Jump to content

Sierra Dan

Interesting Article Segment I Found Regarding Disabling of AFM

Recommended Posts

Regardless of the link source.....  I wanted some discussion about this.

Whether or not the link article is Fact, Fake or Paranormal.

 

Well GMC #1 ,  you are the first I have heard of major problems after AFM delete.....

Perhaps this thread will be a lengthy one......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of the link source.....  I wanted some discussion about this.
Whether or not the link article is Fact, Fake or Paranormal.
 
Well GMC #1 ,  you are the first I have heard of major problems after AFM delete.....
Perhaps this thread will be a lengthy one......

I’ve got to hear the ending of this one!


Sent from above
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep us posted GMC #1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you'll get discussion. All you have to do is ask about oil changes, catch cans or afm delete. Or even better, question the validity of the later two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be way off on this, but how is a catch can supposed to prevent the over oiling of the cylinder walls? It states that the excess oil used for the AFM system will be pushed to the oil pan. A catch can catches oil/vapour from high crankcase pressures. Would the extra oil now in the pan somehow cause higher crank case pressures? Would a solution be running slightly less than recommended oil capacity to try to reduce the amount of oil that stays in the pan? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, L86 All Terrain said:

 Would the extra oil now in the pan somehow cause higher crank case pressures? Would a solution be running slightly less than recommended oil capacity to try to reduce the amount of oil that stays in the pan? 

No an No.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tbarn said:

No an No.

So a full and proper DOD delete is the only solution to this "potential" problem would you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GMC #1 said:

New here, I have a 2016 Sierra and installed the Range when I picked up the truck with only 5 miles on it.... has been on it since... at 19800 miles started making a racket.. it's at the dealer to repair the AFM lifters and whatever else is broken inside there. :(

Had a catch can too but removed it before taking it in.

Good move taking the catch can off and since the Range doesn’t leave a trail of being used, I would assume it will get fixed. I do not know what kind of can or how it was installed or empty intervals but the can shouldn’t have contributed to lifter failure. Seems like if the Range was the culprit it would have reared its ugly head before 19K plus miles but hey, that why we are discussing...would suck if your situation is a prelude to everyone else using the Range 😐

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, L86 All Terrain said:

So a full and proper DOD delete is the only solution to this "potential" problem would you say?

Maybe because those AFM lifters are unique little turds. Hope disabling the AFM from engagement will allow those lifters to act like normal lifters and last a lot longer. I’ve got the Range (new to me) but have been using L7 since new almost exclusively. When warranty is over...AFM DELETE (not just disable) is in my trucks future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the McNally catch can and venting both sides.. had considered updating to the Gen2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the estimate on the number of failures vs the number of vehicles equipped with AFM out there? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 3tspapat said:

So what is the estimate on the number of failures vs the number of vehicles equipped with AFM out there? 

There are well over 4 million Gen V (2014+) engines with AFM - GMC Sierra, Chevy Silverado, GMC Yukon, Chevy Suburban, Chevy Tahoe, Chevy Camaro, Chevy Corvette, etc. It doesn't take many AFM lifter issues to create the perception that they are plagued with AFM problems. Combine that with the fact that when someone has an AFM lifter issue, they often register here and vent about it. That has the effect of concentrating the number reports of lifter failures here, and distorts the reality of how reliable the Gen V system is. 

 

Edited by HondaHawkGT
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sierra Dan said:

By popular demand, I am posting this article I found in reference to a reported negative drawback from using a Range Device or similar AFM disabler.

My position on this issue is neither yea or nea! I will leave that up to the L83/L86 and previous 2007-2013 DOD engine experts.

 

 

An AFM Disabler is an electronic device that plugs into the OBD-II port, under the dashboard. It prevents the computer from switching over to four-cylinder mode.

It’s a simple and effective way to turn off the AFM system and provides the added bonus of improving exhaust sound.

NOTE: A disabler device should ONLY be used if the valvetrain is in good working order.

Engines with AFM use a high-volume oil pump. When you eliminate the AFM system, the extra oil is no longer needed.

Excess oil will be pushed out of the pressure relief valve into the oil pan. This will spray oil on the bottom of the cylinder walls which can cause oil burning, especially in high-rpm engines.

 

So I assume a catch can in unison with a Disabler is key to preventing this excess oil buildup?

Engine guys please chime in. :thumbs:

 

If you look further down on the page, all the GM V8's they listed are older Gen IV engines. They don't list any of GM's current V8's (L83, L86, LT1, etc). 

 

It's a sponsored advertisement designed to present itself as a legitimate news article. I believe the issue they're referencing actually had a TSB for it way back when the GMT900's were in production. It's not relevant to the K2xx trucks.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info! I do recall on the BITOG forum, one member estimated failure at less than 1%. Number-wise, it would seem rather large, but percentage wise, not too shabby!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nqabigt said:

5 years and 64,000+miles with range full time and no oil use

Like we all say...goes both ways..my friends 2014 Silverado with a 5.3 is at 103,000 no range no catch can. Burns no oil.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


×

Important Information

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