Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 3/21/2019 at 12:24 PM, David Schneider said:

I dunno. It was driving like complete garbage before i put the air filter on.  That's the reason iput it on. there is absolutely no reason for that truck to be dropping in cylinders when you're driving in City traffic. I don't care what anybody says it's not good for it and it's not good for gas mileage at all. There something not right. And i can't handle it anymore. I hate it!  Wish i did my research bout AFM dod. Before i bought this truck.  We should have to buy a range or a disabler because Chevy wants to try some new energy-saving bullshit

It isn't GM wanting to try something for the fun of it. The government requires trucks to meet fuel economy and emissions requirements. Those requirements get more stringent every year and have been doing so since the mid-2000's. AFM is here because the government forced them to use it.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, HondaHawkGT said:

It isn't GM wanting to try something for the fun of it. The government requires trucks to meet fuel economy and emissions requirements. Those requirements get more stringent every year and have been doing so since the mid-2000's. AFM is here because the government forced them to use it.

Curious as to why the Tundra doesn’t have AFM then, since they are sold in the United States?  They get horrendous gas mileage.

Edited by 1997SierraSLT
Posted
1 minute ago, 1997SierraSLT said:

Curious as to why the Tundra doesn’t have AFM then, since they are sold in the United States?  They get horrendous gas mileage.

Because Toyota only sells approximately 110k of them a year as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of fullsize truck GM sells each year. 

Posted

I don’t personally hate afm... on the highway. When I drive in town I put it on m5 to avoid the awful lugging around 42 mph. I wouldn’t mind tuning it to come on at 60+ only. But I think when things start getting bad I’ll just full on delete the SOB

Posted
1 hour ago, lew-e said:

I don’t personally hate afm... on the highway. When I drive in town I put it on m5 to avoid the awful lugging around 42 mph. I wouldn’t mind tuning it to come on at 60+ only. But I think when things start getting bad I’ll just full on delete the SOB

I'm going to have to try that (putting it in m5), when driving around town roads going 40-45 because that is when I don't like the AFM either - I can feel it shifting in and out as the transmission doesn't know what the hell to do - it drives me nuts and I have to think it's bad for the transmission to constantly be shifting gears like that. 

 

However on the highway I find it's great, I'm actually averaging 24.4 mpg since I've owned this truck...that's not a careful one week of driving, that's 33,000 miles of various driving conditions! AC on in the summer, freezing cold starts in the winter, mostly highway weekly commute, with a lot of around town driving on the weekends.

 

I'll try that manual 5 thing for the around town stuff and see if I think helps...I really don't want to tune the AFM off and I figure I have a warranty until 60,000 (so at least I'm covered with the lifters until then). 

 

From what im reading it looks like sooner or later I'll have to make a decision on the AFM/lifter situation. My hope is this...I'd like to make it through the life of my loan before I run into lifter failure, then when the truck is payed off (and I don't have a payment), I may permanently delete it and not worry about gas mileage/amount of money I spend at the pump. I bet this thing would drive so smooth without it. So I need to make it 5 years and 150,000 miles. Lol

Posted
4 hours ago, HondaHawkGT said:

Because Toyota only sells approximately 110k of them a year as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of fullsize truck GM sells each year. 

I think it's more because Toyota's other vehicles in their lineup get great fuel economy (Prius, Yaris, Corolla, RAV4, Hybrid Camry, Hybrid Highlander, etc, etc). I think that allows them to meet CAFE regulations without having to worry so much about their full sized trucks and SUV's...whereas GM has lagged behind in that department. I could be wrong - not sure exactly how many vehicles GM has in their lineup that are hybrid and how it effects the CAFE formula.

Posted
I think it's more because Toyota's other vehicles in their lineup get great fuel economy (Prius, Yaris, Corolla, RAV4, Hybrid Camry, Hybrid Highlander, etc, etc). I think that allows them to meet CAFE regulations without having to worry so much about their full sized trucks and SUV's...whereas GM has lagged behind in that department. I could be wrong - not sure exactly how many vehicles GM has in their lineup that are hybrid and how it effects the CAFE formula.

