At the very least I can see this engine finding its way into the Colorado and canyon.
At the very least I can see this engine finding its way into the Colorado and canyon.
NickD said: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
The V8 in the Camaro is pretty truck-sized also.
I agree it may step on the toes of the V6, etc. But maybe the next gen goes to just 500(?)hp V8 and 375hp 4 banger.
alfadriver said:It's not a shocking idea to run a turbo 4 in a truck.
Toyota did it in the 80s.
Subaru does/did it with the Forester. (They still shoving the turbo 2.5 in the Forester?) Jeep did it with a DIESEL in the Liberty and probably some other things.
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.
They probably chose 2.7 since the EXISTING 4 cylinder in the Colorado had been 2.7l since the very first 4 cylinder Atlas.
snailmont5oh said:NickD said:In reply to pres589 :
The character line that runs downhill is also weird. Makes the front look taller than the rear of the truck.
All the Bro Truck kids do that anyway. Their "leveling kits" have gotten out of hand.
And what they don't do is re-aim their headlights.
Makes me lust for a $10,000/year federal truck ownership tax.
Also, I wouldn't mind finding the person who "engineered" the late model Explorer's headlights in a dark alley, with pliers and a blowtorch. But only when I've been driving at night.
SyntheticBlinkerFluid said: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?
Seen a caravan of six '19 Silverado and Sierra's tonight, one in w/b camo paint. Michigan plates, obviously testing. They didn't look bad at all, just large like the rest of full size trucks anymore.
I watched the live reveal of the '14 Silverado, had a WTF moment. Listened to all the online experts and fanboi critics 'square wheel', fugly etc. Once seeing 'em on the road tho, not too bad after all... and then I bought a '14 LTZ... and loved it. It was the new normal. Some trucks just don't look as good in different trim levels tho.
Same reaction to succeeding model releases. I suppose once ya see 'em on the road they ain't so bad
There are much worse lookin trucks out there IMO, like those vying for the most obnoxious looking grille
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,
Speaking as someone who DOES do this professionally.
Spark plugs tend to not last 100k. What does happen, is somewhere around 60-80k, the higher voltage necessary to jump the gap either makes it easier for the spark to arc across the outside of the plug, or it burns out the coil, at which point the engine develops a misfire, and you are replacing all of the spark plugs and boots (and possibly a coil or four or six or eight or ten). And if you're lucky, it didn't also take out whatever controls the coils. And this all assumes that the car wasn't driven that way for long enough to kill the catalyst, which is also something that happens a lot. ("My check engine light is on again." "Yes, now that it isn't misfiring, the PCM will run the catalyst monitor, and you done melted it down. That'll be another $2500, please")
Had a fod memory of days gone by today as I saw an older 3800-engined car that was still so low mileage that it had the original plugs and wires, with a misfire. Had a bad plug. The coils were fine, but the ignition module got fried. But hey, at least he didn't have to change the plugs every 30k, right?
That wasn't something I was working on. I was busy replacing the HLAs in an Ecotec that had under 60k on it, because they were so massively sludged up from following GM's "change the oil whenever" lack-of-maintenance schedule, that after it ate the timing chain from the sludge locking up the tensioner, and we pulled the head and installed new valves, the HLAs no longer were actually doing the LA part of their name. But, hey, it has 58k on it, according to GM that means it only needed like three oil changes in its whole life....
(Remember: People who say do to 3000mi oil change intervals just want your money. Because there is so much money in charging $30 for a half hour of 100/hour labor and $(blank) in parts for an oil change... oh wait, no, oil changes are a money-losing thing! Why do shops recommend them? Maybe because it keeps you in your old car longer instead of throwing it away every three years! Nah, that is long-term thinking, we need to think only about what is good in the short term...)
Has anyone mentioned yet that the engine was designed to run on 87 octane?
I'm impressed but dubious of the durability of the valvetrain.
Knurled. 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.
They probably chose 2.7 since the EXISTING 4 cylinder in the Colorado had been 2.7l since the very first 4 cylinder Atlas.
