The older 5.3s develop oil consumption. Not all do. The ones that are used for primarily light load highway driving do it much more.
So, the ones that tend to go into 4 cylinder mode seem to have more problems. So, basically, that means they are having problems with AFM.
While I won't say that I don't trust AFM, it hasn't been shown to be as effective as some once thought.
It would be interesting to see an EB with AFM. A single turbo pushing 3 cylinders of a V6? Hmmm....
I think the next real advancement in engines and fuel economy technology is going to be electronically actuated valves. Can you imagine removing all of the hardware and friction that goes along with it?
Chris,
These are deadhead (empty cargo) numbers...don't the diesels shine when loaded vs. gassers?
If so, what this says is diesels ain't for the grocery-getter set anymore.
Thanks to Peacock for the Pickuptrucks.com reference. They deserve kudos for trying a real world approach and being transparent about their methods which are a mix of subjective, calculated, and measured. I looked at one of their measured methods, MPG. Their loaded MPG ranges from 12.6 (Chevy) to 10.4 (Dodge). The middle of that range is 11.5. That means MPG in their test fleet was 11.5 plus or minus 10%. Not all that much difference when you think of the variation you can get in the same vehicle from driver to driver. Gas is costly so small differences add up over time. Still, I come away thinking about how similar these vehicles are (on loaded MPG) rather than how different.
I fly a Ford executive quite often. I asked 6 months ago if AFM would make into the Eco or 5.0. Answer was no. To many associated issues right now with it. They are competitive without it.
Chris