While Mazda embraces the internal-combustion engine with a gasoline-powered HCCI mill, General Motors is taking a different approach. A new report states GM’s next generation pickups—the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado and 2019 GMC Sierra—may arrive with Dynamic Skip Fire technology or DSF.
DSF is revolutionary technology from Delphi and Tula Technology that controls the engine’s power by varying the number of cylinders needed. For example, the GMC Yukon Denali requires just 30 horsepower to cruise along at highway speeds. DSF shuts down six of the SUV’s eight cylinders to provide only the power needed to improve fuel efficiency by an estimated 21 percent.
DSF works by controlling engine oil flow via special valve lifters on each cylinder and works in concert with the throttle system. It’s essentially software-enabled variable displacement.
General Motors has invested in Tula in the past and has worked closely with the two companies to bring the system to production. Automotive News reports the automakers’ next pickup trucks are a logical step. It would replace the current cylinder deactivation systems.
Delphi has also developed the system to include a 48-volt plug-in hybrid system as well, which could help automakers grapple with hurdles posed by diesel fuel’s uncertain future in markets around the world. Delphi says DSF will cost $350 per vehicle for automakers that choose to implement the technology.
It’s been expected the system would reach the market in 2020, which also nearly aligns with the introduction of GM’s next-generation pickups.
Comments
Can’t wait to see the new trucks, although I prefer the size of Colorado,
GM needs to knock it out of the ballpark with the full size platform seeing how the tech makes it’s way to the SUV’s
Another feature for people to have a tune deactivate
Of coarse, just like AFM, it can be completely removed for aftermarket performance applications.
GM supports the aftermarket industry like no other manufacturer. I’m sure this new system will be the same!
If it works well enough there will be little reason to deactivate it for anything other then all out performance. Which GM never looses sight of when it come to the aftermarket for it’s V8.
AFM has caused issues for many people; oil consumption and PCV issues.
Deactivating doesn’t improve performance, it can save the engine. I have a 2012 LTZ and have had zero issues. The AFM doesn’t really save much fuel, it really only kicks down to 4cyl when coasting or under very little load, at which point with all 8cyl firing it isn’t using much fuel either. 2 people I know that got it deactivated had no noticeable reduction in fuel economy. Should be able to turn it off right from the DIC, same as traction control and start/stop.
The EPA would never allow anything used for fuel efficiency or emissions control to be turned off legally in any way. DSF as opposed to AFM would deactivate cylinders when cruising at any constant speed which is were the benefits are meant to come from.
Lets be clear, the manufacturers are not doing all this because they want to, they have to. Within a short time frame with the technology they have or they have to develop new tech to try and meet the EPA regulations.
Pretty confident start/stop can be turned off in trucks. Don’t want the engine turning off if your sitting on a hill with 8000lbs in tow. In fact the F150 has a button on the dash right beside the hazard light button.
That is until the EPA requires grade sensor, as NHTSA safety rules will always trump the EPA rules. It won’t prevent them from making new ones, unfortunately that’s the world we live in.
Start stop features on trucks are very annoying. I hate that Ford put that crap on their trucks. Great power yes it can be deactivated but a pain in the rear.
I barely notice the feature on 2 GM vehicles, my truck doesn’t have it though. They’re putting high amp AGM batteries (8 or 850 CCA in the Cruze) and quiet torquey starters. They’ve probably done some work on low friction bearing surfaces in the engine, starts effortlessly. Start/stop sounded like a horrible idea but my experience differs.
Not sure why people hate the stop/start feature on both cars and trucks? It’s seemless, effortless, it saves gas, what’s not to like?
