Word is out on L4 as standard full size pickup engine for GM

[bucky]

Reported in May 21st issue of Automotive News.
L4 with 310 HP will be standard engine in upcoming full size Chevy and GMC pickups. GM expects that the V8 will be the overwhelming choice however. The 4.3 V6 with it's lower hp and torque numbers will go away.

[hone_eagle]

Ya its almost like all the computers 'call a meeting' when the throttle is opened like that . or there is dealer/demo tune.?
wait I got to talk to the trans and then trac control ........ ok go ,mean while the light changed.
roll it on from 5 mph and it should be a different expireance,i remember a friends 6.0 doing that, it felt like a stall it bogged so bad and diesels dont bogg empty.
fricken nannies

[srt20]

Lessmore wrote:

srt20 wrote:
As a side note on this topic, I've been test driving 1500's because I dont need an old 2500 diesel anymore. And the Ford 2.7L Eco has a stupid amount of lag from a dead stop going WOT. I noticed this on more than one 2.7 Eco. I believe its from a small displacement engine with not alot of HP without the turbo singing. I notice the 3.5 eco has much much less lag at dead stop Wot. More displacement and more hp to get the ball rolling.

I expect the GM will suffer the same issue. I know its not a big deal for some, or even most people, but its a deal breaker for me.

You might be wrong with this assumption.

According to Autoweek who had a brief drive of the 2019 Chev 1500 4 cylinder turbo four, lag doesn't appear to be a problem.

I quote from their recent online article:


" To help cut down turbo lag, the I4 uses a very nifty dual-volute turbo setup: Exhaust hits the turbine from two outlets, each fed by two cylinders, set at opposite edges of the turbine (picture two people blowing on a pinwheel from opposite sides, working in concert to spin it up quickly). From our limited drive experience, this setup does seem to yield a very responsive engine with no perceptible lag. "

That very well could be. Though the 2.7L Ford has the turbos mounted as close to the combustion chambers as possible. I have read many reports that the 2.7L Ford has "no perceptible lag" as well, it clearly does have lag.

Dont get me wrong, I am a big fan of turbos. And I agree the lag while moving is quite small.

[srt20]

alexleblanc wrote:

srt20 wrote:
As a side note on this topic, I've been test driving 1500's because I dont need an old 2500 diesel anymore. And the Ford 2.7L Eco has a stupid amount of lag from a dead stop going WOT. I noticed this on more than one 2.7 Eco. I believe its from a small displacement engine with not alot of HP without the turbo singing. I notice the 3.5 eco has much much less lag at dead stop Wot. More displacement and more hp to get the ball rolling.

I expect the GM will suffer the same issue. I know its not a big deal for some, or even most people, but its a deal breaker for me.

Depending on how hard you were pushing it from a stop it probably was the traction control reducing power a bit, I know that my 3.5 would pull better and hard if you eased into the throttle than if you just put it to the floor.

I would agree with this, but it was clearly not TC. It was almost as bad as a dead pedal.
Though, the 3.5 was much much better than the 2.7L. While the 3.5L wasnt instantaneous, it wasnt bad at all. But the 2.7 literally was at least 1.5 second lag.

[jerem0621]

alexleblanc wrote:

srt20 wrote:
As a side note on this topic, I've been test driving 1500's because I dont need an old 2500 diesel anymore. And the Ford 2.7L Eco has a stupid amount of lag from a dead stop going WOT. I noticed this on more than one 2.7 Eco. I believe its from a small displacement engine with not alot of HP without the turbo singing. I notice the 3.5 eco has much much less lag at dead stop Wot. More displacement and more hp to get the ball rolling.

I expect the GM will suffer the same issue. I know its not a big deal for some, or even most people, but its a deal breaker for me.

Depending on how hard you were pushing it from a stop it probably was the traction control reducing power a bit, I know that my 3.5 would pull better and hard if you eased into the throttle than if you just put it to the floor.

My wife’s MKC Ecoboost is the same.

[alexleblanc]

srt20 wrote:
As a side note on this topic, I've been test driving 1500's because I dont need an old 2500 diesel anymore. And the Ford 2.7L Eco has a stupid amount of lag from a dead stop going WOT. I noticed this on more than one 2.7 Eco. I believe its from a small displacement engine with not alot of HP without the turbo singing. I notice the 3.5 eco has much much less lag at dead stop Wot. More displacement and more hp to get the ball rolling.

I expect the GM will suffer the same issue. I know its not a big deal for some, or even most people, but its a deal breaker for me.

Depending on how hard you were pushing it from a stop it probably was the traction control reducing power a bit, I know that my 3.5 would pull better and hard if you eased into the throttle than if you just put it to the floor.

[Lessmore]

srt20 wrote:
As a side note on this topic, I've been test driving 1500's because I dont need an old 2500 diesel anymore. And the Ford 2.7L Eco has a stupid amount of lag from a dead stop going WOT. I noticed this on more than one 2.7 Eco. I believe its from a small displacement engine with not alot of HP without the turbo singing. I notice the 3.5 eco has much much less lag at dead stop Wot. More displacement and more hp to get the ball rolling.

