Range Technology Beta Testing

[bruss]

Anybody forward that experience to Range?

There was a post on Facebook where a guy didn’t like his results and complained to them. He was experiencing the activation at 0% throttle and when he reached out to them, they pretty much told him tough luck. It’s right there on the box outlining what you are complaining about and there are no refunds.

Someone that works for Range ended up commenting on this guys post and got him a full refund.

So yes, they know about it.

 

[bobo57]

There was a post on Facebook where a guy didn’t like his results and complained to them. He was experiencing the activation at 0% throttle and when he reached out to them, they pretty much told him tough luck. It’s right there on the box outlining what you are complaining about and there are no refunds.

Someone that works for Range ended up commenting on this guys post and got him a full refund.

So yes, they know about it.

*Some 1500 truck applications may still experience cylinders shutting off at slow speeds under deceleration when the ECM detects 0% throttle input, this is normal.

Still seems like a good solution, but it would be nice to know which ‘1500 Truck Applications’ are affected.

 

[AXE]

So here are some stats after 1 week of mostly my wife driving the Tahoe with the module installed. First two days were running errands around neighborhood. Second three days were commute to work on city streets. Final two days were road trip on highway and freeway with a lot of steep grades and elevation changes.

So pretty decent results, but do keep in mind the Tahoe has a much better aero package but weighs another 600+ lbs. I have done road trips before and got good mileage with the Tahoe loaded down.

I would say so far, there are performance and driveability enhancements, and possibly some mileage improvements.

 

[MNNJR69]

Rodger that .

 

[44sixpack]

So how much performance or drivability are you losing at 0% throttle if the DFM does activate? that's the dumbest complaint in the history of whining.

If mine is not running on all 8 at idle I don't notice it. it occasionally stumbles a bit at idle, always has, who cares.

 

[ChrisTX]

So how much performance or drivability are you losing at 0% throttle if the DFM does activate? that's the dumbest complaint in the history of whining.

If mine is not running on all 8 at idle I don't notice it. it occasionally stumbles a bit at idle, always has, who cares.

You aren't losing any, because the engine isn't activating DFM at 0% throttle. It's Deceleration Fuel Cutoff as I previously said. Don't take it from me, take it from GM's own words.

 

[44sixpack]

Correct, and what is the loss in performance if the fuel is cut on deceleration? and why does that matter?

 

[AXE]

I would say it matters in terms of throttle response if you get back on the pedal. That is the one thing I noticed on mine, most of the lag was removed. If DFM is active, the hamsters gotta wake up and get moving again.

 

[44sixpack]

I suppose, I don't notice it . feels like an old school v8 as far as I can tell.

My fuel economy has dropped back to what it was before I installed the device now, so 800 miles and no change in MPG . so I'm not sure the DFM does crap , I think they do it just so they can say they tried.

 

[MO_ZR2]

Going out on a limb here but I suspect most folks may have concerns about the DFM kicking in and out at any throttle level because of increased lifter failure risk as this unit was supposed to negate that risk…at least that’s what it seemed like in at least some of the first 16 pages of this thread. I may be too far out on a limb here.

 

[bobo57]

Correct, and what is the loss in performance if the fuel is cut on deceleration? and why does that matter?

I don't think the issue is performance under those conditions, I think it's still the lifter collapse issue. Let time in DMF less likely to fail.

 

[ChrisTX]

Since the widespread adoption of electronic fuel injection in the late 80s every single OEM has employed deceleration fuel cutoff as a means to protect the catalytic converter and save fuel in the process. So if you’ve driven a vehicle built since then you’ve experienced it. Vehicles built in the last 20 or so years took it a bit further with electronic throttle control enabling them to “go silent” on coast down and light back off before stopping or getting back into the gas. It all happens in milliseconds.

 

[ChrisTX]

I suppose, I don't notice it . feels like an old school v8 as far as I can tell.

My fuel economy has dropped back to what it was before I installed the device now, so 800 miles and no change in MPG . so I'm not sure the DFM does crap , I think they do it just so they can say they tried.

On a smaller, lighter vehicle it can save quite a bit of fuel. On a crew cab 4x4 pickup not so much.

 

[44sixpack]

Going out on a limb here but I suspect most folks may have concerns about the DFM kicking in and out at any throttle level because of increased lifter failure risk as this unit was supposed to negate that risk…at least that’s what it seemed like in at least some of the first 16 pages of this thread. I may be too far out on a limb here.

Yes, but if momentary deactivation at low speed is going cause the lifter to fail it was going to fail anyway. and I'm not even sure it is deactivating just because the fuel is shut off.

