Long live the n/a V6!!

 

Very puzzling, what is the point of the engine then?

 

If the I-4 in the Silverado can't deliver at least 25MPG highway and a 23MPG combined, it has no point!
Major SNAFU for GM. One or two more of these screw ups and GM will be FUBAR.

 

Should be the standard engine in the Colorado

 

I doubt it will be standard, but I hope they make it optional.

 

So the take rate on this will be low I imagine, it had better perform to make it even somewhat desirable. Wondering if it'll show up in the Tahoe/Yukon.

 

The entry level 2.7L Turbo has 310HP and 348ft-lbs torque with peak torque available from 1500-4000rpm. The entry level engine from Ford, the 3.3L has 290/265, and the Ram 3.6 has 305/269. That's 83ft-lbs more than the Ford and 79ft-lbs more than the Ram, which is huge and down low in the RPM band that will make a big difference. Don't get me wrong, I love big v8's, but for people who aren't shopping for a V8, and there are plenty out there, this engine will be more than enough. I think we will be surprised when they do a head to head to head comparison of the entry level trucks.

 

This person gets it. Fuel economy is just one issue. Do not be a joy beher

 

I suspect if GM placed the 8 speed auto behind the n/a 4.3 V6 it would shame the T4 in fuel economy.

Often the simpler mousetrap is the best solution.

 

I have the 4.3L in my '17 Silverado and MPG isn't all that great and having the 8 speed might help a little, but I doubt it would make that much of a difference. Regardless, I didn't buy a full size truck because I thought it was going to have great MPG's.

 

An article on Carscoops is quoting a 0-60 time of 6.8 seconds. That's pretty impressive and over a second faster than the current gen Silverado with the 4.3L

 

"the fuel economy ratings for the Silverado's new 2.7-liter four-cylinder engine are 20 mpg city, 23 highway and 21 combined"

Wow, that's just dismal FE, what is the point of this engine, just make up work to write off the loss or R&D cost at end of fiscal year?

 

How does it compare to the offerings from Ram and Ford?
Here is what the competition is offering:

The 2019 Ram 1500 with the 3.6L V6 eTorque 8-speed is rated at (20/25/22 MPG). It has the same city estimate, but the Ram has better highway and combined numbers.

The 2018 Ford F150 with the 2.7L turbocharged V6 10-speed is rated at (20/26/22 MPG). Once again, the same city efficiency but far better highway and combined performance as well as better HP/Torque.

 

Wow. I can’t even begin to express the mediocrity in this engine. I bet this thing sounds horrible roaring up any kind of grade... at least a v6 would sound decent burning tons of fuel...

 

BTW not mentioned earlier but the 2.7 Turbo Silverado has lower tow rating and lower payload than the 4.3 6 Cyl. Why would that be?

 

The Ford 2.7TT is the sweet spot in the market, the best combination of power (325HOP/400TQ) and MPG (20/26/22). It's a very under-rated engine IMHO.

The GM 2.7T would be fine as a base engine, but with the upgrade/trim required, I don't think its the best option. Plus after rippin' on Ford for boosted engines in PU trucks, it looks bad...... My 2 cents.

 

So whats the point of this engine at all? My 2018 Sierra owning co-worker gets over 20 mpg with his 5.3. I'm sure there's no power difference between the V8 and L4. So to appease CAFE #'s it should have way larger F/E gains right? Or do they work off displacement and/or cylinder count? I'm confused.

 

It should have been an inline six not a four cylinder , I don't think many people are going to be buying a fullsize truck with a four cylinder , if my figures are correct a six cylinder would be
4.05 liters
465 horse power
522 pounds torque

 

GM had a very good in-line six in the Atlas 4.2L. They never put it in a pickup for some reason and then killed it with the TrailBlazer

 

This could be one with better real world numbers than the EPA suggests. It should exceed 23 mpg hwy for most drivers.

 

Thinkin' somewhat the same - and that kinda' real world thing - is also part of what is really needed here.

With all the advanced thermal management tech involved..... maybe real interesting in a new and unique - and really good way ( for a Turbo Gasser ) as far what it will do while towing - under more adverse conditions.


Also..... this thing has great potential not only in other applications but also with regard to hybridization ( small to full ) ..... in Pick Ups.

And yeah.... in a different way......with the 10 sp AT........

Realize most won't agree and definitely will not like it but still sticking with the idea that ..... this could be the future Small Block in a practical even if somewhat limited sense.

