V4 scares me

[bgbdwlf2500]

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 8:08 AM, Largely Unknown said:

Interesting. 

roads are not flat enough to keep it in V4 for any distance long enough for it to make a difference, couple that with my trucks 3.08 gear ratio and its always downshifting on the highway even in V8 anyway

[j-ten-ner]

On 1/6/2018 at 10:09 AM, O_J_Simpson said:

So you are scared of a feature GM has been offering for over 10 years?

Lets put it this way...I traded my 07 Sierra oil-furnace for a 13 Silverado, assuming that after 7 (seven) years GM would have a handle on the oil consumption issue.

Guess what, I'm on an oil consumption test right now with 100K's on the clock. And that's kilometers not miles.

On 1/8/2018 at 4:57 PM, Jsdirt said:

...

My oil burning is completely unrelated to AFM - it's 100% piston rings. That's just half-assed manufacturing. You'd think after over 100 years of building internal combustion engines, they'd know how to keep crankcase oil OUT of the combustion chamber ... 

That's what the service adviser told me "...maybe a piston ring has spun, happened before on those engines...".

I don't know whether the oil consumption is AFM related or not and I don't care.

I, too, think that this is unacceptable after 100 years...

 

so long

j-ten-ner

[spenpet]

18 hours ago, MaverickZ71 said:

I'm not an all-aluminum Ford with EcoBoost fan.  Truck Trend said their short-stay F-150 they tested for their 2018 Truck of the Year had too many structural creaks and groans and pops for their liking.  And those EcoBoost engines with direct injection need some serious internal cleaning, but the strong cleaner burns out the turbos. 

 

I'd be driving a new Ram Rebel Hemi 4x4 in a heartbeat (no pun intended) if I could, but FCA and I are too far apart on that price right now, due to medical expenses.  7 1/2 years of "what in the heck is the Silverado doing now?" certainly haven't helped any on that front.  

if Toyota would have updated their power train, I would have got a Tundra (I have had two Toyotas, the first lasted over 230k mls and not a single engine or transmission problem what so ever...and currently my wife drives a 4-Runner with over 120k miles again not a single transmission or engine issue...I love my Silverado (its my third one and no engine or transmission issues with any of them: '02, '08, '16) but I would have switched...

[EFLine]

I still have AFM on but keep postponing turning it off as everyday I contemplate getting rid of it. I have oil consumption problem, burning about 1.5 to 2qrts every 3,000 miles. Can't say it's related to AFM but makes me wonder. Have 63,000mls on the clock. 

 

Was first brought to my attention when I drove up to northern MN two summers ago and my check oil level light came on. Had 6,000 miles on the change and 23% OLM showing. Took it into the dealer and they scolded me saying that it's because I drove it past 4,500 miles that the oil was low. 

 

I run Mobil 1 0w20 full synthetic and change it religiously every 6,000 miles and add about 2 quarts between changes. Check oil level weekly now

[KARNUT]

One of the reasons I bought a Toyota Camry was the reliability. The non turbo engine and normal 6 speed transmission. So staying with something that works is not a reason to down their trucks. My brother in law had one it was refreshing to hear a constant V-8 rumble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Loco-diablo]

51 minutes ago, spenpet said:

if Toyota would have updated their power train, I would have got a Tundra (I have had two Toyotas, the first lasted over 230k mls and not a single engine or transmission problem what so ever...and currently my wife drives a 4-Runner with over 120k miles again not a single transmission or engine issue...I love my Silverado (its my third one and no engine or transmission issues with any of them: '02, '08, '16) but I would have switched...

I admit, I probably would have done the same. My prior 2008 Tacoma had 185k on it when I traded it in for my 2017 Silverado.

Other than regular maintenance, brakes, tires, muffler and a $200 mid steering shaft, the Tacoma needed nothing during the 10 years I owned it. ZERO rust problems, ZERO tranny problems, ZERO oil consumption (mobil 1 every 5k). I never saw the CEL in 10 years.

[spenpet]

15 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

One of the reasons I bought a Toyota Camry was the reliability. The non turbo engine and normal 6 speed transmission. So staying with something that works is not a reason to down their trucks. My brother in law had one it was refreshing to hear a constant V-8 rumble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

there is a balance between 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it...' and utilizing technology...the Tundra (to my understanding) hasn't changed their power train in 10 years...no updates or improvements.  i'm not saying it isn't a solid platform, but I am saying there has to be improvements over that period of time...

 

another dig on Tundra's is the size of their gas tank...for getting 14-15 mpg, having a tank that holds 21 gals (regardless of what is posted) and gets less than 300 miles on tank of gas isn't too appealing...

 

having said that, to each their own (obviously)...

[EFLine]

4 minutes ago, spenpet said:

there is a balance between 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it...' and utilizing technology...the Tundra (to my understanding) hasn't changed their power train in 10 years...no updates or improvements.  i'm not saying it isn't a solid platform, but I am saying there has to be improvements over that period of time...

 

another dig on Tundra's is the size of their gas tank...for getting 14-15 mpg, having a tank that holds 21 gals (regardless of what is posted) and gets less than 300 miles on tank of gas isn't too appealing...

 

having said that, to each their own (obviously)...

I completely agree with this! Didn't they get 38 gallon tanks in 2016+?

[spenpet]

22 minutes ago, EFLine said:

I completely agree with this! Didn't they get 38 gallon tanks in 2016+?

not to my knowledge, but i have been wrong before...i think the tank size is actually like 26 gals or so...but the issues is you cant drive below 20-21 gals because of the fuel pump or something like that...i don't know the whole deal...but if you have a 50 gal tank and can only use 20 gals...what is the point, right?  

