Chevy Colorado & GMC Canyon banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,567 Posts
I'm curious to see how buyers will respond to this engine. Ford did a pretty good job of convincing its buyers they did not need a V8.


However, without more performance than a V8, and without a big improvement in fuel economy, will GM buyers go for an I4?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,407 Posts
Wow. . that is disappointing.

I've driven with my brother several times in his 2015 Ford F-150 with the twin turbo V6. On real world trips of +300 mile at 60 to 72 MPH he gets 22 to 24 MPG. Around town he gets 16 to 20 depending on winter/summer, traffic and road construction slow downs.


I would think the GM 2.7L I4 would do much better in the Twins.
As a comparison for the past 19 months and going through 2 winters, with the 3.6L LGZ I am getting 25 to 28MPG (26.4 AVG) highway. Around town I get 17 or so winter and 18 to 19MPG in summer and any weather over 35F.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,704 Posts
That's what happens when you try to make a gas do what diesel engines do. It probably has to be pushed pretty hard just to keep up. They should have just put the 2.8 Duramax in it and let buyers decide if they need mid size or full size. The problem is likely sales numbers as they can never convince enough people that diesel is better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
That's what happens when you try to make a gas do what diesel engines do. It probably has to be pushed pretty hard just to keep up. They should have just put the 2.8 Duramax in it and let buyers decide if they need mid size or full size. The problem is likely sales numbers as they can never convince enough people that diesel is better.
I think they also have an issue that they cannot produce enough 2.8L diesels to handle any significant Silverado demand.

I think that 2.7L would be sweet in our mid size trucks, sounds like not so good in the FS trucks. However, I also have to wonder if GM tuned it for the test like Ford does, or if GM tuned it more for real world performance.

How does the EPA handle testing for a vehicle with multiple modes? My wife's Nissan Rogue has a "regular" mode, a "ECO" mode, and a "SPORT" mode. Which one does the EPA use for their ratings?

The Rogue does well in the ECO mode, have set it there and never felt that i needed more power or response than the CVT provides in the Rogue. I have to say I am impressed with the CVT performance, only hope it lasts as long as a conventional transmission. Would be great if someone had a CVT that could handle towing requirements to drop into our trucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,704 Posts
I think they also have an issue that they cannot produce enough 2.8L diesels to handle any significant Silverado demand.

I think that 2.7L would be sweet in our mid size trucks, sounds like not so good in the FS trucks. However, I also have to wonder if GM tuned it for the test like Ford does, or if GM tuned it more for real world performance.

How does the EPA handle testing for a vehicle with multiple modes? My wife's Nissan Rogue has a "regular" mode, a "ECO" mode, and a "SPORT" mode. Which one does the EPA use for their ratings?

The Rogue does well in the ECO mode, have set it there and never felt that i needed more power or response than the CVT provides in the Rogue. I have to say I am impressed with the CVT performance, only hope it lasts as long as a conventional transmission. Would be great if someone had a CVT that could handle towing requirements to drop into our trucks.
My brother has a Rogue and is very impressed with it. His mileage is good but was quite amazing with the Altima he had before that. As for the 2.7, I agree that it seems like it would be a great choice in the twins for those who have to have a gas engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
Right engine, wrong truck. The 2.7 belongs in the twins, not the FS. It is in the boost too much to move that big flying brick of a truck on the highway. Relieved of all that weight and drag, that 2.7 should rock in the twins.

Interesting how the city and highway numbers are so close. The 20 MPG city number is competitive, suggesting the engine has no problem moving the mass of the truck. The low highway numbers speak of aerodynamic drag and having to be in the boost to overcome it, as FS trucks are big tall barn door things. Absent completely changing the profile of the vehicle, no amount of techo engine trickery will avert the inherent high drag nature of a FS truck. Admittedly in the minority out there in the FS truck dominated world, but I see "half ton" FS trucks as overwrought and way too big for no real purpose other than to be big to satisfy a style/statement desire (as opposed to functional considerations) for most of the owners who drive them.

The best they can do to boost economy in FS trucks is a diesel assisted by an electric hybrid drive during city driving, but that would cost stupid money. Going crazy with smoothing the airflow under the truck, like they do in sports cars, would likely help greatly, but trucks simply don't roll that way. Check out the detail to airflow management present on the underside of a C7 'Vette...
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
Displacing 2.7 liters, the long-stroke forced-induction inline-four is an all-new unit that General Motors said was designed specifically for truck applications. It packs a solid punch with 310 horsepower and 348 lb-ft of torque-just 35 lb-ft shy of the optional 5.3-liter V-8-that is available from as low as 1500 rpm and continues to 4000 revs. The engine is paired exclusively with an eight-speed automatic transmission.


key words 'all new' sounds like disaster to me same as the 1st 2 years with the twins in various issues



as for epa rating my vehicles have always been right on with the combined mpg number
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
Well I suspect there is more in play than we know here. Here are some things to consider as possibilities.

