2019 Silverado 1500 2.7 turbo 4

alfadriver said:

ProDarwin said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I absolutely expect it to need spark plugs, possibly some exhaust work, accessory work, replace a few sensors, etc. during its lifetime.  I expect a turbo 4 to need a turbo rebuild/turbo seals during its lifetime, which sucks, but that sucks a lot less than double that on the V6, with the turbos in an area that is much more difficult to access.

All of which will happen post 100k miles, and intervals in the 120k mile range.  So unless you do this professionally, you won't be doing it much,

It may not be a concern for a new vehicle buyer (or more likely lessee) but consider your audience here. We'd probably be buying it used, after the most significant depreciation hit and probably near or beyond the 100k mark. Serviceability is something that a certain (quickly shrinking) segment of the population appreciates, and it's harder and harder to come by as packaging continues to evolve.

In reply to STM317 :

If you own one of these vehicles, even used, the maintenance intervals will be pretty darned long.  Even turbos are not going to be need worked on for long periods of gaps.  You may only have to service the car seriously once in time most here will own the truck.  Unless you just want to do it.

Sure, there will be the occasional lemon, as that's pretty statistically hard to say it will never happen.

But on a fleet average, hard work on the vehicles will be with huge gaps in it.  Including oil change intervals.

I can look back on my bought brand new 1999 vehicle to be a strong example, and there's been significant advances since then.

Mndsm said:

irish44j said:

MotorsportsGordon said:

Snrub said:

Ford's 2.7L has receive positive feedback, there's no reason GM's can't too.

Current orthodoxy is .5L/cyl, I wonder why they went with a 2.7L 4-cyl? I can't think of such a large displacement 4-cyl in ~25 years. I wonder if 4-cyls was chosen for the ease of using a single turbo.

Gm has a 2.8 turbo diesel used in the Colorado and canyon 

Porsche had a 3.0L 4-cyl in the 944S2 and 968 

Wasnt the 4cyl in late 90s Tacomas a 2.7?

Still is, though I think I just read somewhere that Toyota is going to eventually drop the 2.7 from the lineup and the Tacoma is going to be V6 only. Or maybe that was just for the 4x4s. 

I’m a GM truck guy and I can’t get over that styling. I bet Chevy will change the styling in a couple years. Sometimes letting the designers have free reign and having executives that think they know what the public will like is not always a good thing. Hopefully the HD trucks will look completely different, because that’s my market. 

I remember when the 2014-2015 body style came out and people hated the way the front end looked even though it was an homage to the stacked headlight squarebodies of the 80’s. Chevy quickly revised the front end and in 2016 we got the Transformers front end that the current trucks have. 

I bet the ‘14-‘15 Trucks don’t look so bad now do they? 

In reply to alfadriver :

Yeah, I'm sure there's data to support your point too. But making something easy to service makes it far more likely that a previous owner would do maintenance or make it cheaper to have done. And that means that small things are less likely to be ignored only to cause bigger issues later. I don't see any downside to making something easily serviceable when it's expected to last decades/hundreds of thousands of miles.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid said:

Mndsm said:

irish44j said:

MotorsportsGordon said:

Snrub said:

Ford's 2.7L has receive positive feedback, there's no reason GM's can't too.

Current orthodoxy is .5L/cyl, I wonder why they went with a 2.7L 4-cyl? I can't think of such a large displacement 4-cyl in ~25 years. I wonder if 4-cyls was chosen for the ease of using a single turbo.

Gm has a 2.8 turbo diesel used in the Colorado and canyon 

Porsche had a 3.0L 4-cyl in the 944S2 and 968 

Wasnt the 4cyl in late 90s Tacomas a 2.7?

Still is, though I think I just read somewhere that Toyota is going to eventually drop the 2.7 from the lineup and the Tacoma is going to be V6 only. Or maybe that was just for the 4x4s. 

I forgot about the 2.7L in the Taco. The 944/968 was the last big 4-cyl I could think of. Diesels are a bit different so I'm not sure if the same cylinder sizing makes sense.

Things are changing in the industry.  Most here will also expect undersquare or square chamber dimensions, but that will quickly change to pretty significant over square designs as it's more efficient.  Also, you will see a general lessening number of cylinders per displacement, for both combustion efficiency and lowering of friction.  

Basically, the last 30 years of power is very much transitioning to efficiency.  

