V4 mode, make it activate more often?

[Dresari702]

So I have searched Google a ton, with no luck.  I am curious: has anyone tried to tune their truck in such a way to get the AFM to engage more often?   There's tons of solutions for a full AFM delete.  I wanna know if it's possible to go the opposite way; and increase the tolerances on whatever parameters the ECU monitors (engine loading, throttle position, etc...) To trigger V4 mode?   I don't have a great need to actually do this....I'm more curious than anything....

Edited October 24, 2020 by Dresari702
Spelling

[swathdiver]

1 hour ago, Dresari702 said:

So I have searched Google a ton, with no luck.  I am curious: has anyone tried to tune their truck in such a way to get the AFM to engage more often?   There's tons of solutions for a full AFM delete.  I wanna know if it's possible to go the opposite way; and increase the tolerances on whatever parameters the ECU monitors (engine loading, throttle position, etc...) To trigger V4 mode?   I don't have a great need to actually do this....I'm more curious than anything....

Yes, in the archives of the old Avalanche forums, the guys back then used HP Tuners to tweak the vacuum settings so AFM would stay on longer.  There were some other things that they did that are lost to me now, interesting stuff.  They were getting 25 MPG.

[Grumpy Bear]

DiabloSport Marathon for GM

ENHANCED FUEL ECONOMY

The DiabloSport Marathon Module helps you get better fuel mileage by enabling your V8 engine to behave like a four-cylinder engine when cruising, while still allowing for full V8 power when you need it.

*  Easy installation. Just plug into the OBDII port under the dash and drive.

*  Compatible with GM vehicles built from 2005 to current that feature Active Fuel Management (AFM).

*  Enables vehicles with AFM to drop cylinders in order to suit the driver’s power requirements, while conserving fuel.

*  Saves fuel by allowing the vehicle to stay in 4-cylinder mode 80% of the time as opposed to only 35% from the factory.

[KARNUT]

There’s a reason they don’t stay in V-4 long. I believe I read in the pre 14 models there was a oil consumption problem. I believe in the later models they time out. I’d read up on it first before I try that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grumpy Bear]

This is the third, and last time I will posted this link. 

 

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/2016-01-0662-fuel-eff-map-2014-6cyl-gm-eco-tec-4.3l-eng-cyl-deac_0.pdf

 

It is a load based system and always has been. You want it on longer? Reduce the load or extend the parameters. The Marathon is a device that will extend parameters. Range has a like device. 

 

I played with engine coolant and lubrication and driving techniques to keep mine on much longer than intended and with good results. I have 130 K on the motor. It is a post 2013 K2 Ecotec3 and it uses NO oil and has NO operational issues. 

 

While this link of the mapping for the 4.3 is very much alike for the 5.3 and 6.2. Do I need a disclaimer now? Ya know, your results may vary? Well yea! 

 

 

[MaverickZ71]

The Range V8 module to cancel AFM was actually invented by the Range engineers after they posted their Range gas saver module on the net.  Their name Range was from this gas saver module--as in how much added range you could get from a tank of fuel.  The gas saver module was designed to keep an AFM vehicle in V4 mode as long as possible.  They didn't sell too many of those, but several people asked them to produce the V8 module to help with the infamous AFM oil usage and lifter problems, and they probably have sold many thousands of the V8 modules.    

[Grumpy Bear]

On 10/26/2020 at 4:29 PM, MaverickZ71 said:

The Range V8 module to cancel AFM was actually invented by the Range engineers after they posted their Range gas saver module on the net.  Their name Range was from this gas saver module--as in how much added range you could get from a tank of fuel.  The gas saver module was designed to keep an AFM vehicle in V4 mode as long as possible.  They didn't sell too many of those, but several people asked them to produce the V8 module to help with the infamous AFM oil usage and lifter problems, and they probably have sold many thousands of the V8 modules.    

Which was true through 2013. 

[MaverickZ71]

10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Which was true through 2013. 

Yes, indubitably.  

 

BUT GM keeps changing the name of the system, possibly in an effort to hide any potential problems from new buyers.  Whether they call it Displacement on Demand, Active Fuel Management,  Dynamic Fuel Management, or whatever they will call it in the future, nobody can deny the complicated systems have not had their problems.  My GM service manager refuses to own one.  And Lord knows how many powertrain tunes/modules have been sold to turn the cylinder deactivation feature OFF.  

