I thought the 4.3 did a pretty good job of that. Much better than the 3.6 that is being called a truck engine...

 

It’s a rare thing for a vehicle to so thoroughly exceed our expectations, but that’s what the 2019 Silverado and its new 2.7-liter engine has managed to do. It’s more truck than most half-ton pickup buyers will ever need or use: efficient, powerful, and quiet, all from a turbocharged four-cylinder.

Another glowing review. Looking forward to more real world feedback. MPG’s, towing, hauling, etc.

 

This was a very nice review painting the new engine in a favorable light. Comparing the new GM 2.7L Turbo to the closest competitor (Ford 2.7L Turbo) tells a different story.

Ford
2.7L Turbo
325 HP 400 lb-ft
MPG 20/26/22
GM
2.7L Turbo
310 HP 348 lb-ft
MPG 20/23/21

 

Pretty impressive - I was skeptical to say the least.

Doesn't this mill need premium fuel though?

 

Regular fuel

 

Someone posted a HP/Torque graph on one of the other threads and the torque curve showed 340+ ft-lbs or torque from 1500-4500RPM. It wasn't really a curve, it was just a flat line between those two RPM's which was pretty freaking impressive. Peak numbers are great for bragging rights, but how often does anyone operate their trucks at those speeds/RPM's necessary to hit those peak numbers. In a truck, I'll take that low RPM grunt any day.

 

 

Awesome to hear good things about this engine. Also, it’s refreshing to know that some thought and planning was put into this engine from the start. Now, when can we expect this in the Colorado and Canyon?

 

Problem is, even if this engine is superior to the competition, the truck will get buried because the top level trim doesn't do well vs. the top trim in the competition. Sadly the top level trim will taint the entire lineup.

 

The 6.2 just crashed everything at the pickuptrucks.com comprehensive comparison, how is that getting buried?

 

I remember back when the 2.7 Ecoboost first came out in the F150, Ford was saying that
it was a better strategy than a diesel.I think GM is zoning in on that idea and has made
it's 2.7 I-4T as a low cost alternative to a diesel. Good thnking but I wonder if GM has
done a good enough job of presentng that and promoting the engine's virtues.

 

Good thinking but I wonder if GM has
done a good enough job of presenting that and promoting the engine's virtues.

:fall: :fall: :fall: :fall:

Good one! I'm sure GM will do it's usual stellar job with messaging and promoting!

 

I read the Jalopnik article on the 2.7T. It was pretty interesting, I had not really known much about how the actuated cam profiles work, other than the AFM I thought it was pretty cool (still not sold on AFM). Electric water pump is also nice along with other stuff.

Hopefully this engine gets put in the Colorado if everything proves to be reliable. In my dream of it hooked to a manual, that would be a fun daily driver.

 

The idea of standard vs standard is logical, but few are buying F-150 XLT with the 3.3, at least based on how many are in stock at couple dealers local to me. Either that, or they’re super popular and flying off the lots, but I very much doubt that. Here’s the numbers:

Dealer 1

334 F-150s in stock
178 XLTs with the following engines:
72 3.5 EB
49 2.7 EB
45 5.0
8 3.0 diesel
4 3.3

Dealer 2

245 F-150s in stock
115 XLTs with the following engines:
52 3.5 EB
38 2.7 EB
16 5.0
5 3.3
4 3.0 diesel

Obviously, slightly different mixes at those dealers, especially the V8s, but they both have very few 3.3s. I suspect Ford offers the 3.3 because there are a few that want the cheapest XLT possible for some reason. Also, since it’s already certified for the F-150 in general, it basically costs them nothing to do so. The lions share of consumers obviously want one of the upgrade engines, however, and I’m sure the dealers are happy to upsell them.

As far as 2.7 vs 2.7 in cost, even if the MSRP is more on one vs the other, I’m sure it’s well within a range that will be offset by rebates and dealer discounts one way or another. The one that’s actually cheaper probably will depend on the dealer and the discounts offered by the dealer and manufacturer on that particular day.

It’s laughable to me that comparing two trucks with similar trim levels and engines that are literally the same displacement and both turbocharged somehow doesn’t make sense based on one being standard vs optional. I think most consumers will compare these rather than the 2.7 Chevy vs the 3.3 Ford, but there are so many options it could be 5.3 vs 2.7 or any other variation. A friend of mine didn’t consider the GMs when he bought his truck with the 3.5 EB, because, at least at that time, GM made it hard to get the 6.2 and the 5.3 was just not enough. It’s not like most people will slot comparisons into neat categories like we do on here. That said, GM stacking the deck on this comparison is, frankly, expected. Manufacturers always set up these comparos to make their product come out on top, whether it’s the choice of competitive vehicles or the sorts of things they have them do. It’s just marketing. I do find it a bit odd they didn’t have a crew cab 4x2 Chevy, but I don’t think it really made a difference. One would think it would be easy for GM to get hold of that truck, though.

 

The idea of standard vs standard is logical, but few are buying F-150 XLT with the 3.3, at least based on how many are in stock at couple dealers local to me. Either that, or they’re super popular and flying off the lots, but I very much doubt that. Here’s the numbers:

Dealer 1

334 F-150s in stock
178 XLTs with the following engines:
72 3.5 EB
49 2.7 EB
45 5.0
8 3.0 diesel
4 3.3

Dealer 2

245 F-150s in stock
115 XLTs with the following engines:
52 3.5 EB
38 2.7 EB
16 5.0
5 3.3
4 3.0 diesel

Obviously, slightly different mixes at those dealers, especially the V8s, but they both have very few 3.3s. I suspect Ford offers the 3.3 because there are a few that want the cheapest XLT possible for some reason. Also, since it’s already certified for the F-150 in general, it basically costs them nothing to do so. The lions share of consumers obviously want one of the upgrade engines, however, and I’m sure the dealers are happy to upsell them.

