Chevy Colorado & GMC Canyon banner

41 - 52 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,663 Posts
Discussion Starter #41
...

Either way you have to remember the 2.7L was designed to replace the V6 and it beats city mileage by 3 mpg and 1 mpg on the highway. Sure, it's not what everyone was expecting in terms of overall EPA rating, but 20/23 is pretty respectable for a very large truck with all your comfort features.
And in line with your argument, could we expect a significant improvement in MPGs with our smaller profile trucks?

...

GM does not speak of it but if given the numbers I wager the new engine is a lot cleaner than the 4.3 V6. It may also be cheaper to build than the 3.6.

We just need to think of the other factors they face. It is not always just mpg.
Cost is always paramount in any bean counter's approach to manufacturing. Why would you think the new engine is cheaper to build than the 3.6L? I would think that a NA V6 would be cheaper to build than a turbo 4 cyl: 2 spark plugs, 2 wires, and a few other pretty standard parts versus a fancy turbo? I don't have a clue on the cost comparison.

I'd also be interested in the weight comparison? It is 80 pounds lighter than the 4.3L. Sounds like the 3.6 and the turbo are pretty much a wash on weight if my numbers are correct.

...They clarified the numbers were all done on regular.

...

I would not be surprised for it in out trucks. There is more than enough room and GM is going to need to leverage it out some place. I have not seen it was engineered for any FWD applications so the mid size truck would be a natural home.

...
I have no experience with turbos, but regular fuel is important to me. It used to be there was a nickel difference or so between grades of gasoline. When gas prices shot up to $4 per gallon, the price differential was bumped up to $0.20 between regular and mid-level, and another $0.20 bump to top grade. Made since at $4 per gallon fuel. When gas prices dropped, they kept the same $0.20 offsets. The differences should be a % as far as I understand the refinery business, so they are making a bundle off premium gas sales.

I am with hyperv6 on this being a good fit for our trucks. If there is a universe where it works for the FS, then it should work great on our mid-size trucks.

I an not interested in improving the tow rating on our trucks, I think if you want to tow more than the current limits of our trucks, you need a FS truck. But improved performance in towing a medium size trailer with improved MPGs? That would be great.

I think that my new truck plans will be for the 3rd gen trucks when they come out, by then who knows what will be the powerplant? If I had to replace my truck tomorrow, I would get another twin. I might peek at the Ranger, but I think I would pass. In 2021/2022, I should have a couple of new trucks to consider, and lots of pressure on the manufacturers to make some great improvements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
I would expect a large improvement in city, as for highway that really depends on the drag of the truck (I highly doubt the current gen will get it, so that's an even larger unknown), but I think it would translate to better mpg. It has AFM as well, low lift and high lift in a much lighter exoskeleton. The big winner in my books is the ability to maintain top gear at highway speeds without downshifting due to the ability to create more torque at that speed. Seeing as the silverado has an 8 speed I bet the twins will come with an 8 speed too. That would place the rpm's exactly as the LGZ is, so highway speeds would have the ability to create max torque in top gear. This allows you to stay in the most efficient BSFC area.

As for fueling, I stated it before, but this engine is 100% validated on regular fuel. So all the concerns regarding gas pricing should be subsided. I came from a premium required car and that was 1 large reason I switched over. This continues to offer best in class using regular. That said with the Ranger I highly doubt their numbers are certified on 87 pump; it is probably premium recommended to get the high ratings. The mustang is like this as well, so really their HP is less than quoted and their torque may suffer, but that really depends (the mustang is quoted as not deteriorating the tq on 87, but it's lighter too).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
My experience with Fords are they calibrate to pass EPA but real world numbers are far from replicable. While GM more or less exceeds EPA number if not hitting them on the head.

The one thing the 2.7L does is drive more like a diesel. You have torque everywhere.

My two cents is to wait and see what real world numbers TFL is getting while towing and not towing. I have a feeling it’s under rated due to the EPA’s unrealistic drive cycle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Funny you say that, because that’s how experiences are, different for everyone. We have driven three recent Fords (and owned two) that exceed their ratings, including two eco boost (all cars though), while my truck can’t hit its epa highway number unless I’m going 55mph downhill. And a Malibu I drove for a bit was similar in that regard. Still love the truck though.

Meanwhile my old 97 V8 still hits the epa #s from 97. And it doesn’t care what speed I’m going either, never has. Engine doesn’t make today’s wow power numbers, but for everyday driving, not pedal to the floor, it’s my favorite motor.

In short, totally agree on waiting to see what it does real world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,015 Posts
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?
I doubt the different modes are anything but the throttle's sensitivity. Just like using a Pedal Commander. Unless of course the car has a suspension system that changes too. So I'm thinking no EPA difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,873 Posts
And in line with your argument, could we expect a significant improvement in MPGs with our smaller profile trucks?

