Does anyone think Chevrolet will bring back the V6? The 4 banger turbos are having terrible issues.
PTUser717871
Bring back V6!
1 reading
No. The V6 may live on in the Blazer and similar platform for that SUV till the redesign in 2027 and the V6 will die.
Just because they caught a break this election cycle they can get too far out as the regulations could change again fast after another election.
Also note the EV lines are not going to vanish. The MFGs are happy to get some more time but they will always be a part of the market. The MFGs need to be prepared with forced regulations and also the dirty secret is once perfected the EV models will be cheaper to build, buy and more profitable. It will take more time and investment but that is what they are looking at too
Less parts, no billion dollar Powertrain programs and easier production with less staff. The MFGs will buy batteries from suppliers as well motors.
At this point I work from home now so I am keeping the miles off my V6 as I don’t expect they will ever come back.
Note Im in the SAE and their monthly magazine is almost all EV anymore and that is where the development is all going.
Just because they caught a break this election cycle they can get too far out as the regulations could change again fast after another election.
Also note the EV lines are not going to vanish. The MFGs are happy to get some more time but they will always be a part of the market. The MFGs need to be prepared with forced regulations and also the dirty secret is once perfected the EV models will be cheaper to build, buy and more profitable. It will take more time and investment but that is what they are looking at too
Less parts, no billion dollar Powertrain programs and easier production with less staff. The MFGs will buy batteries from suppliers as well motors.
At this point I work from home now so I am keeping the miles off my V6 as I don’t expect they will ever come back.
Note Im in the SAE and their monthly magazine is almost all EV anymore and that is where the development is all going.
1. What issues is the 2.7L turbo experiencing?
2. Who has driven both engines and actually prefers the V6?
2. Who has driven both engines and actually prefers the V6?
The 2.7L I4 TurboMaz has been around since 2019
There hasn't been any real issues with the Engine
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2016/0...2017-chevrolet-colorado-vs-2016-chevy-colorado-new-v6-engine-horsepower-torque/
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2024/09/2025-chevy-colorado-drops-base-2-7l-turbo-l2r-engine/
Plus the TuroMaz L3B makes More Horsepower and More Torque at Lower Lower RPMs which is Ideal for a Truck
There hasn't been any real issues with the Engine
| Vehicle: | 2016 Colorado/Canyon | 2017 Colorado/Canyon |
|---|
| Engine: | 3.6L V-6 LFX | 3.6L V-6 LGX |
| Power (hp @ RPM): | 305 @ 6800 | 308 @ 6800 |
| Torque (lb-ft @ RPM): | 269 @ 4000 | 275 @ 4000 |
| Engine | Power (hp) | Torque (lb-ft) |
|---|
| Turbo High-Output 2.7L I4 L3B | 310 @ 5,600 | 430 @ 3,000 |
Plus the TuroMaz L3B makes More Horsepower and More Torque at Lower Lower RPMs which is Ideal for a Truck
I think it’s fair to also point out that the V6 is naturally aspirated. If GM had turboed it, then I’m sure the sentiment in this thread would be different. I’ve heard a lot about the supercharged V6 and I bet a turboed version would be amazing too. The LGZ is certainly a well built engine and I have a feeling it could tolerate mild boost pressures.
The fuel economy would be substantially improved, of course. The biggest benefit would be the lazy low end being brought up to match the high end.
I bought a 2022 z71 Colorado 4x4 with the V6 and 8spd tranny, and I am planning on turboing it once it’s out of warranty, pending my financial situation at the time, of course. I’m also considering an electric assist for the start and stop mileage killer, but turbo might solve that on its own.
The fuel economy would be substantially improved, of course. The biggest benefit would be the lazy low end being brought up to match the high end.
I bought a 2022 z71 Colorado 4x4 with the V6 and 8spd tranny, and I am planning on turboing it once it’s out of warranty, pending my financial situation at the time, of course. I’m also considering an electric assist for the start and stop mileage killer, but turbo might solve that on its own.