My Camry gets mid 30s fuel mileage on trips @ 74 MPH. Toyota makes the top selling cars same with Honda. What does GM do? Eliminates cars from their lineup. Nighty percent of GMs ads are for trucks. My son has a Malibu and loves it. You watch a nascar race Camry usually the pace car. Chevy and Ford usually it’s a truck. In the nighties impala and caprice were very popular. The rear drive platform got dropped to change the plant to trucks. Not because of popularity. There’s more money in trucks. My 94 impala ss got 24 miles per gallon. Ford and GM hit with the ads people like sheep started buying trucks. Now a 1/2 ton truck is a rear drive sedan with a bed that gets worse fuel mileage. I buy a full size car loaded for 1/2 the price of a moderately loaded truck. Then I bought an old used truck with the savings to do truck things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted
2 hours ago, KARNUT said:


My Camry gets mid 30s fuel mileage on trips @ 74 MPH. Toyota makes the top selling cars same with Honda. What does GM do? Eliminates cars from their lineup. Nighty percent of GMs ads are for trucks. My son has a Malibu and loves it. You watch a nascar race Camry usually the pace car. Chevy and Ford usually it’s a truck. In the nighties impala and caprice were very popular. The rear drive platform got dropped to change the plant to trucks. Not because of popularity. There’s more money in trucks. My 94 impala ss got 24 miles per gallon. Ford and GM hit with the ads people like sheep started buying trucks. Now a 1/2 ton truck is a rear drive sedan with a bed that gets worse fuel mileage. I buy a full size car loaded for 1/2 the price of a moderately loaded truck. Then I bought an old used truck with the savings to do truck things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most manufacturers have gone away from cars, expect Toyota, because they’re not selling. People want trucks and suv’s. The family sedan is dead. I think even Toyota has had some decline in their car division - the Avalon is having sales problems, even though that’s a beautiful car. Camry and Accord I think are the only two I see regularly on the road, along with some commuter cars (Civics, Prius, Fit). But that’s kind of a different segment. For families (which is a huge market), the trucks and suv’s have taken over.

 

But I see your point for sure, the car market is probably a bargain compared to the truck and SUV market...cheaper initial cost, better fuel economy, probably better buyer incentives. I guess an argument can be made that if you have one vehicle that can do everything for you, instead of two, maybe the cost is cheaper or the same? I kind of did that with my situation...traded in my car, sold my second hand pickup and bought the Silverado. Wife has an SUV. Don’t know?

Posted
I think most manufacturers have gone away from cars, expect Toyota, because they’re not selling. People want trucks and suv’s. The family sedan is dead. I think even Toyota has had some decline in their car division - the Avalon is having sales problems, even though that’s a beautiful car. Camry and Accord I think are the only two I see regularly on the road, along with some commuter cars (Civics, Prius, Fit). But that’s kind of a different segment. For families (which is a huge market), the trucks and suv’s have taken over.
 
But I see your point for sure, the car market is probably a bargain compared to the truck and SUV market...cheaper initial cost, better fuel economy, probably better buyer incentives. I guess an argument can be made that if you have one vehicle that can do everything for you, instead of two, maybe the cost is cheaper or the same? I kind of did that with my situation...traded in my car, sold my second hand pickup and bought the Silverado. Wife has an SUV. Don’t know?

I put about 2 million miles behind the wheel of a pickup for work. Some very nice ones. Probably why I’m tired of them. I sure like performance sedans though. My wife’s car is fun. I think about it versus the cost of a pickup. In my humble opinion no contest. I realize I’m in the minority on that one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted
4 hours ago, Doublebase said:

I think it's more because Toyota's other vehicles in their lineup get great fuel economy (Prius, Yaris, Corolla, RAV4, Hybrid Camry, Hybrid Highlander, etc, etc). I think that allows them to meet CAFE regulations without having to worry so much about their full sized trucks and SUV's...whereas GM has lagged behind in that department. I could be wrong - not sure exactly how many vehicles GM has in their lineup that are hybrid and how it effects the CAFE formula.

That help, true. But if you look at the sales data for the last 4 or 5 years, Toyota has kept a strict limit on how many Tundras they build and sell. I think they strictly limit how many they build to keep their Cafe numbers in check. Either way, the only reason AFM/MDS/small turbocharged engines are used in half-tons is because of CAFE.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
4 hours ago, KARNUT said:


In the nighties impala and caprice were very popular. The rear drive platform got dropped to change the plant to trucks.

You have it wrong.  In the 90s, the 91-96 Caprice and 94-96 Impala and 92-2011 Clown Victorias were duds as far as sales go to the public. (they were favorites of Law Enforcement) The Caprice/Impala box cars from the late 70s thru the mid 80s were awesome sellers, and then Honda and Crapota began establishing themselves big time with the Accords and Camry's, and the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable come around 1987ish. 
Meanwhile, sales of trucks and SUVs were booming in the 90s and GM did the right thing by converting the Arlington TX plant which built the RWD GM vehicles over to Trucks/SUVs.  The vast majority of vehicle owners got very tired of big RWD sedans by the late 80s and were eager to switch over to FWD and trucks and SUVs. 