There was an influential study that came out a few years ago advocating for .5L/cyl displacement. I agree that oversquare seems to be where things are heading.

Limited driving impressions are out. It sound like its a decent engine.

I'd say anymore that cylinder count is irrelevant.  

This should be judged as a "power unit".  

Is a 310HP / 348 ft. lbs. engine adequate for a full size truck?  

Of course it is!  Ten years ago the base V-6 in a full size 2008 Silverado made 195HP/260tq.  Stepping up to the 4.8 V8 got you 295HP/305tq.  You had to step all the way up to door number three and option it with a 5.3 V8 to get 315HP/338tq. which STILL makes ten foot pounds less torque than this new base engine (and virtually the same horsepower).    

My main concern is how it will handle combustion chamber and intercooler temperatures, and other potential heat buildup, if you need to keep it on boost for a long period of time. That's usually been the trouble with using forced induction gas motors for towing or similar use.

I admit to wanting to throw a ridiculously loud exhaust and blowoff valve on it just to confuse people.

MadScientistMatt said:

My main concern is how it will handle combustion chamber and intercooler temperatures, and other potential heat buildup, if you need to keep it on boost for a long period of time. That's usually been the trouble with using forced induction gas motors for towing or similar use.

It doesn't seem to have become a big issues for Ford with the ecoboost trucks.  Usually you're moving when you're under sustained high power (and all the new 1/2 ton trucks also have big electric fans), so getting enough air over the intercooler isn't much of a problem.  

Given the power output stock at 310HP/348tq., and it's tune likely being conservative for "truck use" and abuse, will a tune yield a 400hp 4-banger?  

I'd think the mass quantities of these "base motors" may mean some neat swap fodder in about 5+ years when they start piling up in yards. 

If not yanking around a 4,500+ pound fullsize truck, something like this swapped in an old ~3,000lb squarebody S-10 in place of the 100hp iron duke 4-cyl. would be a riot.   Crank the boost and let 'er rip! 

^Also, will the 2.0T 275hp Camaro become a 2.7T 375hp Camaro?

ProDarwin said:

^Also, will the 2.0T 275hp Camaro become a 2.7T 375hp Camaro?

Highly doubt it. This is an entirely different architecture that I'm sure is more "truck-sized" and doesn't fit the Camaro. Also, that might be perceived as stepping on the toes of the V6. And they won't give us the ATS-V motor in the Camaro because it's too close to the V8 

xflowgolf said:

I'd say anymore that cylinder count is irrelevant.  

This should be judged as a "power unit".  

Is a 310HP / 348 ft. lbs. engine adequate for a full size truck?  

 

Of course it is!  Ten years ago the base V-6 in a full size 2008 Silverado made 195HP/260tq.  Stepping up to the 4.8 V8 got you 295HP/305tq.  You had to step all the way up to door number three and option it with a 5.3 V8 to get 315HP/338tq. which STILL makes ten foot pounds less torque than this new base engine (and virtually the same horsepower).    

 

That's what I was thinking. This has the same HP/torque as the 5.3 in my 2007. I've never really wanted for more with what I do, only that the hateful four speed transmission goes away. I might need to drive one once then land on dealer lots. 

xflowgolf said:

I'd say anymore that cylinder count is irrelevant.  

This should be judged as a "power unit".  

Is a 310HP / 348 ft. lbs. engine adequate for a full size truck?  

 

Of course it is!  Ten years ago the base V-6 in a full size 2008 Silverado made 195HP/260tq.  Stepping up to the 4.8 V8 got you 295HP/305tq.  You had to step all the way up to door number three and option it with a 5.3 V8 to get 315HP/338tq. which STILL makes ten foot pounds less torque than this new base engine (and virtually the same horsepower).    

 

Particularly when you consider that it has an 8-speed transmission behind it. If it's a little soft down low you can just run extra-deep gear ratios in the lower gears or differentials and then use the 2-3 ovedrive ratios to give it sane cruising RPMs

I'm 100% fine with it being in the Silverado. BUT...

-The new Silverado is strange looking!!! The GMC version looks slightly better, but WOOF. 

-I still don't trust GM to do "displacement on demand" correctly after hearing so many horror stories about DOD 5.3's.