 

GM is not totally alone in this, as Honda's and FCA's similar systems have had some problems, perhaps not as widespread, too.  However, in GM's case, from posts on this very website, we do know that with each new generation of truck and SUV, like with the 2014-2018 models, it is suggested that "the new ones have all of the bugs worked out!" and then we see continued posts of failed lifters, ruined cams, oil-fouled spark plugs, and such.  Having lived the AFM nightmare personally, I may be a pessimist on the subject, but I wouldn't be surprised if, in 2028, we're reading that "they had problems up to 2026, but the new ones have the bugs worked out!"  Us GM fans needing a reliable, problem-free vehicle can only hope.  

[KARNUT]

Yes, indubitably.  
 
BUT GM keeps changing the name of the system, possibly in an effort to hide any potential problems from new buyers.  Whether they call it Displacement on Demand, Active Fuel Management,  Dynamic Fuel Management, or whatever they will call it in the future, nobody can deny the complicated systems have not had their problems.  My GM service manager refuses to own one.  And Lord knows how many powertrain tunes/modules have been sold to turn the cylinder deactivation feature OFF.  
 
GM is not totally alone in this, as Honda's and FCA's similar systems have had some problems, perhaps not as widespread, too.  However, in GM's case, from posts on this very website, we do know that with each new generation of truck and SUV, like with the 2014-2018 models, it is suggested that "the new ones have all of the bugs worked out!" and then we see continued posts of failed lifters, ruined cams, oil-fouled spark plugs, and such.  Having lived the AFM nightmare personally, I may be a pessimist on the subject, but I wouldn't be surprised if, in 2028, we're reading that "they had problems up to 2026, but the new ones have the bugs worked out!"  Us GM fans needing a reliable, problem-free vehicle can only hope.  

My father in law had the Honda SUV. At around 100K miles it started using oil and throwing lights. I wasn’t visiting at the time so couldn’t check it out. He did what any loyal Honda owner did. Bought a smaller Honda SUV. I used to drive him crazy pointing out when it dropped cylinders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grumpy Bear]

41 minutes ago, MaverickZ71 said:

 

...it is suggested that "the new ones have all of the bugs worked out!" and then we see continued posts of failed lifters, ruined cams, oil-fouled spark plugs, and such.  Having lived the AFM nightmare personally, I may be a pessimist on the subject, but I wouldn't be surprised if, in 2028, we're reading that "they had problems up to 2026, but the new ones have the bugs worked out!"  Us GM fans needing a reliable, problem-free vehicle can only hope.  

You may indeed be a pessimist but it seems your doubts are earned.

 

When Nissan was Datsun and Datsun was absolute junk Americans ran that company right out of the USA and it took them decades to get a foothold here again. That is what happens when a 'few failures' becomes 'the normal outcome'. Yugo, Fiat an few others had this experience. Almost happened to Harley Davidson. In my marketing classes that was called economic voting. When a product no longer gives an equivalent value to it's cost; consumers vote it out of business buying something other or living without. 

 

There is a reason this platform continues. The success rate is out performing the failure rate by what the market sees as an acceptable risk rate. More engines and transmissions are trouble free than have failed without satisfactory abatement. 

 

You my friend are the seed of an economic vote against GM. Burnt to a crisp you vote no!. If enough joint you then GM, or at least that product line, goes bye-bye.  Each buyer cast his vote.  You are still a minority in that vote.

 

I do see a dangerous trend though in the way GM abates what claims it does get. Your reputation can force a no vote too. 

 

 

[KARNUT]

I can spend quite a bit of time listing failures of GM and Ford. There’s a reason Hyundai, Honda, and others have gained their market share. GM routinely has second place challenge by Ram. The rear drive platform with that company continues to thrive. Ask Toyota Tundra owners when ask longevity is why they buy. Most people who have failures usually buy the same brand. The reason is they’re upside down. And buying the same brand is the only option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BigBlueLB756]

If he wants it to run full time like a 4-cylinder, just pull off........never mind.