[gkr778]

Why are you comparing the optional Ford engine instead of the 3.3L non turbo standard engine?

Because the 2.7L V6 Ford EcoBoost engine most closely aligns with GM's 2.7L 4-cylinder turbo in terms of power and market positioning. The Ford 3.3L V6 engine is comparable to GM's 4.3L V6 in this context.

 

[Mingo]

Why are you comparing the optional Ford engine instead of the 3.3L non turbo standard engine?

Ford like GM does not use only one "standard" engine. It depends on trim level. In the lowest trim XL for Ford and W/T for GM they both offer a "standard" V6 after that there is some divergence as Ford offers more engine choices. So for the lowest 2 engines this is how it shakes out:

Ford
V6 3.3L NA
290 HP 265 lb-ft
MPG 19/25/22

2.7L 6 Cyl Turbo
325 HP 400 lb-ft
MPG 20/26/22

GM
V6 4.3L NA
285 HP 305 lb-ft
MPG 18/24/20

2.7L 4 Cyl Turbo
310 HP 348 lb-ft
20/23/21

 

[rjpoog1989]

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...

 

[CJH]

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.

 

[Mingo]

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?

 

[Captain Chaos]

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.

 

[mbukukanyau]

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.

You miss the part where it delivers torque down low for same fuel economy

 

[Mingo]

You miss the part where it delivers torque down low for same fuel economy

With the newest 8-10 speed transmissions allowing a 17:1 overall first gear and deep gearing in all but the highest gears, means torque is greatly multiplied. "Torque down low" in todays automotive world is irrelevant.

 

[hiluxxulih]

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

 

[gkr778]

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?

That's puzzling. The 2.7L turbo is more powerful and presumably lighter than the old 4.3L V6, and both engines are paired to 3.42 rear axle in 2019 Silverado.

Do you think that different cab configurations may explain the difference? In its press release for the 2.7L engine, GM has an asterisk on its claim, "Its max towing capacity is 7,200 pounds and there is a 2,280-pound max payload.*" The asterisk states, "Requires regular cab, available for fleet customers only at this time"

 

[Mingo]

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

 

[61BelAir]

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

The 4.2L was a really good motor, but it was long which doesn't help with packaging and frontal area crush space. I had the 3.7L Atlas in my Colorado, and I loved that little engine.

 

[AMERICA 123]

With the newest 8-10 speed transmissions allowing a 17:1 overall first gear and deep gearing in all but the highest gears, means torque is greatly multiplied. "Torque down low" in todays automotive world is irrelevant.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Of all the massive 'mistakes' you have made of late, including in this thread (especially), this one takes the cake.

300 % wrong, period.

And we can use 300 % because not only is this wrong in this thread, on this topic, and with regard to LD Pick Ups in general, it is also fully wrong right across the entire 'automotive' landscape - globally.

Big fat torque down low down early is the most important - 'the' key to high FE and also within large practical limits makes a type of positive contribution to EM.

And guess what, it has literally always been this way and will be so.

You only do not provide it when constrained in some other way and or to trade off or to shift the Torque rpm band.


Or say as an example you have to use ......'cause it's so cheap on paper.... a 3.3 NA v6 really intended for a bunch of cars etc - which you now are not going to build - see how that works ?


Perhaps you need to review all non high performance US market V6 replacements in the form of I4 Turbos over the last ten years or so ?


Merde, where did all these flies come from ??? - but I digress.

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.

Well said.

In addition, the large rpm band for peak torque value ( 1500 - 4000 rpm) really adds a bunch ( per your previous ) and dovetails nicely ( better ) with the HP curve.


******

Seems way too premature to judge either way just how sensible this one really is.


Also seems odd no mention / little mention of the 4WD mpg - which may have been released but then pulled back ?????


Anyway, using the published numbers currently available - which is more about lack than info....... we have an ( incomplete ) preliminary ( subject to revision - and possible addition ) list / perspective as follows;





4WD:

2019 Colorado ZR2 4wd 8AT 17 16 18

2019 Colorado 4wd 3.6 8AT 19 17 24

--

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

2019 Silverado K10 4wd 5.3 8AT 18 16 22

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

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

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 23 ( LT / RST trim only. Confirmed.)

2019 Silverado C10 2wd 5.3 8AT 19 17 23

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


****


So far..... makes perfect sense internally and oh yes indeed..... most likely will versus external 2019 competition once we get all the 2019 numbers for all the offerings from all OEM.

Going to be ah........ at least a few surprises for the others.....:yup: and no, I do not mean the sunny kind.

 

[Mingo]

[/B]:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Of all the massive 'mistakes' you have made of late, including in this thread (especially), this one takes the cake.

300 % wrong, period.

And we can use 300 % because not only is this wrong in this thread, on this topic, and with regard to LD Pick Ups in general, it is also fully wrong right across the entire 'automotive' landscape - globally.

Big fat torque down low down early is the most important - 'the' key to high FE and also within large practical limits makes a type of positive contribution to EM.

And guess what, it has literally always been this way and will be so.

You only do not provide it when constrained in some other way and or to trade off or to shift the Torque rpm band.



Perhaps you need to review all non high performance US market V6 replacements in the form of I4 Turbos over the last ten years or so ?


Merde, where did all these flies come from - but I digress.



Well said.

In addition, the large rpm band for peak torque value ( 1500 - 4000 rpm) really adds a bunch ( per your previous ) and dovetails nicely ( better ) with the HP curve.


******

Seems way too premature to judge either way just how sensible this one really is.


Also seems odd no mention / little mention of the 4WD mpg - which may have been released but then pulled back ?????


Anyway, using the published numbers currently available - which is more about lack than info....... we have an ( incomplete ) preliminary ( subject to revision - and possible addition ) list / perspective as follows;





4WD:

2019 Colorado ZR2 4wd 8AT 17 16 18

2019 Colorado 4wd 3.6 8AT 19 17 24

--

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

2019 Silverado K10 4wd 5.3 8AT 18 16 22

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

2019 Silverado K10 4wd TrailBoss 5.3 8AT 17 15 21

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 23

2019 Silverado C10 2wd 5.3 8AT 19 17 23

2019 Silverado LD C15 2wd 5.3 6AT 17 15 22


---


So far..... makes perfect sense internally and oh yes indeed..... most likely will versus external 2019 competition once we get all the 2019 numbers for all the offerings from all OEM.

Going to be ah........ at least a few surprises for the others.....:yup: and no, I do not mean the sunny kind.

Maybe you should try to understand basic physics. If you have power (HP etc.) you can multiply torque to any level needed. The "Torque down low" value is highly overrated.

 

[AutoCrazy]

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

 

[AMERICA 123]

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.

 

[InCogKneeToe]

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.

 

[NeverEnough]

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???

 

[Captain Chaos]

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.

 

[jesda1]

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