V4 scares me

[MaverickZ71]

5 hours ago, EFLine said:

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

I figure that is one of the reasons the GM owner's manuals say to "check the oil level at every fuel stop."  And also one of the reasons they increased the oil capacity from 6 quarts to 8 quarts.  

[EFLine]

2 minutes ago, MaverickZ71 said:

I figure that is one of the reasons the GM owner's manuals say to "check the oil level at every fuel stop."  And also one of the reasons they increased the oil capacity from 6 quarts to 8 quarts.  

Correct, more like a CYA than anything. Still not thrilled that I have to carry a quart of oil with me in the bed of the truck. my 2003 suburban with 200k on the odometer didnt drink a drop of oil

 

isnt it 8.5 now?

[MaverickZ71]

5 hours 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 don't know about the Tundras.  I am skeptical on the Tacomas, however--a good friend had one bought back because of the rusty frame recall.  They used that money to buy a new Tacoma.  Then later that new was was recalled also for frame being rusted out and unsafe and it was in the shop for a week while they took the cab and everything off and mounted everything on a new frame.  I figure on that kind of deal it's a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."  

[MaverickZ71]

1 minute ago, EFLine said:

Correct, more like a CYA than anything. Still not thrilled that I have to carry a quart of oil with me in the bed of the truck. my 2003 suburban with 200k on the odometer didnt drink a drop of oil

 

isnt it 8.5 now?

Probably.  I said 8 off the top of my head.  8-9 quarts capacity on the current generation of GM 1500 V8s, somewhere in there. 

 

I know what you mean, I carried a case of oil with me everywhere I went for a few years.  Then after having the TSB work done on my AFM, I only have to carry a quart or two with me.  

[spenpet]

2 hours ago, KARNUT said:

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

this article?  if you have another source, please let me know...

 

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/toyota/tundra/2018/

 

having said that, not sure you are correct sir...here is the quote from the article...

 

The EPA hasn’t released fuel economy ratings for the 2018 Tundra, but the 2017 model was rated at 15/19 mpg city/highway for rear-drive trucks with the base 4.6-liter V-8 or 14/18 mpg with four-wheel drive. The more powerful 5.7-liter unit was rated at 13/18 mpg for rear-drive models and 13/17 mpg with four-wheel drive equipped.

 

 

[spenpet]

12 minutes ago, MaverickZ71 said:

I don't know about the Tundras.  I am skeptical on the Tacomas, however--a good friend had one bought back because of the rusty frame recall.  They used that money to buy a new Tacoma.  Then later that new was was recalled also for frame being rusted out and unsafe and it was in the shop for a week while they took the cab and everything off and mounted everything on a new frame.  I figure on that kind of deal it's a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."  

the tacoma and 4-runner share the same chassis...we haven't been recalled... i don't doubt what you are saying, but I have had a significantly different experience with Toyotas...

[MaverickZ71]

4 hours ago, Thomcat said:

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.

That's just it.  GM incorporated the AFM oilpan deflector and new driver's side valve cover with revised PCV orifice in 2010 and 2011.  The jury is still out on whether those 'fixes' actually worked or not.  And there were further tweaks to the system with the new generation of engines beginning with the 2014 models.  

 

BUT YET THERE ARE CONTINUED PROBLEMS!  You can search on this website and EASILY find 2010-11-12-13-14-15-16-17 models that still have problems with AFM lifters, cams, oil control manifolds, stuck piston rings, excessive oil usage, rough idle, misfire codes on various cylinders, etc.  Most all of which would not be occurring if AFM was not installed on these engines.  The GM smallblock V8 engine was the best in the world before they rushed all of this AFM stuff into production to meet the CAFE requirements.  AFM has been described on this website as a flawed system manufactured with cheap parts and indifferent tolerances.  My truck is a definite rolling proof of concept on that idea.  True, some others might have better luck.  And some may win the lottery, too, but not many.  

[MaverickZ71]

6 minutes ago, spenpet said:

the tacoma and 4-runner share the same chassis...we haven't been recalled... i don't doubt what you are saying, but I have had a significantly different experience with Toyotas...

Theirs were both extended cab 4x4s.  Not sure what the exact years were and they probably don't know what the factory was, but I'll ask.  