 

So, in the Real World, all the other Suck and the 2.7L is Super? Lets get a grip. New Fuel Economy numbers can be beat with Gentle Drivers, but Every engine can do it.

The 2.7L Ecoboost, can get 8.7L/100kms Hwy (not flat terrain) which is Over 27 mpg (us) in a Crew Cab 4x4.

 

I'm not excited about this thing, but it walks all over the hybrid v6 Ram in power. Combined mileage is 1 less.

How does Ram get a free pass on offering such mediocre engines???

 

What I've been wondering all along. I guess because it has a nice interior? Forgettable styling? Having only two engine choices is way far back of what their main competitors offer, and their top end trim engine is also available on the bottom end truck, that may bother some.

I'm not a 4 cyl truck customer that's for sure. But variety is nice, and it may be a great fit for some buyers. At lest GM and Ford offer many choices.

 

Torque is a wonderful thing. Just ask electric car owners.

 

And diesel car owners.

 

GM should counter RAM's 3.6L E-Torque with a 4.3L E-Assist that would bump the power to 298 HP and 349 lb/ft based on the existing 5.3L E-Assist and boost the MPG from 18/24 to 20/24 and since the 8-speed should be more efficient than the 6-speed the actual MPG could be 21/25 or even 21/26.

The 4.3L does have AFM that would shut off 2 cylinders and if the new DFM was used it would be more efficient.

This would be a cost effective way to compete with RAM and can see many commercial fleet buyers preferring it over the 2.7 Turbo since long term costs should be lower and they already have trucks with the 4.3L in the fleet, and spreads the cost of the E-Assist system with the 5.3L applications and can see many commercial fleet buyers being interested in buying both 4.3L and 5.3L E-Assist trucks.

It would also boost the 4.3L power and MPG to be attractive to retail buyers looking for better MPG first and performance second.

 

I have the 4.3L with AFM and it rarely goes to V4 mode and that's not because I drive it like I stole it. It will switch to V4 mode on the flattest of ground when there is no headwind and that's intermittently or when going downhill. Adding e-assist to the 4.3L would also add cost, so its no longer the value/cost purchase that some people are looking for, and all for what...1 mpg? Although I like the styling of the new trucks, the size of them limits efficiency so gains in MPG will be very limited. The front ends of these trucks are enormous and are borderline heavy duty size at this point. I for one am ready for them to reduce the size of the full size trucks, but I don't expect that to happen with all the midsize trucks that are now available. The GMT400 was the perfect size when it came out, but the full size trucks have gotten bigger and bigger with each following generation.

 

The 2.7 turbo 4 with 310 hp and 348 lb/ft of tq should be in gm s porsche macan competitor...

Forget the 3.6 dohc v6 alReady...

 

For the life of me I don't understand why they wont offer the 2.7 turbo 4 in a reg cab short bed for mileage concerns.......and the 6.2 for those not concerned :doh: SHAME SHAME.

 

Is GM ashamed of the Silverado and Sierra ? They still don't have online brochures or much info on their websites .same with the 4500hd and 5500HD

 

GM has a HUGE inventory of unsold MY 2018 Silverado and Sierra (K2XX) 1500 in the U.S. That may explain why information about the new generation 2019 Silverado and Sierra 1500 is so sparse on the Chevy and GMC consumer websites.

2019 Silverado 4500HD, 5500HD, and 6500HD production is scheduled for "late 2018"; not sure what the hang up is with those models.

The GM Supplier Discount Build & Price tool does have 2019 New Silverado and Sierra available: https://www.gmsupplierdiscount.com/build-and-price/

 

I'll give this motor a look, I drove a 4 cylinder with a 120 CI and 120 HP with two Weber carbs and it performed very well. I was surprised GM put it in the LT and not in the Colorado or it's twin. The winds of change are coming and GM knows it, your big V-8 will be seen as the bad boy on the block.

 

When GM announced this engine, I was pretty surprised. First came all the tech specs (and this is a pretty high tech engine) then came the power ratings. Well, for all the tech the power ratings were good but not spectacular. For example, the smaller 2.3L Ford 4-cylinder turbo found in the Focus RS makes 350HP and 350lb-ft. I understand this is a truck engine and needs to survive towing, etc. But it is considerably larger. So at this point I assumed GM's plan was to produce a truck engine with "adequate" power but excellent, class-leading fuel economy.

