[cellsafemode]

redundant gauges are super annoying.

The fake bs analog gauges in the camaro dash need to go. They _have_ to cost more to build and install than just making the entire dash area (where the driver gauges currently occupy) an lcd screen.

make it one big lcd screen and allow the driver to place whatever gauges they want in whatever format and size they want on it (mandating that at least at all times some speedo gauge must be present). Give options for every different thing the ecu tracks.
That should be trivial.

Throw in some cool background options ... maybe set the odometer to be an e-ink display so the car doesn't have to be turned on to see it.

our dash is sad. The infotainment system is sad. Just frowns all around.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

redundant gauges are super annoying.

The fake bs analog gauges in the camaro dash need to go. They _have_ to cost more to build and install than just making the entire dash area an lcd screen.

make it one big lcd screen and allow the driver to place whatever gauges they want in whatever format and size they want on it (mandating that at least at all times some speedo gauge must be present). Give options for every different thing the ecu tracks.
That should be trivial.

Throw in some cool background options ... maybe set the odometer to be an e-ink display so the car doesn't have to be turned on to see it.

our dash is sad. The infotainment system is sad. Just frowns all around.

The technology in most cars is pretty sad, and I agree that there seems to be so much that's lacking in the Camaro. At least the odo shows when you open the door and when you turn it off.

[Invertalon]

Anybody have actual data/statistics on the issues with AFM or is it just speculation of what has been 'heard' of by others? Is the primary concern oil burning?

I am sure if AFM was causing that many issues in the vehicles they are in, the engineers/designers would have corrected it by now in some form. It is to be expected when the tech was brand new, there would be some teething issues to work out, but by now, it is a fairly mature technology utilized in various vehicles. It debuted around what, 2007? 10+ years is a long time to improve things.

Oil burning isn't just an issue for engines with AFM, obviously. My 4-banger Scion xB was burning oil and my dads Prius burned a quart nearly every 1,000 miles. I know of friends who had pretty significant burn in their 4 and 6 cylinder cars as well. I bet you proper break-in, oil selection and other factors are a much bigger influence on oil burn as the engine ages than AFM.

Just my thoughts at least. I have a hunch the 'fear' of AFM is way overblown anymore.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by Invertalon

Anybody have actual data/statistics on the issues with AFM or is it just speculation of what has been 'heard' of by others?

I am sure if AFM was causing that many issues in the vehicles they are in, the engineers/designers would have corrected it by now in some form.


Have a feeling the concern is way overblown here.

As I mentioned, GM made significant changes to the 5.3L engines not that long ago specifically to address AFM-related issues. Was the engine a hot mess everywhere? No. But there were enough issues that cropped up where GM knew they had to address it.

The "data" is out there in some regards, largely in forums and posted by those that had issues. What's missing is the non-issue owners and specific details about whether other factors are part of the problems that were experienced. No manufacturer is going to produce a report for general consumption that says "let us tell you how bad this product is/was."

Data is funny in that the more you have, the more you can potentially discount a lot of it.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

redundant gauges are super annoying.

The fake bs analog gauges in the camaro dash need to go. They _have_ to cost more to build and install than just making the entire dash area (where the driver gauges currently occupy) an lcd screen.

make it one big lcd screen and allow the driver to place whatever gauges they want in whatever format and size they want on it (mandating that at least at all times some speedo gauge must be present). Give options for every different thing the ecu tracks.
That should be trivial.

Throw in some cool background options ... maybe set the odometer to be an e-ink display so the car doesn't have to be turned on to see it.

our dash is sad. The infotainment system is sad. Just frowns all around.

I think the lower trim Camaros share the instrument gauge panels with some other GM cars like the Blazer. Not sure if any GM cars share the instrument gauge cluster with the higher trim Camaros, though.

Personally I prefer the C7 Corvette gauges myself(other than the useless speedo part), mainly the reconfigurable tach.

And when I do more spirited driving, I don't really look at the dash that much. The HUD more than makes up for it IMO since I don't have to take my eyes off the road and it has features like shift light(very handy for a stick shift).

Sent from toaster or something

[Cyrus]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Exactly my experience. If I'm not watching the indicator light, I have no idea if it's switching or not. I've watched the indicator switch back and forth and can not hear a difference. There have been times where I've been on the highway in the mid 80s and it's still in V4 mode.