It was never 2.7L
2.5L LCV I4 has been the base GMT-700 engine since resurrecting the twins in '15 ( 2nd Gen). 3.6L LFX V6 was '15-'16 only, replaced w/ all new 3.6L LGZ '17 to present MY. 2.8L LWN I4 Duramax '16 to present.
No word on the 2.7L I4 on GM's 2019 Fleet Order Guide as yet. Only speculation on the 2.7 in '19 is from GMAuthority as possible, but that speculation and a buck fordy nine will get ya a cup of coffee at the corner store.
LCV I4 is only engine w/ manual 6-speed option, rest are 6 or 8 speed autos.
Hot trick would be a 2.7L 6-speed. Don't see GM dropping the almost new 3.6 or 2.8 Dmax tho.
... Maybe on the rumored ZR2 Bison. Ranger Raptor fighter or Tacoma TRD MT competitor. GM has all the tools in their toolbox now but evidently focused on FS trucks for now, mid-size upgrades have been slow but they are happening.
Well this is disappointing.
So the new 4 banger 2.7T got it's EPA ratings.
"Government enviro-boffins estimate the 2.7L inline-four will be good for 20 mpg city / 23 mpg highway in rear-wheel drive configurations. This makes for a combined rating of 21 mpg. That’s about a single MPG less than comparable V6s from Ford and Ram, if you’re keeping track at home."
article: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/10/four-on-the-floor-epa-rates-chevys-new-2-7l-turbo/
Ouch.
I stand by my prior statement that this is a very stout drivetrain at it's power rating, but I have to question the need to reduce cylinder count and add turbos if the net result is a more complex management and worse fuel economy for something that's intended to be a base engine.
In reply to xflowgolf :
That IS disappointing, yes. I wonder how it does off-loop.
At some point, it's gonna take a certain amount of BTUs to lug around a 6000lb truck plus cargo, no matter what is burning them.
If they're comparing to non-turbo V6s, it's not quite fair. Chances are, the turbo 4 has a fatter torque curve. In the real world, I'm guessing it'll be a lot like the Ecoboost V6 vs N/A V8 thing in an F150. The turbo V6 burns just a hair less fuel if you're being nice to it but a bit more if you're working it hard. But despite slightly less peak power, the turbo V6 has a much fatter torque curve and moves the truck along slightly faster.
rslifkin said:If they're comparing to non-turbo V6s, it's not quite fair. Chances are, the turbo 4 has a fatter torque curve. In the real world, I'm guessing it'll be a lot like the Ecoboost V6 vs N/A V8 thing in an F150. The turbo V6 burns just a hair less fuel if you're being nice to it but a bit more if you're working it hard. But despite slightly less peak power, the turbo V6 has a much fatter torque curve and moves the truck along slightly faster.
I get where you're coming from, but at the end of the day this isn't about pitting a turbo'd optional motor against the optional bigger V8 motor ala Ecoboost 3.5 vs. V8. This is the base motor, so whether or not it has a fat torque curve, it needs to hold up the bottom end of the fleet. Not only does it get worse fuel economy than those non-turbo V6's, the V6 trucks boast higher tow ratings as well (including the V6 from GM itself).
"The 2.7L truck is bookmarked by engines with greater tow ratings: up to 8,000 pounds for the 4.3-liter and up to 11,600 for the 5.3-liter V8, compared to the 2.7’s 7,200 lbs. Ford’s 3.3-liter tops out at 7,700 pounds, while the 3.6-liter Ram is rated for up to 7,730 lbs."
Seems like Ford won the 2.7 battle slam dunk here judging their turbo'd 2.7 (V6) vs. GM's turbo'd 2.7(4cyl). "Ford made sure to mention was that its 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 nets an extra MPG in combined driving, while also boasting 400 lb-ft of torque. The 2.7L F-150’s max tow rating? 8,500 lbs."
I've always been more of a GM truck guy, and I could care less how many cylinders it has, but I imagine these results led to a good amount of grumblings internally. That's a lot of R&D and costs for a brand new powerplant that isn't class leading by any measure.
You'll need to log in to post.
