Chevy turbo max 4 banger

[ctechbob]

In my experience, and from hanging out on the RV boards-with a gas motor you get 10-to 12mpg towing any sizeable weight at all. It seems to be that way regardless of motor size.

Yep, what he said. GDI/Turbo's/8-10 speed transmissions and current aero work have made pretty much all gas trucks equal when it comes to lugging around a travel trailer. Doesn't matter if it is 4/6/8 holes doing the work, they're all using about the same amount of energy to get that work done.

 

[We're Metals]

KISS keep it simple stupid as another member noted! manufacturers are TRYING to get better mpgs while keeping EPA satisfied, in the end the consumer has to deal with new tech with questionable reliability!! NOT for ME!!

Turbo 4 Cyls have been around forever. Whats new tech here?

 

[fdcg27]

It will be interesting to see how these small displacement turbo fours hold up over the typically long lifespan of a pickup.
It could be that GM did the design and build on this engine right and that they'll hold up very well in service.
As another member is fond of saying, time will tell.

 

[CKN]

KISS keep it simple stupid as another member noted! manufacturers are TRYING to get better mpgs while keeping EPA satisfied, in the end the consumer has to deal with new tech with questionable reliability!! NOT for ME!!

This comes up every time. Which is hogwash-Turbo's in Europe have been around the better part of when automobiles have been around.

Education here-
https://www.turbocharger.mtee.eu/a-history-of-turbocharging/
https://aet-turbos.co.uk/turbocharged-beginnings-an-early-history-of-the-turbo/
https://www.motortrend.com/features/1806-turbochargers-a-history/

 

[CKN]

Fuel economy has more to do with weight than number of cylinders. If the 5.3 gets 16 mpg, you would think a 2.7 should get 32 mpg in the same truck, but no. The main difference is with the 5.3, your foot will be 1/4 way down the gas pedal, while with the 2.7 it will be half way most of the time so the amount of gas used will be nearly the same.

This is true^^^^^

 

[ctechbob]

Fuel economy has more to do with weight than number of cylinders. If the 5.3 gets 16 mpg, you would think a 2.7 should get 32 mpg in the same truck, but no. The main difference is with the 5.3, your foot will be 1/4 way down the gas pedal, while with the 2.7 it will be half way most of the time so the amount of gas used will be nearly the same.

In a truck, aero has much more to do with it than weight. Doesn't matter 5.3 or 2.7, they're both big bricks being moved through the air.

You still have to dissipate the same amount of heat as well, so the cooling stacks will be similar, so no aero savings there either.

 

[Cujet]

Your thoughts on these? I’ve been a Toyota fan boy since 2002…Tacomas preferably. Although Toyota quality has gone down hill it seems with TTV6. I maybe looking in to a full size that gets decent gas mileage.

Rented a 1500 Silverado for a road trip. Ended up putting week's worth of miles on it. Actually loved the truck as a complete package, the 4x4 worked perfectly in the snow and the engine was completely unobtrusive the vast majority of the time. Response was fine, power was at best adequate, and the 4 cylinder sound came through only when running it hard.

The one downside was 55MPH plus or minus a few MPH. It would operate in 2 cylinder mode and shake the entire time I remained at that speed, even up hills. Took a perfectly superb experience and brought it down a notch. Going up to 62MPH or downshifting fixed the issue. I'm going to have to admit here that the 4 cylinder annoyed me enough at times to make me wish it was something else. But then it would go back to being unobtrusive.

MPG was less than our Ford F150's, The Chevy returning a real world 18MPG of VERY EASY motoring. of course, I did hit some light snow and got stuck behind a plow on the highway for quite some time. Using 93 octane did improve the experience and possibly the MPG a touch. By way of comparison the 2.7Ecoboost Ford would regularly return 21MPG in the same trip but going faster, and the 2011, 3.5L Ecoboost would do 17MPG on 87 and 19.6 on 93 at speeds 15MPH more than the Chevy.

Would I purchase one? Yes, but only for the right price. Locally, I see the "Trail Boss" 4x4 version selling for $39K with a big discount. That kind of compares to the Ford 2.7L Ecoboost (which is a stunningly good engine) and the Ford's better 10speed trans. But you can't even get a year old used Ford XLT for that price.

