SSV AFM Disable

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

Raj and Gren, both have no AFM (Raj sure your old VE does but needs a proper tune among other things) looking for justification for wasting resources

Nope on both counts. No AFM here and glad you think you can read my mind. I don't need to justify how I drive to ANYONE.

Ahem, I drive my car at least two seconds faster 0-100k than your old Nan's showcase ship.

Good to see you missed my point and went straight to flopping it out! I was talking about driving styles which apply to ANY car, and not the size of your twiggy stick (or the amount of killer wasps you have) compared to my dead Nanna who never owned a car her whole life. To be clear just for you, "you don't buy a V8 to be a Nanna" is referring to buying a V8 and driving it sedately. It actually has nothing to do with penis' or Nannas.

and typical communte involves free flowing 70-110kph sections, particularly as you get further out. Then again not all of Australia commutes to a metro area 365 days a week.

Not all but most. Most of Australia's population live and work in cities. Where traffic is anything but free flowing. And for decent AFM gains you need free flowing. Any sort of stop start, or even slow down and speed up means AFM is all but pointless in terms of the savings it offers. And it's not a "typical" commute if you're commuting further than the likes of Geelong, Sunbury, Craigieburn, Ringwood, Ferntree Gully, Cranbourne and Frankston (to do the quick loop around Melbourne) and none of which have free flowing traffic.

Now as you will think you can read my mind again, let me be perfectly clear. I have nothing against AFM and would really love the benefits of it for highway trips that I do reasonably often if my cars had it. But I would not benefit from it in the typical every day environment of living and working in Melbourne. And I don't give a **** that I don't have it.

When we got to Adelaide my reading was 30k to empty, his was 90k to empty. Hard to say driving styles impacted results as we were on cruise 95% of the time.
So at the end of the day our test resulted in an extra 60k per tank or around 1 lt per 100k saving by having AFM compared to not having AFM, but having a CAI, catback and ECU update.

This backs up why I made my first comment. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that you can get 75 - 100 more km from EVERY tank (which has to therefore include all types of driving).

 

[SMcC]

This backs up why I made my first comment. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that you can get 75 - 100 more km from EVERY tank (which has to therefore include all types of driving).

I agree Raj, when it comes to all types of driving it would be hard, (but not impossible), to get an extra 75-100k per tank benefit with AFM .. But on open roads, as my test has shown, the benefit of AFM using BP Ultimate 98 is 60km extra per tank. It could of been more as we drove normally through the towns we passed through and didnt tip toe through.
As for city driving..Well that's a different story all together. Personally dont give a crap as I rarely go into the city. Happy to be proven wrong tho by the city folk here.

At the end of the day what is "all types of driving"???.. Obviously a combo of city/country & open/congested traffic but at the end of the day, everyone will interpret "All types of driving" differently based on your individual circumstances..

All types of driving for me is a combo of driving around a regional town and open roads. Had my redline 3 months, going in for its 3000k service on Monday and averaging 12.2 lt per 100k.

 

[Grennan]

Well I would say it would be a combination of suburban and freeway driving. AFAIK thats how Holden classify their "Combined" fuel economy statistics.

 

[Loaded Dice]

Had my redline 3 months, going in for its 3000k service on Monday and averaging 12.2 lt per 100k.

Is that based on the trip computer or actually working it out by L / Km x 100.

In my experience the trip computer says I use more fuel per 100 than I actually do: TC 12.5 Actual 11.7

 

[SMcC]

Is that based on the trip computer or actually working it out by L / Km x 100.

In my experience the trip computer says I use more fuel per 100 than I actually do: TC 12.5 Actual 11.7

Just based on the trip computer mate.
The return trip from Adelaide-Ballarat also had a 62 km difference so in that regards is was just about spot on when comparing to the trip the other way

 

[426Cuda]

