Range Technology Offers AFM/DFM Disabler For General Motors Vehicles
23
Sponsored Links
Automotive electronics company Range Technology has released its new Active Fuel Management/Dynamic Fuel Management disabler for General Motors vehicles.
The AFM/DFM disabler is a plug-in module that deactivates the AFM and DFM systems in V6- and V8-powered GM vehicles. The module simply plugs into the vehicle’s OBD-II port, making it easily reversible and ensuring it does not void the vehicle’s warranty.
Range Technology says its disabler will prevent the “shuddering” that some customers experience as AFM/DFM vehicles switch between running on half or all cylinders.” The company also says the module can save the owner money on “costly future repairs,” as GM’s “troublesome valve lifters will no longer be tasked with activating and deactivating constantly.”
General Motors’ DFM technology, also known as Dynamic Skip Fire, saves fuel by only using the cylinders of an engine that are required during the specific driving situation. If a V6 or V8 engine is just cruising down the highway, for example, it will activate DFM. When towing, accelerating or performing other strenuous tasks, the DFM system will remain off, giving the driver full engine power.
DFM is the more advanced successor to AFM. Whereas AFM would flip between four and eight-cylinder mode, DFM shuts down certain cylinders based on the driving scenario. An engine with DFM has 17 different cylinder configurations and will flip between them to deliver an optimal balance between performance and fuel economy.
Range Technology’s plug-in disabler works with older General Motors vehicles that still have AFM and new ones that use DFM. It will work with all GM vehicles with a V6 or V8 engine with AFM or DFM, including cars, SUVs and the popular Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks. Prices start at $189.00 USD.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM accessories and aftermarket news and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Sponsored Links
Had a Range product for our old Silverado. It works exactly as advertised for the 5.3L engine.
The HD Silverado in the picture has either the 6.6L V8 gasser or the Duramax diesel. Neither has any kind of cylinder deactivation.
Interesting. Working at a Volvo/Mazda store, they both also use some form of fuel saving tech. The Volvo just uses the engine start/stop which totally sucks. Mazda uses something similar to what they are talking about above. It’s (thankfully) not nearly as obnoxious as the engine start/stop, but you can feel a slight shudder-like moment as it starts/stops some cylinders. As normal, Mazda is kind of late to the game here, so I’m not sure if they have had any complaints about it, but I do know people test driving them can feel it and will ask about it. I remember the Cadillac V8,6,4 back in 1981. An engine feature way ahead of it’s time that had issues and they only had it for 2 or 3 years total (first year on all V8 Cadillac’s and then just on the limo’s for another year or two).
I think people wanting to bypass these systems only shows that unless gas is well above $4.00 per gallon, people don’t want the tech.
Cadillacs v8-6-4’s were super reliable engines that almost never kicked the bucket. You can find used 8-6-4’s with 500000+ miles still running strong. The were only around for 1 modle year on sedans and 3 on limousines because they didn’t pass the EPA’s stringent 80’s fuel standards. They were replaced with the dreaded 4100, an engine that was rushed to market with the emission failure of the 8-6-4 and did not have enough time to study the engines oil delivery system, resulting in a 20000 mile motor before failure. Given it was on the market for only a year, Cadillac used the 8-6-4 as a scapegoat.
@jacob:
That all sounds correct. Two things on the V8-6-4. First, you could easily unplug it with just one wire/plug. If you did that, then you were just running the standard 360 engine. And yes, that was one great engine. Second, many of the actual issues with the cylinder deactivation was due to faulty injectors that were shipped to Cadillac. Rumor had it (from a very good source) that GM switched suppliers mid-year. The old supplier got upset and shipped, on purpose, a large batch of bad injectors. After the certain VIN #, they had very few issues due to the new supplier.
As for the 4100 engine: Yes, it was certainly not the bright spot for Cadillac. However, I can personally attest to seeing many of them with well over 150K on the original engine. The secret was to change the oil every 3K no matter what, flush the radiator every other year (and put the pellets in the other years), and just keep a closer eye on them. More work than was expected, but if done they would run the miles.
Seriously? 150K is not a benchmark any vehicle should be judged by if made in the last 30+ years. Clearly, the solution is not 3K oil changes, it’s get rid of the vehicle once you notice that.
On the other hand, I can see an argument for the NEXT owner receiving this troublesome blob and needing to get a little life out of it, except this is requiring action not thought. Writing something easily with 100 words, is not the same thing as the burden (or expense) of doing it.
Flush the radiator every other year and use pellets too? Just no, avoid the vehicle. Even if you got one cheap used, it’s a false economy to have to babysit something that much and still ultimately have expensive repairs because you were just trying to delay the inevitable.
I have a GMC Sierra with the 5.3 and the cylinder deactivation. Mine works seamlessly. If it weren’t for the fact that it has a Flowmaster cat back system (not loud-just some sound) I don’t think I’d even be able to tell that it is working. If I turn the radio off and listen I can hear a slight difference in the exhaust note. Also have an ATS with cylinder deactivation and if it weren’t for the light on the dash that indicates V6 or V4 I’d never even know that the car had this feature. The stop/start feature was also mentioned above. My ATS has it and thankfully it has a button on the console next to the shifter to deactivate it. Yeah, that feature is hideous. Wouldn’t have bought the car if I couldn’t shut it off.
