I love my 17 diesel. debating getting the high output 2.7. I read they toughened the internals. I think they used the diesel pistons. I will drive the 2.7 to see.

 

why do they need to do those videos?

I'd say it's because people see the big numbers a small 4cyl engine is putting up and wonder "can it take it ?"

Seems the natural cycle of things, and I'd be willing to bet the same comments made towards the turbo 4cyl being too weak and "I'll only drive a V6, nothing less" were exactly the same as the V8 to V6 conversations 10-30yrs ago.

A 4% failure rate would be too high for my liking, personally, but I do recall hearing something about strengthening it with aluminum ribbing and tri metal blah blah blah in 2021 ish in one of the 2.7L videos you reference.

I personally think it's a super neat engine. If/when my built Colorado dies, I'll be mighty tempted by a 3rd gen.

 

..... "I'll only drive a V6, nothing less" were exactly the same as the V8 to V6 conversations 10-30yrs ago.

Pretty much my sentiment, too. Precisely why I sold my perfectly good '18 and bought a new 2022.
And, please don't tell me I'm hardheaded. I already hear it enough from my lovely bride.

 

No concern about longevity for me. The crankshaft and connecting rods are forged steel. 300,000 of them are on the road since 2019 in the Seirra and Silverado trucks. 4% is 12,000, and if that's the case, I would seriously doubt they would expand the use of the engine without fixing the problems.

Bill

 

I did wonder about the presenter’s statement…because he didn’t cite a source. Maybe he pulled it out of the air….

 

I can guarantee you, from an engineering and manufacturing standpoint, there is absolutely no way GM is experiencing a 4% catastrophic failure rate on the unit in production. 0.04% might be more realistic, but I'd still seriously doubt that figure.

I don't manufacture for GM, but I'm very familiar with their process mgmt and I can tell you there is NO way a 4% rate is getting through to the end sales point. Consider that figure within the global manufacturing standard output goal of 3.4 DPMO (defects per million opportunities or 0.00034%). Just my two cents on the topic.

 

I wonder what the failure rate of the 1.4 motor is with their cracked pistons?

 

I'm very glad those videos were made. Alot of myths were floating around online throwing dirt in the eye of that engine. It almost steared me tward the new gen Ranger when I was doing research for truck shopping. Claims of wide spread lifter failure, engine destroying carbon deposits and the like. Those walk arounds made me take a second look at the twins and I'm happy I did. They really cleared the air around the 2.7 and I think it's gonna an awesome power plant for the two trucks

 

The 4% catastrophic failure rate might be refferring to the L3B HPFP issue that plagues many of the early trucks, but remember GM also made some serious design changes and improvements to the L3B in 2022, including a redesigned block casting.

 

My concern is, I don't see too many turbos in use on overland vehicles. We camp allot and crawl through mountain roads and trails at low speed for hours on end, most times dragging our cargo conversion up mountains on forest roads. Our last trail ride was about 6 hours never topping 15-20mph. The trip in from the highway to camp was about 3 hours at roughly the same 15-20mph dragging about 2500 pounds. Turbos generate loads of heat and I can see the first major failure being the turbo or whatever sits around that turbo. Those that run turbos off road often install hood louvers and sometimes a small fan to pull some of that heat out. Turbos and crawling are not usually conducive to each other.

 

The 2.7 has a water cooled turbo and an electric water pump that can circulate coolant at full flow regardless of engine rpm...sounds like a good combination to me.

 

4% of all engines produced? 4% of all engines that we’re replaced through warranty? 4% of warranty service identified catastrophic failure?

And I think the videos are just marketing. They’re selling the 2.7 as a replacement for the 5.3.

 

I believe the 4cylinder turbo technology is there. GM just has been behind it seems compared to engineering greats like the Japanese for example, when it comes to precision made 4cylinders and showing how capable they can be.

 

The biggest Japanese makes (Honda/Toyota) have been comparatively slow to adapt turbos and DI. And Honda's first large volume go at it, the 1.5T, had fuel dilution issues in the first couple years.

GM has had DI + turbo since the old 2.0 LNF in the Cobalt SS and Solstice/Sky, going back to '06.

