Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

GM Builds Pickups Without Certain Modules Due To Global Chip Shortage, Hurting Fuel Economy (reuters.com) 97

General Motors said on Monday that due to the global semiconductor chip shortage the U.S. automaker is building certain 2021 light-duty full-size pickup trucks without a fuel management module, hurting those vehicles' fuel economy performance. From a report: The lack of the active fuel management/dynamic fuel management module means affected models, equipped with the 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 engine with both six-speed and eight-speed automatic transmission, will have lower fuel economy by one mile per gallon, spokeswoman Michelle Malcho said. Malcho emphasized all trucks are still being built, something GM has repeatedly stressed it would try to protect as pickups are among GM's most profitable models. She declined to say the volume of vehicles affected. "By taking this measure, we are better able to meet the strong customer and dealer demand for our full-size trucks as the industry continues to rebound and strengthen," Malcho wrote in an email. The change runs through the 2021 model year, which typically ends in late summer or early fall, she said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GM Builds Pickups Without Certain Modules Due To Global Chip Shortage, Hurting Fuel Economy

Comments Filter:
  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Monday March 15, 2021 @11:58AM (#61161080) Journal

    How good fuel mileage are you expecting out of it, especially if you do use it to haul things (aside from groceries and shin biters)?

    • by sjames ( 1099 ) on Monday March 15, 2021 @12:11PM (#61161132) Homepage Journal

      And what do you suppose the odds are that it will actually carry anything more than 1% of the time it is driven?

      • by dbialac ( 320955 ) on Monday March 15, 2021 @12:14PM (#61161150)
        Truthfully, anybody buying a V8 powered personal vehicle isn't that concerned with fuel economy in the first place.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        And what do you suppose the odds are that it will actually carry anything more than 1% of the time it is driven?

        Probably pretty high. The fact that I'm not hauling anything 90% of the time means I get better fuel economy, but for those times when i do need to haul stuff (this can be anything from dirtbikes, mower, building materials, garden supplies, animals, etc) I can do so with a slight hit to the fuel economy.

        I really don't get why people like you get so upset about this shit. My wife's Tesla can do 0-60mph in a little under 4 seconds, are you angry that I don't floor it off the lights and do that 100% of the tim

        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          I just find it comical to see the commercials of people driving their trucks offroad with improbably large loads compared to the reality of people too afraid of a scratch to ever drive the thing anywhere but to work and back on a nice paved road.

          And with the fuel management deleted, you won't be getting that better fuel economy 90% of the time (if you bought one of the new trucks).

        • Most people just recognize how comically pristine truck beds look. Most people with pickups buy them because they fit into the fashion statement they wish to make in life. They rarely have anything to do with hauling.

          Rational people who only use their beds once a year and don't need to make a fashion statement can simply rent a truck or trailer.

          I'm not belittling fashion. But no one looks at a dude in a shiny leather jacket and thinks he's wearing it to protect himself in a spill.

    • by mi ( 197448 )

      How good fuel mileage are you expecting out of it

      According to the write-up, the difference is about 1mpg, which — my estimate — is at or around 5% for such vehicles. Maybe, a little more.

      I wonder, what the trade-off is — and whether these trucks will not have a higher value later either because of more power, or better reliability, or some such...

      • They wonâ(TM)t. Efficiency usually means HIGHER reliability and better consistent power (due to thermal constraints).

        The trade off is they can get by without this chip. But itâ(TM)s a worse trade-off in every other way. And 5% increased fuel usage isnâ(TM)t insignificant when scaled up to millions of vehicles. It means thousands of dollars more fuel costs over the life of the vehicle (if it has 20mpg and 250,000 mile lifetime and $3-$3.50/gallon average fuel costs, thatâ(TM)s $2000 great

        • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

          Add to it that on some markets it might fall under a different tax bracket.

        • by mi ( 197448 )

          Efficiency usually means HIGHER reliability and better consistent power (due to thermal constraints).

          If it were all that straightforward, the reprogramming of vehicles' onboard computer(s) wouldn't be such a thing.

