GM Inside News Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,398 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It tows more than you'd expect but also drinks more fuel than you'd expect.
Car and Driver
February 22, 2019
By: Josh Jacqot


Secure possession of one’s Man Card is too frequently associated with the overt machismo of one’s truck, a metric closely tied to the size of its tires, the power of its engine, and, of course, its number of cylinders—not necessarily in that order. Which, in the world of presumed stereotypes, puts Chevy’s new four-cylinder Silverado in a tough spot. We discovered, however, that it is indeed a manly and capable thing.

Full article at link.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,398 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
It's an awesome little motor, but I'd stick with a V8 if I were buying a pickup truck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
960 Posts
Since the 2.7 Turbo is rated near the 3.6L V6, maybe it should be the optional engine in the Blazer, Equinox, and Terrain. Replace the old 2.5L that's only used as the base engine in the Blazer and Acadia with the 2.0L Turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
The 2020 Acadia is getting the option of the 2.0 turbo from Cadillac. The 2.5 is not as old as 2.0 T granted the 2.0 has gone revisions. The 2.5 actually is a good motor. It really should be the base engine in the Terrain and Equinox instead of 1.5 turbo as its more powerful and probably gets just as good gas mileage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

C&D must be surviving on the filthy lucre from the Negative Advertorial Campaign for Silverado 2.7T.......

Going all in..... also has the worst performance numbers as well, including below some of GM's verbiage on it - which is always solidly ultra conservative.

Strange how they still keep leaving any and all mention of all their other PU MPG fail ( excluding the 2019 Silverado DFM 5.3 8AT ) and perhaps most notably, their 2018 F 150 2.7T EB 10AT 4 x 2 MPG fail.


(Although given how they are rolling with this..... you can expect that to be the finishing piece and thereby the finishing touch - watch and see...:)


Maybe they flogged the hell out of the motor when it was green and cold x2 ?????


Anyway....





There was this one - the best one from back in November -

“We’re not trying to convert V-8 customers,” Luchansky says. “We’re trying for converts that are coming out of either cars or sedans or another application that has a 2.0-liter turbo. If you have a turbo engine, you’re going to want another turbo engine.”

That’s a shame, because the only thing stopping this 2.7 from supplanting the 5.3 entirely is the rusty old falsehood that V-8s are for trucks and four cylinders are for cars. That mountain of instantly available torque means that there’s power everywhere. We’ve grown accustomed to responsive turbocharged engines, but this is something new, the instant rush of a small-displacement diesel in a gasoline powerplant.

Coupled with the eight-speed automatic, the Silverado turbo is properly quick, getting to 60 mph in 6.8 seconds. That’s partly thanks to the fact that the new Silverado is much lighter than the outgoing model. Compared to a similarly equipped truck with the old 4.3-liter V-8, the 2019 pickup weighs 380 pounds less. The smaller engine makes up 80 of those.

We spent a morning chasing the hills around Phoenix in a four-wheel drive, double-cab Silverado LT that rang in at $44,900. Climbing the 3,500 feet of elevation from Scottsdale to the Tonto National Forest, the 2.7 simply dug in, parked itself at 2,000 rpm and tractored up the grades with zero drama. As we’ve come to expect from GM’s cylinder deactivation, the system is seamless, all but imperceptible. From behind the wheel, there is no way we would have guessed that the engine under the hood was a four-cylinder, a shock given that for all its weight savings, the truck still weighs in at 4,693 pounds, unladen.

And as surprising as that is for a small-displacement engine in a massive pickup, we were more impressed with the way the Silverado drives. This is effectively a front mid-engine vehicle, with the engine’s crank pulley sitting on the front axle line. It’s no sports car, but it drives far better than a four-wheel drive pickup has any right to. Everything—steering, cornering, and braking—is a mile ahead of the old machine.

Nor does the four-cylinder require any great sacrifice in capability. GM hasn’t released official payload or towing capacities, but the company estimates the 2.7-liter-equipped Silverado will be able to pull between 6,700 and 7,000 pounds. Likewise, GM hasn’t released official EPA fuel economy estimates.

We saw between 20 and 26.5 mpg indicated in mixed driving during our time behind the wheel. It’s internally estimating 20/23 mpg city/highway.

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.


https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2019-chevrolet-silverado-four-cylinder-review-first-drive/


One can usefully recommend the entire ( much larger ) article -


Oh and yeah............Lil' birdy sez.... the Diesel is in fact going to be "Awesome".


