Cylinder Deactivation Issues?

Grumpy Bear · July 24, 2017

In the 40 years of driving 50K plus miles a year with my business I think I got cruise control down. The thing that I dislike the most is GM took a 300K miles engine added more moving parts for very little benefit. The results (its already happening) at around 100K miles these added parts start failing. The thousands that it cost to repair could've gone in the gas tank. I've bought my trucks for work and durability not to squeeze a few extra miles per gallon. Retired now I take my trips in a Camry for comfort, gas mileage, and reliability. For trips to Home Depot I take my reliable pristine 92 Chevy p/u. Still running R-12 in the AC, wonder how many magic 8-4cylinder 5.3s will be running 25years from now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

mookdoc6 · July 24, 2017

Corvette uses Cylinder Deactivation so obviously the BENEFIT is there....29MPG's? Freaking Crazey!

You want worse mileage going through grades/passes? Well put your cruise control on and you suck far more fuel guaranteed!

As for reliability with "AFM" dude I work with has family member with 2014 Sierra and 140K pulling 5k trailer AZ to TX once week. Only fluid changes on engine. As for durability the Ecotech is quite impressive and hands down from internal engine components to Valve covers extremely more robust than previous Vortec. These are impressive engines and GM knows it with dealership numbers on repair/overhauled/ opened up etc. sent back for further diagnosis.

Like I said, "Your next V8 will go all the way down to 2cyls" How's that making ya feel?

KARNUT · July 24, 2017

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.

My wife has a 17 year old Acura Intagra type R too. I guess the point was driving sensibly and having vehicles for a long time is something I've done.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Grumpy Bear · July 24, 2017

My wife has a 17 year old Acura Intagra type R too. I guess the point was driving sensibly and having vehicles for a long time is something I've done.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

KARNUT · July 24, 2017

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.

Im working on keeping my DD for a long time. My toy I do and my wife does. We have her 05 Elantra and her 11 Genesis. The Acura is more of an investment now (for the aging fast and furious fans). When she had it just 3 years she said it needed to be put up, going to be like the Hemi cuda. Yes I laughed, not so much now it's double its original value. Me, because of business travel I bought new trucks every two- three years, hard habit to break. Still travel a lot retired, just bought a Camry shooting for 4 years, a record for a DD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thomcat · July 24, 2017

Corvette uses Cylinder Deactivation so obviously the BENEFIT is there....29MPG's? Freaking Crazey!

You want worse mileage going through grades/passes? Well put your cruise control on and you suck far more fuel guaranteed!

As for reliability with "AFM" dude I work with has family member with 2014 Sierra and 140K pulling 5k trailer AZ to TX once week. Only fluid changes on engine. As for durability the Ecotech is quite impressive and hands down from internal engine components to Valve covers extremely more robust than previous Vortec. These are impressive engines and GM knows it with dealership numbers on repair/overhauled/ opened up etc. sent back for further diagnosis.

Like I said, "Your next V8 will go all the way down to 2cyls" How's that making ya feel?

X2 - I'm a fan of their Ecotec technology

Just for the heck of it I'd tested the 4/8 Vortec V8s on my previous '07, '12' & '13 Avalanches and now on the '16 Silvy. I got less than 1 mpg difference in mixed small town/mountain driving where it is mostly running on V8, but on a long IS trip WV to PA and return on all IS roads where it is mostly running V4 always using the same route with return on the of tank gas & the consistent difference was 2 mpg. Duplicated same trip recently with same route same brand fill with the the Silvy's 4/8 V8 DI Ecotec and got 4+ mpg difference.

