AFM yay or nay?

[Kraig]

I have a Range Disabler and will run it until the day the motor needs a rebuild, at which point I will replace the AFM components with non-AFM. Yes, I would purchase it again but I’d do it as soon as I bought it instead of after my first AFM lifter failure.

 

[Bob2C]

I have the range disabler and love it. Truck is more responsive. I will use it until I am out of warranty and then turn it off completely with a tune. Go for it. You won’t be disappointed.

 

[isp5190]

Hey everyone, quick question for anyone running a AFM disabler on their rig. I have done a decent amount of research but before I pull the trigger on one I would like to hear from anyone who is either super happy with or wish they would have never put it in opinions. I just got my first Ppv Tahoe 2012 with 92k. Runs like a top and want her to last as long as possible and from what I have read a very common issue is the afm collapsing lifters and oil consumption. Thanks a ton in advance!

I have 125000 on our 2009 LTZ using the Range disabler and have went from using 1 qt. of oil every 1000 miles to 1 cup every 1000 miles. Gas mileage went down just a little, not enough to worry about. Transmission does not down shift as much when going on a uphill grade. I had tried a different brand of disabler earlier and it did not work. I am very pleased so for.

 

[trailblazer]

Any proof that the Range device will prevent the engine from blowing up due to an AFM failure? My research of anecdotes leads me to believe that the only way to prevent AFM from wrecking the engine is to spend the $1500 on the components to truly delete the AFM.

 

[iamdub]

Any proof that the Range device will prevent the engine from blowing up due to an AFM failure? My research of anecdotes leads me to believe that the only way to prevent AFM from wrecking the engine is to spend the $1500 on the components to truly delete the AFM.

The engine won't necessarily "blow up" from an AFM failure. Most often, a lifter or lifters collapse and the engine can be saved by replacing them with new AFM lifters and maybe a new cam if it was hurt, or by deleting the system which would bring new lifters and a cam in itself. Of course, there are those that pretty much crumble and cause bent valve(s) and/or send shrapnel all through the engine, doing much more damage. Some give gentle and lengthy warnings with lifter ticking, others give no warning. Disabling it electronically with a special device or tune is intended to be a preventative measure to essentially postpone the inevitable. Disabling it can't guarantee you won't have an AFM failure, but it's a huge step in prevention. If the AFM lifters are kept pumped up just like the regular lifters on the other four cylinders instead of constantly pumping up and down as the AFM is disengaged and engaged, then the chances of a failure are greatly reduced. The only way to guarantee 100% that you will not have an AFM failure is to delete it. If a delete is not in the budget at the moment, at least disable it until a delete can be done.

 

[esoteric_ast]

Range unit works. LEDs are annoying as all hell though. Going to paint over them.

 

[Bob2C]

Electrical tape works well

 

[trailblazer]

Considering the amount of AFM failures that we believe that happen, I would think that there would be a large amount of empirical evidence proving that merely disabling the AFM system would have a measurable improvement in avoiding a failure.

I know a huge amount of AFM owners yet no one has had one fail yet. We must have two million plus miles under our belts.

Trust me - it scares the hell out of me but before I drop $200-2000 in “mechanical snake oil” I think there should be some serious and professionally organized data rather than anecdotal evidence. If 0.10% of AFM engines were pure junk, then there would be 20,000 grenading engines out there (assuming that they sold 20 million generation IV with AFM).

Of course, the big companies could give a rats ass about us at the bottom. I have a family member that is a retired executive that dealt with GM powertrain. His response is to just buy a new truck…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[swathdiver]

Considering the amount of AFM failures that we believe that happen, I would think that there would be a large amount of empirical evidence proving that merely disabling the AFM system would have a measurable improvement in avoiding a failure.

I know a huge amount of AFM owners yet no one has had one fail yet. We must have two million plus miles under our belts.

Trust me - it scares the hell out of me but before I drop $200-2000 in “mechanical snake oil” I think there should be some serious and professionally organized data rather than anecdotal evidence. If 0.10% of AFM engines were pure junk, then there would be 20,000 grenading engines out there (assuming that they sold 20 million generation IV with AFM).

Of course, the big companies could give a rats ass about us at the bottom. I have a family member that is a retired executive that dealt with GM powertrain. His response is to just buy a new truck…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dirty oil is AFMs worst enemy. The latest design De-Ac lifters are near trouble free, we don't hear about them failing in the Gen V motors much. They can and do fail though, just like the regular lifters. VLOM solenoids fail as do the lifter trays that crack allowing the lifter to spin and wipe out the cam lobe. It is SOP to replace them whenever new lifters are installed. Further, tie bars can be used as well and then they will never spin. The VLOM was also updated and is much more robust and makes switching between modes even more seamless.

If we got our Gen IV motors to make about 4-5 more horsepower and torque per cylinder, AFM would run around 50% of the time, instead of 10%, and we'd see greater fuel economy. A lot of Avalanche guys in the first years used HP Tuners to tweak the system to stay on longer and some realized 23 mpg on the highway.

 

[BMPNUGLS]

I bought the Range disabler the day I bought my 2015 Suburban brand new (didn’t want to have warranty issues going the tuner route). Performance wise...it’s AWESOME! My concern was immediately removing any AFM lifter/failure issues...and I’m not buying a V8 for it to run on 4 cylinders!!! Fast forward to today - totaled the Suburban I fall of 2016 via a interstate Bambi! Now have a 2016 Denali XL which I also bought new and it’s had the Range on it from day one! Both vehicles are much more responsive w the Range and believe it or not both got 1 or 2 mpg better via the Range!

HOWEVER....the initial Range unit I had needed to have the software updated because in cold weather if left plugged in and the vehicle sat for more than a day without starting it would drain the battery...new firmware flash by Range fixed it. BUT...from time to time I get a check engine light (which I believe is due to some combination of remote start and opening a rear door / hatch before starting w fob within the vehicle.....this is easily cured by turning off the vehicle, opening a door to kill all accessories, unplug the Range, restart w/out the Range plugged in...then after about 20-30secs (for vehicle monitors to stabilize) plug it in while running which they call a ‘Hot Install’ - it sends a signal to clear all errors while the Range boots up and removes the check engine light...has also been useful to clear other indicators that seemed to trigger for no reason. Outside those two issues it works great. Just make sure the one you get has the most recent version of Range’s firmware installed!