 

[atikovi]

In a truck, aero has much more to do with it than weight. Doesn't matter 5.3 or 2.7, they're both big bricks being moved through the air.

The difference in aero between the truck with a 5.3 and 2.7 is minimal. Maybe if you compare stock with a lifted one, ok, but not between two similar examples.

 

[ctechbob]

The difference in aero between the truck with a 5.3 and 2.7 is minimal. Maybe if you compare stock with a lifted one, ok, but not between two similar examples.

That's my point. That is the reason they both get similar MPG's. There's no magic pill at this point. Weight doesn't have near as much to do with it.

 

[hemioiler]

Yep, what he said. GDI/Turbo's/8-10 speed transmissions and current aero work have made pretty much all gas trucks equal when it comes to lugging around a travel trailer. Doesn't matter if it is 4/6/8 holes doing the work, they're all using about the same amount of energy to get that work done.

I don't think that's quite accurate. In all the towing reviews I've watched, the NAs like the 5.0, 5.3 and 5.7 consistently tow with higher mpg than the turbos do. The difference may show up like 1 mpg or 2 mpg, but when you are working with a scale of 8 to 12 mpg, 1 mpg can be 10 to 12 percent worse. People see reports of "I get 8" or "I get 9" and just eliminate as close enough, but it's not, that's still a big difference.

The 3.5 ecoboost is terrible at towing efficiency, but is also the most effortless (well, until the hurricanes showed up anyway).

The 2.7 was designed as a base engine to replace the 4.3 v6, and it did that, not the 5.3 v8. When viewed in that light, the 2.7 is probably not a bad deal.

The 5.3 and 6.2 have terrible lifter issues right now, so from the GM lineup the only 2 engines I'd drop good money on are the 2.7 and the 3.0. But I could never bring myself to buy an upper trim with the 2.7, a tradesman/work truck for the right price....? Maybe.

 

[CKN]

Rented a 1500 Silverado for a road trip. Ended up putting week's worth of miles on it. Actually loved the truck as a complete package, the 4x4 worked perfectly in the snow and the engine was completely unobtrusive the vast majority of the time. Response was fine, power was at best adequate, and the 4 cylinder sound came through only when running it hard.

The one downside was 55MPH plus or minus a few MPH. It would operate in 2 cylinder mode and shake the entire time I remained at that speed, even up hills. Took a perfectly superb experience and brought it down a notch. Going up to 62MPH or downshifting fixed the issue. I'm going to have to admit here that the 4 cylinder annoyed me enough at times to make me wish it was something else. But then it would go back to being unobtrusive.

MPG was less than our Ford F150's, The Chevy returning a real world 18MPG of VERY EASY motoring. of course, I did hit some light snow and got stuck behind a plow on the highway for quite some time. Using 93 octane did improve the experience and possibly the MPG a touch. By way of comparison the 2.7Ecoboost Ford would regularly return 21MPG in the same trip but going faster, and the 2011, 3.5L Ecoboost would do 17MPG on 87 and 19.6 on 93 at speeds 15MPH more than the Chevy.

Would I purchase one? Yes, but only for the right price. Locally, I see the "Trail Boss" 4x4 version selling for $39K with a big discount. That kind of compares to the Ford 2.7L Ecoboost (which is a stunningly good engine) and the Ford's better 10speed trans. But you can't even get a year old used Ford XLT for that price.

The 10 speed transmission had a major design defect that was addressed in mid 2021. Prior to that they were complete garbage.

 

[ctechbob]

I don't think that's quite accurate. In all the towing reviews I've watched, the NAs like the 5.0, 5.3 and 5.7 consistently tow with higher mpg than the turbos do. The difference may show up like 1 mpg or 2 mpg, but when you are working with a scale of 8 to 12 mpg, 1 mpg can be 10 to 12 percent worse. People see reports of "I get 8" or "I get 9" and just eliminate as close enough, but it's not, that's still a big difference.

The 3.5 ecoboost is terrible at towing efficiency, but is also the most effortless (well, until the hurricanes showed up anyway).