The big difference is my car (and Pir4te's) is they have been tuned to maximize the benefits of AFM. This means that AFM operates over a much wider set of parameters (or range) than the standard tune. Driving around town today (in Wagga), I can immediately see (and hear ;-) AFM working a lot. On the gauge I have used 3/8 of a tank since filling in Canberra yesterday and will be driving back tomorrow without refilling. I'll post up my km's etc after refueling in Canberra. I have no reason to exaggerate, equally I don't expect you to just accept the veracity of what I say, so I'll post a copy of the fuel docket from yesterday just for you Raj. I can tell you with certainty I have picked up at extra 100k's per tank and I don't drive like a granny. My odometer was at 16,358 when I filled up with 61.56L of Eflex. It is now at 16,665 so I've travelled 307K. The distance from the servo in Gungahlin (Canberra) to my front door is 237Km's. So I've driven 70k's around Wagga today. My dist to empty is now at 301k's. This will improve tomorrow when I drive to Canberra again. But assuming it doesn't, I will have travelled 608k's on a full tank (assumed @ 73L). 73/6.08 = 12.0L/100k's and that's spirited driving on Eflex which burns faster than Unleaded, as it contains less energy, and burns far cooler. Holden claims their cars running on E85 will use between 25-40% more fuel when using E85. I've not done a comparative test to verify this in mine. So to be conservative let's say it's 25% less efficient. Therefore to convert to what I would have conservatively achieved on unleaded 608k*1.25 = 760k's. So 73/7.6 = 9.6L/100k's of spirited mixed driving, (remember conservative in terms of both the k's travelled and the extra consumption of Eflex). If we use the 40% extra burn it would equate to 851k's (608*1.4) or 8.6L/100k's mixed cycle. So if we compare that to SMcC's modified Redline (like mine) with AFM off on full highway cycle the difference at say the conservative 25% efficiency loss is 1.1L/100 (or you might say I have the power gains he's enjoying with the fuel economy of his brothers standard car). 1.1*6.08 = 7.48L & 7.48/9.6 =0.78 or 78 extra k's in mine with AFM on mixed cycle compared to SMcC's on cruise / highway cycle. Using the 40% efficiency loss it works out to 2.1L/100k's, 2.1*6.08 = 12.78L, 12.78/8.6 =148K's extra. Now there's some estimates and assumptions in these calc's, but I am 100% confident I'll achieve +100 additional k's per tank on 98 unleaded. Oh and I can tell you that my best litres per 100 previously with AFM and no tune was 7.5L. Since the tune and with no AFM I was lucky to ever see sub 10L on a trip. Yesterday the best I got for 100 was 9.2L (per the car's computer) and that's with Eflex. Call me a nanny if you want but I'd rather keep my $1,000 plus per year and holiday in Bali than line the pockets of Caltex's coffers.
I'll post up some 100% accurate and verifiable data when I have it. AFM tune - get on it!

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/...-v-e10-v-premium-unleaded-20110205-1ahgx.html

 

[PIR4TE]

People ask if my car is cammed... or not... a lot. After explaining how I've spent couple grand on upper valvetrain, stock lifters and no cam - most are at pains to point out "there's your problem right there mate, stock cam is ****, AFM is a joke and those weak-arsed fancy lifters are gonna **** themselves any day now".
None of that is true, and frankly don't have a problem with the car per sé but yeah it ain't a balls-out big overlap, low PTV performance grind.

To swap cam like this dude's costs me another $2000 (heads & timing cover off, new chain & tensioner, cam) which is no big deal... in comparison to opportunity cost of losing AFM: In the 18 months since I did the work, I've travelled 85,000km using 10,700l = 12.58l/100 on e85.

550km per tank with AFM on e85 versus non-AFM on e85 <430km is 30% saving.

30% of (10,700 litres @ $1.30) = $4,170

So bang for buck the way I drive the amount I do, AFM is not just a bonus but essential to the car's performance / value equation. I think of it as funding my upgrade strategy in stages, doing the upper valvetrain before the lower gives an option of "Free" custom AFM camshaft within a year, or be content to smile, enjoy the car and the savings.

 

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

AFM is not just a bonus but essential to the car's performance / value equation

I can honestly say that's the first time I've heard a V8 owner say they wouldn't have bought a V8 without AFM as it's not value for money.

(I know that's not verbatim, but saying it's essential to the value of the car makes it the case)

 

[Loaded Dice]

I purposely bought the auto for the AFM. I also put it on direct injected LPG, and I have proven many times over that my car is cheaper to run than a Prius.

Admittedly most of my driving is freeway, was until recently just under 1200 kms per week, so it made perfect sense to me, without bothering about eFuel.

And all the wowsers who say I wrecked a good car by putting it on gas clearly aren't up with the technology of todays LPG systems, still plenty of punch if I want to play, and they probably drive camrys anyway

 

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

LPG and V8s can work VERY well together. There was a Crewman in Canberra, a few years back now, that looked stock. It had some sort of forced induction setup and I don't know the details any more but it owned pretty much anything! Until the guy turned it into a banana with the help of a tree.

As for the Prius, anything can be more efficient than a Prius. They proved that on Top Gear when a BMW M3 was more efficient than one. It will always be more about HOW something is driven.

I personally come from the school of get in, drive, fill it up when it needs it. Cost isn't a factor.