Chevy 2.7 turbo 1500 truck.

The performance is pretty amazing for a 2.7 liter, turbo 4 cylinder engine in a full size truck. I agree ib516, that this will be more than sufficient for 90 % of the drivers where I live..the flat prairies...but also with the turbo it will work well in higher elevation, mountainous regions.

Lately I've been looking at alternative vehicles, as our prime transportation..a 2015 Impala 3.6 liter V6 is getting older.

For a mostly everyday transportation vehicle my wife and I prefer a sedan...but GM and Ford are dropping their sedan lines and I'm starting to check out Japanese sedans..and I've had only two of those as vehicles, since the late '60's. It's mostly been GM, with a few Fords.

As an aside, old time prairie salesmen used to say...'you can't sell from an empty wagon'...and GM/Ford will be selling from an empty wagon..sedan wise..very soon. Nope, I don't want the remaining GM sedan the Malibu.

Anyways, I've been looking at the 2019 Honda Accord Sport model. Four door sedan, with sportier suspension, tires, 10 speed automatic, 252 hp/273 ft. lbs. of torque, 2 liter turbo four cylinder. In tests I've seen, this is a very torquey engine that performs well..0-60 mph..5.7 seconds, 1/4 mile 14.4 seconds @ 97 mph + and I like performance for highway driving, city driving. I don't drive flat out, I just like to have extra 'snap' , good handling, good braking, comfort and the Honda Accord 4 door sedan..Sport model with the 2 liter Turbo 4 delivers.

When I was a young man in the 1960's/early '70's I had a '67 Camaro RS coupe, 327 V8, 4 speed Muncie transmission, a variety of motorcycles, etc...and I've always associated performance with big V8's. I like the sound, I like the power they provide.

But here's this Honda 4 door...with a 10 speed automatic, and a turbo 2 liter, 4 banger...that has performance similar to late '60's muscle cars and gets good MPG as well.

So it maybe goodbye GM, hello Honda...with a 4 door that I'm sure would be able to clean my old Camaro 327's clock, performance wise...in fact.

Amazing what technology can do...having available full size trucks with 2.7 liter turbo fours or sixes (Chevy/Ford) ...that can do what only V8 trucks could do...not that long ago.

I think it behooves car/truck enthusiasts to keep an open mind as to what modern technology can do with less (displacement/cylinders).

I just wish this Honda had the Pontiac or Chevrolet nameplate on the back trunk lid.

There is a reason you are seeing the turbo engines in the 1/2ton trucks and not the 3/4 or 1 ton trucks.

The bigger trucks are designed to run at a higher percentage of peak HP. In the short term when all is going great, yes, it can keep up but at 100-150k miles of hard towing, lack of oil changes, etc...do you really think it will hold up as well as a big block?

They are great engines for 1/2 ton trucks that tow 5-10% of their miles with modest loads...but take claims like this with a big grain of salt.

This guygets it.

ShinerBock wrote:

Campfire Time wrote:

falconbrother wrote:
What might scare me off initially is how complex that engine is.

They are all complex now. Most new technology is slowly added and no one notices.

Yep, with things such as high pressure direct injection, variable valve timing, variable injections, variable displacement(MDS), and a whole host of other tech, engines these days aren't as simple as one might thing. What I don't get is that as soon as you say turbo, most people start to talk about complexity even though a turbo is way more simple than the things mentioned above.

Another thing people should factor in is that the metal used today in the engine internals and blocks are not the same used decades ago. They can handle a lot more than what those engines could with the right design, and most of what applied to those engines does not to modern engines.

What's an awesome idea but, just looks like a bad breakdown is the variable valve lash. Turbos aren't scary. You're right, they are pretty simple.

Campfire Time wrote:

falconbrother wrote:
What might scare me off initially is how complex that engine is.

They are all complex now. Most new technology is slowly added and no one notices.

Yep, with things such as high pressure direct injection, variable valve timing, variable injections, variable displacement(MDS), and a whole host of other tech, engines these days aren't as simple as one might think. What I don't get is that as soon as you say turbo, most people start to talk about complexity even though a turbo is way more simple than the things mentioned above.

Another thing people should factor in is that the metal used today in the engine internals and blocks are not the same used decades ago. They can handle a lot more than what those engines could with the right design, and most of what applied to those engines does not to modern engines.

falconbrother wrote:
What might scare me off initially is how complex that engine is.

They are all complex now. Most new technology is slowly added and no one notices.

What might scare me off initially is how complex that engine is. It just smells like expensive breakdowns down the road. I'm sure it outperforms the 5.3 in my old Suburban. Of course, the Suburban is paid for..

The top comment on the video:
"I'm not paying $50k for a truck with 1/2 an engine"
:B haha

Here's something to ponder....
That 2.7L 4 cyl has 310 hp and 348 tq. Many here on these forums praise GM's 6.0L V8, which, until recently, was the top gas engine in their 2500 and 3500 trucks. And it had a whopping 300hp and 360tq until a few years back. Then they increased it to what 360hp/380tq? Still not that far off. Just goes to show how far we've come. Think about the big, powerful vortec 7.4L (454) in the 2500 and 3500 trucks a few years back. What did that have 290hp? Pretty amazing for the 2.7L. And really, for 90% of pickup buyers where I live, that engine would be plenty.

Here's a link to make it easier...

Link