 

The 2.7 is the reason I'm buying a 23 ZR2 and not a 22. I think the engine has some awesome engineering. I can't wait to here it whistle me down the road. Keep in mind the AFM is only the same as the V8s in name. Totally different technology. The turbo is oil and water cooled, with the electric water pump it should be the most reliable turbo engine ever. I also love the fact the engine uses mostly USA sourced parts.

 

I hope the water pump is reliable!!

 

I have a healthy amount of skepticism towards anything in brand new year models. But, not enough to stop me from buying one.

 

I share the skepticism-having owned a first year Colorado.

But the only 2.7 version that is really new is the base L2R. And that is so low stressed I suspect that means durability.

 

People too often associate many of todays engine with past failures.

Years ago the mfgs tried to just slap a turbo on but failed to improve the engine, lacked the hood oil and better materials and electronics of today,

Today they are building millions of Turbo 4 engines and few are failing or being anymore trouble than any other engine.

The last Turbo I had went with a stronger block, head, pistons, forges rods and crank. Improved oiling. Required Mobil one oil. Ran 23 pounds boost made 300 hp from 2.0. I drove it 10 years with no issues.

People need to understand if an engine is built properly their should be no fear of the engine. GM has been doing a very good job on these and odds are good the truck will rust out long before the engine fails in most parts.

The only key that is not in GMs hands is you will need to make sure to use the right oil, change it when called for and you should be fine.

also factor in this is not a new engine as it has been around long enough in a larger truck to know if it has issues.

 

I wouldn't buy one because they decreased the GCWR of most versions from 12,000 lbs to 9,000 lbs. If this engine has more horsepower and torque than my v6, then why the decrease in GCWR?

 

How much do you tow with yours?

 

Another thing to bear in mind is to properly follow the break-in requirements and change the oil & filter at the end - for any engine. There will be all kinds of contaminants in that oil after a few hundred miles - assembly lube, metal particles and more. Flushing that all out will greatly increase longevity and reliability.

 

This is from the 2023 Canyon owners manual. Its actually 13250 with the trailer package and G80 Axle.

 

Okay, so the 2023 will do more.

 

GM needs to get their info straight. Here's the towing guide for the 2023 models. No mention of Z82 package or locker rear axle.

https://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/chevrolet/na/us/english/index/vehicle-groups/trailering-and-towing/trucks/04-pdfs/2023-Colorado-TraileringChart-v4.pdf

 

Yeah we've already determined in another thread that this info is incorrect as far as GCWR. And it mentions Z82 and G80 at the bottom of the page....

 

Really surprised that the high output has a lower trailer weight limit than the plus. I'm glad to see the plus add 700lbs over the current 3.6. I'll be curious to see the mpg of the 2.7 while trailering. I got 10-12 with my 4700 pound travel trailer and only 12-13 with my 2500 pound cargo conversion. Both still average right around the 12 mark at 70mph. I really thought dropping 2000 pounds of trailer weight would net me more mpg. I'm getting a new custom built off-road 3500lb no-camber trailer axle built. It's internally oiled with some kind of new bearings that's supposed to decrease rolling resistance. Waiting on the tax man to bring me my check so I can getter done!

 

The HO doesn't have a lower trailer weight, that sheet shows the specs for the ZR2 as the HO. The owners manual cutout posted earlier is correct. I can't cross check to the colorado manual as GM pulled it from the site. But I'd go on a limb and say that isn't the case since the ZR2 is the only vehicle rated at 6k per the sales brochure...

 

I give.

What's z82?

 

The GM RPO code for the towing package. In the case of the 2nd gen colorado I believe it was the 7/4 pin harness connector and the frame mounted receiver.

 

I'm sure there will be plenty here who disagree with me, particularly those waiting to get there new 2023's.

That being said, I have longevity concerns about any 4 Cylinder engine, particularly in a truck.

Inline 4 cylinder or not, it's still just a 4 cylinder engine.

Then you throw forced induction into the equation, in the form of a turbo and those longevity concerns, grow exponentially.

When I hear of some these 2.7L Turbo engines with 200,000 + miles on them & still running strong, then maybe I'll be convinced that Chevy is onto something.

Until then, I'll steer clear of them.

 

I'm sure there will be plenty here who disagree with me, particularly those waiting to get there new 2023's.

