Jump to content
  • Sign up for FREE! Become a GM-Trucks.com Member Today!

    In 20 seconds you can become part of the worlds largest and oldest community discussing General Motors, Chevrolet and GMC branded pickups, crossovers, and SUVs. From buying research to owner support, join 1.5 MILLION GM Truck Enthusiasts every month who use GM-Trucks.com as a daily part of their ownership experience. 

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.