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday March 15, 2021 @12:34PM (#61161260)

      You seem to be going on the impression that every or even most truck drivers are going to be driving their truck at peak. That is rarely true.
      A F-150 can carry over 3000 lbs and tow over 12,000 lbs.
      How ever for most truck drivers even people who are using it for work, are usually carrying less than a few hundred pounds of equipment. A tool box full of the tools they need, and often some bulky but light items such as ladders, lumber, or the occasional large piece of equipment. If you actually drive, and pay attention to what most pickup drivers are doing with their trucks, you see most of them are empty or just have a few things in them. Rarely (even living in the country) Do I see a truck with a 5th wheel, with a large trailer, or a truck filled to the max with gravel.

      The onboard computer can really help optimize fuel based on your driving conditions, this is part of the reason why pickup trucks are much more popular than ever. They may not be as fuel efficient as a car or even a modern SUV. But they are good enough for people to justify having one for their daily driver. Because Americans especially like the high drive height, and the utility when they need it available, to pick up a new appliance, or to get some additional supplies. But for your daily driver you are getting fuel economy around 25mpg which isn't a deal breaker. Especially say compared to a Camry that is only 10% better in fuel economy with much less utility. If you truck is going to be running at 10-15mpg all the time, you are going to be a slave to Fuel Costs, and your Truck would be used less, and people would opt for a more fuel efficient car.
      We saw a drop of popularity of Trucks back in the mid 2000's because Gas prices were around $4.00 per gallon, which cause fueling your car expenses notching up you free cash. During that time people were getting Hybrid and smaller cars vs Trucks. Then they improved their fuel efficiency with the dropping price of fuel their popularity had risen again.

      Most people don't need truck, Even if you live in the middle of nowhere with dirt roads (heck if you see the people in those areas, most of them drive small cars, and the Honda Fit is actually a popular car in these areas). The Farmers themselves may use the truck for work, but not as often as you think, because they have tractors for the real work, and a car for their daily driving. Their pickup just stays on their property and perhaps to pickup some hay or grain.

      A lot of the image of the Truck driver isn't based on real life, but from the Truck Manufacturers Marketing. Manly Men, Driving big trucks getting er done! Where real life, is driving the truck to the Office, to sit down and call people on the phone while your truck is parked. On the weekend you may put in some flowers for your front lawn.

      • by ctilsie242 ( 4841247 ) on Monday March 15, 2021 @12:49PM (#61161336)

        The ironic thing is that in a lot of rural areas, MPG is king, so for a lot of daily drives, something like a Honda Fit, Corolla, or Toyota Prius tends to be not uncommon. I've seen Priuses fitted with inverters because if they can make it to a back 40 road, they double as very solid and efficient generators for welding.

        I've never understood why Toyota or some company that has a good record of making a small pickup can't make something like a 1990s-era Hilux, and make that a hybrid or EV. The four-bangers used to get 22+ MPG, and were light. They were not as big as a full size truck... but they got the job done, were extremely light, and were great for city runabouts. We don't need more full size Cybertrucks... instead, something like a Hilux (not a bigger Tacoma) as an EV, with a range extender under the hood. That way, the truck can be filled up at gas pumps for long trips, but for general stuff, it can be charged at home. It could even be used for generator power either in the back 40, or as an emergency. Nothing wrong with the full size trucks, but having something a bit smaller would be useful when parking in garages and the motorcycle-sized parking spots they call parking spaces in newer areas.

        • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday March 15, 2021 @01:04PM (#61161416)

          It comes down to money. Most truck drivers are the Suburban Life Style Pickup Truck Drivers. Not many of these people are willing to admit to that. But they mostly feel having a big truck will validate their manhood. So 80% of all truck drivers want the bigger sized pickup truck F-150 is the most popular truck. Vs the 10% who wants a smaller truck. Where the cost of production for a bigger truck isn't that much different than a smaller truck. Most people will just want the biggest they can get, or just take the bigger size than what they really want.

          I drive a Prius. I am looking into getting the Cybertruck. But what I really want is a Small Fuel Efficient Pickup truck good for daily driving, and enough utility to occasionally put 1 ton of wood pellets or pick up a large appliance.

          • I live in a condominium complex, and constantly see large families who are renting units driving brand new $45K pickup trucks.
            They don't need it, they just want it, and are willing to spend all their money on it.
            What's strange is, these same people will use beat up, lousy, hardly running ancient machines for their jobs. Then on the weekend climb into the new truck and zoom off.