I don't think it has anything to do with your speed just how heavy you are on the pedal. As soon as you reach any top speed and level out the pedal it will run in V4. I'd rather have it than not and for resale value I think more people would want it vs having it disabled. I had an 06' Monte Carlo SS with the same thing but they called it DOD (displacement on demand) then. Dash would display "4cyl mode" when engaged not "V4".

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by Cyrus

I don't think it has anything to do with your speed just how heavy you are on the pedal. As soon as you reach any top speed and level out the pedal it will run in V4. I'd rather have it than not and for resale value I think more people would want it vs having it disabled. I had an 06' Monte Carlo SS with the same thing but they called it DOD (displacement on demand) then. Dash would display "4cyl mode" when engaged not "V4".

As speed increases, so does the amount of power required to maintain that speed. V4 mode will engage when power demands are below a threshold, so your actual cruising speed could factor in.

I think it's actually more related to throttle position than actual speed, and I have also found that the motor won't actually go into V4 mode if you're free-rolling downhill because DFCO already has all of the cylinders shut down.

[cellsafemode]

engine load. ... you can hold the same pedal position (which is roughly equiv to throttle position) and if the gradient of the road changes, it will kick you out of v4 or allow it to go into v4 mode. So it's not throttle position that dictates afm.

Also time. v4 mode is limited by how long it can remain as such because the engine can't allow those cylinders that are deactivated to get too cool. So it cycles between v4 and v8 for periods of time even if the engine load is all good for v4 the entire time.

Also, gear. The car wont allow v4 mode in low gears. I believe that's done to prohibit v4 mode while stopped and likely to accelerate (as well as lower gears being out of the engine load limits for most throttle positions)

[Invertalon]

Originally Posted by ember1205

The "data" is out there in some regards, largely in forums and posted by those that had issues. What's missing is the non-issue owners and specific details about whether other factors are part of the problems that were experienced. No manufacturer is going to produce a report for general consumption that says "let us tell you how bad this product is/was."

Data is funny in that the more you have, the more you can potentially discount a lot of it.

That's the big unknown... The percentage of people who actually have an issue, caused by AFM, relative to the number who don't. As you said, we will never know unless the automaker offers a notice/fix/recall.

Data is a wonderful thing, if you know what to do with it.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

engine load. ... you can hold the same pedal position (which is roughly equiv to throttle position) and if the gradient of the road changes, it will kick you out of v4 or allow it to go into v4 mode. So it's not throttle position that dictates afm.

Also time. v4 mode is limited by how long it can remain as such because the engine can't allow those cylinders that are deactivated to get too cool. So it cycles between v4 and v8 for periods of time even if the engine load is all good for v4 the entire time.

Also, gear. The car wont allow v4 mode in low gears. I believe that's done to prohibit v4 mode while stopped and likely to accelerate (as well as lower gears being out of the engine load limits for most throttle positions)

The car is monitoring the need and ability to -overcome- a particular load on the engine more than just the load itself. In the case of an increase in slope, the car simply slows down with no additional throttle input. Once the RPM's drop low enough due to the drop in speed, it will switch out of V4 mode because of what you were mentioning above where low-RPM operation needs to be in V8 mode.

Assuming either increasing pedal depression or cruise control, if the amount of power output in V4 mode is insufficient to maintain a speed or gain speed, then the car switches back to V8 mode. Incidentally, activating cruise control almost ALWAYS forces V8 mode to start.

[cellsafemode]

the behavior doesn't require any other numbers than time, gear, and engine load.

You can explain why it turns on and off at all times based on just those numbers. (ignoring performance shift / track modes that can prohibit it from engaging due those states specifically being active).

There's no need for any other complex calculations or inputs.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Invertalon

Anybody have actual data/statistics on the issues with AFM or is it just speculation of what has been 'heard' of by others? Is the primary concern oil burning?

I am sure if AFM was causing that many issues in the vehicles they are in, the engineers/designers would have corrected it by now in some form. It is to be expected when the tech was brand new, there would be some teething issues to work out, but by now, it is a fairly mature technology utilized in various vehicles. It debuted around what, 2007? 10+ years is a long time to improve things.