GM really has something going with their Ecotec design....case in point the 2.0T in my Malibu. Designed to run on premium and can run on 87 but shows its true colors on 93. Always a V8 fan, loved my big '74 454 V8 Impala a 4-5 mpg wonder, but the tech in this 2.0T engine with a dual scroll turbo exhibits no traditional turbo lag. Here's the part that will irritate Camaro owners, but a matchup against my '15 Camaro 3.6 V6 with crap Jap 6 spd. manual on 1/4 mile long new asphalt strip in my development awaiting new home construction showed the 2.0T Malibu to hold its own, evenly matched, even trying a second run reversing drivers.............one reason why I dumped that clunky manual shift Camaro and kept the Malibu........better off with a "grocery getter" looking sleeper than an evenly matched cop magnet. Now I see they are sticking the same 2.0Ts in the '17 Camaros.

I don't want or need a 100K engine, or even a 50K engine. With that mileage on a business car I'd be writing off enough expenses on my income taxes to cover an engine replacement every 100K anyway.

GM has done the best it can with the CAFE situation handed it. You can either have a '68 Camaro 302 V8 taking the tech route (of its day) shaking the hell out of you at idle with it's high lift cam, huge gas guzzling sequential quad, and dual Thrushs; go the beast route with an iron 454 V8 taking the low tech "cubes" route sacrificing fuel at 4 mpg. OR go with Al alloy, dual cam, multivalve, DI, dual scroll turbo putting out the highest hp/weight ratio of any engine in a lightweight car that gets up to 30 mpg.

I'd take the current fare of engines over the past engines any day. No more mechanical ignitions and spark timing controls guzzling gas and pumping crap into the air. Can't remember when the last time the vehicles failed to start or cut out in traffic. And next time those longing for the old, dependable engine days that never were, sitting pi$$ed off in a traffic jam, imagine the 50s-60s crawling for 3 hours in traffic the 15 miles from Brooklyn to Long Island with traffic fumes so bad you had to take periodic puke-out-the-window breaks or pull off to walk to the nearby shore are to get away from the fumes. And A/C if you had it was little help that same GM flow-through-ventilation system with the fan on low speed even on Max (called recirc nowadays) all the time it sucked the fumes into the car.

mookdoc6 · July 25, 2017

X2 - I'm a fan of their Ecotec technology

Just for the heck of it I'd tested the 4/8 Vortec V8s on my previous '07, '12' & '13 Avalanches and now on the '16 Silvy. I got less than 1 mpg difference in mixed small town/mountain driving where it is mostly running on V8, but on a long IS trip WV to PA and return on all IS roads where it is mostly running V4 always using the same route with return on the of tank gas & the consistent difference was 2 mpg. Duplicated same trip recently with same route same brand fill with the the Silvy's 4/8 V8 DI Ecotec and got 4+ mpg difference.

GM really has something going with their Ecotec design....case in point the 2.0T in my Malibu. Designed to run on premium and can run on 87 but shows its true colors on 93. Always a V8 fan, loved my big '74 454 V8 Impala a 4-5 mpg wonder, but the tech in this 2.0T engine with a dual scroll turbo exhibits no traditional turbo lag. Here's the part that will irritate Camaro owners, but a matchup against my '15 Camaro 3.6 V6 with crap Jap 6 spd. manual on 1/4 mile long new asphalt strip in my development awaiting new home construction showed the 2.0T Malibu to hold its own, evenly matched, even trying a second run reversing drivers.............one reason why I dumped that clunky manual shift Camaro and kept the Malibu........better off with a "grocery getter" looking sleeper than an evenly matched cop magnet. Now I see they are sticking the same 2.0Ts in the '17 Camaros.

I don't want or need a 100K engine, or even a 50K engine. With that mileage on a business car I'd be writing off enough expenses on my income taxes to cover an engine replacement every 100K anyway.

GM has done the best it can with the CAFE situation handed it. You can either have a '68 Camaro 302 V8 taking the tech route (of its day) shaking the hell out of you at idle with it's high lift cam, huge gas guzzling sequential quad, and dual Thrushs; go the beast route with an iron 454 V8 taking the low tech "cubes" route sacrificing fuel at 4 mpg. OR go with Al alloy, dual cam, multivalve, DI, dual scroll turbo putting out the highest hp/weight ratio of any engine in a lightweight car that gets up to 30 mpg.