Cost is always paramount in any bean counter's approach to manufacturing. Why would you think the new engine is cheaper to build than the 3.6L? I would think that a NA V6 would be cheaper to build than a turbo 4 cyl: 2 spark plugs, 2 wires, and a few other pretty standard parts versus a fancy turbo? I don't have a clue on the cost comparison.

I'd also be interested in the weight comparison? It is 80 pounds lighter than the 4.3L. Sounds like the 3.6 and the turbo are pretty much a wash on weight if my numbers are correct.

I have no experience with turbos, but regular fuel is important to me. It used to be there was a nickel difference or so between grades of gasoline. When gas prices shot up to $4 per gallon, the price differential was bumped up to $0.20 between regular and mid-level, and another $0.20 bump to top grade. Made since at $4 per gallon fuel. When gas prices dropped, they kept the same $0.20 offsets. The differences should be a % as far as I understand the refinery business, so they are making a bundle off premium gas sales.

I am with hyperv6 on this being a good fit for our trucks. If there is a universe where it works for the FS, then it should work great on our mid-size trucks.

I an not interested in improving the tow rating on our trucks, I think if you want to tow more than the current limits of our trucks, you need a FS truck. But improved performance in towing a medium size trailer with improved MPGs? That would be great.

I think that my new truck plans will be for the 3rd gen trucks when they come out, by then who knows what will be the powerplant? If I had to replace my truck tomorrow, I would get another twin. I might peek at the Ranger, but I think I would pass. In 2021/2022, I should have a couple of new trucks to consider, and lots of pressure on the manufacturers to make some great improvements.
The 2.7 I would expect to be marginally cheaper just do to content and the amount of materials. The block is smaller, less pistons. two less cams and related valve train hardware etc. It may not be much but over a number of engines in production it adds up.

The Regular fuel is important in normal vehicles as premium only does scare off buyers. If you really add up the additional cost on a 4 cylinder it is small but still scares off the buyers. Chevy fumed that the Monte SS got the Premium only 3800SC while Pontiac got the gen III that was premium required. The brand manager had a real fight over it in the Monte and Impala and lost.

The thing I have noted with many of the new engines most can and will beat the posted MPG at least at GM. Often it is how you drive.

When I learned that getting off the throttle with a DI engine shuts off fuel I tried it. My MPG went up. Many of us have the habit of keeping the foot a little on the gas and that keep the fuel flowing. Results may vary on engine and model it is in too.

But with that said like most MPG listing state "your results may vary". Add in where you live, the time of year and weather etc all along with driving habits we all can see different results.

But it matters little what numbers we see. The only ones that count are the numbers the MPG gets with the Government test.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,663 Posts
Discussion Starter #46
...

When I learned that getting off the throttle with a DI engine shuts off fuel I tried it. My MPG went up. Many of us have the habit of keeping the foot a little on the gas and that keep the fuel flowing. Results may vary on engine and model it is in too.

...
I noticed that too, but I thought I was just crazy. Driving style could really influence MPGs with that little trick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,873 Posts
I noticed that too, but I thought I was just crazy. Driving style could really influence MPGs with that little trick.
With my Eco i saw a jump of a 1-2 MPG with the tune that added 55 HP. I had assumed mpg would go down.

The GM engineer who was in charge of the tune program told me it was a real unintended gain. I asked how. He said it was the DI.

He said getting up to speed faster with the added torque gets me off the gas sooner. This kills the fuel and increased the MPG on DI engines.

I have since tried it since on my other DI engines and that is how I have seen my best MPG and not trying hard to save mpg.

Also it does not work if you go into neutral.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
I noticed that too, but I thought I was just crazy. Driving style could really influence MPGs with that little trick.
With my Eco i saw a jump of a 1-2 MPG with the tune that added 55 HP. I had assumed mpg would go down.

The GM engineer who was in charge of the tune program told me it was a real unintended gain. I asked how. He said it was the DI.

He said getting up to speed faster with the added torque gets me off the gas sooner. This kills the fuel and increased the MPG on DI engines.

I have since tried it since on my other DI engines and that is how I have seen my best MPG and not trying hard to save mpg.

Also it does not work if you go into neutral.
Try to explain accelerating like that to people around here... they are more likely to get mad at you for being “unsafe and reckless”. How dare I hit 30mph in under 3 miles. But yes, even before DI, years ago it was found on average accelerating to 60 in (iirc) 10-12 seconds and then maintaining speed was the most fuel efficient way to drive. That isn’t slow at all. Of course, you don’t do this between stop signs, but the principle is there. Coast whenever you can, brake as little as you can.

I wonder if the above applies with the turbo motors, or if staying out of the boost helps more?

