2019 Silverado new engine 2.7l turbo 4 cylinder

[Zee09]

Originally Posted By: Rat407
Yeah, this reminded me of the old Quad 4, but that only had 150hp and 155lbft of torque.


That was a disaster wasn't it?

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Hmmmm... After all these years of belittling Ford for using turbocharged V6's in their trucks, GM will be the first with a 4 cylinder...

HP wise it is comparable to the Ford 2.7 (310 hp vs 325 hp for the Ford), but the torque is lower (348 ft-lbs versus 400 ft-lbs for the F150). It will be interesting to see if that difference is perceptible.

I'm sure it drives just fine with the torque coming on quickly and staying on...

I know I am pleased with the 2.7 in my F150 - I'd buy another one in a heartbeat...

Lets never forget the turbo Corvair !

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: Rat407
Man this thing is going to be interesting on how it performs and handles oil.

Not sure what is up with the chain drive at the rear of the engine. Looks like it drives the oil pump. To me just another item to wear out and have to pull the tranny to replace. I wonder what the sump capacity will be and what size spin on filter it will take.

So much for aftermarket headers and bigger turbos with the integrated exhaust manifold.

New 2.7L turbo 4 cylinder in the 2019 Silverado

Does the integrated exhaust manifold include the turbine housing? I'm fairly certain it doesn't, and with some creative machining, you can fit a larger turbo.

 

[GoobSoCold]

The thing that puzzles me is this: GM and Ford worked together on the 10 speed automatic. Ford uses it in almost all the F150's. GM is using 6, 8 and 10 speeds. Only the top of the line 6.2 comes with the 10 speed. Wouldn't it simplify production and help MPG to use the 10 speed in all Silverado models?

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Originally Posted By: Rat407
Man this thing is going to be interesting on how it performs and handles oil.

Not sure what is up with the chain drive at the rear of the engine. Looks like it drives the oil pump. To me just another item to wear out and have to pull the tranny to replace. I wonder what the sump capacity will be and what size spin on filter it will take.

So much for aftermarket headers and bigger turbos with the integrated exhaust manifold.

New 2.7L turbo 4 cylinder in the 2019 Silverado

Does the integrated exhaust manifold include the turbine housing? I'm fairly certain it doesn't, and with some creative machining, you can fit a larger turbo.


No, the turbine housing is part of the turbo, but it is a unique design that has twin volutes that are separate all the way until they feed the wheel 180 degrees apart.

 

[Warlord]

I wonder if this will be a 100k mile motor like the ecoboosts? Seems like it’s getting harder and harder to find a vehicle designed with the long term owner in mind.

 

[nthach]

The displacement of that engine is very reminiscent of the Porsche 944's 3.0L I4 - a oversquare engine that was a torque monster. That new GM turbo I4 is a very torque dense motor.

OT, but city buses were powered by Detroit Diesel Series 50 engines, basically a Series 60 with 2 cylinders lopped off. It was a 8.5L I4 that didn't have as much horsepower as a Cummins B/C engine, but it had a torque advantage.

 

[addyguy]

Wonder what it specs for oil?

0W-20 for max FE; or slightly thicker 5W-30 to help the DI/turbo combo survive?

 

[dareo]

4 big cylinders is cheaper to build than a v6. I would hope gm has this thing fully forged and bullet proof. Or else they will never live it down. Compare to my golf. 1.8 with 180ish 3000lb vs 2.7 with 300ish hp 4500lb and it seems like plenty of power to weight. That exhaust and cylinder head design is awesome. I still dont know id pass up the v8 though.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: beanoil
There is no replacement for displacement.
A turbo 4 in a full size truck.

Normally, I'd agree, but there are more than enough people driving trucks who are driving trucks that are always empty and never towing.

 

[Zee09]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: beanoil
There is no replacement for displacement.
A turbo 4 in a full size truck.

Normally, I'd agree, but there are more than enough people driving trucks who are driving trucks that are always empty and never towing.

I'd consider it as i have had great luck with their trucks
I could use something like this to tow 3500 pounds.
Here GM likes to give cheap leases on base models and it maybe a way
to feel one out if you are in the market for these.

 

[Cujet]

GM has had more than it's share of spectacular failures. I don't trust any of their new designs. I'm old enough to remember the constant string of failures from GM's V8 diesel, to sub standard camshaft hardness on the V8's to just a few years back with the constant intake manifold failures, leading to engine failures, the leaking fuel injector assy's under the intake manifold, the wiped out balancer chains and on and on and on.

