[Dickie Dunkleberger]

As title says, new post to centralize the discussions debating the merits of the new 2.7t.

Starting with the 5.3 v8, I will say, based on my drives of the 2.7t in the full sized 1500s, I don't see the point of the 5.3 existing when you have the 6.2.

 

[diesel5d]

In

 

[ARCowboy]

Nuh uh, because the fuel comes from the wrong colored handle ! Green handle or die !

/sarcasm

The 2.7L is impressive. I really like the 3rd gen but also quite attached to my truck.

 

[littleblazer]

I'll further that with saying I never saw the point of the 5.3 existing period. Always felt underpowered to me in anything I've driven. (Sources: 6.0s my whole life) Don't even get me started on the 4.8...

The 2.7 is solid. If given a choice I'd still take the 6.2 powered truck though.

 

[leaky]

I think the 2.7 is impressive from the standpoint of output from a 4 cylinder, ought to perform well in the Gen3, and was a neat project - but has no real benefit over the 5.3 (and sure you could actually argue the same 5.3 versus 6.2 - except the 6.2 clearly outperforms).

If you look at how the 2.7 has performed in the full size half ton - it doesn't do much for fuel economy, seems to do a little better city, a little worse highway, than the 5.3, while 0-60 times it loses to the 5.3. I say - what's the point?

Even if it did just a little better city & highway, ie an MPG or two, I can't get my head around why anyone would prefer to run a fully tuned up 4 cylinder, stuffed with tech, over a much simpler V8 with moderate output for it's displacement, just for marginal economy.

Had GM have made the investment in something else, ie a turbo 6 - something that clearly could outperform a V8, it'd be exciting. Although this may be exciting from the standpoint of +performance in the Gen3's - all depending on how much different the Gen3's are versus the Gen2 trucks, if you gave me the choice of the 2.7 versus the 5.3 - I'd never pick the 2.7, just isn't an advantage for what you are giving up.

 

[littleblazer]

I think the 2.7 is impressive from the standpoint of output from a 4 cylinder, ought to perform well in the Gen3, and was a neat project - but has no real benefit over the 5.3 (and sure you could actually argue the same 5.3 versus 6.2 - except the 6.2 clearly outperforms).

If you look at how the 2.7 has performed in the full size half ton - it doesn't do much for fuel economy, seems to do a little better city, a little worse highway, than the 5.3, while 0-60 times it loses to the 5.3. I say - what's the point?

Even if it did just a little better city & highway, ie an MPG or two, I can't get my head around why anyone would prefer to run a fully tuned up 4 cylinder, stuffed with tech, over a much simpler V8 with moderate output for it's displacement, just for marginal economy.

Had GM have made the investment in something else, ie a turbo 6 - something that clearly could outperform a V8, it'd be exciting. Although this may be exciting from the standpoint of +performance in the Gen3's - all depending on how much different the Gen3's are versus the Gen2 trucks, if you gave me the choice of the 2.7 versus the 5.3 - I'd never pick the 2.7, just isn't an advantage for what you are giving up.

I mean I'd prefer to not eat a DFM lifter within a year of owning the truck... so the 2.7 has that going for it, which is nice. Tech for tech they're both pretty loaded up and thats normally what causes the issues on anything nowadays...

 

[Bontz]

I think the 2.7 is impressive from the standpoint of output from a 4 cylinder, ought to perform well in the Gen3, and was a neat project - but has no real benefit over the 5.3 (and sure you could actually argue the same 5.3 versus 6.2 - except the 6.2 clearly outperforms).

If you look at how the 2.7 has performed in the full size half ton - it doesn't do much for fuel economy, seems to do a little better city, a little worse highway, than the 5.3, while 0-60 times it loses to the 5.3. I say - what's the point?

You could flip this question and ask what is the point of the 5.3. The 2.7 gives up some HP but adds it in the torque and seems to adequately cover each of these engine types well enough. The benefits are simpler/lower production costs and easier maintenance and training. If you live or travel at high elevation, then it only makes more sense to shift towards the 2.7.