That being said, I have longevity concerns about any 4 Cylinder engine, particularly in a truck.

Inline 4 cylinder or not, it's still just a 4 cylinder engine.

Then you throw forced induction into the equation, in the form of a turbo and those longevity concerns, grow exponentially.

When I hear of some these 2.7L engines with 200,000 + miles on them & still running strong, then maybe I'll be convinced that Chevy is onto something.

Until then, I'll steer clear of them.

While I understand the sentiment regarding new and first-run versions of critical components, I don't understand the logic behind an aversion to 4-cylinder systems simply due to their cyclinder count... The fact that it's four cylinders instead of six or eight (or ten or twelve) makes little difference to me if the number of cylinders and associated components are up to the structural task of getting the job done. In fact, from an engineering perspective, when you increase the number of critical components (without them serving solely in a redundancy capacity), you increase the statistical likelihood of a system failure (the likelihood of any single component remains constant while the addition of components increases the likelihood of overall system failure event).

So, while this fear of failure may reasonably apply to increasingly-complex systems due to the number of parts involved, I don't think it should be merely due to the fact that there are 4 cylinders instead of any other number.

 

This is a gross oversimplification...and in the case of the twins doesn't support your argument. The "New" 2.7L makes peak HP @6100 rpm and max torque @3000 rpm , whereas the outgoing 3.6L V6 has to scream to 6800 to make peak HP and 4000 rpm for max torque.

 

This was in reply to Gray Fox 19

 

I know there are a lot of teeth gnashing or worries about the 2.7L in the mid-size twins, but if it has survived in a Silverado, it should be okay in a Colorado.

That said, I drove an hour away, past several dealerships, to find my Silverado with a 5.3L. I think the 2.7L is a much better match to the Colorado/Canyon than the Silverado/Sierra. My lack of enthusiasm for the 3rd Gens is some of the tech on board seems like a step in the wrong direction and the gas mileage does not seem to be what I would have expected.

 

All this thread is doing is making me want to drive my ZR2.

Stop it. I don't have it yet.

 

I would trust a motor built for a truck much more than i trust a v6 built for a sedan that is used in a truck. The 3.6 was designed for cadillac sedans etc. it revs very high, dual overhead cams, cyl deactivation etc. The 2.7 was engineered for trucks, and should be way better in a light duty truck than the car v6 that was in the previous gen.

 

The 3.6 was designed for cadillac sedans etc. it revs very high, dual overhead cams, cyl deactivation etc.

2.7 also has those, though it doesn’t req the rpm.

If you are going to change an engine it should be better than the old engine. The output is in the same ballpark as the v6. I didn't mind the 4 cylinder at all. I was looking forward to it. Usually the 4 cylinder means that it will get better gas mileage. Maybe even much better gas mileage, but the 2.7 gets worse mpg than the 3.6 similarly equipped. Not even the same, but worse, In the full size it gets worse than the 5.3. It makes no sense. 2.7L seems more complicated than the 3.6L and turbos are usually more problematic than naturally aspirated engines. I'm afraid GM is steering all available resources to electric vehicle development and they are half assing it with gas vehicles. The 2.7L must be $0.10 cheaper to produce.

The hp may be the same, but the tq is in a different league, and both are achieved at lower rpm than the 6.

 

If you are going to change an engine it should be better than the old engine. The output is in the same ballpark as the v6. I didn't mind the 4 cylinder at all. I was looking forward to it. Usually the 4 cylinder means that it will get better gas mileage. Maybe even much better gas mileage, but the 2.7 gets worse mpg than the 3.6 similarly equipped. Not even the same, but worse, In the full size it gets worse than the 5.3. It makes no sense. 2.7L seems more complicated than the 3.6L and turbos are usually more problematic than naturally aspirated engines. I'm afraid GM is steering all available resources to electric vehicle development and they are half assing it with gas vehicles. The 2.7L must be $0.10 cheaper to produce.

 

If you are going to change an engine it should be better than the old engine

It is better. The new engine meets increased emission standards and the old engines don't. That's why all manufacturers are going to high compression small displacement or electric. They have been left with no choice by government regulators. But it is strange that fact continues to get ignored in all of these posts on every thread, even after it has been mentioned.