 

 

[KARNUT]

I don’t drink the tundra cool-aid but I like to be fair. Motor tend tested tundra got 19miles per gallon and went over 400 miles on the small tank. The 5.7 makes 381 HP on reg gas and no cylinder deactivation. So if improvements to the engine means tuning to 420 HP on premium gas most people would say no thanks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thomcat]

On 1/9/2018 at 8:39 PM, 15 Z71 said:

My friend at work beats his truck,does 0 maintenance changes oil maybe once a year. Btw...its a 2014 silverado LTZ 5.3. 81000 never been back to dealer for any repair. And AMF never turned off. Now how can this be possible....after reading all these post??

It's possible because there should be no AFM related on post 1/2011 aluminum AFM V8s. Whether or not an engine of later production will be an oil burner depends upon specs of assembly, maintenance, type of stresses placed on the engine and fluids used for lubrication and propulsion. Improper maintenance of the PVC takeoff system or aging of the valve seals and rings will cause oil burning is more likely a cause of oil burning than AFM or the dwell time run as a V4.

 

Second gen '07 Avalanches with the 5.3 and other first AFM engines of that era suffered from all the AFM related causes related to eventual oil burning. One cause of oil consumption was position of the PCV valve takeoff in the valve cover where it sucked a great deal of oil off the valve train, overloading the system and feeding oil into the induction system. The late 2008 and later mod included a redesigned valve cover with the PCV takeoff at a different location. Problems continued on higher mileage AFMs and oil burning was found to be frozen oil control ring sets clogged with burned oil crap on 1 or 2 of the 4 AFM cylinders - GM came up with a cleaning system for the rings, failing that the alternative replacement of pistons. Seems main cause of the problem was the AFM discharge valve which directed oil from the deactivated cylinder hydraulic tappets back into the sump.The discharge head has 5 discharge ports, one vertically and four horizontal ones spraying into the sump - spray from the horizontal ports overloaded the oil control rings of the AFM cylinders, which were "dead" in V4 operation, eventually gumming up their oil control ring sets. Once frozen the rings wore and couldn't squeegee excess oil from the cylinder walls passing excess oil to the combustion chamber. An AFM baffle was retrofitted directing all discharge from the AFM port directly downward into the sump - no more oil splash on dead cylinder walls - no more AFM related oil burning problems. There were additional mods related to reliability of AFM hydraulic valve design. All of these AFM mods were incorporated in post 1/2011 production.

 

Now we have DI where the fuel is directly injected into the combustion chamber instead of against the valves. So there is a new problem related to valve lubrication/carbon buildup in the induction chamber and engine wear. That;'s why the manuals recommend tier one gasoline which has additives that MAY help in this area.

 

Just for laughs I bought the Range device which Woot had on sale for $99 to see if it made a difference in performance - I didn't notice any difference in performance in my mountain/small town driving where it is in V8 most of the time anyway.

[EFLine]

1 hour ago, spenpet said:

not to my knowledge, but i have been wrong before...i think the tank size is actually like 26 gals or so...but the issues is you cant drive below 20-21 gals because of the fuel pump or something like that...i don't know the whole deal...but if you have a 50 gal tank and can only use 20 gals...what is the point, right?  

 

 

https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/tundra/2016/crewmax-cab/features-specs/

 

2016 got a 38 gallon tank so this should help that a little bit. 

 

I came from a suburban which i believe had a 32, 36, or 38?? gallon tank which i loved, and assumed my 2014 sierra would have the same... nope, when I'm running E85, I have to stop to fill up before i have to piss on long road trips. Especially when towing. I now run 87 just to go a bit further and not fill up every other day. 

[spenpet]

1 hour ago, KARNUT said:

I don’t drink the tundra cool-aid but I like to be fair. Motor tend tested tundra got 19miles per gallon and went over 400 miles on the small tank. The 5.7 makes 381 HP on reg gas and no cylinder deactivation. So if improvements to the engine means tuning to 420 HP on premium gas most people would say no thanks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I would like to see that review/article?  Perhaps it was a 2wd?  I have heard that the 2wd and 4wd have significantly different real world MPG's... I also have had several friends that had 4wd tundras...loved everything about them except for the mpg's and the miles per tank...

[KARNUT]

I would like to see that review/article?  Perhaps it was a 2wd?  I have heard that the 2wd and 4wd have significantly different real world MPG's... I also have had several friends that had 4wd tundras...loved everything about them except for the mpg's and the miles per tank...

The 4WD and smaller engine was slightly less. To see article type motor tend in your browser- buyers guide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mookdoc6]

1 hour ago, spenpet said:

I would like to see that review/article?  Perhaps it was a 2wd?  I have heard that the 2wd and 4wd have significantly different real world MPG's... I also have had several friends that had 4wd tundras...loved everything about them except for the mpg's and the miles per tank...

Me too?  Guy I work with bought a 2016 Tundra and didn't crack past 16mpgs's mixed in first few months before the lift and larger tires....He also told me,  "I hand calculate every tank and put on spreadsheet."  Dude is engineer so I am sure he does........now it's 13.5mpg's

 

As usual I get no comment when I told him my GMC is 19.9 at 40k+ miles and I quit hand calculating after first few tanks were of .2

 

There is nothing Toyota makes that is subpar if you ask........everything made by the general is outdated and subpar lot's of ignorant people out there folks!