[Jsdirt]

Funny, I just saw a flatbed TT at a Toyota dealer the other day - I counted 14 truck frames stacked up on the back, lol. Guess that'll teach 'em for trying to cheap out on frame material.   Can't imagine how much that cost the company, all just to save a few bucks on materials.

[KARNUT]

this article?  if you have another source, please let me know...
 
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/toyota/tundra/2018/
 
having said that, not sure you are correct sir...here is the quote from the article...
 
The EPA hasn’t released fuel economy ratings for the 2018 Tundra, but the 2017 model was rated at 15/19 mpg city/highway for rear-drive trucks with the base 4.6-liter V-8 or 14/18 mpg with four-wheel drive. The more powerful 5.7-liter unit was rated at 13/18 mpg for rear-drive models and 13/17 mpg with four-wheel drive equipped.
 
 

Someone stated (you maybe?) the tundra got 13-15 miles per gallon and barley got 300 miles out a tank. I said in fairness that was around 19 MPG and 400 a tank. You seemed to found similar results, so what more do you want? I never owned a tundra, over 20 GMs 1/2 dozen Fords. I just like accurate info. The GM dealer is bigger in my area so I got better deals with them. If I got a better deal on tundra or kept my trucks longer then 2 years I definitely would have bought a tundra for their reliability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thomcat]

10 hours ago, MaverickZ71 said:

That's just it.  GM incorporated the AFM oilpan deflector and new driver's side valve cover with revised PCV orifice in 2010 and 2011.  The jury is still out on whether those 'fixes' actually worked or not.  And there were further tweaks to the system with the new generation of engines beginning with the 2014 models.  

 

BUT YET THERE ARE CONTINUED PROBLEMS!  You can search on this website and EASILY find 2010-11-12-13-14-15-16-17 models that still have problems with AFM lifters, cams, oil control manifolds, stuck piston rings, excessive oil usage, rough idle, misfire codes on various cylinders, etc.  Most all of which would not be occurring if AFM was not installed on these engines.  The GM smallblock V8 engine was the best in the world before they rushed all of this AFM stuff into production to meet the CAFE requirements.  AFM has been described on this website as a flawed system manufactured with cheap parts and indifferent tolerances.  My truck is a definite rolling proof of concept on that idea.  True, some others might have better luck.  And some may win the lottery, too, but not many.  

Yes there continue to be problems  - that doesn't mean that they are AFM related. Yes the V8 small block was probably the best - and it turned to $hit a long time before the AFM insult  - the 283 on my '60 and 327 in my '65 SS were bulletproof, but they used steel cylinder walls not aluminum blocks, ran at 165 deg F, with only a road draft tube or PCV valve for emissions, free breathing induction and exhaust systems, drank gasoline contaoining that wonderful lubricant tetra ethyl lead which lubricated the upper end's 16 valves with simple hydraulic lifters, no variable valve or ignition timing other than vacuum advance . and not a single piece of electronics other than the radio, . That's not what's powering the vehicles of today....many cross country and coastal trips - the 5.3 AFM's in my '12 Avalanche hit 80K and the '13 Avalanche hit 60K without burning any measurable oil on the stick, or adding a drop of oil. Of course I always buy new with less than 50 miles on the clock, first oil & filter change at 1K, second at 3K and then every 3K thereafter Mobil 1 and OEM filter replacements and only drink more expensive tier 1 gasolines - too much, too often? -damn right, but in the over 3 dozen vehicles I've owned and bought for the children not a single oil burner or engine failure.....exception might have been the '07 Avalanche which I had enough brains to dump before the unmodified AFM engine became a burner. People buy low mileage "cherry" used vehicles that someone else has kicked the crap out of them or follow the ridiculous oil change schedule dictated by that engine killing DIC and then wonder why engines wear out and screw up. Excessive oil changes have never killed a single engine, but the opposite is not true and following the oil change advice of the DIC  becomes a poor claim for self defense when the engine dies and you have to pay the penalty.

 

And the number of complaints are irrelevant without knowing the population used for comparison or insults they have been subjected to in their lifetime. Only the guy that gets the $hit end of the stick is the one who does the complaining......so all that can be surmised from what appears to some to be a large number of complaints is relevant only to those doing the complaining.