Since you do not own a 2.7 turbo, list the issues and the sources those issues are coming from that it is having
"Does anyone think Chevrolet will bring back the V6? The 4 banger turbos are having terrible issues."
I have a 2002 S10 w/4.3L V6-NA with 130k+ miles. My 2025 Colorado I4-Turbo now has ~3k miles. Guess which one is more fun to drive? Ya, you KNOW the answer...the 23-year old V6 is way more fun. You guys promoting these I4-Turbos all brag about the numbers. Spreadsheet-racing is not my cup of tea, but you do you!
The biggest issue with my 2025 Colorado is NOT the engine, rather it's the AT.....won't let the engine rev...always shifting to keep RPM low. I guess MPG increases when you're always lugging and chugging at <2k RPM, which helps GM fleet emission requirements.
As for reliability, my Colorado and the I4-Turbo have been absolutely flawless...not a single problem. I'm warming up to the I4-Turbo...if I could just get a new tune on the tranny shift points....
- No, I don't think they are going to resurrect the V6.
- I4-turbos having terrible issues? I don't think so...needs some data to back this up...mine has been perfect
I have a 2002 S10 w/4.3L V6-NA with 130k+ miles. My 2025 Colorado I4-Turbo now has ~3k miles. Guess which one is more fun to drive? Ya, you KNOW the answer...the 23-year old V6 is way more fun. You guys promoting these I4-Turbos all brag about the numbers. Spreadsheet-racing is not my cup of tea, but you do you!
The biggest issue with my 2025 Colorado is NOT the engine, rather it's the AT.....won't let the engine rev...always shifting to keep RPM low. I guess MPG increases when you're always lugging and chugging at <2k RPM, which helps GM fleet emission requirements.
As for reliability, my Colorado and the I4-Turbo have been absolutely flawless...not a single problem. I'm warming up to the I4-Turbo...if I could just get a new tune on the tranny shift points....
We voted on V6-NA vs. I4-Turbo and other options in this thread:
At this moment the vote is:
I4-Turbo -> 20
V6-NA -> 16
The real crime is that GM does not give us the OPTION....truck buyers are not all the same. Some of us love the I4-Turbo, while others much prefer the V6-NA. But GM (and pretty much all the other manufacturers) eliminated any chance that you could build the truck the way you want it.....
At this moment the vote is:
I4-Turbo -> 20
V6-NA -> 16
The real crime is that GM does not give us the OPTION....truck buyers are not all the same. Some of us love the I4-Turbo, while others much prefer the V6-NA. But GM (and pretty much all the other manufacturers) eliminated any chance that you could build the truck the way you want it.....
My just only go for a V6
Dodge used a V10... Yes in the Full Size.... But.... More Cylinders Is Better Right?
Dodge 8.0L Magnum V10 Specs
| Horsepower | 300 hp @ 4,100 rpm (1994 - 1998) 310 hp @ 4,100 rpm (1999 - 2003) |
| Torque | 450 lb-ft @ 2,400 rpm |
Would appear that need to do a V10 to be better than that 2.7L I4 TurboMax
Pretty sad that it takes a "whole addition engine" of cylinders to be a slight gain
I was an "early adopter" of the Gen2 Colorado, purchasing a new 2015 Z71 in November of 2014. Shortly after purchasing that truck, I joined this forum.
One of the predominant discussions in that day involved a number of people who were unhappy with the use of the 3.6L engine, calling for GM to offer the 4.3L V-6 in the truck. The complaint at that time was with the DOHC configuration of the 3.6 vs. the pushrod-based 4.3. The there was a refrain of "A DOHC engine is not a 'truck' engine". I was never able to accept the idea that a 4.3 would be a better choice, except for a possible durability argument based upon the valve trains used in each engine.
In actual performance, my '15 gen 2 Colorado gave my 109,000 miles of trouble-free service prior to my trading the Colorado in for a Sierra in 2018. Never spent a penny on the truck except for regular maintenance items. The fuel mileage was decent and the overall driving experience was very good. I'll insert here that I didn't tow with it except on a very rare, occasional basis.
