Active fuel management
#3
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Delaware & Long Island NY
Posts: 3,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Active fuel management
Originally Posted by BIG_BOY
Does anybody know of any disadvantages to GM'* active fuel management?
None... :?
#5
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few months ago I found an article on the internet saying active fuel management was somehow harmful to the engine. Now I can't remember exactly what it said and I have no idea where I found this article.
#6
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless upper cylinder lubrication is completely dependant on fuel additives, I can't think of any real issues. Alternating which cylinders are active should take care of anything I can think of.
#7
Instead of working on transmissions and gearing for fuel mileage, they manipulate the combustion engine with "active fuel management" cylinder de-activation and rely on electronics as a gatekeeper. WAY to many of these engines have failed over the years; look at all of the class action lawsuits and AFM issues on the internet.................
The following users liked this post:
garagerog (03-21-2018)
#8
Senior Member
True Car Nut
It'* mostly okay.
Before anyone clobbers me: In the GM world, there are millions of AFM engines on the road in vans, pickups, large SUVs, mid-size SUVs, sports cars, and even a few RWD and FWD cars.
Yes there is a prevalence of them with severe issues. The number with severe issues is significant but not anything like 25% or 50% or 90% of all AFM engines built. The main issue I've seen on the interwebs (and on a friend'* 2008 K1500 5.3) is oil consumption. It appears there are a few that have progressed to major engine damage due to oil starvation related to AFM-specific parts and design.
If someone has real failure counts versus production counts I'd love to see them.
Anyways, in a nutshell it is mostly good and functions seamlessly, with some amount of mechanical issues on some of them.
Reliability from a theoretical standpoint: less air processed by the air filter and all sensors, less fuel combustion means less heat management, less carbon build-up, less injector cycles on the AFM-enabled cylinders, less processing of exhaust by the catalytic converters, and less exposure for oxygen sensors. The valves end up closed on the AFM cylinders so there isn't any great metallurgical concern with heat cycles of the metal parts involved or uneven block heating.
In reality, the downside has been related to oil consumption and starvation, and based on the numbers I have to wonder if a bunch of the related parts are slightly defective from the manufacturer . . . or if GM relied too closely on the "edge" of a specification in the design. For the latter, the example that comes to mind is the timing chain issue on the GM 3.6 V6. GM relied on lubricity continuing at higher oil-change intervals than real-world use could handle, hence timing-chain stretch, then a CEL then an expensive recall on affected vehicles. Something similar may be the case with the AFM oil-consumption and reliability issues.
Before anyone clobbers me: In the GM world, there are millions of AFM engines on the road in vans, pickups, large SUVs, mid-size SUVs, sports cars, and even a few RWD and FWD cars.
Yes there is a prevalence of them with severe issues. The number with severe issues is significant but not anything like 25% or 50% or 90% of all AFM engines built. The main issue I've seen on the interwebs (and on a friend'* 2008 K1500 5.3) is oil consumption. It appears there are a few that have progressed to major engine damage due to oil starvation related to AFM-specific parts and design.
If someone has real failure counts versus production counts I'd love to see them.
Anyways, in a nutshell it is mostly good and functions seamlessly, with some amount of mechanical issues on some of them.
Reliability from a theoretical standpoint: less air processed by the air filter and all sensors, less fuel combustion means less heat management, less carbon build-up, less injector cycles on the AFM-enabled cylinders, less processing of exhaust by the catalytic converters, and less exposure for oxygen sensors. The valves end up closed on the AFM cylinders so there isn't any great metallurgical concern with heat cycles of the metal parts involved or uneven block heating.
In reality, the downside has been related to oil consumption and starvation, and based on the numbers I have to wonder if a bunch of the related parts are slightly defective from the manufacturer . . . or if GM relied too closely on the "edge" of a specification in the design. For the latter, the example that comes to mind is the timing chain issue on the GM 3.6 V6. GM relied on lubricity continuing at higher oil-change intervals than real-world use could handle, hence timing-chain stretch, then a CEL then an expensive recall on affected vehicles. Something similar may be the case with the AFM oil-consumption and reliability issues.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
2000SilverBullet
Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning
35
04-10-2004 08:08 PM