I'd take the current fare of engines over the past engines any day. No more mechanical ignitions and spark timing controls guzzling gas and pumping crap into the air. Can't remember when the last time the vehicles failed to start or cut out in traffic. And next time those longing for the old, dependable engine days that never were, sitting pi$$ed off in a traffic jam, imagine the 50s-60s crawling for 3 hours in traffic the 15 miles from Brooklyn to Long Island with traffic fumes so bad you had to take periodic puke-out-the-window breaks or pull off to walk to the nearby shore are to get away from the fumes. And A/C if you had it was little help that same GM flow-through-ventilation system with the fan on low speed even on Max (called recirc nowadays) all the time it sucked the fumes into the car.

My Pops has that same 2.0 in a CTS and it's pretty dang good I will admit although I get occasional turbo lag when moving around corners etc. You forgot to mention that 3500 Stall kit too! Yeah...baby might as well........nice post!

Edited July 25, 2017 by mookdoc6

Nanotech Environmental · July 25, 2017

X2 - I'm a fan of their Ecotec technology

Just for the heck of it I'd tested the 4/8 Vortec V8s on my previous '07, '12' & '13 Avalanches and now on the '16 Silvy. I got less than 1 mpg difference in mixed small town/mountain driving where it is mostly running on V8, but on a long IS trip WV to PA and return on all IS roads where it is mostly running V4 always using the same route with return on the of tank gas & the consistent difference was 2 mpg. Duplicated same trip recently with same route same brand fill with the the Silvy's 4/8 V8 DI Ecotec and got 4+ mpg difference.

GM really has something going with their Ecotec design....case in point the 2.0T in my Malibu. Designed to run on premium and can run on 87 but shows its true colors on 93. Always a V8 fan, loved my big '74 454 V8 Impala a 4-5 mpg wonder, but the tech in this 2.0T engine with a dual scroll turbo exhibits no traditional turbo lag. Here's the part that will irritate Camaro owners, but a matchup against my '15 Camaro 3.6 V6 with crap Jap 6 spd. manual on 1/4 mile long new asphalt strip in my development awaiting new home construction showed the 2.0T Malibu to hold its own, evenly matched, even trying a second run reversing drivers.............one reason why I dumped that clunky manual shift Camaro and kept the Malibu........better off with a "grocery getter" looking sleeper than an evenly matched cop magnet. Now I see they are sticking the same 2.0Ts in the '17 Camaros.

I don't want or need a 100K engine, or even a 50K engine. With that mileage on a business car I'd be writing off enough expenses on my income taxes to cover an engine replacement every 100K anyway.

GM has done the best it can with the CAFE situation handed it. You can either have a '68 Camaro 302 V8 taking the tech route (of its day) shaking the hell out of you at idle with it's high lift cam, huge gas guzzling sequential quad, and dual Thrushs; go the beast route with an iron 454 V8 taking the low tech "cubes" route sacrificing fuel at 4 mpg. OR go with Al alloy, dual cam, multivalve, DI, dual scroll turbo putting out the highest hp/weight ratio of any engine in a lightweight car that gets up to 30 mpg.

I'd take the current fare of engines over the past engines any day. No more mechanical ignitions and spark timing controls guzzling gas and pumping crap into the air. Can't remember when the last time the vehicles failed to start or cut out in traffic. And next time those longing for the old, dependable engine days that never were, sitting pi$$ed off in a traffic jam, imagine the 50s-60s crawling for 3 hours in traffic the 15 miles from Brooklyn to Long Island with traffic fumes so bad you had to take periodic puke-out-the-window breaks or pull off to walk to the nearby shore are to get away from the fumes. And A/C if you had it was little help that same GM flow-through-ventilation system with the fan on low speed even on Max (called recirc nowadays) all the time it sucked the fumes into the car.