 

[hyperv6]

The whole key to the 2.7 is to get people to drive it.

Turbo engines suffer much as many people have not driven a new DI turbo and often recall the old turbo like in the T birds. Lost of lag, lots of mechanical issues and poor mpg.

Today that is gone and lost of low end power with little lag. They are proving very reliable anymore with the better materials and better oils/cooling.

The other phobia is what I call cylinder envy. Many thing a V8 is needed for durability and longevity. Today they are using better materials and much technology today and these engines are just fine with big power, high boost on only 4 cylinders.

I would like to challenge anyone skeptical to take a drive and learn how they really are. I know some will never be converted to understand but many more will once they drive one.

I hated turbo engines and never wanted one. Then one day I drove one of the new turbo DI engines and I was so excited I even bought an HHR that I had no love for. After ten trouble free years I bought my truck once the 2nd gen came along. I love my truck but I still miss my little SS. That was on fun car to drive, It never game me an issue and boy it was fast.

What was funny was I owned several of of the old SS including big blocks and this one with 4 cylinders would out run all of them stock.

 

[hyperv6]

I would also add stop looking at the 1/4 and 0-60 times on the 2.7 as it drives much different.

The long flat torque curve is a big difference to any V8 and bigger difference to the 3.6 we have now that makes power mid range and up.

Torque is what you really feel over HP. Torque is like Lighting and HP is thunder. One is all the work the other not so much.

 

[Dickie Dunkleberger]

I mean I'd prefer to not eat a DFM lifter within a year of owning the truck... so the 2.7 has that going for it, which is nice. Tech for tech they're both pretty loaded up and thats normally what causes the issues on anything nowadays...

This is a big point here many miss thinking that the current crop of GM v8s are akin to the bulletproof small blocks of old. Lots of tech has gone into keeping them around when there are now better alternatives available for achieving the same or better numbers.

Still, I do agree that the 6.2 is oh so sweet. But it is more of a visceral experience. If GM follows through with scaling up the 2.7t to an inline six - it would be just above 4 liters and could deliver in the ball park of 415 hp and 575 lbs ft torque on 87. While I would miss the sounds and the soul of the NA v8, the potential torque just off idle in these undersquare turboed engines more than makes up for it.

 

[leaky]

I would also add stop looking at the 1/4 and 0-60 times on the 2.7 as it drives much different.

The long flat torque curve is a big difference to any V8 and bigger difference to the 3.6 we have now that makes power mid range and up.

Torque is what you really feel over HP. Torque is like Lighting and HP is thunder. One is all the work the other not so much.

How else do you measure how fast a vehicle accelerates objectively?

Bottom line, you put the same truck with a 5.3 and 2.7 in it next to each other, the 5.3 pulls ahead. Any other comparison is like putting a louder exhaust on something to simulate power.

 

[hyperv6]

How else do you measure how fast a vehicle accelerates objectively?

Bottom line, you put the same truck with a 5.3 and 2.7 in it next to each other, the 5.3 pulls ahead. Any other comparison is like putting a louder exhaust on something to simulate power.

Just take it out and drive one and you will answer your question.

Your daily drive is not a race and this is a truck. You need to feel and understand the true torque curve that starts low and retains peak torque over a wide band of RPM unlike the other engines.

 

[hyperv6]

This is a big point here many miss thinking that the current crop of GM v8s are akin to the bulletproof small blocks of old. Lots of tech has gone into keeping them around when there are now better alternatives available for achieving the same or better numbers.

Still, I do agree that the 6.2 is oh so sweet. But it is more of a visceral experience. If GM follows through with scaling up the 2.7t to an inline six - it would be just above 4 liters and could deliver in the ball park of 415 hp and 575 lbs ft torque on 87. While I would miss the sounds and the soul of the NA v8, the potential torque just off idle in these undersquare turboed engines more than makes up for it.

The only real loss on the Turbo 4 is the sound of the exhaust. It just never should like a V8.

 

[leaky]

Just take it out and drive one and you will answer your question.

