(AFM) Active Fuel Management

[pjdm1980]

To activate the AFM in the VZ's you would be looking at a few thousand worth of mods. As far as i know, while the hardware is there for it, the solenoids, wiring etc isnt.

So it would mean, motor out, installing the remaining pieces, new wiring loom, and new modules etc.

As far as i know AFM only uses the top end ie-valves and rockers, so should be an engine-out job but the wiring would be a different story.

 

[whitey66]

i think that pushing the truth a little, the valve train is still working perfectly normal, the ecu just stops injector pulses, when load sensors fitted to the engine detect that the car is coasting or going downhill, it simply cuts injectors, the ecu also swaps the dead cylinders around to ensure the inner core of the cylinders are lubricated, petrol lubricates the valves,

so a few facts,

1. the engine dosnt use more fuel switching between cylinders - the whole idea of afm wouldn't be worth it would it
2. the engine physically dosnt alter the way it works, all valves operate, every piston moves up and down, - if the valves didnt move the engine wouldn't turn would it,
3.the ecu cuts cylinders at times of no load, or very little load, it also switches the working cylinders around to ensure valves are being lubricated by petrol
4.you dont notice it working
5.it only works on freeway type work or coasting down hills, it'll rarely work around town

Most of your post is wrong,it closes both valves on the deactivated cylinders when AFM is active.It switches cylinders to maintain even heat distribution through the block.

 

[vztrt]

Some testing done on car advice with the AFM compared with the Falcon XR8.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/30255/ford-falcon-xr8-vs-holden-commodore-ss-the-final-verdict/

 

[1991_Vn2nV]

So the SS has less power than the XR8, is also slower to 100 and down the quarter and all for a saving of .03L per 100km (yet its in a lighter car also)....

Holden are on a real winner there

 

[Hunter SS]

Somebody else could do the exact same test and give you totally differing results.

 

[vztrt]

So the SS has less power than the XR8, is also slower to 100 and down the quarter and all for a saving of .03L per 100km (yet its in a lighter car also)....

Holden are on a real winner there

In the fuel economy test, the route taken didn't allow the engine to shut the cylinders off that much. So it can be seen from two different angles for the test (I'm sure many others will come out). It seems AFM requires very stringent conditions for it to work.

It was interesting to see on the first days testing that the SS used about 2l/100 more then the Falcon.

The following figures were achieved prior to the test during our regular test drive conditions:

* Holden Commodore SS (AFM): 822.92km @ 14.1-litres/100km (Average)
* Ford Falcon XR8: 902.80km @ 12.25-litres/100km (Average)

 

[Hunter SS]

it would be interesting to see the non AFM tests... i just can't be bothered to look for them. And basically i don't think it matters anyhow.