When I got ready to trade in the Sierra at the beginning of this year, I was wanting to go back to the midsize platform. When I started looking at the 3rd gen Colorado/Canyon, I found that no engine is offered other than the 2.7L 4-banger. Initially, this fact was going to lead me toward purchasing another full-size truck, one that would most likely have been a 3.0 diesel. Still, I really wanted a smaller vehicle, as I am typically the only person in the truck and I don't do much towing, as I mentioned above.
I had managed to locate a couple of vehicles that were equipped as I liked and where I thought I could get a reasonable deal on them. One was a Silverado 1500 LT 3.0 and the other was a Sierra 1500 Denali 3.0. At the last minute, before going to strike a deal on one of those trucks, I decided to test drive a Gen 3 Turbomax to see what I thought.
There was a dealer near me who was offering a reasonable price on a '24 Canyon Denali. I drove to the dealer and took a test drive in the Canyon. Ended up buying the truck in the same visit. For my daily use, I have found the 2.7L engine to be better than the Gen2 V-6 in almost every respect, and I say that as one who is a big fan of the 3.6. Over the years, I've had a total of 4 GM vehicles in my garage that were 3.6L-equipped. All of them provided trouble-free and reasonably efficient service.
The low-end torque of the 2.7 makes it (IMHO) a superior driving experience vs. the 3.6. It also allows you to obtain some reasonable fuel mileage numbers, IF you don't fight the idea of getting into higher gears as quickly as possible. In fact, I have found the mileage to be very similar to the results I got driving the Gen2 truck in my daily use.
Personally, I can see no reason why there should be a V-6 option in the Gen3 trucks, unless the offering was to be something like the LF3 twin turbo as a "high-performance" option. In that case, the same concerns about turbo longevity would apply.
While I can't speak to the durability of the 2.7 from personal experience, you can find plenty of them in Sierras and Silverados that are over 100,000 miles and still churning, so I'm not terribly concerned. YAMMV.
One of the predominant discussions in that day involved a number of people who were unhappy with the use of the 3.6L engine, calling for GM to offer the 4.3L V-6 in the truck. The complaint at that time was with the DOHC configuration of the 3.6 vs. the pushrod-based 4.3. The there was a refrain of "A DOHC engine is not a 'truck' engine". I was never able to accept the idea that a 4.3 would be a better choice, except for a possible durability argument based upon the valve trains used in each engine.
In actual performance, my '15 gen 2 Colorado gave my 109,000 miles of trouble-free service prior to my trading the Colorado in for a Sierra in 2018. Never spent a penny on the truck except for regular maintenance items. The fuel mileage was decent and the overall driving experience was very good. I'll insert here that I didn't tow with it except on a very rare, occasional basis.
When I got ready to trade in the Sierra at the beginning of this year, I was wanting to go back to the midsize platform. When I started looking at the 3rd gen Colorado/Canyon, I found that no engine is offered other than the 2.7L 4-banger. Initially, this fact was going to lead me toward purchasing another full-size truck, one that would most likely have been a 3.0 diesel. Still, I really wanted a smaller vehicle, as I am typically the only person in the truck and I don't do much towing, as I mentioned above.
I had managed to locate a couple of vehicles that were equipped as I liked and where I thought I could get a reasonable deal on them. One was a Silverado 1500 LT 3.0 and the other was a Sierra 1500 Denali 3.0. At the last minute, before going to strike a deal on one of those trucks, I decided to test drive a Gen 3 Turbomax to see what I thought.
There was a dealer near me who was offering a reasonable price on a '24 Canyon Denali. I drove to the dealer and took a test drive in the Canyon. Ended up buying the truck in the same visit. For my daily use, I have found the 2.7L engine to be better than the Gen2 V-6 in almost every respect, and I say that as one who is a big fan of the 3.6. Over the years, I've had a total of 4 GM vehicles in my garage that were 3.6L-equipped. All of them provided trouble-free and reasonably efficient service.
