Drivetrain, frame and suspension all play big roles in towing capacity. It's not just about what engine option has more oomf.

 

Do those change with engine choice?

 

Most likely it's the old adage "there's no replacement for displacement"
That aluminum 2.7 would probably not be able to sustain it's life expediency under the full load of 7900lbs.

 

If there's more horsepower and torque, it could be to protect the transmission which is often the weak link.

 

I think that’s it. Other features may or may not change with engine choice, but the tran often, if not always, changes to match the engine. Though the other guys all make valid points.

 

Yeah, the reading and video of that engine are very interesting. A very complex system though. Supposedly, Chevy put it through some rigorous testing before putting it in their flagship. I think it’s also in a Caddy now. GM 2.7 Liter I-4 Turbo L3B Engine

 

Yeah, the reading and video of that engine are very interesting. A very complex system though. Supposedly, Chevy put it through some rigorous testing before putting it in their flagship. I think it’s also in a Caddy now. GM 2.7 Liter I-4 Turbo L3B Engine

That's the pro/con of a turbo. They do a lot with a lot less and get better torque and mpg but when they fail the bill is high...
The old Saab days of bad turbos(read that as a fine line between no boost and pretty much full boost herky-jerky driving) are pretty much gone. My VW Jetta drives almost like it isn't even a turbo...

 

Turbo (gas) engines really are pretty great for performance. I had a 2.0 Chevrolet turbo motor back in 2008 (HHR SS) and it amazed me how strong it pulled and throttle response was great. I am still not sold on a small gasoline turbo for towing though, I think pulling up a long grade under continuous boost has really got to be hard on the engine. My brother is on his 3rd set of turbos for his BMW and our neighbor got a completely new motor under warranty on his BMW. My wife has owned BMW 3 series and got over 200,000 trouble free miles on each one, but her new car is a CX-5 since she could not get a non-turbo BMW.

 

That's BMW though, those turbos have been known to fail for years, over tuned for performance maybe?

The only concern I have heard about GMs turbos is the extreme climate of the prairies (Northern Midwest states up through Alberta, Saskatchewan, Parts of Manitoba) may cause the lines to freeze causing a blowout under boost but even that is rare now with the better tech that is thrown in the vehicle.

I had a 2016 Equinox company car and it had the 4-cyl turbo. It ran very strong and was a blast to drive even though it was a soccer mom car. It would flat out leave my 3.6 Colorado in the dust.......

2016 Equinoxs had a NA 2.4L I4... it was also known for snapping its timing chain

 

Don’t forget about cooling capacity. More loading means more heat production and greater cooling needs. With two less cylinders helping out it’s got to work a lot harder and just might not have the cooling capacity to sustain pulling a heavier load.

 

This ^^. There's a really interesting article on this topic for the Jeep Gladiator and how towing capacity is so much higher than a Wrangler despite the same engine and transmission written by a former engineer who worked on the Wrangler's cooling systems: The Engineering Behind the Jeep Gladiator's Tow Rating, and Why the Diesel Will Tow Less

 

Yes the drive line weakness in some areas do to the increase of the torque and added heat.

The torque is not only greater but lower down in the RPM range with a flat curve. Transmissions, drive shafts and rear diffs can fail.

Heat from the added Hp along with the turbo can affect things like engine oil temps.

The Mai. Problem is the emissions on the &.3 are about as good as they will get. The 4 with less displacment and higher efficiency is cleaner so GM had to make the change.

The goal of these smaller 4 valve engines is to reach better emissions. The Turbo makes them more powerful with less emissions too.

I was never a turbo guy as most of them in the 70’s and 80’s were poorly built. Failures were common. Today they are very good and failures are not as they used to be.

My neighbor just lost a Turbo on his. Cruze. It had 250,000 miles and never had hand other issues. Note these were hard miles too.

The Turbo I owned was great for 10 years and 9 of them were at 23 psi of boost. The engine was up to the task but the transaxle had to have power limits Of 300 hp and 315 ft lbs to live. The same engine in the Solstice with a better tranny got 340 FT Lbs.

 

GM stats are subject to change up to and even after the model is introduced, so those listed may or may not be the actual end product numbers.

 

Case in point, @rotaryenginepete’s video claims 7200#.