I’ve got one of each type. I’ve got a 2015 Ford F150 that uses the regular battery and hydraulics to the transmission to create a somewhat seamless start-stop process. It has all sorts of scenarios that will override the start-stop system automatically; e.g. if it’s too cold or hot outside, tow haul is on, too steep a grade, defrost is on. It also has an override button that has to be pressed each separate driving event if one doesn’t want the engine to shut off. This system works pretty well, and I’d probably think it was perfect, but since I also drive one that uses the starter-generator system with 36 volt separate batteries, then I notice the delay more than I would otherwise. It’s not so much the delay to start moving; by the time one moves his or her foot from the brake to the accelerator, the truck is ready to go, but it’s the delay to the electromechanical steering that is noticeable, especially if you’re setting at a stop sign or light and ready to turn left. That’s a little unnerving. I’m also not very found of hearing the starter turn as it restarts. The other system critiqued below doesn’t do this.
I’ve also got a 2007 Saturn Aura GreenLine Hybrid (that’s a mouth full). This is the type that the industry is talking about for the future even though I’ve got it in an older car. This system was also available in an identical power train that was in the more popular Saturn Vue. They’re calling them mild hybrids these days. They use a separate voltage battery system and a starter/generator system. The one in the old Saturn has worked flawlessly for more than 10 and a half years. It has the original 3, small nickel cadmium batteries in the trunk since it was manufactured and they still work great. It starts up and shuts off super quick. There is no delay. It starts back before you can blink. It has regenerative braking which is nice; it’s like having an engine brake. There is only two things I’ve found wrong with this system at least in this car. Number one, this is a mid sized 4 cylinder with mild hybrid added on; it has 164 hp and 150 ft-lbs torque that peaks somewhere in the stratosphere; the car weighs 3600 pounds and this is not a good combination for refinement on the highway; it averages 29.5 mpg carpool commuting. I can directly compare my F150 to it’s performance for FE, because we’ll carpool using it on the same routes at the same speed, and the full sized truck, which is not a hybrid, with 2 more cylinders and .3 more liters and 550 more pounds of curb weight with much more surface area comes within 5.5 mpg as the torque-wimpy car. The refinement difference due to the torque in the truck is huge. The truck has nearly double the hp and 2 1/2 times the torque; has far more utility; and more significantly, the torque in the turbo charged truck comes on at only 3000 RPM. In the car, it’s over 4800 RPM and so that’s where it likes to go traveling up a hill, and that’s supremely annoying. The car gives up a lot for 5.5 mpg.
Number two, it designed so that it restarts if you pull to a stop and then put the transmission in park. The F150 does not, and that’s the one thing that is much better about the more simple system in the F150, but I assume when the new round of start-stops come about that are mild hybrids with a generator/starter system, they will be designed not to restart when placing in park like the truck.
All in all, I’m not understanding all the hate about start-stops. On the one hand, I’m not sure how helpful they’re going to be for improving mpg or reducing pollution, but on the other hand, my experience with either type is that they are extremely reliable.
See how often you have to replace the starter not to mention the longgevitity of engine damage of start/stopping including the battery and drain on the alternator having to constantly “play catchup”. Trucking companies have had the same thoughts but don’t think that they spend more $$$ in replacing starters not to mention the labor involved…
Just because you’ve assumed it and said it doesn’t make it true. Think of all the people that talked up all the doomsday stuff about the Toyota Prius and the Chevy Volt when they first came out. This is not an endorsement of hybrids and full electrics, because there are many challenges to making them more mainstream for more people besides quality; but just on quality, durability and reliability merits alone; those two vehicles have proven themselves super reliable and dependable and are near the top of most satisfied customer surveys. And I know for a fact that the Saturn mild hybrid system that was designed and place in Vues and Auras are amazingly durable, reliable, and trouble free, even though they were not very effective at reducing fuel consumption.
As for start-stop, as I said; I’ve got a ten-and-a-half year old vehicle with the mild-hybrid-type start-stop system. The hybrid batteries have long outlasted the regular car battery. Not sure how the traditional battery set up will stand up in the truck, but since those components have been beefed up to withstand the additional usage, I don’t think we can assume I’ll be going through these components faster than anyone else.