            Nobody really needs a larger truck. I just rent one if I need to move something.

            • I think if you live in a big city you may not need a $45,000 big truck. If you live literally in the middle of nowhere you might. I happen to live in The middle of nowhere. The middle of nowhere like my nearest supermarket is 50 miles away. I have solved the problem by having a big pick up truck that I use in bad weather, for hauling things, and for pulling my camper trailer and a Toyota Yaris. The Yaris gets 40 miles to the gallon and wasn’t an expensive car. I do the genuinely green thing though:
              • To be fair, your camper sound more of a recreational thing. And a AWD car or SUV can handle bad weather just fine, My Prius C (built on a Yaris frame) is perfactly fine for driving to the grocery store (30 miles for me) and back. Bad weather you really don't need a big car, just good tires.
                I am not knocking you for having or wanting to have a pickup truck. But you don't need it, you just wanted it. It isn't a crime to get something you want vs to justify need to have.

          • by _merlin ( 160982 )

            It's the Chicken Tax. Outside the US, we have the Toyota Hilux, Ford Ranger, Nissan Navara, and so on. The Chicken Tax has ensured that the US ute market evolved in isolation to its current bizarre state. It's like a case of island gigantism.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          They do make smaller, hybrid trucks. They just don't sell them in the US.

        • by bgarcia ( 33222 )

          I've never understood why Toyota or some company that has a good record of making a small pickup can't make something like a 1990s-era Hilux, and make that a hybrid or EV. The four-bangers used to get 22+ MPG, and were light.

          It's because of government safety regulations. In the 90s, trucks were exempt from most passenger vehicle safety regulations. The cab would crush down to nothing in a rollover. But you could make a light, small truck that way, and a little 4-cylinder was enough to motivate it. Bu

      • But for your daily driver you are getting fuel economy around 25mpg which isn't a deal breaker. Especially say compared to a Camry that is only 10% better in fuel economy with much less utility.

        Most of the pickups I see running around are SuperCrew 4x4s, which will never get 25 MPG. More like 15-18 MPG on a good day, maybe 20 on the highway. The Camry will get double the mileage of most pickups.

    • The next plan is a Classic truck with a Carburether.
    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      I'd expect a decent fuel mileage and the risk is that it's getting even worse with loads.

    • Even pickups have been boasting 20+ mpg lately. Example: 2020 Ford F-150

      https://www.fueleconomy.gov/fe... [fueleconomy.gov]

      Lots of engine options here so you can cherry-pick the data you want, but these pickups are getting better fuel economy than some SUVs from 10-20 years ago.

    • For a efficient vehicle there is not much practical difference between 35 mpg and 45 mpg, but that level of improvement can require some costly equipment.

      For a truck, going from 15 mpg to 20 mpg is a huge improvement in cost and range. And some modern full size trucks are able to get to over 25 mpg on highway.

    • This may reduce the complexity of the electronics in the GMC trucks and may reduce maintainance costs to the owners. Fewer and less sophisticated computers in cars means that the average mechanic can do in making repairs without the expensive diagnostic equipment.

      A win for the consumer!
  • by nicolaiplum ( 169077 ) on Monday March 15, 2021 @12:07PM (#61161122)

    To put this into context, on a Chevy Silverado 1500 truck this is about 6% worse fuel economy than what you would get (15mpg instead of 16mpg, using various real-mpg figures on the internet and not the EPA rating; EPA rating is 17mpg).

    That's a lot of extra fuel consumption when you consider the effort that has gone into getting the fuel consumption down by 6% up to now.

    I see no mention of retro fitting this when the parts are available so this will remain a problem for the life of the vehicle, not only for a year or so while chip supplies recover.

    • To put this into context, on a Chevy Silverado 1500 truck this is about 6% worse fuel economy than what you would get (15mpg instead of 16mpg, using various real-mpg figures on the internet and not the EPA rating; EPA rating is 17mpg).

      That's a lot of extra fuel consumption when you consider the effort that has gone into getting the fuel consumption down by 6% up to now.

      If you think that's bad then consider that I get over half that MPG in a 44 tonne (97,000lb) heavy goods vehicle here in Europe. That's how ridiculous the MPGs of US pickups is.