 

Yes yes yes, I get it, the 94-96 Impala SS/ Caprice 9C1 was a great car.  I drove tons of the 9C1s at my job and the occasional stock SS for fun and they were loved for their performance and room by law enforcement, but again, they were TERRIBLE sellers when it came to the general public. 

 

Here is a little article written recently (2018) about the SS that might get your heart racing again.  Don't have a heart attack, old man. 
Full disclosure, I am always on the lookout for a great deal on a 94-96 SS. 
https://www.hagerty.com/articles-videos/articles/2018/12/04/impala-ss-buyers-guide

 

 



 

  • Like 1
Posted

Born/raised in small town USA. Everything manufactured within the past 20-30 years can be traced to corporate inertia. Always too little/too late.

Posted
You have it wrong.  In the 90s, the 91-96 Caprice and 94-96 Impala and 92-2011 Clown Victorias were duds as far as sales go to the public. (they were favorites of Law Enforcement) The Caprice/Impala box cars from the late 70s thru the mid 80s were awesome sellers, and then Honda and Crapota began establishing themselves big time with the Accords and Camry's, and the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable come around 1987ish. 
Meanwhile, sales of trucks and SUVs were booming in the 90s and GM did the right thing by converting the Arlington TX plant which built the RWD GM vehicles over to Trucks/SUVs.  The vast majority of vehicle owners got very tired of big RWD sedans by the late 80s and were eager to switch over to FWD and trucks and SUVs. 
 
Yes yes yes, I get it, the 94-96 Impala SS/ Caprice 9C1 was a great car.  I drove tons of the 9C1s at my job and the occasional stock SS for fun and they were loved for their performance and room by law enforcement, but again, they were TERRIBLE sellers when it came to the general public. 
 
Here is a little article written recently (2018) about the SS that might get your heart racing again.  Don't have a heart attack, old man. 
Full disclosure, I am always on the lookout for a great deal on a 94-96 SS. 
https://www.hagerty.com/articles-videos/articles/2018/12/04/impala-ss-buyers-guide
 
 


 

They sold out of the Impala SS. The problem was they didn’t make enough. The writing was on the wall they we’re dropping the platform and pushing SUVs and pickups. That’s ok the Genesis and Stinger are better cars. I paid 24K for my Impala 33K for our Genesis in 2011. I had the impala 7 years going on 8 with the Genesis and it’s still like new. It was worth the wait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted (edited)

The Genesis and Stinger came around 20+ years later.  (The Stinger is awesome) Why do people continue to compare performance and crap of modern day vehicles to those of vehicles 20+ years ago!?  Hell a 2012 Impala ex-glorified rental car with the 3.6L V6 and many turbocharged 4 cylinder rice burners (and domestic rice burners)  have more HP and is faster than a 1996 Impala and a 1993 Camaro Z28!  So what!?  They were great cars back then, they still are.  But they were built for a different time.  20 years from now, if we are not dead or flying around or driving around in self autonomous vehicles I'm betting many of us will look back and say.. "My 2019 Silverado- as ugly ass as it is- was a great truck.  But my 2040 Geo pickup can easily outperform it."

Edited by Colossus
Posted
9 hours ago, lew-e said:

I don’t personally hate afm... on the highway. When I drive in town I put it on m5 to avoid the awful lugging around 42 mph. I wouldn’t mind tuning it to come on at 60+ only. But I think when things start getting bad I’ll just full on delete the SOB