Oil burning isn't just an issue for engines with AFM, obviously. My 4-banger Scion xB was burning oil and my dads Prius burned a quart nearly every 1,000 miles. I know of friends who had pretty significant burn in their 4 and 6 cylinder cars as well. I bet you proper break-in, oil selection and other factors are a much bigger influence on oil burn as the engine ages than AFM.

Just my thoughts at least. I have a hunch the 'fear' of AFM is way overblown anymore.

Originally Posted by ember1205

As I mentioned, GM made significant changes to the 5.3L engines not that long ago specifically to address AFM-related issues. Was the engine a hot mess everywhere? No. But there were enough issues that cropped up where GM knew they had to address it.

The "data" is out there in some regards, largely in forums and posted by those that had issues. What's missing is the non-issue owners and specific details about whether other factors are part of the problems that were experienced. No manufacturer is going to produce a report for general consumption that says "let us tell you how bad this product is/was."

Data is funny in that the more you have, the more you can potentially discount a lot of it.

I was in Powertrain Portfolio Planning at the time the first iterations of cylinder deactivation were being deployed (I'm not counting Cadillac V8-6-4). My team did all the planning work on where to implement first. Factors that were considered included

• total gallons of fuel saved (improve the vehicles that used the most fuel and had the highest volume....trucks)
• managing NVH so as not to piss off the customer. Sports cars fell out quickly because of a 2nd order vibration issue. It was solved by 2nd round of deployment
• position on fuel economy wrt direct competitors

The first couple years of use, the system was intentionally "dumbed down" a bit, leaving some fuel economy on the table in order to get some high mileage study and learning. Similar "dumbing down" was done with early deployments of Idle Stop/Start. Later years more vehicles were added and the system was allowed to shut down cylinders in more situations, providing better fuel economy improvement than the earlier models.

Originally Posted by ember1205

As speed increases, so does the amount of power required to maintain that speed. V4 mode will engage when power demands are below a threshold, so your actual cruising speed could factor in.

I think it's actually more related to throttle position than actual speed, and I have also found that the motor won't actually go into V4 mode if you're free-rolling downhill because DFCO already has all of the cylinders shut down.

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

engine load. ... you can hold the same pedal position (which is roughly equiv to throttle position) and if the gradient of the road changes, it will kick you out of v4 or allow it to go into v4 mode. So it's not throttle position that dictates afm.

Also time. v4 mode is limited by how long it can remain as such because the engine can't allow those cylinders that are deactivated to get too cool. So it cycles between v4 and v8 for periods of time even if the engine load is all good for v4 the entire time.

Also, gear. The car wont allow v4 mode in low gears. I believe that's done to prohibit v4 mode while stopped and likely to accelerate (as well as lower gears being out of the engine load limits for most throttle positions)

It's actually a very complex algorithm of inputs. Throttle position is definitely part of the story, road load is probably a bigger part of the story. There is, as cellsafemode suggests, some provision for thermal management. There's multiple "triggers", any of which when tripped will reactivate the deactivated cylinders. The right foot always works.

[az4783054]

GM calls cylinder deactivation DFM for it's newer production 5.3L and 6.2L vehicles now. Some early (conflicting) articles said the ZL1 Camaro A10 has the DFM.

Quote: "Dynamic Fuel Management (DFM), otherwise known as Dynamic Skip Fire, is a General Motors engine technology that shuts down the engine's cylinders to optimize power delivery and efficiency. DFM is an improvement to Active Fuel Management, which it succeeds."


Adding to the confusion, RANGE TECHNOLOGY says their module will work with the DFM in 2020 camaro with 6.2L but doesn't actually specify ZL1/LT4/A10.


Here's an article on DFM...
https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-te...el-management/

[Petrol Head]

There are just certain cars in price ranges where the vast majority of the customers for those cars really don’t care about fuel economy. At. All.

Do people who buy a $130,000 S-Class Mercedes REALLY care? They’d be perfectly fine with the 6.3 liter V8 that came in the old 1960s Grosser which got about 8 mpg.

The Camaro to me is one of those cars. If you feel the desire to even glance at your fuel average for any reason other than to laugh you’re doing it wrong.

If you’re not in the teens you’re doing it wrong.