Results 31 to 40 of 106
Thread: I disabled AFM as an experiment.
08-29-2013, 02:29 PM #31
As of pulling into work this morning, I am getting a 18.6 average fuel economy. That's actually slightly better than previous tankfuls. So far so good.
I did make a discovery, if I set the cruise at 65 I get a steady state(flat ground) reading from the instant economy gauge of 20-21MPG, if I set the cruise at 60, I get steady state of 23-24MPG. I hate going that slow, but the fuel economy is better. I'll just keep the cruise at 65 as going 60 is too painful.
2013 Silverado LTZ White Diamond Crew Cab
Advent OGM1 Navigation
Husky Liners GearBox Underseat Storage
EGR Rail Caps
K&N Air Filter
Flowsound 40 Muffler
Hypertech Max Energy Tune (only top end limiter removed and AFM disabled)
Chrome Tailgate Handle Cover
TonnoPro HF-155 Tonneau Cover
WeatherTech Front and Rear Splash Guards
Husky Liners X-Act Contour Floor Liners
WeatherTech Side Window Deflectors
08-29-2013, 06:58 PM #32
My Diablo should be almost here and then ill see what my truck gets with it off
2009 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LT Z71 Crew Cab "All-Star Edition"
Line-X'd Custom Brush Guard(Heavy Duty)
5.3L Flex Fuel
275/65R18 Toyo Open Country AT2's
2" Rough Country Leveling Kit(want to get the 2.5 RC kit)
EGR In-Channel Vent Visors
Exterior PLUS Package
Interior PLUS Package
K&N Drop-In Air Filter
Cat-Back Dual Exhaust
Diablo Sport Predator(AFM Disabled)
Next Planned Mods
Blacked out Tail Lights
08-30-2013, 09:17 AM #332011 Chevy Silverado LT 4WD 30k miles
2001 Suburban 2WD, 5.3, V8 185k miles
08-30-2013, 01:07 PM #34
Today is Friday.
Average fuel economy for the 5 days of mostly highway, and a little city is 18.8MPG. I used less than 1/2 tank this week. This is of course only a small sample size, but it does look promising.
I compromised and set the cruise at 63. I will keep the other forum members updated.
Is the disabling of AFM a sure fire way to not have the oil consumption problem, or is there a possibility of the problem as the engine has the AFM hardware?
08-30-2013, 01:24 PM #35
Sure is a lot of anecdotal evidence that turning off the AFM has a beneficial effect on engine oil consumption. I know I will find out, probably more accurately than others, whether it makes a difference or a problem that is inherent to the engine design. I turned off the AFM the day my new 2013 came home from the dealer after buying it. If it has any AFM time, it was during the 9 miles from the dealer to my house. Other than that, it has no time at all in V4. So, over time, we will see if the oil issue crops up anyway. Also, since I got it, it only got the initial fill and one after that with E10. The rest of the time it has only gotten E85. Will see how that affects things over time also.Hey there, VA, what do ya' say? How many vets did you kill today?
08-30-2013, 01:52 PM #36
08-30-2013, 02:17 PM #37
Well, it played out somewhat close. I bought the pickup, and it would not be ready for 3 days. While at home, I started surfing around and came across the AFM issue. After reading a considerable amount about it, including finding out about the Range AFM disabling device, I ordered it up. So, when the pickup got brought home, it got the new module put on it shortly after it got there. So it wasn't quite that I bought the Range module when I knew I was going to buy the truck, it was more like I bought the Range module Because I bought the truck. Else knowing about this issue before hand, It might have been the tipping point to persuade me to not buy the truck. Only the deals that were offered gave this pickup and edge, along with the reputation of the dealer I was using. I am not a huge fan of anything being produced, regardless of label on the grill, so I just look at what vehicle will do what I need done, has the most amount of features for the dollar, and do it at the best value I can get in my area.
Now on the E85 issue. Yep, agree the mpg difference does make a difference. I am getting E85 at $2.39 a gallon. E10 is 3.36 a gallon and regular is 3.46 a gallon. Even with the mpg difference, I am saving roughly 3-4 cents a mile operating cost using the E85. I run multi layered relational spreadsheets tracking this kind of stuff in my commercial trucking operation, it is a short step to doing it for my pickup. And E85 does not equal crappy mileage. Using it in an engine that is designed for multifuels makes for crappy mileage. In an engine that is designed to ONLY run on a high level of ethanol, E85 or straight ethanol actually turns in some rather respectable mpg numbers. But since that wasn't an option, the point is moot.
Last edited by Cowpie; 08-30-2013 at 02:35 PM.
08-30-2013, 02:42 PM #38
Range AFM, so that device needs to stay plugged into the OBD-II port all the time? My Hypertech handheld programmer simply re-programs the ECU
If I could get E85 for $2.39 a gallon I would run it as well.
According to fueleconomy.gov Silverados like our users have reported 17MPG combined with E10 and 13MPG combined with E85.
In order to make E85 more desirable to use from a financial standpoint, E85 would have to be $2.57 a gallon. These are of course using your E10 and E85 prices you quoted.
The problem is, most service stations here in my area E85 is either the same price or $0.15 lower. Not worth it at all.
08-30-2013, 06:41 PM #39
Diablo showed up 30 mins ago!...will give updates after i drive it
08-30-2013, 10:08 PM #40
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Exhaust gas is retained and compressed over and over againin the deactivated cylinders – This can’t be good for the engine – I would think it may be the cause of the need for new rings in these motors. This never happens if the engine stays in V8 mode. The exhaust gas is never prevented from being ejected in v8 mode.
Tags for this Thread