So true. Not to mention, it's really nice not having to change plugs every 10 or 20,000 miles, or change oil every 2-3000 miles, or trying to keep the bloody things running half decent in the winter, or the damp/wet days etc.

I wish I could of had my '17 30+ years ago.

Edited July 25, 2017 by 3beejay3

KARNUT · July 25, 2017

I agree mostly, I got 16MPG with my 73 Impala 454 with a 373 rear. Some of the performance cars back then that had AC did get a little warn in traffic, cured with one electric fan. Pucking in traffic, come on. Still don't like GM fooling around with the small block. I know a few mechanics, Ram and GM engines are problematic with the V8-V4 nonsense. I like the Malibu too, according to car and driver the V6 Camaro is a second quicker to 60 then the 2.0 Malibu.

Edited July 25, 2017 by KARNUT

Grumpy Bear · July 25, 2017

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

Thomcat · July 25, 2017

So true. Not to mention, it's really nice not having to change plugs every 10 or 20,000 miles, or change oil every 2-3000 miles, or trying to keep the bloody things running half decent in the winter, or the damp/wet days etc.

I wish I could of had my '17 30+ years ago.

Plugs, plugs......you said the magic word! This is the greatest achievement of the auto industry. Every time I hear plugs I think back to the 70 series GM large V8s like my 454 where the #7 plug was buried under the exhaust manifold and the A/C evaporator blocked any hope of easy access. Multiple flex extensions, working blind,.scraped knuckles and if lucky enough to get it out near impossible to get back in in less than and hour of screwing around blind! Wish I had a dime for every car I ran across where the dealer or service station did a seven plug tune up.

Solved my problem like most around that time by removing the right front wheel and cutting an access port in the inner fender wall.....and there it was staring you in the face. Some early front drive had such limited access they would have to disconnect and lift the front frame for access. Thank you GM for computerized electronic ignitions and 100K platinum tipped plugs!

Thomcat · July 25, 2017

....... I like the Malibu too, according to car and driver the V6 Camaro is a second quicker to 60 then the 2.0 Malibu.

Agreed, no contest with an automatic, but you need a pro driver with luck to work that crapo Jap six speed with close pattern they used in the '15, short throw, foreign reverse design. Shift too fast and is a crap shoot whether you hit third instead of fifth - after a few jolt from mishifts at high rpm you get mentally conditioned to slow down with careful throws on the shift lever; vague feeling hydraulic clutch the 6 spd is mated to is no bargain either.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Thomcat

Thomcat · July 25, 2017

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

The hp differential is insignificant for valid comparison......hp/weight ratio of the two are very close. Camaro is a heavier longitudinal RWD design, new '16 Malibu is lighter FWD with eggshell weight body......and a 6 spd manual in a Camaro might be more fun, but in a straight run cannot match the timing of the Camaro 6 spd automatic.

Nanotech Environmental · July 25, 2017

Pucking in traffic, come on.

It sounds ridiculous, but it is true. If you don't believe it, go to a place like Lima Peru, east of the Airport. They don't have modern emissions regs, or if they do, they don't enforce it. The crush of traffic and high emissions makes for a pretty nasty environment, especially in the hot sun. It's nauseating.

Edited July 25, 2017 by 3beejay3

KARNUT · July 25, 2017

Agreed, no contest with an automatic, but you need a pro driver with luck to work that crapo Jap six speed with close pattern they used in the '15, short throw, foreign reverse design. Shift too fast and is a crap shoot whether you hit third instead of fifth - after a few jolt from mishifts at high rpm you get mentally conditioned to slow down with careful throws on the shift lever; vague feeling hydraulic clutch the 6 spd is mated to is no bargain either.

I used to be hell on wheels with a 4 speed. It was called flat shift or speed shift. 5 or 6 speed I was done. Kept missing 3rd.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk