NO MT with AFM ?? No V8 Camaros with MT ??

Just wondering if the Camaro will have a MT with AFM.
Peper pointed out that both engines will offer cylinder-deactivation technology to shut off either three or four cylinders when they aren’t needed, to conserve gas.

[from another forum]
The G8 GT is NOT going to have a MT.
Why?

AFM requires communication with the transmission to work... when you shift your own gears, the AFM system can't respond fast enough and would get screwed up. This has been mentioned before in some of the interviews... The GT won't ever have a MT.

The LS3 does NOT have AFM and therefore works well with a MT.

This should be interesting, good question.

I want to call BS. AFM has nothing to do with the Tranny. And the G8 is getting a MT last time I heard...it's just coming later.

All AFM does, is when the load is light enough (like stead highway cruising) the ECM shuts down the valvetrain (via special lifters), and spark of 4 cyllinders in V8's. When it they need to be reactivated, due to load, the engine just turns them back on. It's imperceptible. I'm certain the engine controller will be outfitted with paramaters for when the clutch is disengaged (i.e. NO load on engine, etc).

The LS3 does not have AFM because 'vette owners really didn't want it. Or weren't concerned with it. Or so I hear.

That's not true - the quote. AFM works fine with a MT.

What GM cars now have MT & AFM ??

What GM cars now have MT & AFM ??

ooh, damn. Hey - I wasn't saying that YOU were full of bs. I just re-read my post...and that's what it sounds like. I hope you didn't take it that way.:eek:

Anyways, MT w/ AFM....okay. So you caught me with my pants down. There are none.

But has it not been confirmed numerous time already that the G8 will be available with a manual tranny later this year?

Has it not been 99% confirmed that Camaro will have choice of V8/V6, manual or Auto-tranny. And the V8 will have AFM?

All I'm saying - is that I've read over how AFM works, check this link out: http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/Whats%20New/Gen%20IV/Gen%20IV%20Car/08_L76.doc
It's GM's writeup of the L76 in the G8. It goes into great detail how AFM works (just short of measurements and part numbers :lol:)...and there's nothing about the transmission.

So there's no reason to worry that the Camaro V8 won't be available with a manual.

they have satellites that can see flies from space, im pretty sure GM can make a MT with AFM

Has anyone seen what the 2009 G8 GXP is going to have though?

Quoted from Leftlanenews.com :

Power comes from a 6.2-liter LS3 small-block V8 engine delivering 402 horsepower and 402 pound-feet of torque. This engine is the newest member of GM's small-block V-8 family. It features a revised, larger-bore cylinder block, high-flow, L92-style cylinder heads; larger-diameter pistons; unique camshaft and camshaft timing; revised valvetrain with offset intake rocker arms; high-flow intake manifold; and high-flow fuel injectors.

The LS3 engine has an aluminum cylinder block with cast-in-place iron cylinder liners. Larger bores help create a 376-cubic-inch displacement. The block casting also features revisions and machining in the bulkheads to enhance its strength and improve bay-to-bay breathing. New pistons were designed for high-rpm performance.

And if you read the whole article, you'll see that it will also be coming with a 6 speed Tremec in 2009. Things are only looking better for the Camaro IMO.

And if you read the whole article, you'll see that it will also be coming with a 6 speed Tremec in 2009. Things are only looking better for the Camaro IMO.

YES, I agree. I can't imagine they'd release the GXP w/ an LS3 and not put one in the Camaro as well.

Another example of cylinder deactivation disagreeing with a MT is in the new Accord where the MT V6 lacks that feature.

I'm wonder how many would hold off for a supercharged Z/28 if they can only get the SS with a A6. :D

Or who is gonna be really pissed that they cant afford the supercharged Z/28 with the manual they want?

Well, since it has already been confirmed by Bob Lutz himself that the Camaro will be available with 6 speed manual and automatics (go through the archives and search Camaro on GM blogs) for BOTH the V6 AND V8, I think this thread is rather moot.

IF they were to make an AFM model, I would assume GM would take the route Honda does with the Accord V6 in the coupe. All automatic transmission models are used in conjunction with the AFM equipped version of the J35 Honda V6 engine, and all 6 speed manuals are used on non-AFM J35s.

