot of guys run the Range AFM disable tool but have had issues with it because it stays plugged into the OBD2 unlike a tuner.

 

 

Not if you use one of these handy things..........................http://www.ebay.com/itm/OBD-2-Cord-16-Pin-Cable-Power-Switch-M-F-Right-Angle-ODB-II-Diagnostic-Splitter-/291761971818

  • Like 1
Nanotech Environmental Enthusiast

Nanotech Environmental

Posted
Posted

I'm a bit conflicted about AFM . It is very dependent upon your driving style and load whether it is active . I drive the truck normally

95% of the time , but from time to time like to open the throttle and feel that V8 pull . On the highway trips , I don't mind

the V4 activation as long as it isn't causing undue wear on the components and that it is actually saving gas .

I'm trying to be confident with the evolution of these engines over the last several years that they've eliminated most issues ,

but the ticking I get at cold idle (post in another thread) has me cautious .

I live in the mountains of W NC and have driven many of the roads here which is fun , but I don't care for the AFM

coming on during those times .

 

I thought about one of the AFM disabler , but if I'm going to apply the money towards one , why not apply that

to a tuner so I can approach the transmission constantly trying to find the right gear or lugging as well ?

 

What I'd like is to have economy when I want it . I just wish GM had given us the option .

So hopefully a tuner will help with that once warranty is out . It's hard not pulling the trigger now .

(underlined)

GM did give you that option. That's why AFM exists. When you want fuel econ, drive with a light foot and let the AFM work in your favor. When you want to giver, just do so. V4 only comes on during lighter loads, so it's not like it gets in the way when trying to pass, or accelerate up a hill or whatever hard throttle application you can think of. It doesn't get in your way, at all, ever.

Gotsumpnferya Enthusiast

Gotsumpnferya

Posted
Posted

(underlined)

GM did give you that option. That's why AFM exists. When you want fuel econ, drive with a light foot and let the AFM work in your favor. When you want to giver, just do so. V4 only comes on during lighter loads, so it's not like it gets in the way when trying to pass, or accelerate up a hill or whatever hard throttle application you can think of. It doesn't get in your way, at all, ever.

You're right , it doesn't get it the way , however it does come on at times when I don't want it to . Constant cycling on and off during mountain driving gets annoying , no matter how seamless others may find it . I don't feel as if I have to ride around in M5 all the time to get rid of it . The grade braking feature shouldn't reset during an ignition cycle either . It should be my choice .

 

Say you're in a boat or aircraft , and you're coming through a bad inlet or takeoff or landing , and some feature kicks in changing applicable power in some way at a time you don't want it .

 

Wouldn't you want the option of disabling that feature ? I know I would .

lloydsmale Enthusiast

lloydsmale

Posted
Posted

Question. If I buy a diablo tuner will it allow me to shut the cyl deactivation off at only high speeds? I heard the hypertech does but they don't make one for the 17s. Id like to set it for 60mph and eliminate it kicking in and out around town. Also if I have the 87 oct canned tune installed and cylinder deactivation shut off and go in for service and put the stock tune back in so the dealer doesn't see it do I first have to turn the cutout back on before I install the stock tune or does it automatically come back on with the stock tune?

Nanotech Environmental Enthusiast

Nanotech Environmental

Posted
Posted (edited)

You're right , it doesn't get it the way , however it does come on at times when I don't want it to . Constant cycling on and off during mountain driving gets annoying , no matter how seamless others may find it . I don't feel as if I have to ride around in M5 all the time to get rid of it . The grade braking feature shouldn't reset during an ignition cycle either . It should be my choice .

 

Say you're in a boat or aircraft , and you're coming through a bad inlet or takeoff or landing , and some feature kicks in changing applicable power in some way at a time you don't want it .

 

Wouldn't you want the option of disabling that feature ? I know I would .

Why are you choosing to get annoyed with it?

 

When your truck floats or flies, then you can worry about it. Until then.......... ;)

Edited by 3beejay3
  • Like 1
Loco-diablo Senior Enthusiast

Loco-diablo

Posted
Posted

As mentioned, I find the AFM operation pretty seamless, but that's not to say the owner shouldn't have the choice to disable it.

I absolutely believe that GM should allow you to turn it off if so desired. Government/EPA red tape I'm sure.

