AFM/DFM Class action suit...finally

shakenfake · January 6, 2022

13 hours ago, voided3 said:

Makes sense, losing oil pressure never is a good thing and I can't stand auto start/stop. I've always manually disabled auto start/stop on our truck from day one and the lifters still prematurely failed at 585 miles (though primarily due to manufacturing defect). Prior to 2019, the 5.3 and 6.2 didn't have auto start/stop, either, and that generation also runs into lifter failures after a few years of normal use.

We also have a Mini Countryman with auto start/stop and mercifully on that car when you turn it off, it stays off for good for every subsequent ignition cycle. It has a little 1.5 liter 3-cylinder turbo and I can only imagine what favors losing oil pressure at every red light does for the turbo, hence why I disable it on that car, too.

You are over worrying. 100k+ miles on an Audi A6 2.0L turbo diesel. Auto stop and start rarely gets turned off. I even had it tuned. Breathe.

haider320 · January 8, 2022

On 1/5/2022 at 3:22 PM, Silverado4x4 said:

I was reading online today that this guy was a GM mechanic an GM is now saying the lifter failure may be the cause of the auto/start stop system that when the motor stops oil is going back into the crank and on restart the oil has to pumped back up again for lubrication. Don't ask where I found it because I know ill never be able to find the page again, kind of make some since. Without the chip it also disables DFM along with start/stop.

I don't have DFM but still have start/stop.

elcamino · January 8, 2022

On 1/5/2022 at 3:21 PM, WeGone said:

What does DFM have to do with emissions? It is for fuel mileage improvements.

If this statement were true they would not be able to sell new trucks without the chip to run it as it is disabled and from my understanding will never be re-enabled on these trucks.

Less fuel used = less emissions generated. The reason they will not-re-enable is likely the cost to do so.

YZ-Dave · January 8, 2022

Well even if a CALS goes forward and gets rewarded, you might see what, $100 - and you will still have a set of the same questionable lifters in your engine. If they did have to pay out, once they do, they are 100% off the hook.

The reality is that what, 98% or more of these engines are going down the road just fine with no problem at all, and will hit 200k miles. The thing has a higher probability of being backed over at your local home improvement store by a dump truck and being totaled.

GM has been dealing with the issue on these lifters for a LONG time, going back to the LS engine. The problem lies in inconsistent material problems in the metal itself and is highly inconsistent, and is impossible to know which and what lifters will fail.

Should they update it - yes. But if they do that now, GM will be replacing millions of lifters in engines that won't need it. It is literally a better logistic solution for them to let them fail in the field.

See the way this whole thing works with the CALS is GM will lay in the weeds, let them form their case, and will have the data to justify their decisions. There was a lawsuit being filed for Camaro, CTS, Corvette owners over starter motors going bad. Once things came out that nearly half the people on the lawsuit had modified their cars in some way, the whole thing got thrown out in court. Change the topic to the lifters - and GM can start asking for proof that all these engines had been run / serviced on time, with Dexos approved fluids, etc..... the same thing will happen. The CALS is only a good idea for the lawyers as they are the only ones who are guaranteed anything if there is a payout.

voided3 · January 8, 2022

1 hour ago, YZ-Dave said:

Should they update it - yes. But if they do that now, GM will be replacing millions of lifters in engines that won't need it. It is literally a better logistic solution for them to let them fail in the field.

I agree, and this is the most likely outcome. I think the best outcome would be to give all customers extended coverage on the affected engines so at least if they break down, they know it won't be out of pocket. When they fail, they should have an upgraded full set of lifters installed under that coverage (as opposed to using the exact same design, or at least use the same part but built with more robust materials and tighter tolerances).

WeGone · January 8, 2022

On 1/5/2022 at 3:21 PM, WeGone said:

"Completely agree, but they'll probably never deactivate DFM on existing vehicles as that's tampering with emissions control systems."

5 hours ago, elcamino said:

Less fuel used = less emissions generated. The reason they will not-re-enable is likely the cost to do so.

I agree but my comment was in regards to the statement at the top about removing or tampering with DFM !

I have never seen anything relating to or stating disabling/deactivating DFM was tampering with emissions, if it was the sellers of said disabling devices would have to disclose this to the buyer.

Edited January 8, 2022 by WeGone

diyer2 · January 8, 2022

I think whatever happens will be in GM's favor, meaning the least cost. There are other mass produced products with design flaws that get a band-aide applied and I wouldn't count on it being favorable to the consumer. I say again, do you remember the Ford Pinto gas tank flaw. They killed people IMO and got away with minimal cost.

shanemoon · January 11, 2022

All of this is overblown. Remember, anyone can sue anyone in the US for anything...and claim anything in their lawsuit. I can sue GM for my car turning into a rainbow elephant at night and haunting me in my sleep, and if I get enough people to agree with me, I can even make it a class action lawsuit. Doesn't mean it'll ever get anywhere. 9 out of 10 class action lawsuits end up vanishing.

Also remember that GM has sold somewhere in the realm of 2.8 million of these trucks, with probably at least half being 5.3 V8 w/DFM. Based on numbers on this forum and just extrapolating that, I'd wager that there's maybe 1000-3000 engines that have this issues? That's somewhere in the realm of 0.1% - 0.3% of total vehicles sold with this engine....

EVERY manufacturer has issues during manufacturing. Bad batch of parts from a supplier, issue with a line process, assembly error, etc.

If you have the issue, you just happened to get unlucky. Get the warranty service and go about your life.

It's hilarious when people say stuff like "Oh I'll never own a GM again or GM is so trash, blah blah blah blah" based on such tiny numbers. Have fun with Ford and Ram's plethora of their own issues.