Just because something worries someone about any technology that it MIGHT be too much wear on the starter, does not make any of those assumptions fact. My truck may out last a regular gas guzzler in so far as the battery and the starter components. We WILL see how long it lasts, because I plan on keeping the 2015 F150 twin turbo with start/stop for many years, and based on its quality so far, I don’t foresee any special issues. People want to make predictions that the engine won’t last or the turbos won’t last, but based on the easy-going nature with which my new truck motivates itself down the road at lower-than-mid-size-V8 RPM, and based on the history of the 3.5L Ecoboost in Ford F150s since 2011, I don’t see anything about the way it operates or the way its put together that would lead me to believe that a regular ole V8 in a Chevy, Ram, Tundra, or Titan. But like you say, we’ll see.
In stop/start so is disabled by the hitch plug, either the four pin or seven pin. So that wouldn’t be an issue…
F150 has an off switch to the start stop, but it is automatically disabled in tow/haul mode and in other situations, i.e. defrost is on. It also uses hydraulics to keep the truck in gear when the engine is off and so there us no clutching in and out of gear. The only thing unsettling is sometimes I’ll start turning the steering wheel while it’s starting up and there is no power steering for a fraction of a second. That’s a little nerve racking.
mazda in this case is pursuing the better way. It actually increases thermal efficiency which is important in high power output. The variable displacement would mean that operating under 8 cylinders will still have the same current max efficiency. No improvement in hauling, off-road or hill climbing. Also, the 2007-2009 model Silverado’s had oil problems with the deactivation wearing. They have claimed to fix this, but i hope that if they include this that they make other drastic improvements.
You don’t understand HCCI if you think it could be used in a truck. Also, Mazda’s HCCI has a supercharger, electric phasers and will need lean NOx exhaust aftertreatment.
GM was testing the same HCCI in I believe a Malibu about 6-8 years ago and chose to go a different route.
Correct – except GM was trying to go downsized and was using a turbocharger. One of the biggest killers of the fuel economy was restricting the operation of HCCI due to NVH at higher loads.
Not sure about this, in a similar way as I dislike Ford’s compulsive start / stop function. Just more to go wrong mechanically in the long run, and these systems go to work when idling or cruising downhill – when there is almost no load on the engine anyway and very little fuel is consumed to begin with.
Also, anyone can beat EPA listed fuel economy numbers if they just gave us manual transmissions here and there.
Manual transmissions get worse milage then automatics. You CANT OUT SHIFT THE COMPUTER
Yes they do but when it comes to towing manual transmission are the way to go. The tow haul mode hold in low gears way too long. I got rid of a new F150 because of these stupid ass transmissions. Ram’s tow haul mode is identical. Give the customers more options.
When both were still offered, the automatics had a higher tow rating than the manuals. Tow/haul mode works best if you are at 75% weight capacity or higher.
Can turn my vehicle off , take it out of gear because it’s a manual, best to date with an oil additive in the c7, 34 mpg highway
GM can’t fix the misfire across the cylinders of the 2017 Silverado I purchased. Why would anyone want to buy a GM vehicle when they don’t stand behind them or are able to fix the existing system. I have always been a Gm buyer but not anymore. By the way never buy a vehicle from Harry Green Chevrolet poor service and customer relations.
I deactivated the cylinder deactivation on my 2016 Silverado High Country 6.2 maybe less than a month after I bought it. On a trip it still hits 23 mpg.
Cool,
I don’t about that. I have 09 Tahoe that burns oil like crazy. It’s got do with that stupid fuel management. Don’t get me I love GM but they need to figure that out.
The truth is none of like this kind of stuff. The auto start and stop is the most annoying.
But if you want to keep v8 engines alive it has become a way to keep them viable.
GM for the most part does not share the technology with the aftermarket when it comes to emissions or mpg devices. The EPA generally frowns on this. But the aftermarket does come in and reverse engineers it.
The one thing you do need to watch is if any deactivation from a marginal company damages any other part of the car as that will stick you for the bill. So use care on who you chose to work with.
For the most part the AFM works. Many of the problem are due to other things like low tension rings and such for more mpg.