The computing done to determine when the engine should engage AFM requires calculations on speed, gearing, and RPM. Since manual transmissions are still rather rudamentary machines (I've yet to see a computerized stickshift), I don't think AFM can work right with a stick shift.

Has anyone seen what the 2009 G8 GXP is going to have though?

Quoted from Leftlanenews.com :

Power comes from a 6.2-liter LS3 small-block V8 engine delivering 402 horsepower and 402 pound-feet of torque. This engine is the newest member of GM's small-block V-8 family. It features a revised, larger-bore cylinder block, high-flow, L92-style cylinder heads; larger-diameter pistons; unique camshaft and camshaft timing; revised valvetrain with offset intake rocker arms; high-flow intake manifold; and high-flow fuel injectors.

The LS3 engine has an aluminum cylinder block with cast-in-place iron cylinder liners. Larger bores help create a 376-cubic-inch displacement. The block casting also features revisions and machining in the bulkheads to enhance its strength and improve bay-to-bay breathing. New pistons were designed for high-rpm performance.

And if you read the whole article, you'll see that it will also be coming with a 6 speed Tremec in 2009. Things are only looking better for the Camaro IMO.the camaro may (probably wil) get an LS3, but the G8 is already at $30,000 with the L76. how much will they charge for the GXP?

I can see GM following along the same lines with the camaro.

FWIW I've heard from guys at Delphi that the AFM *can* work without the requirement of the automatic transmission - but that the gains in mpg are worthless and it switches in and out of AFM so much its a waste.

The automatics (espicially now with the fly-by-wire engine throttles) have enough control capability where they can more effectively calculate the ideal load/rpm/etc for the best fuel economy for an expected level of performance and a requested speed.

Manuals dont let the ecu control much of anything - much less how to optimize the reduced power output of the engine while AFM is active.

The G8 GXP will have a manual trans option. I think someone actually posted a screen shot of the GM Dealer World page a while back, but I can't seem to find it. As far as AFM with the MT, I have no idea. I hope so, but it's not a deal killer for me. I'd like to see E85 compatibility along with AFM, but if I get one or the other or neither I'll be perfectly fine :cool:

Manuals dont let the ecu control much of anything - much less how to optimize the reduced power output of the engine while AFM is active.I know that computer would not be able to change gears in a manual, but I suppose you could throw something like CAGS on there to prevent changing gears whilst in AFM mode, but again that would be cumbersome and probably not be of much help.

We've all discussed AFM on the V8, BUT WHAT ABOUT ON THE V6????? A few things to consider.......

1. I'm assuming the 3.6L DI V6 used in the CTS will be the V6 Camaro's powerplant, problem is...... the CTS does not currently offer AFM :shrug:, but.... could it be developed fairly easily and in time for production?

2. Lutz noted the V6 model didn't weigh too much, but does anyone think weight would be an issue as far as AFM on the V6 is concerned? I don't see how it could be, especially if GM is considering a 4 cyl turbo to handle the load.

3. What kind of fuel economy would V6 Camaro w/AFM get??? And how many cylinders would it deactivate (2 or 3??)

Lets think about this.....V6 Camaro would have 300+hp and get better MPG than Mustang (probably 30+mpg on the highway)....."Premium pricing" wouldn't be an issue if buyers could actually save considerable $$$$$ in the long run because of superior fuel economy. Add the "flexfuel" option and now Camaro is really in a league of its own (Probably getting a lil carried away here.....). I'm sure GM has considered all this, I just haven't heard anything about it, which I think is very surpising considering most of Camaro's sales will be the V6 models. I'm really seeing alot of potential here......your thoughts?????

I think I read on some press release the V6 WAS going to be offered with AFM. I believe it deactivates 3 cyl.

Here's an ender....

FBodfather told me AFM doesn't work w/ MT's.

That's not so say that it couldn't at some point I suppose, just not so far.

What I want to know is why AFM doesn't work with a manual transmission. My only thought is that too much NVH gets transmitted into the chassis (via the tranny mount), but I can't really figure out how that same NVH wouldn't be transmitted through the engine mounts and into the chassis.

Simple solution?
Put a manual lockout switch to turn "off" AFM when desired, and "On" when in cruise mode.
Like the Traction Control..."TCS" switch.:cool:
And like TCS, use ABS wheel sensor feedback combined with TPS or MAP etc. to "AND" switch it.