So let's say it solves the problem 99.5% of the time. maybe that's just going to have to be good enough.

 

[MO_ZR2]

Yes, but if momentary deactivation at low speed is going cause the lifter to fail it was going to fail anyway. and I'm not even sure it is deactivating just because the fuel is shut off.

So let's say it solves the problem 99.5% of the time. maybe that's just going to have to be good enough.

I personally don’t care if it’s 99.999999% or .9% - I was speculating the “whining” here wasn’t the performance but the lifter failure risk reduction. Good enough is in the eye of the b holder always. Having said that, i would agree, it’s a minimal investment for what you get even if it’s not 100%

 

[AXE]

I suppose, I don't notice it . feels like an old school v8 as far as I can tell.

My fuel economy has dropped back to what it was before I installed the device now, so 800 miles and no change in MPG . so I'm not sure the DFM does crap , I think they do it just so they can say they tried.

I think fuel mileage is very tough to improve on the ZR2 as it has a horrible aero package. It's lifted, has a huge grill with ginormous holes, a bunch of jagged ass trim pieces on the front clip, a big old humpty humpty hood cowl, shark fin antenna, exposed tires/wheels, etc.

That's one of the reasons I can get better mileage in the Tahoe with the same motor and +600 lbs. It sits lower to the ground and has an air dam about 4 inches off the deck, streamlined front clip and hood, small grill, fewer trim pieces. I'd say good for +0.5-1.5 mpg.

 

[Waterdog]

I have been watching the engine failures here and in FB groups. There seems to be a common denominator. Lots of failures leaving people stranded on long trips that I equate to low rpm interstate driving at 1,500-1,800 rpm's for hundreds of miles. That leads me to the variable displacement oil pump along with the dfm that is probably very active in that rpm range along with the oil pump likely sending less oil through the engine. Lots of people see a high engine oil temp warning before it goes. It will be interesting to see if the range mitigates any of these failures. I am taking the 6.2 on a road trip in Jan. Hope it doesn't leave me stranded in the cold. I changed the oil at 970 miles and again at 2,950. I will do it again at 6,000 and every 3 to 5k miles after that. If it blows up there was nothing else I could have done to prevent it.

This guys not a fan of the variable speed oil pump and thinks it is a bad idea. I tend to agree.

This is all to save a 10th of a mpg over thousands of V8's sold on paper by GM to satisfy .gov economy regulations.

 

[AXE]

I have been watching the engine failures here and in FB groups. There seems to be a common denominator. Lots of failures leaving people stranded on long trips that I equate to low rpm interstate driving at 1,500-1,800 rpm's for hundreds of miles. That leads me to the variable displacement oil pump along with the dfm that is probably very active in that rpm range along with the oil pump likely sending less oil through the engine. Lots of people see a high engine oil temp warning before it goes. It will be interesting to see if the range mitigates any of these failures. I am taking the 6.2 on a road trip in Jan. Hope it doesn't leave me stranded in the cold. I changed the oil at 970 miles and again at 2,950. I will do it again at 6,000 and every 3 to 5k miles after that. If it blows up there was nothing else I could have done to prevent it.

This guys not a fan of the variable speed oil pump and thinks it is a bad idea. I tend to agree.

This is all to save a 10th of a mpg over thousands of V8's sold on paper by GM to satisfy .gov economy regulations.

I think your early and frequent oil charge intervals is a good idea. I've done a couple 1500 mile runs on mine and no problems. Oil analysis shows normal conditions whether I've done 2500 or 5000 mile intervals. I think these failures are less about inherent design and more about bad parts or jacked up machining tolerances. That's why some get smoked and many don't.

 

[44sixpack]

The problems need to be kept in perspective, yes the failure rate on 6.2's is excessive and hopefully unless you have a defective one things like better oil and the Range will help.

But on the internet it's easy to believe you're playing Russian roulette every time you push the start button. that's simply not true. if it was the dealer lots would be stacked 3 high with 6.2's waiting for engines and nobody would be driving them.

The facts don't support the narrative it's that simple. go on your trip and enjoy the drive. truth is you're probably as likely to have an accident as an engine failure so roll with it.

 

[ZR2NYC]

I think your early and frequent oil charge intervals is a good idea. I've done a couple 1500 mile runs on mine and no problems. Oil analysis shows normal conditions whether I've done 2500 or 5000 mile intervals. I think these failures are less about inherent design and more about bad parts or machining tolerances. That's why some get smoked and many don't.

yup!!