x2 

on highway it isn’t that bad, i always tell people on city driving just use m5

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Yes they are a good addition to make the truck more visible.   I have the OE ones in the lower front corners. I added some amber fogs to the bumper from Diode Dynamics SS6 model and wired them to my upfitter switches.   
    • I had an issue with a new 1985 Z-28 some years ago. The 4WDB's were less than adequate when purchased IMO.  I had taken it in for small warranty services and asked them on three occasions to check them. Each time is was "could not duplicate on the service ticket. The warranty ran out about a month after my last visit and had to take it back for warranty rework. I again complained about the brakes. Well, low and behold, this time they determined the rear calipers were sticking and gave me a quote to repair. They had records as well as O had receipts of each time complained about the brakes while still under warranty. My dad was a life long body shop owner and told me to keep my cool and tell them that I wanted to speak to the GM Regional District Manager. The service manager disappeared for a few minutes, came back and told me they would replace the calipers free of charge. 
    • Towing a 2022 Lance 24 ft travel trailer with our 2021 GMC Sierra 2500HD, gas.  Loaded, trailer is about 6,000 lb.  We get up to 10 mpg at 55 mpg, such as I-5.  Pleased with the combination.
    • I decided to give it a shot and see what sort of a gong show it would be to a pan drop themed oil change on my 2025 gas truck with the 10 speed. All indications I had seen so far was that there was no way that pan was coming out of there due to the cross over exhaust pipe not allowing enough clearance for the back end of the pan to duck out from under the valve body since it hangs lower than the pan to trans mount flange and certainly the filter does. I never touched any of the exhaust mount hardware at all, be that the engine manifolds to Y pipe, the bracket on the side of the transmission, or the two bolt flange further back behind the trans/transfer case. I put the truck up on four jack stands as there was no way I was going to struggle with that lack of clearance under the truck. The truck was cold as it had sat over night so all the trans fluid had drained to the pan, so I drained the bit of oil that would come out of the level check plug at the bottom near the front of the pan and put the plug back in to reduce the ensuing mess after that. Then took out all but one bolt front and rear and then pushed up on the pan and took out the remaining two bolts and then let the front of the pan tilt and spill out most of its contents into a drain pan. I then popped the pan gasket off its two locating nubs and kicked it a bit to the left side so it was no longer on the flange of the pan to get all the clearance I could and managed to get the pan slipped out of there by swinging the front of the pan to the right but keeping the rear part of the pan inline if not slightly to the left of its mounting flange area and lifting the front of the pan enough to keep the rear part of the pan low enough that allowed the pan to "JUST" slip out without forcing anything. I installed a new trans filter and seal and as per GM instructions on this site I torqued the two bolts to that 44 inch pound goal ( they take an 8 mm socket ) In reversing the pan procedure after I had cleaned up the pan both inside and out completely ( touching the outside of a dirty pan and dealing with installing a gasket at the same time would be a disaster ). First I slipped the pan into place and yes it took me a while as it won't go unless its slid in just at the right angles, then once the back of the pan was into the area of the flange mount, I went and got the gasket and then threaded that through the front of the pan and feeding it under the filter etc and finally working it onto the flange of the pan and lining up the two locating nubs to drop into the pan. Then lifted the pan up into place and get a couple of bolts started and check and make sure the gasket is where its supposed to be as the bolts were being put in. I never used any power tools as I don't have any of the whimsy little drive guns, I use what looks like a small screw driver handle with shank that has a 1/4 drive on the end of it and added an extension and those bolts use a 10 mm socket as some times power tools can bite a person if used on delicate parts ( torqued to 80 inch pounds ). Also should note as per rules around pulling the add plug out first, yes I cracked that loose with a 8 mm Allen bit socket on a 3/8 slim head ratchet as there isn't a lot of room to work with there either due to the exhaust on the right side of the trans.    I already had delco ULV oil on hand and of course the quart bottle pump wasn't made for those small cap threads so I had to use some other containers that the pump would fit and keep transferring oil over into them so a wasted exercise there but indeed the small pump did work just fine as ULV oil is thin and easy to pump in summer time weather. I put in 9.5 quarts as per prior minimum recommendation and yes that cut it pretty close as once I had the truck ( off the jack stands so its level ) and the trans oil up to 167f , about 6 ounces came out but a level kit or what have you could throw it off just enough that it wouldn't be enough oil so probably that 10 quarts is a good amount to put in so one doesn't have to add more oil as when its hot I sure wouldn't want to be adding oil so would have to let the exhaust cool. All I do for warming up the transmission is sit there with it in park and rev it to about 2500 rpm and it takes close to 20 minutes to get it up to that lower limit of 167f, weird how it will warm up more doing that then by driving it, I am not real keen on power braking the truck to get the temp up there and don't seem to have to either. By the way I only have 9000 miles on the truck so probably not a very good payback on doing it that soon and the magnets had such a minor thin layer of fines on them so that was good to see and the color of the oil was a darker red then new oil but still looked very good as it should and I've not done any towing with it so its been living a pretty easy life so far. The filter is made in such a way that its next to impossible to pull out the filter media but there certainly was some fines showing up there which makes sense give the trans having to break in.    I hadn't really planned on explaining this much of what I had done since there are various instruction videos kicking around or I think so, as the gist of my message as that by fluke or what have you, for some reason my truck has just enough clearance to slip the pan out from the trans. Of course there is no guarantee that other trucks like this in general will also allow the pan to be taken out without messing with the exhaust as I expect its probably a crap shoot if it will or won't, I was just happy to find out that mine would work and avoid all the other struggling and possibly damaging things in the process,     
    • Do you fellas think Fog Lamps would  be a good upgrade for our 2024 2500 HD Custom ? As you probably know it did not come with them ,  Would you put in GM Chevy parts ? Do they get wired up to the switch panel ( Upfitter or whatever the correct terminology is ) on the dash ? Thanks
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...