      • by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Monday March 15, 2021 @12:44PM (#61161312)
        One reason for the improved European numbers, is that the European Gallon is much bigger than an American Gallon.
        • I don’t understand why we can’t all agree on sensible easy to understand units, like leagues per hogshead.
      • by Pascoea ( 968200 )
        Not sure why the comparison, an 80,000lb capacity semi gets about the same mileage here. (7.2MPG average is the current regulation, as best as I could google.) How do full-size pickups do for gas mileage over there?
        • by _merlin ( 160982 )

          The "full-size pickup" is a US phenomenon. In the rest of the world, things like the Toyota Hilux and Ford Ranger are a lot more popular.

          • by Pascoea ( 968200 )
            That was my understanding as well. You can't even hardly buy a "small pickup" here any more. It's pretty comical to put an old S-10 pickup next to the new Colorado.
      • You'll see the same thing in the US. A Freightliner Cascadia gets about 8-9mpg when doing flat freeway runs fully loaded at 40k-80klbs. That said, a heavy goods vehicle would be using diesel fuel, and wouldn't be starting and stopping much.

        Pickup trucks in the US, specifically 1/2 ton models like the Chevy Silverado 1500 overwhelmingly run on gasoline. Diesel fuel, depending on the blend, has between 10-15% more energy per unit volume.

        Also, the EPA tests for fuel economy are based 55% on short start-and-sto

      • by tomhath ( 637240 )
        Turbocharged diesel versus naturally aspirated gasoline makes a big difference.
    • I see no mention of retro fitting this when the parts are available so this will remain a problem for the life of the vehicle, not only for a year or so while chip supplies recover.

      Another way think of 6% is 15 cents per gallon.

      Now imagine the political firestorm that would result from trying to jack up the gas tax by 15 cents per gallon.

      I have a hard time believing there won't be a recall to retrofit this, although the article says nothing about it.

  • by AcidFnTonic ( 791034 ) on Monday March 15, 2021 @12:12PM (#61161144) Homepage

    This doesn't make any sense to me, someone who actually reverse-engineers and tunes engine control units.

    The main problem is that I haven't had a vehicle that ever used more than one ECU save for some crazy Audi V10/V12 stuff that used paired Bosch Units.

    The computer is needed to control the injector pulsewidth, the spark timing, oil solenoids for variable cam timing, monitoring O2 feedback, etc. I have never seen a car that needed another computer to manage fuel economy?

    That always is just baked into the main ECU that is needed to actually fire the plugs and squirt the fuel. No other computer besides a transmission torque-limiter reduction message while it's shifting has been part of the loop on anything I've tuned.

    This totally feels like a BS news story to me. Just a way to tie to chip shortage to some real-world emissions problem. Think of the lives!

    • There very well could be a separate fuel economy module in the engine bay since every subsystem talks via CAN bus.

    • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Monday March 15, 2021 @12:37PM (#61161272)
      The Active Fuel Management (AFM) is GM brand name for cylinder shut-off technology. The unwanted feature that causes oil burning, lifter damage and a few other well-documented problems in GM engines. It is controlled via a separate module.
      • Ah, so they increased the reliability in these models, good to know :D They will probably have better resale value.
      • That don't make no sense.

        I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying GM is fucking stupid.

        With HPCR diesels (I.e. all of them now) you just don't fire the injector electronically.

        If GM separated that out into a different module all they have done is unnecessarily made the power train control system less reliable to make programming easier.

        I hate working on their fucking trucks anyway. Their BCM is trouble all day.

        • by sinij ( 911942 )
          I know I committed the cardinal /. sin of RTFA, but they are talking about 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 which is gasoline engine.
          • It is OK, I sometimes do it too.

            Anyway what I meant is that even with a diesel, these days there is nothing magical about the control system. In fact, TDIs and GDIs are practically identical in terms of equipment, ignition system aside.

        • I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying GM is fucking stupid.

          Having owned a 2002 Sierra for almost 20 years, I'm right there with you. There are aspects of that damned truck's design that are truly mind-boggling in their idiocy.