I grew up and loved Chevy for decades but I have come to realize they are not the company they used to be. They try to be high tech but struggle to get it right. When they can’t get it right they seem it under the rug the whole AFM have destroyed more Chevy engines without any indication from Chevy that maybe there is an issue. Try a $5000 lifter bill and see how much of their technology is state of the art. I can’t say I trust or love Chevy anymore.
It is not just Chevy it is all makes as they are all are reaching out for any technology they can to still make cars you would want to own.
With out this technology the V8 would be gone as well as the half ton trucks.
They are doing this stuff to be cool they are doing it to keep their best selling product on the market.
If the crazy regulation had not been passed we would not have all these thing on our vehicles.
There are issues everywhere. Carbon with DI, ring and oil issues with low tension rings. The loss of Zink in the oil that will eat up a flat tapper cam in older cars. The corrosiveness of alcohol in the gas.
It is not just the new cars but even the old cars are paying the price.
I think this is a great idea! Making the engine deliver only the power it needs at that time is the way to go.
Why are so many people worried about things breaking on a vehicle? Do people think that a new car is never suppose to breakdown?
If we took this aditude and never pushed the limits of technology then we would still have the same old small block chevy from the 50’s
Finding a way to keep the v8 engines around is a must! GM deserves a big pat on the back for not taking the easy way out and just going to a TTV6!
GM for life!
I would never buy an engine with afm lifters again
In a year or so, you won’t have to. Unless you buy used. With the number of V8’s GM has sold with AFM there’s going to be some with issues. I wouldn’t think that number is too big or it would be big news. Is it?
Afm hasn’t been a real problem since 2009-2010 or so when they redesigned the lifters. The 5th gen engines have not had any issues outside random problems that are just bad luck.
My understanding is DSF is mostly a software solution with hardware tweaks on top of AFM.
So you live in fear? Sad if you ask me!
This type of technology might be interesting a few years ago when the price of gasoline was over $5.00 per gallon; but with the average price of gas in the United States at $1.91, the number of consumers who will pay extra for this type of technology might not be too large especially if they think it will cause the vehicle to be sluggish and not as responsive as without this type of technology.
One has to wonder what will happen in 2025 and countries around the world who signed off on the Paris Climate Accord begin selling zero emission vehicles as most of western Europe will only build electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in 8 years; countries in the Middle East and Russia will implode because no one with the exception of the United States will still be buying gas.. although they’ll still need Oil for jet fuel.
Well gas cars will not vanish in 2025 and even if gas is cheap today the regulations have not changed and I do not expect them to change for the better.
The change to electric will see many problems when forced. Many people will or be happy with the new electric cars due to the lack of charging, the length of charging and the expense of the cars. It will be a rocky transition.
If that’s the case I’ll stick with old school all cylinders at all times! Just sounds like more to go wrong to me.
You could call me a Chevy/GM guy but I personally agree with Ford in thinking turbo is the way to go. It is a much simpler variable displacement process. A 4.0L V8 turbo with just enough boost to stay competitive would be killer.
I never understand why these technologies are introduced as an alternative to diesel as if a diesel were not an ICE engine. I mean I understand that a skip fire diesel with a 48 volt charging system would be even more cost prohibitive than a regular compliant diesel, but it doesn’t mean that diesels couldn’ get the same benefit from the same sort of technologies and maintain their edge. The only one that doesn’t apply to a diesel is HCCI, because at that point everything is a diesel only one type runs on gasoline and gets a spark now and then.
Can a 2017 6.2L be retrofit for DSF? the VLOM does the physical work of disabling cylinders using the same technique but it’s only configured for the same 4 cylinders from what I can tell. Can the VLOM be replaced to handle all 8 cylinders? This seems like it would be a no brainer but who knows…
Can a 2017 6.2L be retrofit for DSF? The VLOM does the same thing but only for the same 4 cylinders w/o much intelligence. This seems like it would be a no brainer with a simple replacement and firmware upgrade…