There's a really interesting article on this topic for the Jeep Gladiator and how towing capacity is so much higher than a Wrangler despite the same engine and transmission written by a former engineer who worked on the Wrangler's cooling systems

Hopefully GM can make similar gains when they go from the Silverado to the smaller Colorado system.

 

There's a lot of wild speculation up there, but (here's my own speculation) I think hyperv6 is closest. Heat and stress. A smaller, high strung engine at its limits may outperform a bigger, lazier engine in the short term, but the it'll grenade way sooner. I'm sure the 2.7L can out tow the V6, just not for very long. GM has warranties to service.

 

There's a lot of wild speculation up there, but (here's my own speculation) I think hyperv6 is closest. Heat and stress. A smaller, high strung engine at its limits may outperform a bigger, lazier engine in the short term, but the it'll grenade way sooner. I'm sure the 2.7L can out tow the V6, just not for very long. GM has warranties to service.

They may run with more power and heat but shorter lives are not always a sure thing.

The Eco tech engine was built to take a lot. I knew John Lingenfelter and when he was driving a Pro Stock truck with an Eco he was getting 1400 HP out of a stock block and head before they cracked the heads. He had to run them as no one made a racing head.

The Solstice Drifting program ran a 500 HP Eco 2.0 for an entire season with only replacing the rotating assembly and adding a larger turbo. GM produced several books on how to build these engines and how much power they could take before breaking.

In the past the T type Buick V6 Turbo and the T bird Turbo 4 had major issues and short lives as they were not built correctly. GM and Ford tried to use stock engines with add on turbo systems. GM did not get it right till they added the water cooled Turbo housing on the GN. Before that the turbo would coke up at 35,000 miles. This would block the oil to the turbo and kill it.

Today the oils and materials the turbos are built of are now much better. Even the engines now are built to a much higher and stronger level. Then add in the oil cooling on the pistons and the direct injection on the engine that cools the cylinder the they are built to take the abuse.

In fact the 2.0 Turbo eco I had share little with the 2.5 eco as it used a special head and block. Rods were similar to the old GM forged Pink Rods.

From what I have read on the 2.7 is that GM also did the all in approach here too.

Just keep in mind that GM and others are building many more Turbo 4 and now 3 cylinders than V8 and V6 engines and we are not seeing massive failure rates. The two negatives to the turbo is added cost and added parts that could fail. But in the long run it is the only option to meet emissions as they are running out of cylinders to drop and not enough valves to get enough air for efficient burns. They are spending more just to meet regulations not to be turbo cool.

 

I had a 2016 Equinox company car and it had the 4-cyl turbo. It ran very strong and was a blast to drive even though it was a soccer mom car. It would flat out leave my 3.6 Colorado in the dust.......

 

I'm thinking you had a 3.6 in it.

 

The 2.7 turbo engine tow rating in the 2021 Silverado has been increased dramatically, to upwards of 9000 lb as per 2021 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Adds New Multi-Flex Tailgate and Trailering Enhancements

The stated reasoning is that the cooling performance of the 2.7 turbo ended up being better than expected, but I wouldn't put it past GM to have made some smaller running changes which also improved the rating.

 

As said, cooling and other things. Driveline setup, how they allow it to be rigged all come into play as well.

The 2.0 in the equinox is acceptable... the 1.5 turbo in my sister's is abysmal at best. And I broke it within an hour of her owning it. (Blew the charge pipe clean off the throttle body. That was a fun one.)

My cousin has a 16 Malibu with the 2.0t and tune. That's a fun car but it still never had the... well I guess power band that I expected. Up top always felt soft but it was pretty snappy off the line and mid band. You know... mainly when you want it.

The 3.6 never disappointed me. The diesel was a little on the slow side for me but had I been doing primarily towing I'd have went that route.

Long and short, the rest of the segment dictates what will go into it. If you ever look at full and mid sized vehicles all the oems kind of fall in line with really close power, braking, 0-60 and quarter mile times. Last I had checked the 3.6 was actually the quickest of the bunch in real world tests like passing and merging but that was a while ago now. Whatever turbo engine goes into the next generation will probably end up being a smidgen better across the board in every category as can be seen in the trend with pretty much every vehicle GM builds. I'm sure it'll be just fine lol.

I'm planning to run this until it dies or I can't afford gas anymore. Depending on some circumstances one or the other may come faster.

 

I know this sounds old school but if I ever go full size again (as I always have in the past), it will be a V-8. I hope they still offer them that way for a long while.