Also, as others have said, this needs to be in the Colorado. I would expect it to end up in there sooner than later, especially since Ford is plopping the 2.3L Ecoboost in the Ranger. Unlike the V6, this was designed from the beginning to be a truck engine, and it makes some impressive power. 

That truck looks like somebody surprised a transformer in mid transformation and it's kind of embarrassed...

A lot of trucks look somewhat ridiculous in their most elaborate trim packages - kind of like a rhinestone cowboy. I suspect that in other guises they'll turn down the detailing a notch or three. As for the 4-banger, hey, if it works and they stand behind 'em, I'm in. 

I personally think its a great idea and will be more than what 99% of truck buyers need in terms of power and tq.(minus the mall crawling bros)

Sign me up for it in red cab, short bed, 4x4. I'd take one in a second!

Kreb said:

A lot of trucks look somewhat ridiculous in their most elaborate trim packages - kind of like a rhinestone cowboy. I suspect that in other guises they'll turn down the detailing a notch or three. As for the 4-banger, hey, if it works and they stand behind 'em, I'm in. 

Have you seen the 2019 Silverado W/T yet? It's worse.

I've got no issue with a turbo-4 pickup given the power/torque and where it falls in the rev range. I will be endlessly amused by all the GM-bros who start loving on these after undoubtedly ragging on Ford's aluminum beds and turbo-sixes.

Brake_L8 said:

Kreb said:

A lot of trucks look somewhat ridiculous in their most elaborate trim packages - kind of like a rhinestone cowboy. I suspect that in other guises they'll turn down the detailing a notch or three. As for the 4-banger, hey, if it works and they stand behind 'em, I'm in. 

Have you seen the 2019 Silverado W/T yet? It's worse.

I've got no issue with a turbo-4 pickup given the power/torque and where it falls in the rev range. I will be endlessly amused by all the GM-bros who start loving on these after undoubtedly ragging on Ford's aluminum beds and turbo-sixes.

Yeah.  That's even worse.  Plus that the hoodline looks like it would be about nose high on my 6'1" tall self.  Gotta have the pickups being taller than all the other cars/CUVs/SUVs on the road.  Ugh..

Okay, I love turbo 4's this is a fact. I do have some reservations/questions about this move.

1. The price of premium isn't $.30 a gallon higher anymore it's more like $.60 to $.80 now. Whether or not it's a huge increase in cost depends on the real world gas mileage of this thing. 30 mpg ? Whatever. 22 mpg? ehhhh. I'd have to break the numbers down.
2. I'm not sure I'd want to be in the cabin at highway speeds towing something or not unless it's geared really low or there's a ton of sound deadening. It'll probably cruise along at 3000 rpm rather than 2000 ish in a V6 or V8. That gets tiring.
3. I thought downsizing the engines was sort of going away. I vaguely remember reading a paper saying that downsized engines perform well in lab tests, real world tests produced quite a bit more CO2 and NOx. I'm not sure if tech has advanced far enough to overcome that or not, I'm sure there's an expert on this board that can weigh in on it.

Yikes! The fender crease is like something that a twenty-something Art Center grad convinced the CEO that this is what's currently considered "cool". And the unnecessarily high hoodline is like sticking a sock in your crotch to cover up the fact that all your sporting is an um... 4-cylinder. 

xflowgolf said:

Given the power output stock at 310HP/348tq., and it's tune likely being conservative for "truck use" and abuse, will a tune yield a 400hp 4-banger?  

I'd think the mass quantities of these "base motors" may mean some neat swap fodder in about 5+ years when they start piling up in yards. 

If not yanking around a 4,500+ pound fullsize truck, something like this swapped in an old ~3,000lb squarebody S-10 in place of the 100hp iron duke 4-cyl. would be a riot.   Crank the boost and let 'er rip! 

 

Nah, we'll be putting them in Miatas.

That's a seriously ugly truck

I read this engine can work in a variety of cylinder deactivation modes, including on one cylinder. GM suggests this is a world first and prior to this the most I've heard of is deactivation down to 2-cyl.

As ProDarwin suggests, I do hope GM proliferates this engine to other applications, including the Camaro. Given that the 2019 has already been announced, I suspect the next possibility will be in the 2021-2022 redesign. During the last few decades, the whole premise of a "muscle car" is to take a truck engine and shove it in a car and this is simply another truck engine. All of the Detroit three are pretty good at sharing engines in different applications.