Chevy HP/Torq

Discussion in 'Chevy Silverado Forum (GMC Sierra)' started by bryane, Feb 25, 2014.

  1. Cowpie

    Cowpie Member 1 Year 100 Posts

    The same engineers that gave us AFM? I feel much better now.:lol:
     
  2. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    AFM-maybe 1,000,000 Gms sold with AFM??
    Just how many have failed?
    We only hear squeaky wheels? If 1000 failed 1,000/1,000,000 = 1/1000 one per thousand?

    Granted AFM not GMs finest hour
    But Ford with their 6.0 TD-had a very high percentage of problems
    Dodge-various ATs- huge PROBLEMS
    Honda 5 speed ATs with the V-6- lotta problems over 4-5 years

    All manufacturers have problems
     
  3. Cowpie

    Cowpie Member 1 Year 100 Posts

    It isn't a matter of failing, but there is substantial evidence of oil consumption issues including several TSB's that have been put out on how to address the problem. I didn't want it, I was not given the option of not having it, and I wanted to avoid any potential problems, so I disabled the AFM feature on my 5.3L within 48 hrs of taking possession of it from the dealership.

    Might I have had a problem? Who knows for certain. Are the odds that I wouldn't have a problem? Probably. But it is of little comfort if I did nothing and I ended up with all kinds of problems like some others have. And it is really of little comfort that other OEM's have had more problems. That is a cool argument, the others have had more problems, so ours must be ok.

    Either way, it is something that has not proven to be a major technological advancement that benefits the buyer of their vehicles. And if I can't trust them that they will foist this stuff on us, I am not comforted in the overall design. Like Scotty once said in a Star Trek show or movie one time.... "the more complicated they make the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain".

    It has been rather disheartening in some respects, how I have had to modify, disable, replace, or whatever several things about this 2013 to compensate for something the OEM has determined that would be best for me. After all, mother GM knows best! Shouldn't really be surprised, it seems that each new vehicle I have bought comes with a larger laundry list of idiocy compared to the previous vehicles. Sure, these new pickups come with a lot of very good features, but they seem to think the if a little is good, a lot is better. Problem is, what they think is something better does not quite play out that way in the real world outside of Detroit.

    As much as it sounds like I am really trashing my pickup, I am not. This is directed as some of the stuff the GM did in design and build. Sometimes, not always, but sometimes some things are better left alone instead of the Tim Allen methodology of "if it ain't broke, you can probably still fix it" that the OEM's seem to like.
     
  4. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    Wait
    I'm not defending the AFM problem.
    No way would I buy a GM 2007 on until that problem is resolved.
    I -we-were nearly broke in 2007 when I paid $2950 for a 1998 Suburban with 195,000 miles on it
    Frankly I expected a piece of junk that would limp around town-but if we had another hurricane it would run well enough to get 3 adults 2 leggy dogs and 4 cats 100 miles North of New Orleans
    Yeah I expected junk
    but I got a real winner-we took it on 2 3000 mile road trips-and it has been really reliable for 7 years
    So I'm really happy
    If I had paid $40,000 for a truck-and it croaked or near croaked at just 100,000 miles-
    I would be pissed.
    But I didn't-so I'm really happy with my GM- it was a great piece of luck just when I needed some good luck!! Yeah 21mpg hy-starts every time gets me to work- easy to DIY work on-
    yeah I was lucky-some AFM owners-really unlucky-poor woman with a $15,000 lawn ornament!

    PS-One of the big selling points of GM trucks is their longevity- they are all in the top 10 of long lived vehicles-4% on the road with over 200,000 miles-so dying at 85,000 miles is BS of course

    But all Car Manufacturers have miscues-screwups
     
  5. bryane

    bryane New Member

    Umm. HP and torq. As far as AFM, I say its worthless but the the rest of this truck is bad ass. I don't know why but I'm a Chevy guy threw and threw and I'll always look for ways to make down falls positive when comparing it to Ford. It must be in our DNA for truck lovers. For me, I'll rarely use this truck to the limit. Yes I pull a popup but besides the full throttle acceleration while impressing my three kids or racing by a f150 just because. These trucks are impressive. It will take $6.00 gas for me to park it and drive the mini van.
     
  6. j cat

    j cat Rockstar 4 Years 1000 Posts

    ford has picked up older gm truck owners because of these engine failures. Then you have these reports of GM/dealership saying the oil usage is normal with these...so instead of taking action GM delays the fix and hoping the engine warranty runs out...


    with these type forums hard for a manufacturer to hide these type defects...
     
  7. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    Ford is making pretty good vehicles now
    Dodge is too
    so GM will certainly have to correct any chronic problems
    Guessing they are furiously working on it.
     
  8. Cowpie

    Cowpie Member 1 Year 100 Posts

    Well there is some hope. A British based engine designer that has worked primarily with ethanol since the 1920's, has gotten with GM and put a 3.2L Extreme Boost Direct Injection (EBDI) engine in a Silverado 3500HD. This engine has the power output, including low end torque, of the 6.6 Duramax Diesel. And it beats the Duramax in fuel economy by a fair margin. And NO AFM! Just pure V6 power that does what a V8 diesel does!

    http://www.technologyreview.com/news/412095/a-more-efficient-ethanol-engine/

    http://www.automobilemag.com/featur...ethanol_boosted_direct_injection_ebdi_engine/

    this is a very good article with actual hp torque numbers....

    http://www.motor.com/newsletters/20100712/WebFiles/ID1_BestOfBothWorlds.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2014
  9. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    Wow

    Ricardo Inc??
    Is this somehow related to The famous Ricardo-
    did all that famous combustion chamber research waaaaay back when??
     
  10. squatchy

    squatchy Active Member 100 Posts

    But look at how good those arcs look. These engines are very well designed. Have you ever looked at a ford or ram power curve? the 5.0 hits its max torque at the same general rpm range, right around 4200. And guess what, actual dyno numbers it maxes at 284 ft lbs, so why worry about a chevy being at 270 on the low end and climbing to 340? It starts out at damn near the ford max! I havent ever actually seen a ram 5.7 curve but ram says max torque is also reached at 4200 rpm.
     

Share This Page

Newest Gallery Photos