As far as 2.7 vs 2.7 in cost, even if the MSRP is more on one vs the other, I’m sure it’s well within a range that will be offset by rebates and dealer discounts one way or another. The one that’s actually cheaper probably will depend on the dealer and the discounts offered by the dealer and manufacturer on that particular day.

It’s laughable to me that comparing two trucks with similar trim levels and engines that are literally the same displacement and both turbocharged somehow doesn’t make sense based on one being standard vs optional. I think most consumers will compare these rather than the 2.7 Chevy vs the 3.3 Ford, but there are so many options it could be 5.3 vs 2.7 or any other variation. A friend of mine didn’t consider the GMs when he bought his truck with the 3.5 EB, because, at least at that time, GM made it hard to get the 6.2 and the 5.3 was just not enough. It’s not like most people will slot comparisons into neat categories like we do on here. That said, GM stacking the deck on this comparison is, frankly, expected. Manufacturers always set up these comparos to make their product come out on top, whether it’s the choice of competitive vehicles or the sorts of things they have them do. It’s just marketing. I do find it a bit odd they didn’t have a crew cab 4x2 Chevy, but I don’t think it really made a difference. One would think it would be easy for GM to get hold of that truck, though.

Well said.

Thanks for doing the homework on what the "real world" looks like and what dealers put on the lot based on what buyers actually buy.

Exactly how real customers in the real world are going to "Logically" compare the F-150 vs GM's Truck - 2.7L vs 2.7L based on what is on the lot to purchase and when they do a "build and price" the difference in sticker price will only be a couple hundred dollars, which most buyers will figure is "the same price" when they actually compare the trucks since it is well within "negotiating range".

What buyers are going to really compare is for the same price the F-150 offers more power AND higher MPG, and all of GM's idiotic "logic" will be meaningless to the average buyer.

Most buyers interested in GM's 2.7L are going to find in the comparisons that the RAM 3.6L gets better MPG (22.8 vs 20.8 in a recent test) and the Ford's 2.7L Ecoboost can exceed it, and MPG is what the 2.7L is supposed to be about. As for being a 5.3L alternative, don't think so, it has a 3,000 lb lower tow rating and is rated lower than even the 4.3L V6.

Even GM is only expecting a 10% "take rate" on the 2.7L, at least someone at GM has some sense.

 

Sounds like a fine motor but those mileage figures are a real head scratcher.

 

considering the power output, it's not suprising..

 

Nice to see this and that it did well for them, also the looks of this new Chevy are starting to grow on me too.

 

Why even compare a TWIN TURBO to a SINGLE TURBO? Ford's TT is made to replace a v8. GM's turbo is not. No comparison. Might as well compare a turbo 5.0 V8 to a NA 5.0. One is going to make more HP and torque.

 

Unless there is a significant gap in cost, fuel economy, or reliability or something else tangibile (some advantage by GM to make up for the hp difference at least on paper), they're going to be compared/contrasted in most cases. I guess they really will anyways.

I say this of course with no actual experience with either engine.

 

It will be interesting to see how it performs in the market. For a commuter truck, this might be a very good purchase in RST guise. Then there is the 3.0 liter diesel, what will be the premium on that?

 

The 5.3 vs the 2.7 graphics, is that at the crank or at the wheel? GM engines are SAE certified.

 

Dyno'd at the wheel. GM uses SAE certified test methods at the crank

 

Over at the other GM news site there is an article that dyno'd a new Trail Boss 5.3. It made 307 hp and 322 tq to the wheels. Not bad numbers.

 

These Dynos it seems can be all over the place at the wheels, there is no real standard

 

I posted the torque curve with an older 2.7 EB to get an idea of the torque curve, where it cuts in and where it peaks, not to get into a petty brand competition....It's all about determining when the 2.7 EB's bower kicks in and from what I see, it doesn't have the bottom end (1,500-2,5500) of the GM 2.7 I-4 T.

My intention is not to degrade GM here but to understand what they are trying to accomplish
over say the incumbent 4.3 V6......

 

My question is whether the torque of the 2.7 EB cuts in as early as the GM 2.7 I-4?
Given 8 and 10-speed autss and does the torque really need to be that low in the rev range?

 

Torque down low means better economy, no?

 

While not the same power torque as the F150 2.7 Ecoboost, this power torque graph of the 2.7 EB Edge ST
while slightly less gives us a good conservative approximation of the Ford 2.7 EB to the GM 2.7 I-4 Turbo
Maybe lower power torque of this tune is a good approximation for the F150 engine on 87 regular?

https://www.automobile-catalog.com/wykres_power.php


Someone with no life may be kind enough to merge these two graphs into one so we can compare...

 

Enough low down torque so that half the engine can be turned off?

 

so many people missing the forest for the trees.
The engine is NOT in the line-up to convince die hard truck guys who need power to tow and haul to switch over to a turbo 4.
The take rate for the turbo 4 will be low, maybe 10%. It's there for people buying an LT or RST silverado who know they aren't going to tow or haul anything significant, but still want a truck for daily life duties, etc.
It WILL get better real world mileage than the EB2.7, you can bet on it.
It's got enough power to do most truck things--tow a smaller boat, haul stuff, go to the dump, camping, etc.
If its built tough and has good long term reliability it will be a really nice engine option for some people.

 

It WILL get better real world mileage than the EB2.7, you can bet on it.

Only time will tell. The early adopters &/or car mags & shows will have to run them long term to see if that happens.