1. The 4 may not be here for gas MPG as much as it is for emission over the 4.3. I saw where a GM engineer stated that the two valve engines will go away at some point and it will be emission not MPG that will kill them. Regulations are only going to get tougher.

2. It could be that the future will hold a hybrid system that will be used with this. The GM truck chassis was designed for more than ICE engines according to the engineers. Ram already has one. We are only at the beginning of this truck line with much more to come.

3. I think this group will understand this one more than anymore. The new engine may be more refined and better suited to deal with DI and other issues. We saw the old 3.6 for two years with all its issues like timing chains, The need for catch cans and carbon, the lack of AFM and lack of other advanced and improved features. We did not gain much in HP and nothing in MPG but we got a better new engine that is used in a great number of vehicles. It features many more refinements and fixes. We may have not gained more power or MPG but we got a much better engine.

We all have speculated along with many others on the web the 2.7 will find its way to our trucks at some point. The 4.3 was never going to come here.

Lets face it the 4.3 has been nearing the end and has vanished from many applications. This engine has a possible future in a number of vehicles. With it being low volume compared to the V8 it needs to be viable for a more vehicles.

There are more possibilities that play into this and they do not play on MPG. I am not saying any one of these are the direct thing but they are possibilities and we just might need to keep an open mind and just wait to see where this goes.

One thing I have read is those who have driven the 4 at the intro were not told what it was and were impressed with the drive-ability of the engine. We may need to wait for more details on this compared to the 4.3 as it was ok but never a spectacular engine. unless it was fleet or someone looking to get a cheap truck most opted for the V8 anyways.

This engine in our trucks at worst case with 4500 pounds should bump these numbers up a little and that would be a jump over the present V6.

Also my last 5 GM cars got better MPG than listed too. GM numbers are generally not hard to better as they appear Conservative. Not a ton better but a few. My Canyon in the last 3400 miles just jumped to 20.3 MPG on secondary roads here. My Acadia highway is showing 21 City and 31 Highway. Both are better than listed numbers. We may see that here with many owners too.

For now I am just going to keep an open mind and see just how this plays out. I suspect there is more to come that may clear this up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,475 Posts
One thing that bothers me, with AFM, the big 6.2 V8 actually is less working displacement at cruising speeds than the 2.7.

I would like to see the 2.7 in a twin though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
While I'm definitely disappointed I want to see TFL review as they have done a stellar job of reviews in general, but also unbiased testing information. I think towing and highway real world results will reflect differently than the EPA. My ZR2 is rated for 17 combined and 18 highway. I regularly get 21 on the highway and mixed usage is about 18.5. My best highway is 23 mpg. But ideal conditions are hard to come by. Usually GM does a better job of real world results. You also have to keep in mind the EPA drive cycle really doesn't allow AFM to take advantage in most of the cycle. This means depending on your pedal input you can really stretch out the economy.

I definitely want to see results in the midsize when/if it comes as the fit looks much better. If the EPA numbers are legit from GM and everything checks out then it will be hard to see why you would buy the 2.7L for any other reason than it being cheaper than the 5.3L V8. I think the only advantage it has at this point to the 4.3L is that it drives like a V8 and costs like the V6 it replaces.

Time will tell though....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
One thing that bothers me, with AFM, the big 6.2 V8 actually is less working displacement at cruising speeds than the 2.7.

I would like to see the 2.7 in a twin though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From what I have read, the 2.7 has a sophisticated version of an AFM that actually can have it running on 2 cylinders, so to speak.

I would think if you can get 20 city with a FS, then the MS trucks should be able to get 21 - 22 MPG city easy with 500 pounds less weight. With the more aerodynamic (narrower, shorter) design, maybe 25 - 27 MPG highway, maybe more. The combined should be close to 24 MPG, if not better.

Down side to the 2.7 is that it does incorporate Stop/Start tech.

Just did a quick check, and understand this may not be a good number, but it looks like the Silverado is shedding about 300 pounds from 2018 to 2019.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,567 Posts
W
We all have speculated along with many others on the web the 2.7 will find its way to our trucks at some point. The 4.3 was never going to come here.

Lets face it the 4.3 has been nearing the end and has vanished from many applications. This engine has a possible future in a number of vehicles. With it being low volume compared to the V8 it needs to be viable for a more vehicles.