I expect the GM will suffer the same issue. I know its not a big deal for some, or even most people, but its a deal breaker for me.

You might be wrong with this assumption.

According to Autoweek who had a brief drive of the 2019 Chev 1500 4 cylinder turbo four, lag doesn't appear to be a problem.

I quote from their recent online article:


" To help cut down turbo lag, the I4 uses a very nifty dual-volute turbo setup: Exhaust hits the turbine from two outlets, each fed by two cylinders, set at opposite edges of the turbine (picture two people blowing on a pinwheel from opposite sides, working in concert to spin it up quickly). From our limited drive experience, this setup does seem to yield a very responsive engine with no perceptible lag. "

[srt20]

As a side note on this topic, I've been test driving 1500's because I dont need an old 2500 diesel anymore. And the Ford 2.7L Eco has a stupid amount of lag from a dead stop going WOT. I noticed this on more than one 2.7 Eco. I believe its from a small displacement engine with not alot of HP without the turbo singing. I notice the 3.5 eco has much much less lag at dead stop Wot. More displacement and more hp to get the ball rolling.

I expect the GM will suffer the same issue. I know its not a big deal for some, or even most people, but its a deal breaker for me.

[srt20]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Oil can cause detonation issues especially with questionable ring seal but I would like to see what % of detonation issues it causes. My "guess" is less than 10% where fuel causes 90% of the issues.

Back in the day I refused to run oil with graphite in it because of detonation issues. Looking back I'm glad I didn't join in on the graphite trend because I had turbocharged engines back then and even with good pump fuel, detonation was an issue.

Just a side talk. One day I was pulling a mountain with my 6.5 diesel when it was well over a 100 degrees out. My WT was about 265. Everything was in the red. All of a sudden my engine sounded like it was pinging. Just like a gas engine does. I'm like what the???? Is this thing detonating??

I can't really find anything to this day if that is even possible. I think my engine got so hot the diesel fuel started to detonate in the combustion chamber. Only a guess though.

As far as the little 4 banger goes. I just hope they get the duty cycle up on it. They have the power; it's the duty cycle I'm worried about.

Heat and high cylinder psi, absolutely diesel can pre-detonate. Tuners with real aggressive timing can as well.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Lynnmor wrote:
Thirty four years ago, Smokey Yunick said: "In the long run, small-displacement engines with turbochargers will be the only performance engines."

I remember that and wondered how those things with extreme temperatures, and RPM would be durable enough for consumer use. I don't know if Smokey foresaw computer controls to keep things in check, but he was way ahead of his time.

I wish I would have asked him back in the time. Cool guy. He said GM engineers would fly him up to Detroit to ask him his opinion on engines. :E

[Lynnmor]

Thirty four years ago, Smokey Yunick said: "In the long run, small-displacement engines with turbochargers will be the only performance engines."

I remember that and wondered how those things with extreme temperatures, and RPM would be durable enough for consumer use. I don't know if Smokey foresaw computer controls to keep things in check, but he was way ahead of his time.

[Lessmore]

jerem0621 wrote:
I'm pretty excited about this motor. The new Ranger will also be getting a Turbo 4 Ecoboost. That will be the only engine option for that truck.

The tech in our vehicles are changing for sure.

I am excited to see what the tow specs are for these 4 cyl trucks. These things have more power and TQ than my 97 F150 with a 5.4l rated for 8,000 lbs towing.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

You sum it up well. In the end it is all about HP, torque and powerbands and not about displacement.

[jerem0621]

I'm pretty excited about this motor. The new Ranger will also be getting a Turbo 4 Ecoboost. That will be the only engine option for that truck.

The tech in our vehicles are changing for sure.

I am excited to see what the tow specs are for these 4 cyl trucks. These things have more power and TQ than my 97 F150 with a 5.4l rated for 8,000 lbs towing.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

[FishOnOne]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Oil can cause detonation issues especially with questionable ring seal but I would like to see what % of detonation issues it causes. My "guess" is less than 10% where fuel causes 90% of the issues.

I don't know what the percentage is but it's enough for the EPA to specify a new oil rating of SN Plus to combat the problem.

[ShinerBock]

hone eagle wrote:


Isn't that what DI prevents -detonation- because they can have the injection event after top dead centre?
after all these compression ratios are in the 10/1 range,well into detonation territory?

DI injects a mist of fuel during the exhaust stroke to cool the cylinder which "reduces" detonation, but does not eliminate it.

I was referring to detonation from having too high of fuel pressure squirting too fine of a mist that it detonates before it is suppose to. This is the reason why you cannot have the 25-30k psi fuel pressures that a diesel has on a GDI engine. DI creates a lot of particulate matter because the fuel being injected does not have enough time to fully mix with the air and burn which produces particulate matter.

The port injection on the Ecoboost is always running and accounts for 5-10% of the engine's fuel delivery from what I have read, but the DI only kicks in at mid to high loads. When the DI is not working you have wore fuel economy, but once it does kick in then you have higher PM.