Chevy 2.7 turbo 1500 truck.

[falconbrother]

Out of sheer curiosity I watched a video of the 2.7 turbo 4 cylinder Chevy 1500 truck being tested towing a trailer. I was surprised to hear them say that they thought it towed as god as the 6.2 liter..although it got under 4 miles per gallon doing so (3.7 MPG). Check it out..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=351&v=cSxBKR___Sg

[RoyJ]

I'm also curious about the long term durability of this engine. To me, the total cost of truck ownership is important, not just mpg. I'm conservative so I'm sticking with NA V8s for now.

Technically, an I4 has more bearings than a V6, coupled with less hp, the 2.7 GM has lower bearing loads than the 2.7 EB. However, the EB has 2 more pistons and connecting rods to spread the load. No one knows what's the weak link...

[Dadoffourgirls]

Lessmore wrote:
...I know you're a GM employee and I hope I haven't been too harsh in my 'disgruntlement' with the company...regarding future GM design and current cancellations of products that suit many needs.

I do remember the GM of the 1960's...the clear direction and wonderful designs and engineering for those times...that suited a wide range of customer.

I appreciate you providing your details, and I am not offended with your fact-based opinions and feelings. I truly understand. Since my family is not taller than 5'10', I do not realize the legroom space. And sometimes I get product feedback more harsh from family members!

[Lessmore]

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?

Is there a reason you prefer the sedan? Have you evaluated the Acadia, Blazer, Enclave?

You could look for one of the last sedans. The LaCrosse is available in AWD? There are still Impala's available.

We need a sedan for access ease reasons. The Malibu front leg room is 41.5 inches, the Impala is 45.3 inches, I'm 6' 3" + tall, 240 lbs. with long legs, broad shoulders and a bad 'hockey' knee from playing defence for a decade earlier in my life. I need to stretch out and the Impala and the Nissan Maxima have the most front leg room, next to pickup truck. I've sat in the Malibu and it's cramped seating for me.
The new Blazer is another vehicle with limited front leg room. I did have high hopes for the Blazer till I checked out the front legroom specs.

I'm a long time GM buyer, but I'm disappointed with GM's near future offerings, particularly their plan to bring out a wide range of electric vehicles in 2023. Out here in the northern prairies (plains) with our very cold, long winters and not a lot of towns...with the EV range...it's (EV)not going to cut it...for long 500-700 miles per day trips my wife and I, take up here.

I do wonder about the decision making process of the current GM brass, when it comes to determining needs of a number of North American consumers. Considering my wife and I have had, two newer GMs at any one time for the past 40 years, I've always wondered why GM doesn't survey regular , brand loyal customers like us...ever...about our vehicle needs. After all we're the type of long term customer that companies want...or at least I thought so.

I know you're a GM employee and I hope I haven't been too harsh in my 'disgruntlement' with the company...regarding future GM design and current cancellations of products that suit many needs.

I do remember the GM of the 1960's...the clear direction and wonderful designs and engineering for those times...that suited a wide range of customer.

[Groover]

Grit dog wrote:
I’m.not sure if you guys are defending the little 4 banger or bashing it. That’s a lot of snort out of a tiny engine.

I am for it. My only issue is that it came in 4 years after Ford's 2.7 turbo and still comes up short on torque, power, fuel economy, towing and performance. You could add that the Ford has a proven track record already while the GM engine does not. Unless you really like the GM truck there is no reason not to buy the Ford instead.

[falconbrother]

Grit dog wrote:
I’m.not sure if you guys are defending the little 4 banger or bashing it. That’s a lot of snort out of a tiny engine.

I'm all for it. I hope it does very well and that they expand on the idea. It's time for massive innovation in internal combustion engines. In spite of my old man reservations about technology sometimes, I think GM is on to something. My biggest reservation is that the timeline for the cost of repairs outrunning the value of the truck gets shorter and shorter as technologies come along that cannot be repaired except at the dealer. The days of old trucks that you could keep for decades are seemingly slipping away. That's why I love my old 5.3 Suburban. I can fix a whole lot of issues on it myself and do 100% of the servicing.

[colliehauler]

Grit dog wrote:
I’m.not sure if you guys are defending the little 4 banger or bashing it. That’s a lot of snort out of a tiny engine.

I think a lot of people are comparing it to some big blocks of a few decades ago, especially the later detuned ones. Who would of thought the much power out of a 4 cylinder.

[Grit_dog]

I’m.not sure if you guys are defending the little 4 banger or bashing it. That’s a lot of snort out of a tiny engine.

[valhalla360]

We'll See wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
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.

Umm, all the current diesels in light duty trucks have turbos and have for years...

It's not really the turbo...the whole engine is being run much harder.

In a 1/2 ton running empty, most of the time there is little or no boost and the engine isn't worked very hard even though it's small.

In a 1 ton towing 50-75% of the time with a heavy load, it would be running boost all the time and really stress out the engine.

[falconbrother]

ls1mike wrote:

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.

Had an 89 GMC 1 ton that I towed with for 5 years. 454 TBI. I was reluctant to sell it to buy my current 6.0/4L80E. It was a night and day difference. The 6.0 tows circles around my old big block. I can't wait for the new gas GM 6.6. That is when I will update.

My old 28 foot class A motorhome was on a P-30 chassis with a 454. It pulled the motorhome and my CRV just fine. No complaints at all. A shade tough on gasoline at times but, not as bad a body might think.

[ls1mike]

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.

Had an 89 GMC 1 ton that I towed with for 5 years. 454 TBI. I was reluctant to sell it to buy my current 6.0/4L80E. It was a night and day difference. The 6.0 tows circles around my old big block. I can't wait for the new gas GM 6.6. That is when I will update.

[colliehauler]

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.

[Groover]

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.

[colliehauler]

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.

[Groover]

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