 

Whether poor maintenance, abuse or just plain bad luck creates the oil addict V8,  even though the AFM issue has been remedied it will continue to get the blame. Proof is that the majority of vehicles with the same engines made out of the same parts don't exhibit these problems......same goes for the notorious "Chevy shake".....another problem which I and most have never encountered, nor complained.

[KARNUT]

I loved the old small blocks too, had a few. The reason you can go extended is the engine is more efficient no over fueling like with carburetors. I grew up in the sixties started driving in the seventies, can’t recall cars lasting 200K miles. Pretty common today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spenpet]

17 hours ago, KARNUT said:

Someone stated (you maybe?) the tundra got 13-15 miles per gallon and barley got 300 miles out a tank. I said in fairness that was around 19 MPG and 400 a tank. You seemed to found similar results, so what more do you want? I never owned a tundra, over 20 GMs 1/2 dozen Fords. I just like accurate info. The GM dealer is bigger in my area so I got better deals with them. If I got a better deal on tundra or kept my trucks longer then 2 years I definitely would have bought a tundra for their reliability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

your statement "Motor tend tested tundra got 19miles per gallon and went over 400 miles" was in accurate.  Motor trend never claimed they got 19 miles per gallon on their tested vehicle...all they did was posted what toyota claims to be their mpgs...your post was both wrong and misleading...

 

and NO i didnt find similar results that ANY tundra owner or tester ever claimed to get 19 mpg and 400 miles on their '26' gallon tank...

 

what i want from you is if you post something as a fact, be accurate (actually putting your source would be good too, rather than...hey, just google my fact for me)... passing off wrong information as a fact doenst help anyone...giving your opinion is something completely different...

[Jsdirt]

KARNUT: I loved the old small blocks too, had a few. The reason you can go extended is the engine is more efficient no over fueling like with carburetors. I grew up in the sixties started driving in the seventies, can’t recall cars lasting 200K miles. Pretty common today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

We never knew if they hit 200k - that's the thing. Dealers around here had 3rd shift crews that did nothing but roll back mileage every night, and threw them on the lot in the morning. With only 5 digits, you just never knew.

 

I've and owned & been around my share of cars from the 60's & 70's, and I can tell you first hand, they were more than capable of 200k in the right hands. With modern AFTERMARKET components on a older car, they last forever.

 

I bought a '72 El Camino for $500 in Phoenix. Engine was  a crate, installed sometime in the mid 80's. One of my classmates was running it - hadn't been tuned up in years. He drove that thing misfiring & belching black smoke for 2 years, then sold it to me. Doubt he ever changed the oil in that time. $300 at Checker Auto Parts, and I was chirping second! Drove that thing all around Phoenix in 114° summer heat for a year and a half, drove to the Grand Canyon, MX, several trips to Sedona and the mountains, and visited my buddy in Livermore, CA twice (with motorcycle in back), before driving back up there permanently. 4 months later, crashed my motorcycle and ran out of money - sold my recovered (stolen) '86 Grand Marquis, and used the money to rent a U-Haul trailer, and  threw my motorcycle, tools, and everything else I owned in the trailer and 'Camino, and made the 3,200 mile trek back to MA. Drove 12 hours a day spinning 4,500 RPM for hours and hours on end. Had the car another 10 years after that, and when I sold it, it still burned rubber, NO smoke out the exhaust whatsoever, and ran beautifully. Guy is probably still driving it today.

 

 

[KARNUT]

your statement "Motor tend tested tundra got 19miles per gallon and went over 400 miles" was in accurate.  Motor trend never claimed they got 19 miles per gallon on their tested vehicle...all they did was posted what toyota claims to be their mpgs...your post was both wrong and misleading...
 
and NO i didnt find similar results that ANY tundra owner or tester ever claimed to get 19 mpg and 400 miles on their '26' gallon tank...
 
what i want from you is if you post something as a fact, be accurate (actually putting your source would be good too, rather than...hey, just google my fact for me)... passing off wrong information as a fact doenst help anyone...giving your opinion is something completely different...

I could add other sources and magazines that back the mileage claims by Toyota. But you already made up your mind and have tunnel vision. That’s ok most people do their own research anyway, and as all vehicle ads say you’re mileage may very.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk