do our C6 cars have "active fuel mgmt" that shuts down cylinders for better mpg ?
03-25-2013, 11:05 AM
#42
Team Owner
My grandmother had a Chevy in the 1960s and she never had one again because she said it was garbage. The two speed automatic went out so thus all GM automatics were junk in her eyes no matter how new and better the technology worked. I laughed at her too.
So please tell me what increase in MPG you really saw? I just never was able to crunch the numbers.
As I said before ,on a long trip the 4cyl mode would be short lived. Always had a head wind or grade change to kick it back to V8 mode.
I was at the MPG circle track which is 4.5 miles around .It has no grade to deal with just wind.It is a banked perfect circle.
It would make it 2 miles before a head wind would kick it out . This was at 70 or 80 MPH doing a whip. Not much power at that speed for a 4cyl lock in.
So please don't tell me about ingnorance or not driving a car .
I hope the new system works ,I like the idea . I'm just a little leary.
As I said before ,on a long trip the 4cyl mode would be short lived. Always had a head wind or grade change to kick it back to V8 mode.
I was at the MPG circle track which is 4.5 miles around .It has no grade to deal with just wind.It is a banked perfect circle.
It would make it 2 miles before a head wind would kick it out . This was at 70 or 80 MPH doing a whip. Not much power at that speed for a 4cyl lock in.
So please don't tell me about ingnorance or not driving a car .
I hope the new system works ,I like the idea . I'm just a little leary.
I like the idea of it as well. My biggest fear is the sound from the exhaust when it is not using all 8 cylinders. It sounds crappy enough with the NPP exhaust, throw that on there and you have a 15 hp Johnson boat engine sound. Lovely........
03-25-2013, 11:10 AM
#43
Melting Slicks
So you think the same sytem in your 2007 Truck is what is going to be used in the 2014 Corvette?
My grandmother had a Chevy in the 1960s and she never had one again because she said it was garbage. The two speed automatic went out so thus all GM automatics were junk in her eyes no matter how new and better the technology worked. I laughed at her too.
My grandmother had a Chevy in the 1960s and she never had one again because she said it was garbage. The two speed automatic went out so thus all GM automatics were junk in her eyes no matter how new and better the technology worked. I laughed at her too.
I have said all along that I would wait to see if/how they fixed the issues prior to buying one and that I would hope they fixed it. But I assume nothing...the issues they had with AFM in the trucks began in 2007 with a TSB as early as 2008 and the system remains the same today AFAIK. Lifter issues, oil consumption issues (with a lame TSB fix using a deflector inside the engine which only helps marginally).
03-25-2013, 11:38 AM
#44
Drifting
No place, and thankfully I now have ZERO interest in the C7.
03-25-2013, 12:47 PM
#45
Team Owner
Did I say that? Please show me where I said that.
I have said all along that I would wait to see if/how they fixed the issues prior to buying one and that I would hope they fixed it. But I assume nothing...the issues they had with AFM in the trucks began in 2007 with a TSB as early as 2008 and the system remains the same today AFAIK. Lifter issues, oil consumption issues (with a lame TSB fix using a deflector inside the engine which only helps marginally).
I have said all along that I would wait to see if/how they fixed the issues prior to buying one and that I would hope they fixed it. But I assume nothing...the issues they had with AFM in the trucks began in 2007 with a TSB as early as 2008 and the system remains the same today AFAIK. Lifter issues, oil consumption issues (with a lame TSB fix using a deflector inside the engine which only helps marginally).
03-25-2013, 12:50 PM
#46
03-25-2013, 01:17 PM
#47
Melting Slicks
03-25-2013, 01:24 PM
#48
Melting Slicks
So please tell me what increase in MPG you really saw? I just never was able to crunch the numbers.
As I said before ,on a long trip the 4cyl mode would be short lived. Always had a head wind or grade change to kick it back to V8 mode.
I was at the MPG circle track which is 4.5 miles around .It has no grade to deal with just wind.It is a banked perfect circle.
It would make it 2 miles before a head wind would kick it out . This was at 70 or 80 MPH doing a whip. Not much power at that speed for a 4cyl lock in.
So please don't tell me about ingnorance or not driving a car .
I hope the new system works ,I like the idea . I'm just a little leary.
As I said before ,on a long trip the 4cyl mode would be short lived. Always had a head wind or grade change to kick it back to V8 mode.
I was at the MPG circle track which is 4.5 miles around .It has no grade to deal with just wind.It is a banked perfect circle.
It would make it 2 miles before a head wind would kick it out . This was at 70 or 80 MPH doing a whip. Not much power at that speed for a 4cyl lock in.
So please don't tell me about ingnorance or not driving a car .
I hope the new system works ,I like the idea . I'm just a little leary.
03-25-2013, 02:32 PM
#50
Melting Slicks
GM dropped the ball BIG TIME on their first attempt, Why should I be confident they will get it right on their 2nd attempt?
My wife's '11 Honda Accord has it (VCM) and it's a 6-4-3 system and it's flawless...with NO oil consumption. I have zero concern for it's reliability long-term. I cannot say the same about GM's system.
03-25-2013, 02:53 PM
#51
Team Owner
yeah, if you say so.
GM dropped the ball BIG TIME on their first attempt, Why should I be confident they will get it right on their 2nd attempt?
My wife's '11 Honda Accord has it (VCM) and it's a 6-4-3 system and it's flawless...with NO oil consumption. I have zero concern for it's reliability long-term. I cannot say the same about GM's system.
GM dropped the ball BIG TIME on their first attempt, Why should I be confident they will get it right on their 2nd attempt?
My wife's '11 Honda Accord has it (VCM) and it's a 6-4-3 system and it's flawless...with NO oil consumption. I have zero concern for it's reliability long-term. I cannot say the same about GM's system.
I am not so confident in the sytem either, GM did a terrible job with the first iteration and like you, I certainly hope they fixed it. Im not saying you should be confident. However, you tell me that you have and will continue to just wait till it comes out to pass judgement but you already have your reservations, pretty strong ones I might add. Asking the question "why should I" speaks that you are not waiting. If I am wrong I am sorry.
The oil consumption is a problem that GM has had with many vehicles, not just those who cut cylinders. They are always too quick to bring things to market (in my opinion) without doing enough long term research.
However, those with blown engines because of oil consumption deserve to have a blown engine. They should learn to check it once in a while. A low oil light is an idiot light....and named accordingly so.
03-25-2013, 03:36 PM
#53
I'm "Apache" a psycho dog
yeah, if you say so.
GM dropped the ball BIG TIME on their first attempt, Why should I be confident they will get it right on their 2nd attempt?
My wife's '11 Honda Accord has it (VCM) and it's a 6-4-3 system and it's flawless...with NO oil consumption. I have zero concern for it's reliability long-term. I cannot say the same about GM's system.
GM dropped the ball BIG TIME on their first attempt, Why should I be confident they will get it right on their 2nd attempt?
My wife's '11 Honda Accord has it (VCM) and it's a 6-4-3 system and it's flawless...with NO oil consumption. I have zero concern for it's reliability long-term. I cannot say the same about GM's system.
03-25-2013, 03:50 PM
#54
Melting Slicks
If I say so? No question really, as I did say it. Well, since you are technical I should say type.
I am not so confident in the sytem either, GM did a terrible job with the first iteration and like you, I certainly hope they fixed it. Im not saying you should be confident. However, you tell me that you have and will continue to just wait till it comes out to pass judgement but you already have your reservations, pretty strong ones I might add. Asking the question "why should I" speaks that you are not waiting. If I am wrong I am sorry.
The oil consumption is a problem that GM has had with many vehicles, not just those who cut cylinders. They are always too quick to bring things to market (in my opinion) without doing enough long term research.
However, those with blown engines because of oil consumption deserve to have a blown engine. They should learn to check it once in a while. A low oil light is an idiot light....and named accordingly so.
I am not so confident in the sytem either, GM did a terrible job with the first iteration and like you, I certainly hope they fixed it. Im not saying you should be confident. However, you tell me that you have and will continue to just wait till it comes out to pass judgement but you already have your reservations, pretty strong ones I might add. Asking the question "why should I" speaks that you are not waiting. If I am wrong I am sorry.
The oil consumption is a problem that GM has had with many vehicles, not just those who cut cylinders. They are always too quick to bring things to market (in my opinion) without doing enough long term research.
However, those with blown engines because of oil consumption deserve to have a blown engine. They should learn to check it once in a while. A low oil light is an idiot light....and named accordingly so.
I will not trust GM's AFM system until I see the issues have been fixed after a few years of production. I will not buy ANY GM vehicle with AFM until then. I also likely will not buy a full size truck or a Vette with it unless it can be disabled (as it is in my 2007 GMC). It simply does not belong in trucks or sports cars IMO. Put it in the high-volume V6 sedans like my wife's Accord, I have no issue with that.
For one thing, it does ZERO good in a 5000+lb brick-on-wheels truck. And this I know because I did several long-term comparisons with my truck with and without it enabled and I found ZERO difference in average MPG...none, nada, zilch. Why GM did not go to a 8/6 system instead of a 8/4 system for the trucks is beyond me. At least then it would have a chance to actually stay active in situations other than coasting and under-60mph flat-freeway driving with no load and no headwind.
03-25-2013, 03:51 PM
#55
Melting Slicks
03-25-2013, 04:29 PM
#56
Team Owner
Looks like we are in agreement then.
I will not trust GM's AFM system until I see the issues have been fixed after a few years of production. I will not buy ANY GM vehicle with AFM until then. I also likely will not buy a full size truck or a Vette with it unless it can be disabled (as it is in my 2007 GMC). It simply does not belong in trucks or sports cars IMO. Put it in the high-volume V6 sedans like my wife's Accord, I have no issue with that.
For one thing, it does ZERO good in a 5000+lb brick-on-wheels truck. And this I know because I did several long-term comparisons with my truck with and without it enabled and I found ZERO difference in average MPG...none, nada, zilch. Why GM did not go to a 8/6 system instead of a 8/4 system for the trucks is beyond me. At least then it would have a chance to actually stay active in situations other than coasting and under-60mph flat-freeway driving with no load and no headwind.
I will not trust GM's AFM system until I see the issues have been fixed after a few years of production. I will not buy ANY GM vehicle with AFM until then. I also likely will not buy a full size truck or a Vette with it unless it can be disabled (as it is in my 2007 GMC). It simply does not belong in trucks or sports cars IMO. Put it in the high-volume V6 sedans like my wife's Accord, I have no issue with that.
For one thing, it does ZERO good in a 5000+lb brick-on-wheels truck. And this I know because I did several long-term comparisons with my truck with and without it enabled and I found ZERO difference in average MPG...none, nada, zilch. Why GM did not go to a 8/6 system instead of a 8/4 system for the trucks is beyond me. At least then it would have a chance to actually stay active in situations other than coasting and under-60mph flat-freeway driving with no load and no headwind.
03-25-2013, 05:42 PM
#58
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2011
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 13,256
Received 3,089 Likes
on
2,078 Posts
2021 C6 of the Year Finalist - Modified
Certainly is there 3rd attempt ... Other than the Vega engine, that early 80s Cadillac V8-6-4 was the biggest POS engine GM ever made!
________________________________________ ____
" In the end, the 1980s were not a good time for Cadillac. The folly of both the Cimarron and the V8-6-4 engine almost drove the prestigious brand to bankruptcy and forced consumers to write the Cadillac name off of their shopping lists. According to popular automotive culture, current Cadillac product director John Howell has a photo on his wall with a caption that sums everything up best: ..... “Lest we forget. ”
.
Last edited by Turbo6TA; 03-25-2013 at 07:15 PM.
03-25-2013, 06:52 PM
#60
Instructor
I used to have a 2010 Camaro L99/A6, bought it new and had the dealer install the performance exhaust before delivery. It was always kicking in and out of 4 cylinder mode. I could feel the slight hesitation when it kicked back into 8 cylinders. Worst of all, it sounded really horrible through the performance exhaust. Bothered me so much, I tried to get the dealer to deactivate the AFM. They wouldn't do it so I bought a programmer and did it myself. Enjoyed driving it much better afterwards and the funny thing was I didn't really notice much of a drop in mpg.