I was under the impression that cylinder deactivation just doesn't DO much for manual transmissions, so they can save money by not putting it on the manual versions. With a manual transmission, you just put it in a high gear and give it more gas to get up to speed, which is far more fuel efficient (an engine is more fuel efficient at full throttle than part throttle...with full throttle and low RPM's, the amount of acceleration you get for the amount of fuel you spend is maximized)

With an automatic transmission, drivers generally don't have a clue what's going on with the drive train, and AFM works well in that situation because automatic cars are run at partial throttle under acceleration more often than manual cars (I know when I'm just diddling around town I shift as early as I can without lugging and then just floor it up to the next gear...till im going 30 and then it goes into 5th...and I exceed the EPA mileage ratings doing this.....)

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the fuel economy improvement with AFM on a manual transmission was negligible. Makes sense that companies would put the simpler version of the engine in manual cars.....and I don't think it's got anything to do with being "too hard" for the ECU. That doesn't make sense....it'd be EASIER with a manual transmission, you wouldn't have to coordinate with the electronically controlled transmission....just the throttle.

Seems like they'd make it so that it would come on at least during use of cruise control and just promote that the use of cruise control will increase gas mileage more than typical.

I was under the impression that cylinder deactivation just doesn't DO much for manual transmissions, so they can save money by not putting it on the manual versions. With a manual transmission, you just put it in a high gear and give it more gas to get up to speed, which is far more fuel efficient (an engine is more fuel efficient at full throttle than part throttle...with full throttle and low RPM's, the amount of acceleration you get for the amount of fuel you spend is maximized)

With an automatic transmission, drivers generally don't have a clue what's going on with the drive train, and AFM works well in that situation because automatic cars are run at partial throttle under acceleration more often than manual cars (I know when I'm just diddling around town I shift as early as I can without lugging and then just floor it up to the next gear...till im going 30 and then it goes into 5th...and I exceed the EPA mileage ratings doing this.....)

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the fuel economy improvement with AFM on a manual transmission was negligible. Makes sense that companies would put the simpler version of the engine in manual cars.....and I don't think it's got anything to do with being "too hard" for the ECU. That doesn't make sense....it'd be EASIER with a manual transmission, you wouldn't have to coordinate with the electronically controlled transmission....just the throttle.your really rough on your engine. you do know your putting much MUCH more load (wear) on the car than you have to. its creating MUCH more heat. and im sure your clutch hates you too.

My next question is do any of GM's competitors offer AFM on their manual transmissioned cars?

My next question is do any of GM's competitors offer AFM on their manual transmissioned cars?

Remember, AFM is GM's marketing term. The generic term is cylinder deactivation.

We've already discussed a couple of other cars in which cylinder deactivation is available on the automatic version, but not on the manual.

AFAIK, there is no car currently in production that has both cylinder deactivation and a manual transmission.

your really rough on your engine. you do know your putting much MUCH more load (wear) on the car than you have to. its creating MUCH more heat. and im sure your clutch hates you too.

Erm...no. I'm not lugging it at all (I know what that feels like), and have never had trouble with a clutch. I match revs and use very little clutch....I'm gentle with the car. I've never actually had ANY mechanical trouble with a car that hadn't been beat to **** by the previous owner.

And how exactly am I generating more heat? I'm using LESS gas. As far as I'm aware, the heat buildup in an engine comes from the ignition of fuel.

:)

It wouldnt be hard at all to incorporate AFM with an manual trans. Its all in the software, based on RPM and VSS signals, the PCM would know what gear the trans is in. I think there is more to AFM than just shutting off cylinders to conserve fuel however. Theres gotta be some auto trans tweaking on the computer side on the way it shifts/TCC lock up, etc.
Shutting off cylinders as an only way to conserve fuel would yield very miniscule results unless the driver knew exactly how much gas to give the engine at certain loads, when to shift, what gear to shift to and so on.
Im sure it could be achieved, but its more than the average driver is willing to do. Most people just get in their car and they are lucky if they glance at the fuel gauge once in a great while.
I wouldnt be surprised if we saw a base V8 car with the L76 and the 6 speed auto with AFM as the only trans offered.
And the LS3 with both transmissions offered.