In

 

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.

 

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.

My favorite Line....

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

I think I will stick with the 5.3 because it gets better MPG than the 2.7

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. You may remember that Ford had the same idea. They put the 2.3L turbo 4 in to the F150. All the things said about that engine, were repeated here in this thread. But the Ford engine turned out to be a fuel sucking dog. Once this engine is out in general use, we'll see how it performs in the real world. Unfortunately, that will take a year or two.

 

When did ford put the 2.3 in the f150? The 2.7 has been used in the 1500’s for four years now.

 

I am inserting these quotes from another thread that kind of went off subject (the AT4 versus Z71 thread)

I'm not sure about burning the same fuel. You can baby the 5.3 and not improve MPG much. Keep your foot out of a turbo engine and you can do a fair amount better on fuel mileage.

2.7: Chevrolet Silverado 1500 MPG - Actual MPG from 13 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 owners
5.3: Chevrolet Silverado 1500 MPG - Actual MPG from 2,086 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 owners

Also, turbo engines perform better at altitude than NA engines so those in high altitude would see a benefit to the 2.7T over the 5.3...

These links are a good indicator of real world MPG. Sure the 2.7 drinks the fuel and isn't worlds better than the 5.3, but based on what I've read elsewhere, and seeing real world data like this makes me think the 2.7 isn't terrible either.

I think GM went with the 2.7T because they can put the same motor in both the midsized twins and the full sized twins, and we know how much GM loves reducing options to be more profitable.
...

Not to mention, they could also use it in all of their mid-size and maybe even large SUVs. Any model that has the 3.6 now, I expect will convert over to the 2.7 either in a refresh or a generational change. For example, I believe I had read the next gen Traverse and Acadia will be using the 2.7 instead of the 3.6.

I've really enjoyed the 3.6 over the years, but the 2.7 makes it irrelevant. The only place the 3.6 might actually be better to use is in sports cars like the Camaro where it's more fun to keep the RPMs high, and you want the engine to have snappy revs.

 

I'm looking forward to test driving a new Canyon or Colorado with the 2.7 and the revised 8sp transmission. Having had a Ranger with the 2.3 in the family fleet over the past year since swapping the ZR2 gasser for it, the torque curve makes it a very calm drive but i miss the stock exhaust sound of the 3.6. I can say with certainty, with my experience in the Ranger, that an 8sp transmission would be a better choice over a 10sp from a gear ratio spread perspective.

 

In the mid-size category, I think the 2.7L will be great. Will outperform the 3.6L, is probably a better match for the mid-size than the full size trucks.

 

I'm sure this thread will stay perfectly reasonable..

I'm liking the diesel so far, but I'm definitely going to test drive the new ZR2 when my dealer gets one in.

 

FWIW, I just drove a 2023 Sierra Elevation 2.7 as a loaner from the dealer while my Canyon was being serviced. I was impressed by the smoothness, responsiveness, and power curve of the 2.7, especially in a full size. But the fuel economy was no better than my 3.6 around town and with a short highway trip.

 

It also has the effect of making the 3G Colorado irrelevant to me.

 

You'd rather have the 3.6 over the 2.7T? The 3.6 has no advantages over the 2.7T.

 

Anybody got graphs of torque curve and horsepower for the 2.7? I likes the datas.

 

2.7T in my Silverado is fine for tooling around town, highway. Light truck use. I haven't really towed a trailer other than my little 5x8 utility trailer, but that doesn't count. I do have a 26' flatbed that I will eventually tow, its a dual over axle flatbed that weighs 3200 lbs empty. I'll load it up with probably 4000-5000 lbs of stuff soon and see how the 2.7T in the silverado handles it. Supposed to be able to tow 9000 lbs...

 

I actually liked the high rpm power curve of the 3.6L (after all it is a 24 valve double OHC DI engine, love that). Loads of fun to drive and faster than the other mid size. Then we started towing a 5,000 lb trailer at high altitude.......required a supercharger to make that fun. I think the 2.7T is great, and probably should replace the 5.3L, just hard to imagine a prospective Suburban owner going for it.

 

There is no such thing as a truck or car engine these days. The LS/LT based V8's, L series 3.6 V6's and even the 2.7 that is lauded in marketing as a truck engine isn't designed solely as a truck engine. When they start designing an engine years before it first hits its first vehicles, they start planning what it could go in and how the power band matches potential future products. The L series 6's were a car and SUV engine (the Traverse is a large vehicle that weighs about the same as the truck twins with towing of 5k), these engines were designed for that and probably has an open item on their list for a mid size truck that far in advance. A vehicle the size of the Traverse (the largest before the full frame Tahoe) isn't a car engine at heart, and if it is deisgned to move the Traverses weight along with 5k on the hitch and 7 people inside then it was designed for a mid size truck as well.