“Future costly repairs” haha, sure. A) those lifters are still in there and being used, B) there are so few failures that is irrelevant, C) that is offset by the extra gas costs associated with having it in V8 mode the entire time and bypassing a gas saving feature. That is a red flag with the company when they state potential costly future cost savings because of failures, they have no idea about that.
Historically, you’d be wrong. This is expensive to repair, more so than the amount of fuel saved.
I get it, you are confused about all the snake oil products out there that claim to save fuel and feel this is somehow in the same vein of products when it instead solves a problem that customers did not want to have – certainly anyone who cares to, can repeat the results of others who have seem faster wear from cylinder deactivation.
It is fairly well proven to have problems. If you want to say they fixed it, then the first thing to fix it would be give existing customers new firmware that deactivates it without having to buy an aftermarket dongle to do it.
I bought and installed the Range module. I was reluctant to purchase this but it was recommended and a last resort. The AFM on my ’07 Avalanche was causing “cylinder 1 misfire” codes that then caused “Service Stabilitrak” and “Service Traction Control” codes. The truck would then “hard up-shift” at each shift. The GM “book” cited the first repair to be cam and lifter replacement. Sorry, not going to happen with 252K on the odometer. The owner of the shop pulled his Range out from his ’18 Silverado for me to try as a last resort. It was an immediate fix and runs absolutely perfect with it. Definitely pricey but i pull it from the ’07 and put it in my ’13 Avalanche when i drive that one.
Ok, take the following with a grain of salt. The last 120K miles i averaged 13.4 MPG. Since i started using this, it is now 14.1 MPG.
I agree with Dave, the AFM should be an option that can be easily disabled by the customer.
I had both an 81 and 82 Cadillac and both were engine disasters. The 1981 had nothing to do with electronic cylinder deactivation in the same way that the newer afm/dfm operate. What it did was to collapse or deactivate the valve rocker fulcrum (solenoid) on specific cylinders and those same cylinders were always deactivated when the engine was running on either 4 or 6 cylinder function, as opposed to the newer cylinder deactivation system which rotates the deactivation process of all cylinders in a rotational sequence by collapsing the hydraulic lifters allowing all cylinders to deactivate in a sequence.
The problem with the 1981 4-6-8 engine was that the specific deactivated cylinder would cool down and and consequently foul the spark plug and when the deactivated cylinder was reactivated the fouled plug would misfire and further foul that plug.
The Cadillac dealer just loved this system as it brought the customer in every 3000 to 4000 miles to have the plugs cleaned, which is what they never did, instead they installed an entire new set of spark plugs at a $120 to $130 thus generating cash flow for the dealer which was caused by a Cadillac design failure, deactivating the same cylinder each time the 4 or 6 deactivation came into play.
Hope they make enough money now to cover their R&D expenses because this is so overpriced that they won’t be able to sell it long in this internet age where people will soon have access to less expensive alternatives copied from their design.
In other words, they better be ready to mark it down to $20 price point within the next 12 months. It’s THAT overpriced.
Well the problem with this story as well as Range, is there is no mention that there DFM disabler only currently works on 8-speed transmissions. They are still beta testing the one for us with the 10-speed transmission.
I just spoke with a Range Technologies technician who advised it doesn’t matter which transmission you have with the 2019/2020 Silverado 6.2 motor.
Strange I just looked over my email string with them again to ensure what they said. ” Adam, unfortunately we do not officially support the 10-speed vehicles yet. The units we currently have will generally work for the 10-speed vehicles, but there are some links that still need to be worked out.”
So unless all the links for worked out over the last few days I would say not everyone at Range is on the same page.
Thank you for the additional information Adam.
I guess that would explain the P25a2 code I got on my new Sierra 1500 AT4 with the 6.2L and 10 speed. I guess I need to talk to Range about it and find out if they have plans to send out new units to those that bought them.
I spoke with Range, a rep by the name of Anthony on the phone. After asking him several times he advised it would I’m fact work and the kinks had been worked out for the 10-speed. Two days later after paying for the damn thing, I received an email advising “No it does not work for the 10-speed and will be some time before it’s available”. So save your time, as it appears no one is on the page over there and love wasting people’s time and money.
I just sent them a long email to make sure I cover myself for the 30 day window to return the product. I bought it last month and it did not have on the page it wouldn’t work with the 10 speed. I guess it will be shipped back and wait for either one that works to come out. Or wait till the factory warranty is out and get a full programmer for the truck.
When I got in the truck today to go to work the code was gone. I guess I will be running without the Range plugged in until they resolve the issues.
Don’t blame you, have to cover your ass. And the code being gone doesn’t surprise me since their product is plug and play without flashing the ECU in any way.
Totally sucks though, I hate this DFM. I also hate that our trucks are limited to 98MPH. Oh well is what it is I guess.
Not to brag or anything but for some reason mine is governed at 112MPH….
Thanks for your help!!!
Well sh…..Glad to know. I will be changing mine soon enough, so glad to know what they have for the AT4. I think 115 is the max I’d change mine to.
Working perfectly on a ‘19 Silverado with the 5.3 and 8 speed transmission. Worth the price to me to actually have all cylinders firing when I make a right on red.
Yes the current model Range sells works for the 5.3 and 6.2 8 speed, but not the 10-speed. Their I’m hopes of having it soon.