B_SKY33 Enthusiast

B_SKY33

Posted
Posted

Question. If I buy a diablo tuner will it allow me to shut the cyl deactivation off at only high speeds? I heard the hypertech does but they don't make one for the 17s. Id like to set it for 60mph and eliminate it kicking in and out around town. Also if I have the 87 oct canned tune installed and cylinder deactivation shut off and go in for service and put the stock tune back in so the dealer doesn't see it do I first have to turn the cutout back on before I install the stock tune or does it automatically come back on with the stock tune?

Hypertech now has a tune available for the 2017's. The AFM settings on it allow you to set it up for certain speeds or disable it completely.Its very easy to put it back to stock (less than 5 min). I actually am selling my Hypertech if you're interested, it's part#2000 that I tested on a 2017 Silverado. Save you some money if thats what you're looking for

Thomcat Senior Enthusiast

Thomcat

Posted
Posted (edited)

I agree mostly, I got 16MPG with my 73 Impala 454 with a 373 rear......

Unfortunately 1973 was not 1974. The 4-6 mpg on my '74 Impala 454 was a different animal not only because I didn't buy the largest engine to drive like granny to save gas, but Uncle Sam had a lot to say about it. The1974 model year - Oil Embargo - gas lines - odd/even plates - gasoline theft from parked vehicles! That was the banner year when the Gov't severely increased air pollution requirements and thus introduction of new experimental vacuum operated gizmos to please Uncle Sam while choking the engine and wasting gas at the same time. Even Chrysler had enough brains to at least introduce electronic ignition - but not '74 GM. Worst year to buy a new Chevy mpg wise, increased weight, coupled with jacka$$ safety standards like the infamous short lived driver seat belt ignition interlock and (tail lights out of the bumper in favor of heavier super duper 10 mph impact bumpers on gas pistons. The best was the low mounted gas filler with vented cap located behind the license plate....more than 3/4 fill in the gas tank and with every fast start and stop you wash the rear bumper with 1/4 gal. gas. But, even at $1/gal. it's poor gas mileage was worth it - the best riding car I ever owned - my less than 1/2 the weight '17 Impala is a cracker box by comparison..

Edited by Thomcat
  • Like 1
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

Unfortunately 1973 was not 1974. The 4-6 mpg on my '74 Impala 454 was a different animal not only because I didn't buy the largest engine to drive like granny to save gas, but Uncle Sam had a lot to say about it. The1974 model year - Oil Embargo - gas lines - odd/even plates - gasoline theft from parked vehicles! That was the banner year when the Gov't severely increased air pollution requirements and thus introduction of new experimental vacuum operated gizmos to please Uncle Sam while choking the engine and wasting gas at the same time. Even Chrysler had enough brains to at least introduce electronic ignition - but not '74 GM. Worst year to buy a new Chevy mpg wise, increased weight, coupled with jacka$$ safety standards like the infamous short lived driver seat belt ignition interlock and (tail lights out of the bumper in favor of heavier super duper 10 mph impact bumpers on gas pistons. The best was the low mounted gas filler with vented cap located behind the license plate....more than 3/4 fill in the gas tank and with every fast start and stop you wash the rear bumper with 1/4 gal. gas. But, even at $1/gal. it's poor gas mileage was worth it - the best riding car I ever owned - my less than 1/2 the weight '17 Impala is a cracker box by comparison..

My mistake mine was a 74, factory 350-350-273 rear. I had a salvage yard at the time. I put a built 454 in it and a 373 posi. Later a transmission shop owner friend was experimenting with the 700R4 which my car was the giny pig. My wife's DD in the 80s. I even drag raced it a few times 14.7 was the best on street tires. I later put the 454 in a 76 nova.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Newell33 Enthusiast

Newell33

Posted
Posted

(underlined)

GM did give you that option. That's why AFM exists. When you want fuel econ, drive with a light foot and let the AFM work in your favor. When you want to giver, just do so. V4 only comes on during lighter loads, so it's not like it gets in the way when trying to pass, or accelerate up a hill or whatever hard throttle application you can think of. It doesn't get in your way, at all, ever.

 

You understand that the AFM transition is not seamless in every truck, right? You may be one of the lucky ones, but others have serious lugging, hesitation, and transmission clunking concerns during AFM operation. I'm a reasonable guy, and if I wasn't able to turn AFM off on my '14, I would have taken a bath and traded it right away. Yes, it was that bad.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,947
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Sothpaw27
    Newest Member
    Sothpaw27
    Joined

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 338 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • nfisherman
      Software Update

      By nfisherman · Posted

      Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...