The low-end torque of the 2.7 makes it (IMHO) a superior driving experience vs. the 3.6. It also allows you to obtain some reasonable fuel mileage numbers, IF you don't fight the idea of getting into higher gears as quickly as possible. In fact, I have found the mileage to be very similar to the results I got driving the Gen2 truck in my daily use.
Personally, I can see no reason why there should be a V-6 option in the Gen3 trucks, unless the offering was to be something like the LF3 twin turbo as a "high-performance" option. In that case, the same concerns about turbo longevity would apply.
While I can't speak to the durability of the 2.7 from personal experience, you can find plenty of them in Sierras and Silverados that are over 100,000 miles and still churning, so I'm not terribly concerned. YAMMV.
OMG! You're comparing 2025 tech to something ~30 years old...completely bogus!
Let's compare with modern day V8s for an accurate assessment of more cylinders:
2.7L I4 Turbomax
310 HP @5600 RPM
430 lb.-ft. @ 3000 RPM
Dodge 6.4L V8 (base trim specs)
405 hp
429 lb.-ft. @ 4000 RPM
GM 6.6L V8 (base trim specs)
401 hp
464 lb.-ft.
Ford 6.8L V8 (base trim specs)
405 HP @5000 RPM
445 lb.-ft. @ 4000 RPM
Ford 6.7L Powerstroke V8 (base trim specs)
475 HP @2600 RPM
1050 lb.-ft. @ 1600 RPM
It was all about a point
Yes, an engine from the 90's to 00's is not going to be a fair match to anything from today.
But, for those that seem to think it is all about number of Cylinders... It shows that Number of Cylinders means Nothing
I like the turbo-4 better than I would a N/A V6, especially as I go over a 9,300' pass to work, and play in the mountains. I also plan on wheeling some of the higher passes (12k-14k feet) in CO where the V6 would run out of breath. Yeeeeaaaahhh I'll take the turbo-4. 'Nuff said...
Now, if they put the Babymax turbo diesel inline-6 in it, yeah, now we're talking.
Now, if they put the Babymax turbo diesel inline-6 in it, yeah, now we're talking.
Ford had issues with turbo engines initially. They have everything worked out now.
Chevy designed the 2.7 from the start to work with turbo's and it's a simpler, more rugged design that what Ford is using.
I've been a loyal Ford and Toyota owner for the last 20 years but don't have blinders on when buying. I'm not particularly brand loyal. I did a lot of research before buying my 2025 Colorado. At this point I'm convinced Colorado is the best of the mid-size trucks and the 2.7 Turbomax is big part of why.
Chevy designed the 2.7 from the start to work with turbo's and it's a simpler, more rugged design that what Ford is using.
I've been a loyal Ford and Toyota owner for the last 20 years but don't have blinders on when buying. I'm not particularly brand loyal. I did a lot of research before buying my 2025 Colorado. At this point I'm convinced Colorado is the best of the mid-size trucks and the 2.7 Turbomax is big part of why.
The 4.3 had a lot more low to mid-range torque than the 3.6 which is why they have used it in boats for 40 years..
But at 195 hp in truck form, got terrible gas mileage and could not reduce the emmisions for epa approval. earlier versions were some where around 160hp
boats are up to 225hp with the 4.3 in stock form
But at 195 hp in truck form, got terrible gas mileage and could not reduce the emmisions for epa approval. earlier versions were some where around 160hp
boats are up to 225hp with the 4.3 in stock form
Seems most people have no idea still of what is possible with modern engines and turbos. Still consistently hear the "but low end torque" argument from the turbo haters. Turns out with variable vain tech and with engines designed from day 1 with boost in mind you don't have many trade offs on a turbo engine.
Only semi valid argument I have seen is the additional complexity of a turbo engine leading to more failure points but honestly any power equivalent NA engine you will have double the cylinders and all the supporting components for those cylinders so I don't even think that argument holds much water.
Only semi valid argument I have seen is the additional complexity of a turbo engine leading to more failure points but honestly any power equivalent NA engine you will have double the cylinders and all the supporting components for those cylinders so I don't even think that argument holds much water.
And just to illustrate that point... I got bored a while ago and overlaid a 350 I built to what burger tuning shows for wheel power with the JB4.