Your daily drive is not a race and this is a truck. You need to feel and understand the true torque curve that starts low and retains peak torque over a wide band of RPM unlike the other engines.

But again - it doesn't actually move the truck better regardless of how you feel about the torque curve. It moves the truck worse.

A race is how you test performance, just like merging on a highway, towing, passing. Foot to floor, 2.7 loses.

 

[C21964]

We drove a rental 5.3L Suburban 4wd loaded up to the max payload on a 2500 mile trip including some time with snow chains on and averaged over 20 MPG for the entire trip. My understanding is the 6.2L does not do as well but of course has more power. A friend has a Suburban with a 5.3L and a supercharger. That is the way I would go with a large SUV.

 

[littleblazer]

But again - it doesn't actually move the truck better regardless of how you feel about the torque curve. It moves the truck worse.

A race is how you test performance, just like merging on a highway, towing, passing. Foot to floor, 2.7 loses.

Depends which test you look at and how it's conducted. I can tell you first hand rolling at 60 and you mash the 2.7 and the 5.3 it all comes to reaction time... even off the line. Part throttle moving around town the 2.7 is just better. Period. No bullshit no nothing.

 

[Dickie Dunkleberger]

But again - it doesn't actually move the truck better regardless of how you feel about the torque curve. It moves the truck worse.

A race is how you test performance, just like merging on a highway, towing, passing. Foot to floor, 2.7 loses.

A 1/4 mile time is irrelevant to trucks like these. We are not talking sports cars, we are talking about motors for family haulers and light duty work. The 2.7t 'feels' faster and likely posts better actual numbers from 0 - 45 (stop light to stoplight); 45 - 65 (passing on a county road); and 15 - 70 (merging on a highway). Go actually drive one. How the torque is delivered matters more in the real world than a single standard test more relevant to comparing muscle cars from the 60s.

 

[Dickie Dunkleberger]

We drove a rental 5.3L Suburban 4wd loaded up to the max payload on a 2500 mile trip including some time with snow chains on and averaged over 20 MPG for the entire trip. My understanding is the 6.2L does not do as well but of course has more power. A friend has a Suburban with a 5.3L and a supercharger. That is the way I would go with a large SUV.

If mpg under max payload is your main concern, GM has a different motor for you - the 3.0l Duramax (but if you are only doing one or only a few of those long distance max payload trips you will never recover the supposed gas savings over the 2.7t in the same scenario over the life of the vehicle accounting for upcharge at purchase, higher price of fuel, higher maintenance costs, etc.). If you want the absolute max power, sure, a blown v8 will do everything better (including drinking gas like a freshman frat boy does natty light).

 

[Avengedscorpio]

How else do you measure how fast a vehicle accelerates objectively?

Bottom line, you put the same truck with a 5.3 and 2.7 in it next to each other, the 5.3 pulls ahead. Any other comparison is like putting a louder exhaust on something to simulate power.

The point he tried to make is "who cares?"

These are trucks, not racecars, the 2.7 performs so similarly to the 5.3 in the full-size trucks, the only downside seems to be the trucks incredible bulk. In the midsize trucks these should feel peppier than a ranger with the 2.3 ecoboost that drives those surprisingly well

 

[hyperv6]

But again - it doesn't actually move the truck better regardless of how you feel about the torque curve. It moves the truck worse.

A race is how you test performance, just like merging on a highway, towing, passing. Foot to floor, 2.7 loses.

Drive it and you will know.

The complaint on the new truck will be that the tires will break lose and set off the traction control at speeds it never did before.

I did not understand this till I drove and owned my Turbo 2.0.

I had driven cars with mega HP not always a lot of torque. The 2.0 I had ran more torque than Hp. Yes it was fast at 13 sec but the more impressive thing was it spun the tires at 55 MPH once on dry pavement and set off the traction control and popped the wastegate.

Just mashing the gas any place at 40 MPH would light the tires up easily. That is torque and the feel of these engines. No high RPM needed and it has that pull low, medium and high RPM.