(Also more than a few here and there ...... suggest this is the best tuned GM 8AT to date, and fully competent as well - finally.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
890 Posts
YEah.. I too believe that the 2.7L needs to be present in a few more vehicles. C1xxs would certainly benefit from 348 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm versus the 3.6L's 270 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm. Wai.. wha??? :confused:

Come on. Somebody tell the truth. Does the 3.6L have something on GM? Like is it blackmailing them to keep it in service? :confused:

2.0L, 2.7L, 3.0L, 3.6LTurbos.. all being turned down for juicy, often leading roles in vehicles that they would soar in if that 3.6L were to disappear. If engines could murder each other.. the 3.6L would be best to watch its back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,587 Posts
YEah.. I too believe that the 2.7L needs to be present in a few more vehicles. C1xxs would certainly benefit from 348 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm versus the 3.6L's 270 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm. Wai.. wha??? :confused:

Come on. Somebody tell the truth. Does the 3.6L have something on GM? Like is it blackmailing them to keep it in service? :confused:

2.0L, 2.7L, 3.0L, 3.6LTurbos.. all being turned down for juicy, often leading roles in vehicles that they would soar in if that 3.6L were to disappear. If engines could murder each other.. the 3.6L would be best to watch its back.
Look at GMI, half the members don't like turbos and want naturally aspirated, that's why the 3.6 exists. After living with my 2.0T (and my past 3.6L V6 Supercharged engine), I'm a fan of blown engines - I'll take a 2.0T 4 over a naturally aspirited V6 any day.

Part of it can also be the middle aged and older folks, such as myself, who were around in the 1980's when turbos were big but were prone to issues. The durability is greatly improved, but the image lingers, along the line of Cadillac's image - the cars became competitive but the 1980's image lingers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
32,703 Posts
Since the 2.7 Turbo is rated near the 3.6L V6, maybe it should be the optional engine in the Blazer, Equinox, and Terrain. Replace the old 2.5L that's only used as the base engine in the Blazer and Acadia with the 2.0L Turbo.
the current 2.5 is a very high tech motor that was all new in 2016, makes 200 HP in some applications and has nothing to do with the last get Malibu 2.5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
This engine would be right at home in the Canyon. It would be a healthy bump and pull the 3.6. The turbo would be better at alt. and I would bet in that platform would get better mpg than does the Camaro derived 3.6. If nothing else it would make its hp and torque more inline with where a pickup should make its power, which is on the left side of the tach and not the right side where the 3.6 needs to be to make its hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,419 Posts
XT4 may not be able to fit a V6. Once you adapt it for a transaxle, you might as well stick it everywhere, assuming it's smooth enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,051 Posts
Look at GMI, half the members don't like turbos and want naturally aspirated, that's why the 3.6 exists. After living with my 2.0T (and my past 3.6L V6 Supercharged engine), I'm a fan of blown engines - I'll take a 2.0T 4 over a naturally aspirited V6 any day.

Part of it can also be the middle aged and older folks, such as myself, who were around in the 1980's when turbos were big but were prone to issues. The durability is greatly improved, but the image lingers, along the line of Cadillac's image - the cars became competitive but the 1980's image lingers.
I'm in both camps. If I'm in a smaller car, I really want the small turbo engine. In a full size truck, this 2.7T is just too small to crank out the efficiency, which is why I keep reverting back to my "I want a V8" mindset.

I'm in agreement with DaBangBang though on the 3.6. The engineers/suppliers for that motor must have some serious dirt on someone at GM for this thing to keep getting dumped into so many platforms. It is getting close to outlasting the legendary LS platform at this point, and I know it isn't anywhere near as liked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,241 Posts
the current 2.5 is a very high tech motor that was all new in 2016, makes 200 HP in some applications and has nothing to do with the last get Malibu 2.5.
:confused:
The only 2.5 liter 4-cylinder gasoline engines currently available from GM are the LCV (introduced in 2012) and the LKW (introduced in 2013). The primary difference is that the latter has variable valve lift in addition to cam phasing VVT.

Neither engine is appealing; my experience with them is that they may seem decent in terms of specs, but in real world driving they are noisy and weak.

The L3B 2.7 liter turbo represents a completely different architecture and is unrelated to the 2.5 liter units.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,205 Posts
 
  • Like
Reactions: 09W

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
That engine needs to be available with some sort of mild hybrid. Just think about what it could do with a little bump in torque and power at low RPM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,419 Posts
Just think about what it could do with a little bump in torque and power at low RPM.
That isn't its problem--the turbo does that. The questions are: will they put it in something lighter, and is it smooth & quiet enough for passenger cars?
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top