![Image]()
Now mind you... this is an engine I built myself. Spend my money on designing and selecting parts... and had to assemble and install myself. The 4 banger has a warranty and it's as good nearly everywhere, runs on regular, and anyone can plug in and work on it. I'll take the 4 cylinder.
Technology is awesome. Though that 350 has half the moving parts of that 4 cylinder and it has emissions compliant parts on it, it would not meet modern emissions standards. It will pass for it's regulated era though. I want a six speed behind that 4 and to feel how how it would do in a light chassis.
Now mind you... this is an engine I built myself. Spend my money on designing and selecting parts... and had to assemble and install myself. The 4 banger has a warranty and it's as good nearly everywhere, runs on regular, and anyone can plug in and work on it. I'll take the 4 cylinder.
Technology is awesome. Though that 350 has half the moving parts of that 4 cylinder and it has emissions compliant parts on it, it would not meet modern emissions standards. It will pass for it's regulated era though. I want a six speed behind that 4 and to feel how how it would do in a light chassis.
Complexity tends to be more about implementation than fundamental function, sometimes due to space or other constraints, but there's nothing particularly complex about a turbo engine. I've looked under the hood of some EcoBoost Fords and the engine is lost amongst a sea of hoses and harnesses. The complexity is from the ridiculous ways the engineers have decided to implement various functions.
Another example of same principles but different implementation is the 2.8 Duramax vs a 3.0 EcoDiesel (We have both in our garage), comparatively speaking the Duramax is exponentially easier to work on. Some spaces are tight and some decisions GM's engineers made are head-scratchers, but overall it's a pretty simple implementation.
On the flip side, the EcoDiesel is at the shop today for some preventative repairs (turbo coolant line replacement before it actually craps itself). I started on that project a couple of weeks ago and backed out about 1/4 of the way into the job. The turbo coolant line runs under the intake manifold, there's a short piece of coolant hose that connects 2 hard lines and over time this hose dries out and bursts. There's an upgraded replacement that uses stainless braided hose to avoid this. To do the job you have to disconnect and remove the injector tubes, the wiring harness that goes across the engine, the injector rails, the windshield cowl (for better access to the turbo inlet clamp), and a host of other bits. It's a 5-6 hour job for a good tech. It's not hard work, it's just involved and I'm getting too old for that crap.
Another example of same principles but different implementation is the 2.8 Duramax vs a 3.0 EcoDiesel (We have both in our garage), comparatively speaking the Duramax is exponentially easier to work on. Some spaces are tight and some decisions GM's engineers made are head-scratchers, but overall it's a pretty simple implementation.
On the flip side, the EcoDiesel is at the shop today for some preventative repairs (turbo coolant line replacement before it actually craps itself). I started on that project a couple of weeks ago and backed out about 1/4 of the way into the job. The turbo coolant line runs under the intake manifold, there's a short piece of coolant hose that connects 2 hard lines and over time this hose dries out and bursts. There's an upgraded replacement that uses stainless braided hose to avoid this. To do the job you have to disconnect and remove the injector tubes, the wiring harness that goes across the engine, the injector rails, the windshield cowl (for better access to the turbo inlet clamp), and a host of other bits. It's a 5-6 hour job for a good tech. It's not hard work, it's just involved and I'm getting too old for that crap.
Just take care of the V6 best we can, should last many miles. I'm gonna drive mine till the bitter end, see how long it lasts.
If we're just going to talk about fantasy things we want back, then why not bring back the Syclone?
![Image]()
Imagine a new one with the already aggressive styling of the 3rd gen trucks, just turned up to 11? Damn!
Imagine a new one with the already aggressive styling of the 3rd gen trucks, just turned up to 11? Damn!
If we’re dreaming, I’d be happy just dropping my ‘22 2.5L wheezer and tranny into my old ‘84 S10 - if the kid I sold it to hadn't wrapped it around a tree. I’d be much happier dropping a 5.3 in it, because dat noize, but I’ll take what I can get. 200 hp vs 120, that little pup would rip.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
