Chevy's I4 2.7 turbo engine

[Rubber_Ducky1]

My son is looking at getting a 2019 Silverado 1500 truck. A lot of them on the lots have Chevy's new 2.7 turbo engine. This engine replaces the 4.3 V6. He won't be towing a camper with it. He is wondering about the reliability of this new engine. Right now he has a 2017 Silverado with the V6. Any info on this new engine will be greatly appreciated and I'll pass it on to him.

[Rubber_Ducky1]

There's a video on YouTube that gives detailed information on this engine. https://youtu.be/9w3HItRrBI4
Maybe someone can make a clicky for me. Thanks

[GDS-3950BH]

otrfun wrote:
IMO, the average truck consumer doesn't crunch all the numbers and dig as deep as everyone here on rv.net.

And a good thing too LOL. Could you only imagine. A lot of the people doing the deep digging here and at other forums are not digging into truck specs, but digging into a pile of something else.

[Rubber_Ducky1]

Update: My son said that his new truck is performing great for him. Right now he is averaging 24mpg highway and 20mpg city. I'll try to give further updates when he gets more miles on it.

[jerem0621]

Please tell your son congrats for me!

I think this will be a dandy for GM. I suspect that GM has mor up its sleeve for this platform. Ford brought the Big Dog 3.5 twin turbo out first. Then they brought the more economy focused 2.7. I wonder if this generation 1 4cyl turbo “Mighty Duke” (don’t google it, I just made it up.) is the forerunner of something even greater.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

[ksss]

There is a lot of talk (hope) that the 2.7 finds its way into the redesigned Colorado coming in a couple years. I think that would be a great home for the 2.7T.

[Grit_dog]

^ To the above response, you’re correct.
The 2.7 is rated higher city mpg and does have a $1395 lower sticker price, apples to apples with an 8 speed.
I was wrong in my initial post based on straight objective numbers off the window stickers.
I don’t dislike GM in the least. Actually quite the opposite. And if you read an earlier post in this thread, I said that 4 banger makes some impressive power.
That said, my $ is on the, over 20 year old, proven workhorse LS motor, for now.
Not enough “on paper” advantages for the 2.7....yet.
Not stuck in the past either. Glad some are giving the new engine a go.

I let my opinion get in the way of the facts, I’ll admit.
As long as you admit you can buy a comparable 5.3 right now today for the same price or less than the 2.7. Because you can. Sticker price isn’t everything, bottom line is

[rjstractor]

^^ My 1.8L turbo four in my VW makes it's maximum torque from 1500-4500 rpm and rarely sees over 2500 rpm. It drives almost exactly like a little diesel.

[RoyJ]

We'll See wrote:

B.O. Plenty wrote:
V-8 is just loafing along while the nervous little pumped up 4 cyl is screaming its' guts out. Which one is going to last longer? I know what I would buy.
B.O.

The v8 would be screaming more than the turbo four or six. I hope GM's 2.7 four works out well for the OP's son. My 2.7 ecoboost is light years better all around than my last GM 5.3 liter v8. Way more torque at much lower rpm than a comparable v8. Better mileage too. But yes, a v8 sounds better but I like sounds of the turbos too.

Nailed it!

Tired of all the old farts stuck in 1980s mindset, where 4 cyl "scream", and V8s "loaf". Have you nay sayers driven modern forced induction 3/4/6 cylinders? Their power curve resembles a little diesel - torque right off idle, and don't make much power above 4500 rpm.

Modern NA V8s, on the other hand, do "scream". That's how they make power. Not saying which is better or worse, just facts about screaming and loafing...

[otrfun]

When Ford's Ecoboost 3.5 turbo first came out, there were a number of naysayers. Once a few of these folks actually took one for a test drive, opinions changed. Nothing impresses more than a turbo delivering maximum torque down low in the power band---especially if it's topped off with some excellent NVH. This is something one can use and appreciate every single time the accelerator is pressed---a constant reminder. Odds are the same template will prove successful for the new Chevy 2.7 turbo. IMO, the average truck consumer doesn't crunch all the numbers and dig as deep as everyone here on rv.net. They look, they drive, they decide.

[Dadoffourgirls]

Grit dog wrote:
^Those are some good glass half full wishes or presumptions.
It may turn out to be a good engine, it's just not proven and it's not cheaper, not more economical, not as powerful, not proven and not widely accepted. So add all that up and it probably won't have as good of resale down the line either.
It's great someone is buying them, but currently the better option based on the above considerations is stick with the powerful, economical and proven 5.3.

Heck even GM doesn't rate it better fuel mileage except slightly better in city mpg.
Just not a well thought out option IMO, more of a marketing gimmick to steal a few customers from Ford.

Don't let your dislike for GM get in your way facts and changing them to wishes or presumptions.

Fact - City mpg is better
Fact - Engine is standard on LT and 5.3 cost $1395 more
As for GM business decisions, there are many variables to all decisions regarding vehicles. Are you an executive at another OEM to know all the important aspects of running an automotive manufacturing company?

[Grit_dog]

^Those are some good glass half full wishes or presumptions.
It may turn out to be a good engine, it's just not proven and it's not cheaper, not more economical, not as powerful, not proven and not widely accepted. So add all that up and it probably won't have as good of resale down the line either.
It's great someone is buying them, but currently the better option based on the above considerations is stick with the powerful, economical and proven 5.3.

Heck even GM doesn't rate it better fuel mileage except slightly better in city mpg.
Just not a well thought out option IMO, more of a marketing gimmick to steal a few customers from Ford.

[Groover]

The 2.7 turbo should heat up much faster than the 5.3. That could be a real advantage if you make a lot of short trips, especially in the winter time.

Does anyone here know how many cylinders the 5.3 uses at idle? If it is all 8 the 2.7 should have about half the fuel burn when idling. This could be valuable in city traffic and several other situations.

[We_ll_See]

B.O. Plenty wrote:
V-8 is just loafing along while the nervous little pumped up 4 cyl is screaming its' guts out. Which one is going to last longer? I know what I would buy.
B.O.

The v8 would be screaming more than the turbo four or six. I hope GM's 2.7 four works out well for the OP's son. My 2.7 ecoboost is light years better all around than my last GM 5.3 liter v8. Way more torque at much lower rpm than a comparable v8. Better mileage too. But yes, a v8 sounds better but I like sounds of the turbos too.

[We_ll_See]

FishOnOne wrote:

ksss wrote:
GM typically doesnt miss on building new engines.

This statement excludes GM's obsolete I5 engine in the Trailblazer, Envoy and the 3.6 V6 (not the 3.6 pushrod) with the timing chain issues to name a couple.

I don't think there was ever an I5 in the trailblazer/envoy, it was an in-line six with a fair amount of torque. There was an inline five in the first generation Colorado/Canyon.

[FishOnOne]

ksss wrote:
GM typically doesnt miss on building new engines.

This statement excludes GM's obsolete I5 engine in the Trailblazer, Envoy and the 3.6 V6 (not the 3.6 pushrod) with the timing chain issues to name a couple.