The 2.7, even though they keep saying it is a truck engine the meat and potatoes of it are in one of the highest performing Cadillac V's, that was taken in to consideration early when they started designing it, so it isn't just a truck engine (and this engine will power other non trucks in the future which it was designed and planned for). The LS/LT V8's we know is adapted to each vehicle from high performance cars to HD towing trucks, so which is this engine?

Point is that term is a marketing term only, but in reality they don't exist. Most changes between each are tuning, maybe an intake and if they really want to change it up a cam swap. But don't get it twisted, these motors are designed from day 1 to run as intended in both vehicles (trucks and cars) with power bands intended to meet their parameters.

Leaky, good lord dude drop it. You have said the same thing probably 15 times in the past few days about how offended you are that the 2.7 meets or exceeds most parameters of the 5.3 you so lovingly defend. The 2.7 is as fast or faster, gets better MPG, is cheaper and is much more pleasurable to drive than the 5.3 everywhere except when revving out, which is what people only do 1% of the time. So we get it, you like the 5.3, but stop with the broken record posts...

Tyler

 

The 2.7 is as fast or faster, gets better MPG, is cheaper and is much more pleasurable to drive than the 5.3 everywhere except when revving out, which is what people only do 1% of the time.

Looking at GM's own fuel economy ratings and several tests I have seen this is false.

 

I’d take the 5.3 over the 2.7 if it was a choice. I’d even pay more. Real world MPG is basically the same between the two engines. (Saw a real world test between the two in the Silverado doing the same loop) So what’s the point? give me the extra 4 cylinders that aren’t working very hard doing the same job. I can’t believe the 2.7 will last longer and be cheaper to maintain over the long run. No substitute for cubic inches is still true.

 

The point is the 2.7 does better according to EPA tests and that is what matters to GM as it impacts their CAFE requirements that they have to meet. All of these changes are in the name of efficiency and fuel economy due to ever-increasing emissions and fuel economy requirements. If no such requirements existed then manufacturers wouldn't be pushed to be innovative in that way.

 

I find a lot of this discussion odd about 0-60 times for a pickup truck. For me, I want a truck that can be put to work and hold up. When I look for an engine, I go for:

• Capability
• Durability

I have a 2.8 right now because it was a better option than the 3.6 for towing. If the 2.7 is better than the 2.8, I'd happily get a 2.7 down the line if I get a midsize truck again.
On the other hand, if the 2.7 turns out to be garbage when worked hard, I'd gladly opt for a different engine (or different truck entirely)

Get the best tool for whatever job you're looking to do.

 

Look the goal of many new engines today are to reduce the size of them to cut down on MPG and Emissions. The Turbo is to gain back the performance with higher compression or in this case cylinder pressure.

High cylinder pressure makes for a much cleaner burn and the by product is more power. This is why GM and other MFGs tried to lobby to make higher octane gas so they could boost to even higher pressures.

The V8 engines are now more and more being subjected to more gimmicks to meet regulations that add cost and in many cases a penalty for not making the numbers.

Some say they get the posted numbers some don't but much of that has to do with the driver. The Government Numbers are all that matter to the MFG.

The trouble is moving forward the numbers are getting more and more difficult and expensive to meet. So that is why we are seeing the EV models coming as there are no numbers to meet. There will be other benefits in time as the tech gets cheaper and the assembly labor and parts will be less intensive.

GM is cutting more engines but in some cases like the truck keep ICE as long as possible. But you will pay the penalties that the government will press.

The Diesels died for two reason. One dropped the partnership on the engine. Two the emissions are just getting so difficult that the cost to develop a new engine for the small volume just is not profitable In this case. Let’s face it none of the others are rushing Diesels they have to this market.

 

@Riley Kinch He's either ignorant and stubborn or a troll, either way just ignore him. I have him ignored for a reason.

 

Yeah, fair point

 

All I know is...is that it's a heck of a lot better than the 4.3 that it replaced! lol

(that everyone wanted in the 2nd gen truck instead of the 3.6)

 

I was one of those who thought the 4.3L would have been a good engine for my Canyon. I had it in a GMC Safari and a C1500 regular cab. Did okay in those vehicles. Once I had my Canyon, I was pleased with the 3.6L. I think I would be more pleased with the 2.7L in a midsize truck.

I think the Diesel got a bad name after the VW debacle, and that is the nail that his closing that coffin as much as any technical issues. Toss in the push toward EVs, and ICE development is not going to get much financing.

 

From a engineering/scientific perspective, here are my thoughts. I'd like to see a side by side controlled dyno load test between the two engines (2.7 and 5.3) either on a engine stand or in truly equal truck configurations. Meaning same exact trim configuration, transmission and driveline with same differential gear ratios. Load them up for a few hours to simulate a full tank of fuel at equal heavy loads. Then max them out on gvwr( same weight added to both trucks) and run them side by side in above 100 degree F ambient temp environmental conditions. The one that goes into reduced power mode first is the one I'd not pick. I have no idea which it would be, but as a consumer, that is the info i would love to have when making a decision.