Apples to apples is cruise control on the interstate, since the manufacturer controls the programming. All I have to do is set the speed. That’s where personally I have had GM vehicles not hit the number, no problem around town. But I have limited experience so glad some are seeing better!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,663 Posts
Discussion Starter #49
With my Eco i saw a jump of a 1-2 MPG with the tune that added 55 HP. I had assumed mpg would go down.

The GM engineer who was in charge of the tune program told me it was a real unintended gain. I asked how. He said it was the DI.

He said getting up to speed faster with the added torque gets me off the gas sooner. This kills the fuel and increased the MPG on DI engines.

I have since tried it since on my other DI engines and that is how I have seen my best MPG and not trying hard to save mpg.

Also it does not work if you go into neutral.
Try to explain accelerating like that to people around here... they are more likely to get mad at you for being “unsafe and reckless”. How dare I hit 30mph in under 3 miles. But yes, even before DI, years ago it was found on average accelerating to 60 in (iirc) 10-12 seconds and then maintaining speed was the most fuel efficient way to drive. That isn’t slow at all. Of course, you don’t do this between stop signs, but the principle is there. Coast whenever you can, brake as little as you can.

I wonder if the above applies with the turbo motors, or if staying out of the boost helps more?

Apples to apples is cruise control on the interstate, since the manufacturer controls the programming. All I have to do is set the speed. That’s where personally I have had GM vehicles not hit the number, no problem around town. But I have limited experience so glad some are seeing better!
I remember, back in about 1980, I took an infernal (internal) combustion engines course as part of my Mechanical Engineering degree. Even back then, the professor spoke of getting up to speed and the higher gears faster was the most economical way to drive. We didn't have fuel injection back in those days on passenger vehicles.

I find that cruise control tends to hurt my mileage, because whereas I will feather my foot on the gas up & down overpasses, the cruise is constantly forcing a downshift.

On the 2015 V6 with the 6 speed transmission, best MPGs are achieved if you can keep your foot out of it and keep RPMs under 2000, in general.

I might have to learn a totally new way to drive with a turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,873 Posts
Try to explain accelerating like that to people around here... they are more likely to get mad at you for being “unsafe and reckless”. How dare I hit 30mph in under 3 miles. But yes, even before DI, years ago it was found on average accelerating to 60 in (iirc) 10-12 seconds and then maintaining speed was the most fuel efficient way to drive. That isn’t slow at all. Of course, you don’t do this between stop signs, but the principle is there. Coast whenever you can, brake as little as you can.

I wonder if the above applies with the turbo motors, or if staying out of the boost helps more?

Apples to apples is cruise control on the interstate, since the manufacturer controls the programming. All I have to do is set the speed. That’s where personally I have had GM vehicles not hit the number, no problem around town. But I have limited experience so glad some are seeing better!
No this was not a major launch here. The torque increase just got it up to speed and through the gears faster.

Yes it was a turbo that is why the tune added so much power and torque. The torque was 315 FT LBS up from 235 FT LBS in first and second gear.

This is why many MFGs want to use constant velocity transmissions as they can keep the RPM more constant. Just these transmission can not take much power. They are better than they were but not ready for all engines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,873 Posts
I remember, back in about 1980, I took an infernal (internal) combustion engines course as part of my Mechanical Engineering degree. Even back then, the professor spoke of getting up to speed and the higher gears faster was the most economical way to drive. We didn't have fuel injection back in those days on passenger vehicles.

I find that cruise control tends to hurt my mileage, because whereas I will feather my foot on the gas up & down overpasses, the cruise is constantly forcing a downshift.

On the 2015 V6 with the 6 speed transmission, best MPGs are achieved if you can keep your foot out of it and keep RPMs under 2000, in general.

I might have to learn a totally new way to drive with a turbo.
To be honest many of these new engines you need to learn to do things a little different. Turbo have their own characteristics just as the DOHC and V8.

When i got my first 3.6 i was disappointed in the performance till I realized you just need to rev it. The engine was made for RPM and that is how you need to drive it. V8 just lumbers around and dies at the higher RPM but is not as clean with out much help.

The Turbo engines are now being engineered for flat torque curves with the added compression, higher boost and VVT with DI. Turbos respond well with DI as it cools the cylinder even more hence more boost with lower fuel octane.

There is even more to this with the computer programming, engine management and all the other things they are adding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,663 Posts
Discussion Starter #52
...
This is why many MFGs want to use constant velocity transmissions as they can keep the RPM more constant. Just these transmission can not take much power. They are better than they were but not ready for all engines.
My wife's Rogue has a CVT. Rated for 1000 pounds towing, I would never consider towing anything. I started to add a receiver for our bike rack, but wife's health is such she gave her bicycle to our granddaughter, so I don't seem many bike trips in our future.

The CVT does really make fora smooth drive. If I keep it under 60 MPH, I can beat the 33 MPG EPA rating. If someone could build one of these to handle our requirements, it would be sweet.
 
41 - 52 of 52 Posts
Top