2.7 turbo in Silverado?

meep said:
my 2.7 eco has the 36 gallon tank. It’s not a crew cab but the extended cab. Seriously it’s not a truck I’d let a younger person drive - it has gobs of power - even for interstate passing it pulls, and absolutely will spin out say, in the rain if you goose it at 55, which is not good if an inexperienced driver gets over-excited in it. the engine seems stout; but as I’ve said before I’ve had a few hiccups with the transmission, and mine has leaked coolant at the turbo line o-rings.

with the Chevy 2.7, how is the torque? I mean, i don’t drive with a lead foot; I wanted the torque of the 2.7 for towing, at which it is Fabulous. The turbos do the work, and it pulls similarly to a small diesel. How does the Chevy do with a load behind it?
Click to expand...
The torque is impressive ...... this truck will most likely never tow any significant weight but the bed has a decked slide out platform and and our best attemp to weigh the amount of tools and wire is about 925lbs give or take

My other trucks are F250 thru F450 for towing so I'm used plenty of power and this truck does not disappoint I also have 2.7 tacoma and let me say this 2.7 vs 2.7 not even in the same solar system
 
I think the 2.7 might be a good choice for the average truck owner who does not use it like a truck...not that it probably can't work as hard as the V8 models but I think the better long term choice for working trucks is the 5.3 or 6.2. I also wouldn't want to be the test bed for the new motor as well but then again they might have the lifter issues figured out now lol
 
Braapdaddy said:
The torque is impressive ...... this truck will most likely never tow any significant weight but the bed has a decked slide out platform and and our best attemp to weigh the amount of tools and wire is about 925lbs give or take

My other trucks are F250 thru F450 for towing so I'm used plenty of power and this truck does not disappoint I also have 2.7 tacoma and let me say this 2.7 vs 2.7 not even in the same solar system
Click to expand...
Thank you - good info!
 
390pcode said:
24 gal fuel tank is too small.
Click to expand...
Yes sir I can confirm that as of today I have only got the chance to drive this truck a few times so far and never filled it up myself yet and I was expecting it to take quite a bit more when rhe full filler auto cut off o thought it was a fluke and tried to put more in and looked up the pump said just over 21 gallons pumped 💨
 
I finally had a chance to drive one of these, and I have to say I didn't love it. I think it is partially the 8spd as well but it felt "jerky" to me. Also was expecting really strong acceleration, but I thought it was just pretty good. Felt as though I had to wind it out to get it going. It sounds pretty weird as well hahaha. Didn't hate it just fell short of my expectations.

The 3.0 Duramax/10 speed combo though 🤩. Really enjoyed driving that and is very torquey and smooth. I would take that one all day plus real world MPG reports are often very good.
 
JTK said:
We have a new silverado 1500 4x4 quad cab with the 2.7T at work. It will get short tripped to death, never see a wash/wax and have minimal maintenance it's entire life. What ever the company's maintenance plan allows and what ever wears out or breaks. I haven't driven it, but the guys say it's no different than any other modern day truck with a V6. None of them had any idea it was turbo 4 until I showed them.
Click to expand...
that there is the target market GM was aiming at with that engine.
base model work truck guys and fleets.
they need a 1500 series... that is it.
multiple drivers.
coffee cups and crap on the floor.
seats are ripped.
smell's like an old gym shoe on the inside in a couple years
first time the hood gets opened is when the battery goes dead
 
panthermike said:
I finally had a chance to drive one of these, and I have to say I didn't love it. I think it is partially the 8spd as well but it felt "jerky" to me. Also was expecting really strong acceleration, but I thought it was just pretty good. Felt as though I had to wind it out to get it going. It sounds pretty weird as well hahaha. Didn't hate it just fell short of my expectations.

The 3.0 Duramax/10 speed combo though 🤩. Really enjoyed driving that and is very torquey and smooth. I would take that one all day plus real world MPG reports are often very good.
Click to expand...
as long as you understand no one ever saved any money driving a diesel and that they bought it for the performance.
First time the CEL comes on you'll find out how much the SCR systems costs to maintain.
but those mini diesels sure are powerful and get really good fuel economy until you learn the fuel costs 30% more and it costs more to service.
 
Last edited:
JTK said:
For sure on that.

We waited months for a few new 2500s for our plant fleet and wound up with a single new GMC, crew cab, long bed, 4x4, 6.0L (not positive on the engine). It's a real turd. I guess it pulls bad to the right and is a known issue with no fix. Everybody runs for the Ford and Ram 2500s we have. No issues with them.
Click to expand...
I suspect the 2500 has a 6.6 gas engine ( replacing the 6.0 from previous years) and yes, it struggled to pull of 0-60 in 9 seconds.

FEBAA3E8-10D9-4E02-900A-C7861B9513C6.webp
 
  • Like
Reactions: JTK
Why are pickups moving to these 4cylinders in the base models? There is no real world mpg gain and that is the only benefit to the consumer? If there is no mpg gain then it cant be for CAFE reasons? What gives?
 
2009Caraman said:
Why are pickups moving to these 4cylinders in the base models? There is no real world mpg gain and that is the only benefit to the consumer? If there is no mpg gain then it cant be for CAFE reasons? What gives?
Click to expand...
It probably does have a cafe gain because the economy test on automatic transmissions is flawed.

The 2.8 as stated earlier was designed for the previous generation body style and would get better economy in that body.

Sadly GM like Ford and Dodge design trucks like a brick towing a boat anchor to look cool above being actually usable and efficient
 
[QUOTE="I Honestly that’s pretty awesome of the 6.6l gas. 401hp/464tq vs 445hp/910tq and only a second slower? Yeah
[/QUOTE]

back when GM offered the 8.1 gasser and the Allison behind it, and the D max first came out, the gasser beat the diesel by 1 second in the drag race.. diesels wind up slower and are far more rpm limited than a gasoline engine. so that is part of the explanation.
 
Why do these engines always seem to cut off the same cylinders rather than vary the cylinders that get cut off? He stated in the video that the center two cylinders can cut off. Why not vary the cylinders? Seems to me it would be better on thermal management and such varied, rather than the same cylinders?
 
Here are the torque curves for the Chev 2.7 T four cylinder and the Ford Eco boost 2.7 V-6. Chevy purposely produces a very flat curve while Ford’s rises with RPM before falling off. Not sure why the Chevy uses a four, perhaps for lower manufacturing cost ie one turbo vs two, two fewer cylinders, and potentially less weight. I always thought a V-6 was a smoother running engine unless they did something with the balance shaft in the 4 banger.

829B475A-80AF-4ADD-A38B-A6858F877616.jpeg
FF4C3B4F-537A-48B5-B800-F4690C7F618D.jpeg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

oldhp
2024 GMC Canyon 4X4 2.7 turbo / 8 speed auto
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
oldhp
N
Thoughts on Lincoln Continental 2.7 EB FWD and MKZ 2.0 EB FWD?
Replies
14
Views
1K
northestPM
E
How troublesome are Lincoln MKZ, Nautilus, and continental?
Replies
2
Views
621
meep
S
Newer Dodge "Ram" trucks with Rust?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
1K
Hohn
mrsilv04
2024 Silverado 1500 LT Crew 4x4 5.3 or 2025 Ram 1500 Bighorn Crew 4x4 3.0 Hurricane?
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
dogememe
Back
Top Bottom