Chevy 2.7 turbo 1500 truck.

Groover wrote:

colliehauler wrote:
When I was a teenager I never thought I would see a 4cyl in a full size truck. Back then it was 460's 454's and 440's we have come a long way.

I had a '91 460 and it was rated at 230hp and 390lb-ft of torque. When I first got it I was amazed at the power it had and didn't think that anything more powerful would ever come along.

I had a Chevrolet with a 454 that ran well. I traded in a 73 Chevrolet with a 350 that was gold with white in the middle. The unique thing about the 73 was it had bucket seats and a console, not very common back then.

colliehauler wrote:
When I was a teenager I never thought I would see a 4cyl in a full size truck. Back then it was 460's 454's and 440's we have come a long way.

I had a '91 460 and it was rated at 230hp and 390lb-ft of torque. When I first got it I was amazed at the power it had and didn't think that anything more powerful would ever come along.

When I was a teenager I never thought I would see a 4cyl in a full size truck. Back then it was 460's 454's and 440's we have come a long way.

AlmostAnOldGuy wrote:

BillyBob Jim wrote:

Groover wrote:

There is a reason Chevy likes to compare their 2.7 turbo to Ford's 3.3 naturally aspirated engine.

Which is?

The Ford 2.7 turns in some good numbers. But if you otherwise like the Chevy this engine may do just fine depending on what you tow.

Chevy 2.7 I4 turbo - Al block
310 hp
348 ft lbs torque
EPA 20/19/22 - 4WD

Ford 2.7 v6 turbo - CGI block
325 hp
400 ft lbs torque
20/18/23 - 4WD

Take it easy,
Stu

Also,
Chevy CC 4wd towing 6,700lbs
Ford CC 4wd towing 7,600lbs unless you get the max payload then it is 8.900lbs but that is rare.

Plus there is always performance:

TFL 2.7 turbos compared 0-60

ShinerBock wrote:

BillyBob Jim wrote:

Groover wrote:

There is a reason Chevy likes to compare their 2.7 turbo to Ford's 3.3 naturally aspirated engine.

Which is?

Because GM knows that Ford's 2.7L V6 turbo will outperform their 2.7L I4 while attaining similar fuel mileage so they compare it to something they know it will outperform. Just my guess.

I can't ever remember considering or looking at the mpg numbers when buying a truck, and I've bought one or two LOL.

Fair enough. One would assume a 2.7L 6 banger turbo would outperform a 2.7L 4 banger turbo, and a 2.7 turbo whatever would outperform a 3.3 normally aspirated. I had a 79 2.3 turbocharged Indy pace car Mustang that would not outperform anything other than firewood. It caught fire and burnt to a crisp.

The minscule difference in EPA estimated mpg only applies to those in the brand or mileage O.C.D crowd I guess. I got a chuckle out of THIS article but it does have some merit when it comes to the room to improve things on a new engine design. Don't look at the label LOL :B Personally I think the 4 banger full size truck is going to be a sales flop no matter what its mpg, hp, torque, or anything else is, but time will tell.

Dadoffourgirls wrote:

Lessmore wrote:
... Nope, I don't want the remaining GM sedan the Malibu.

Have you driven the Malibu with the 2.0 Turbo?

The new ones are nice.

The wife has a 2.0 LTG in her 2015 Malibu. 14.50's all day long.
I am V8 guy but I really like the 2.0 turbo. We are closing in on 60,000 miles. Not one trip to dealer for anything. I think the Malibu gets a bad rap for no reason at all.

I daily drive a 2014 Caprice PPV that was never in Police service. 6.0/6L80E. I have a heads/Cam/intake/exhaust ford 9 inch 2000 Trans Am too.

I was surprised at how much I like the little Malibu's mill.
As far as the 2.7 Turbo, if it runs like the 2.0 it will be a good runner with very limited issues. The amount of technology in these small gas mills is pretty amazing, forged internals, oil squirters, D.I., twin scroll electronically controlled turbo almost eliminates turbo lag. GM has a 1300HP one in a 1967 Nova.
So they know how to make a 4cyl turbo.

I will keep my old 2002 2500HD 6.0/4L80E because It does what I need it to do with limited fan fair. It has 55,000 miles on it and no rust out here on the west coast where I am at. Since I just use it tow I can't justify a payment for something to sit on the side of my house 6 months out of the year. No problems pulling over the passes on the West coast but my combined weight is only 14,100 loaded for 5 days a camping.

For someone who camps 5 to 10 times a year that 1/2 ton will be fine and provide a nice daily driver.

BillyBob Jim wrote:

Groover wrote:

There is a reason Chevy likes to compare their 2.7 turbo to Ford's 3.3 naturally aspirated engine.

Which is?

Because GM knows that Ford's 2.7L V6 turbo will outperform their 2.7L I4 while attaining similar fuel mileage so they compare it to something they know it will outperform. Just my guess.

BillyBob Jim wrote:

Groover wrote:

There is a reason Chevy likes to compare their 2.7 turbo to Ford's 3.3 naturally aspirated engine.

Which is?

The Ford 2.7 turns in some good numbers. But if you otherwise like the Chevy this engine may do just fine depending on what you tow.

Chevy 2.7 I4 turbo - Al block
310 hp
348 ft lbs torque
EPA 20/19/22 - 4WD

Ford 2.7 v6 turbo - CGI block
325 hp
400 ft lbs torque
20/18/23 - 4WD

Take it easy,
Stu

Groover wrote:

There is a reason Chevy likes to compare their 2.7 turbo to Ford's 3.3 naturally aspirated engine.

Which is?

The Lacrosse AWD is really a great car for northern climates. Great on ice, decent mileage with the 6 cylinder. A lot of comfort for the money and in almost 100K it had very few issues and nothing of substance. I cant even recall one at the moment.