This is not a bad idea, it has all the possibilities of modern technology. GM had better test and refine this design extensively before it goes public. Otherwise I fully expect another failure. There is something sour at GM.

My 2009 F150 4X4 SuperCrew with 5.4L only makes 310HP and it flat out ROCKS and is a real pleasure to drive such a smooth beast.

That much HP is more than enough regardless of how it's produced, add in GM's light weight body and it will absolutely be powerful enough. But I have to wonder just how pleasing a low RPM 4 cylinder is going to be. I also have a 2011 3.5 Ecoboost and dislike Ford's Ecoboost V6 sound. It's far less pleasant than the V8 and I find it annoying that is sounds like a UPS truck.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
That much HP is more than enough regardless of how it's produced, add in GM's light weight body and it will absolutely be powerful enough. But I have to wonder just how pleasing a low RPM 4 cylinder is going to be. I also have a 2011 3.5 Ecoboost and dislike Ford's Ecoboost V6 sound. It's far less pleasant than the V8 and I find it annoying that is sounds like a UPS truck.


Exactly my complaint about the 2.7 and 3.5 Ford Eboosters. My friends 2.7 will emit an occasional gasp or wheeze at the oddest times, and the overly muffled exhaust is only slightly better than the annoying drone of a V-6.

I wish GM would have done a small displacement V-8 engine with mild boost. Probably just too expensive...

 

[Whimsey]

Originally Posted By: Cujet

I also have a 2011 3.5 Ecoboost and dislike Ford's Ecoboost V6 sound. It's far less pleasant than the V8 and I find it annoying that is sounds like a UPS truck.


Our 2.3 4 cylinder EcoBoost 2017 Explorer sounds like the old fashioned heavy black Singer sewing machine my mother used 60+ years ago. When standing outside that's when you hear the "sewing machine" sounds. Inside it's nice and quiet thankfully. I've reached the stage of life where I'd rather have a quiet interior. This 2.3 EB is NOT lacking in power and returns good mpg considering the weight of the Explorer and the power of 280 HP and 320 ft lbs of torque.

Whimsey

 

[MNgopher]

Do I enjoy the sound of a V8 engine? Sure. Does the fact my 2.7 Ecoboost powered F150 sounds like a minivan at times feel odd? Yes. That being said, I long ago passed the point where the exhaust tone in the cabin was important to me, I'd rather enjoy quiet. And so I smile every time I drive my truck...

Fundamentally, there are groups of people who will never accept anything besides a V8 in a full size truck. To some, its about the sound. To others, its just the way it should be. This group will never understand or accept the concept of the smaller V6's or a 4 cylinder.

I'm just glad I had a choice to get what works well for me - a truck that an tow circles around my 2004 F150 with the 5.4 3V and that delivers 4.5 mpg better fuel mileage (31% better). I tolerate it not sounding like a V8, enjoy the performance, save money...

 

[Warlord]

Wouldn’t GM be better served using their 3.6 as the base engine much like Ram did with the pentastar? This just seems needlessly complicated. Plus they already have the modernized 4.3 which is a good truck engine.

 

[Malo83]

I'm sure somebody is working on a Tune for this engine

TRIFECTA.

 

[BeerCan]

In the 2.7 with the sliding cam, are there any other examples of engines using technology like this?

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: BeerCan
In the 2.7 with the sliding cam, are there any other examples of engines using technology like this?


This technology was originally developed in Europe. I think Audi was the first to use it.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Warlord
Wouldn’t GM be better served using their 3.6 as the base engine much like Ram did with the pentastar? This just seems needlessly complicated. Plus they already have the modernized 4.3 which is a good truck engine.


To me it all seems like such a big waste of corporate resources to develop something like the 2.7. It is coming to market years after Ford's 2.7L V6 Ecoboost, and has less power and torque. And fewer cylinders. Which would you rather have making 300+ HP in your $50,000 truck, a 4 or a 6 cylinder? GM already had the High Feature V6 3.0L twin turbo as the base engine in the Cadillac CT6. 400HP, 400 ft*lbs torque. That engine, detuned to ~360 HP, would have given GM a competitive advantage over Ford in the light truck market. With the 2.7L 4, I think they're a day late and a dollar short.