Just some thoughts going through my head....



When the 2015 Canyon came out, many posters here questioned why GM went with the 3.6L "car" engine instead of the 4.3L "truck" engine.



When I was shopping for a 2018 Sierra, it seemed the 4.3L was not very common in the 4x4 double cab trucks I was looking at. My local dealer did not even have one to test drive, and I was not willing to go out of my way to get it. So, I happily took a truck with the 5.3L V8. The 4.3L is offered in GM's Savana van, but I'm not sure how many of those vans get the 4.3L. I suspect the 6.0L is the more popular engine.



I'm not so sure the 2.7L will come to the midsize pickups. If it does, will it be a premium engine upgrade offered above the 3.6L? Would it replace the 3.6L?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
From what I have read, the 2.7 has a sophisticated version of an AFM that actually can have it running on 2 cylinders, so to speak.

I would think if you can get 20 city with a FS, then the MS trucks should be able to get 21 - 22 MPG city easy with 500 pounds less weight. With the more aerodynamic (narrower, shorter) design, maybe 25 - 27 MPG highway, maybe more. The combined should be close to 24 MPG, if not better.

Down side to the 2.7 is that it does incorporate Stop/Start tech.

Just did a quick check, and understand this may not be a good number, but it looks like the Silverado is shedding about 300 pounds from 2018 to 2019.
I think they quoted about 400 lbs, but yes significantly lower. I will say they drive quite nimbly like our Colorado. Was very surprised by that. Was easy to maneuver and the 2.7L had pickup akin to the 5.3L V8. Should be an interesting case moving forward for both full size and mid size. I did see a customer owned Trail Boss yesterday and it has me contemplating a future purchase; they look much better in person than any picture I've seen online.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
...
I'm not so sure the 2.7L will come to the midsize pickups. If it does, will it be a premium engine upgrade offered above the 3.6L? Would it replace the 3.6L?
I don't think the MS volumes can support 4 engine options.

Assuming there is a cost variable to each engine, I think you will see the 4 cyl NA gasser, the 4 cyl turbo gasser, and the diesel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
Just some thoughts going through my head....



When the 2015 Canyon came out, many posters here questioned why GM went with the 3.6L "car" engine instead of the 4.3L "truck" engine.



When I was shopping for a 2018 Sierra, it seemed the 4.3L was not very common in the 4x4 double cab trucks I was looking at. My local dealer did not even have one to test drive, and I was not willing to go out of my way to get it. So, I happily took a truck with the 5.3L V8. The 4.3L is offered in GM's Savana van, but I'm not sure how many of those vans get the 4.3L. I suspect the 6.0L is the more popular engine.



I'm not so sure the 2.7L will come to the midsize pickups. If it does, will it be a premium engine upgrade offered above the 3.6L? Would it replace the 3.6L?
We never were told why no 4.3 but there are a number of reasons that could be put forth. I have owned two and to be honest I was glad they did not use it just based on my experience. Not a bad engine but far from great.

The 4.3 is not a popular option. Most times it may be found in fleet company trucks. My co worker has a SLE GMC extra cab and they gave him a really good deal on it. Well he traded it for a V8 to fix what he termed was a mistake.

Well no one is sure if the 2.7 is coming to the mid size. There are a number of reason that could be used to give it a good shot.

As would it replace the V6? It very well could if it were to come. GM has cut the V6 from a number of vehicles of late and made them 4 cylinder only. At Chevy they have killed the V6 in the Equinox and Malibu. They are even pushing it in the Traverse. If they should kill the Impala they would not even offer a V6 in a sedan. So there is a trend to 4 cylinders at Chevy and GM.

It would be interesting if we had access to the numbers for production cost and emissions to see just what all they are facing. A number of things we do not have open to us could be in play here.

My bet is the 2.7 will make it to the mid size. I just do not see enough volume in the full size to support the engine on its own so GM will need another home and the mid size would be a good place to land volume wise.

I do not see it for the present truck but the next gen is not far out and it would be a good place for it. They also could engineer the truck to the engine and possibly create more weight savings by dedicating it to the 4 cylinder only.

My gut says no V6 in the mid size. The savings of weight and cost would be in play with no reduction in HP and gains in torque.

Who knows a lot could happen. I am shocked Ford has no V6 to this point so nothing is impossible as companies are looking at all options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
I really dislike turbocharged gas engines. I hate turbo lag. Anytime you put a small engine with turbos, you are gonna feel turbo lag. I'll take a N/A engine every time over a Turbo one.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top