So when the EPA's numbers were released, my conclusion was that this is a fail for GM. What is the point? It produces mpg numbers that aren't much better than a 5.3L trucks, but with less power and a much costlier engine to produce. The tech in this engine is extremely impressive, from the thermal management, the sliding camshafts, dual-volute turbo, variable oil pump, electric water pump / no thermostat, etc, etc. Clearly there was a lot of R&D money spent here.

Being a 2.7L turbo, it is only natural to immediately compare this engine to the Ford 2.7L turbo. Here is where the GM fail becomes apparent - Ford is achieving better fuel economy and producing more power and torque from the same displacement, and with less tech. No doubt, the Ford 2.7L is a fairly high-tech engine but not to the extent of the GM 2.7L. GM's lead engineer on this project brags in an SAE article about how quickly torque is available - "90% available in 2 seconds, which is better than any of our turbo competition [Ford]." But the problem is that the 2.7L Ford would absolutely smoke the 2.7L GM truck in any and every race, all while probably getting better mpg.

The argument about "base engine" has already been debunked earlier in this thread - this engine actually costs more to get than the Ford 2.7L in certain configs but in reality is about the same price.

In the end, I think the GM 4.3L is a far better base engine than the Ford 3.3L...but I cannot believe GM put as much into this engine as they did to achieve only "average" results. Perhaps as others have mentioned this engine will exceed it's EPA ratings. I agree this would be a very nice engine engine to put in the Colorado - especially given the Ford 4-cylinder turbo is for now the sole Ranger engine, and this motor would whip the Ford 2.3L in that regard. (Of course, see my comments about the Ford 2.3L in the Focus RS...clearly there is more power to give if desired.)

 

Why do people only look at peak HP and torque? How much it makes down low in the RPM range is just as important if not more so than how much it makes at 6000rpm. Hopefully we'll get the HP and Torque graphs soon and we'll see how much power it makes throughout the RPM range. The Ford 2.3L makes good peak numbers, but from what I've heard it just feels laggy until you hit the power band.

 

We have some additional MPG numbers.

Interesting.......... to say the least.


4WD:


2019 Colorado 4wd 3.6 8AT 19 17 24

2019 Colorado ZR2 4wd 3.6 8AT 17 16 18

--

2019 Silverado K10 4wd 2.7 Turbo 8AT 20 19 22 ( LT / RST trim only. )

2019 Silverado K10 4wd 2.7 Turbo 8AT 19 18 21 ( Certain Fleet Option only, no start / stop )

2019 Silverado K10 4wd 5.3 8AT 18 16 22

2019 Silverado K10 4wd 5.3 8AT 17 15 21

*

2019 Silverado LD K15 4wd 5.3 6AT 17 15 21 ( Previous Gen )

2019 Silverado K10 4wd 5.3 6AT 17 15 20

*

2019 Silverado K10 4wd TrailBoss 5.3 8AT 17 15 20

2019 Silverado K10 4wd TrailBoss 5.3 6AT 16 14 18

*

2019 Silverado K10 4wd 6.2 10AT 17 16 20



---


2WD:

2019 Colorado 2wd 3.6 8AT 20 18 25

--

2019 Silverado C10 2wd 2.7 Turbo 8AT 21 20 24 ( LT / RST trim only.)

2019 Silverado C10 2wd 2.7 Turbo 8AT 21 20 23 ( Certain Fleet Option only, no start / stop )

*

2019 Silverado C10 2wd 5.3 8AT 19 17 24

2019 Silverado C10 2wd 5.3 8AT 19 17 23

*

2019 Silverado LD C15 2wd 5.3 6AT 17 15 22 ( Previous Gen )

2019 Silverado C10 2wd 5.3 6AT 17 15 21

 

For me, it's hard to imagine buying a truck based on which engine gets the best fuel economy unless I was a fleet owner pinching pennies. But as an individual owner, I want something that gets "good" gas mileage but also gives me other traits I want, like a good sound, and good power. In this case, I'd take the 5.3L V8 (preferably the 6.2L but not paying for a High Country).

My dad had a 2016 F-150 2.7L EcoBoost. That thing was amazingly quick and returned a lifetime average of 18.5mpg, but sounded like a leaf blower. After 33k miles, he traded for a 2018 F-150 with the 5.0L V8. The V8 is not quite as quick and is returning 16mpg lifetime average (3k miles so far). But to him, the lesser (but still decent) economy is worth the trade off to have a good sounding truck. I think I'd be in the same camp buying a Silverado...I'd prefer that nice deep V8 tone from a smallblock, not a 4-banger.