  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Monday March 15, 2021 @12:22PM (#61161204)
    Active fuel management in GM engines is cylinder shutoff, a feature that long resulted in various long-term problematic effects. A popular mod is to disable it [onallcylinders.com], as fuel savings are negligible but oil consumption and engine damage is not.
    • For people still haunted by their 1980s Cadillac.

      • Yeah, my uncle had a Cadillac with the "4-6-8". It was fascinating to ride in and watch the current cylinder count on the dashboard, but he didn't have it for long...

    • 'Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.' — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

      Sounds like they needed an extra feature for the marketing department to boast about.

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      Actually, from that page it looks like the primary complaint is that people don't like how 4 cylinder mode sounds when they install an extra loud aftermarket exhaust. Couldn't they just tape some peacock feathers to their butts or something?

      Next up is people who want instant V8 response in situations where the engine has switched to 4 cylinder operation. In other words revving the engine to make noise.

      The 3rd reason might actually make some sense, but requires an engine rebuild to fix. The very parts that t

  • Private sector is considered to be efficient. Because the word efficiency has positive connotations, we fail to pay attention to what they mean by efficiency.

    Just-in-time inventory is an example of "efficient" supply chain management. What it really means is, if the smooth flow of components is disrupted, there is no slack in the system, there is no buffer that can insulate down stream processes while the kinks are being worked out.

    Having high capacity utilization factor is considered efficient for elect

    • The invisible hand of the market will always trigger a race to the bottom, and there does not seem to be a good pure free market libertarian solution here

      What about all those people telling me everyone in Texas should have a commercial LP tank and heater for when the gas fails and have a few hundred gallons of fuel and an 8kw generator? Surely they can’t all be wrong and surely that must be far cheaper than a bit of winterization equipment on a few plants. Also, can’t you just pay to get to the front of the line in a pandemic? I mean it’s not my fault if life is priced out of the market for poor people. /s

    • A certain number of unoccupied beds is a good thing to have. But if that number is too high I think it's a waste (indepdent of how your healthcare system is run mainly-public, mainly-private or a mix).
      Let's say most of the time 100 ICU beds are in use in a specific hospital. It might be valuable to have say 120 total for rare peak situations. Having 150 would be a stretch. 200 just stupid. When are you going to have a situation that requres double the ICU beds as usual? Maybe a pandemic. How often do those
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 15, 2021 @12:45PM (#61161318)

    Not having this module means you don't have the factory defect that involves turning off cylinders.

    GM only added this to make the feds happy. GM is more than happy to have an excuse to not add them.

    • Chrysler of all people doesn't seem to have issues with cylinder deactivation. Neither do the few other companies who implement it. This is just GM being terrible as usual.

  • take action for fradulent fule performance claims - oh wait they are a US company . Pointless question,
  • And how much energy is saved by not having to make the module(s) in the first place? Less modules need to be:
    -Carted around, wherever that vehicle goes
    -Installed by humans/robots during vehicle production at the vehicle factory
    -Shipped to the vehicle factory
    -Held in a temperature-controlled warehouse
    -Built in the electronics factory
    -Created by electronic parts, manufactured and shipped from all over the world
    -Designed and tested in the electronics factory

    Not to mention ALL the people who had to u
    • Given this is a miniscule piece of the entire vehicle I'd say the driver losing 10lbs has more of an impact. I can tell you're old because you think modern cars are unworkable now. That plastic engine cover really does a number on people. Plenty of people are hacking on fully electric Leafs and Teslas now, just take a look on YouTube.

      • by kackle ( 910159 )
        And if it wasn't for your low user ID, I'd say you're young, because you didn't read/address the REST of my points ("TL;DR").

        I'm saying that auto mechanics across the board are dissuaded by the technology, which doesn't help me when I want to get my car repaired (I'm too busy for that anymore). I get it: Electronics is not their field. And software is proprietary and therefore mostly inaccessible to them. They tell me that the troubleshooting tools are very expensive (thousands of dollars each) and
      • Plenty of people hacking on things with plastic engine covers as well.
    • An easier way to see the difference is that 1MPG loss is a 6% loss.

      6% over a 200k-ish mile lifespan of the vehicle adds up.

  • Big whoop. The price of gas is up almost 50% in the last two months. (Thanks, Uncle Joe.) Nobody is going to care about or likely notice a piddly 5% loss of mileage.

It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing. -- Descartes

Working...