The 2.7 was designed as a base engine to replace the 4.3 v6, and it did that, not the 5.3 v8. When viewed in that light, the 2.7 is probably not a bad deal.

The 5.3 and 6.2 have terrible lifter issues right now, so from the GM lineup the only 2 engines I'd drop good money on are the 2.7 and the 3.0. But I could never bring myself to buy an upper trim with the 2.7, a tradesman/work truck for the right price....? Maybe.

It is probably closer than you think though.

I know TFL uses the number reported on the dash which, at least for a Ford, is a crapshoot on a good day. Mine is all over the map when you to the math.

 

[JHZR2]

KISS keep it simple stupid as another member noted! manufacturers are TRYING to get better mpgs while keeping EPA satisfied, in the end the consumer has to deal with new tech with questionable reliability!! NOT for ME!!

What new tech exactly? Turbos have been in use in car and truck applications, not to mention HD stuff for over four decades. DI? Much ado about nothing.

So what is it?

 

[DweezilAZ]

Hot take: It nearly makes the 5.3L obsolete.

For your typical CCSB truck, the 2.7L does everything, including towing (with isn't typical use anymore), just as well as the 5.3L. Need more power, hate fuel economy, and love the high price of premium fuel? Buy a 6.2L. Need more torque, want great fuel economy, and love the high price of diesel fuel? Buy a 3.0L.

That leaves the 2.7L and 5.3L occupying the same space. Yeah, the 5.3L now gets the 10-speed as standard but the 2.7L now gets the 2nd gen 8-speed that solved many of the issues with the earlier 8-speeds.

Unfortunately, there's one thing that is a deal breaker for me on the 2.7L. I want my full size truck to have a center console, not a bench seat, and you can't have a 2.7L with a console.

Ha, heaven. Consoles are my pet peeve.

 

[CKN]

It is probably closer than you think though.

I know TFL uses the number reported on the dash which, at least for a Ford, is a crapshoot on a good day. Mine is all over the map when you to the math.

TFL's testing is the most unscientific you are going to find. Using gas pump clicks, cellphone stop watches, etc.

 

[We're Metals]

TFL's testing is the most unscientific you are going to find. Using gas pump clicks, cellphone stop watches, etc.

It is good comedy though and it does sway people. Kinda like Project Farm

 

[Dr_Dr3i]

Filled up my RAM1500 EcoDiesel for $3.29/gal in my neck of the woods, making the 26MPG average number that much sweeter.

What are we talking about?

 

[We're Metals]

no it's probably quieter inside the truck. i was just out for a walk and a newer Chevy truck drove past, and sounded like a turbo 4 cylinder.
not the same engine at all, just sounds similar

Chevy tbi is pretty cool, only two injectors, isn't picky about fuel quality, and no carburetor adjustments.

Where have you been?

 

[meep]

I don't think that's quite accurate. In all the towing reviews I've watched, the NAs like the 5.0, 5.3 and 5.7 consistently tow with higher mpg than the turbos do. The difference may show up like 1 mpg or 2 mpg, but when you are working with a scale of 8 to 12 mpg, 1 mpg can be 10 to 12 percent worse. People see reports of "I get 8" or "I get 9" and just eliminate as close enough, but it's not, that's still a big difference.

The 3.5 ecoboost is terrible at towing efficiency, but is also the most effortless (well, until the hurricanes showed up anyway).

The 2.7 was designed as a base engine to replace the 4.3 v6, and it did that, not the 5.3 v8. When viewed in that light, the 2.7 is probably not a bad deal.

The 5.3 and 6.2 have terrible lifter issues right now, so from the GM lineup the only 2 engines I'd drop good money on are the 2.7 and the 3.0. But I could never bring myself to buy an upper trim with the 2.7, a tradesman/work truck for the right price....? Maybe.

This is interesting to me, and I think comparisons get difficult between engines/forced air and the rest of the drivetrain behind them. Towing the same travel trailer, our 2.7 ecoboost was about 1.5 mpg superior than the previous 4.7L Toyota. Maybe. It was probably closer to 1 mpg. But it was indeed slightly better. But the ratio of “better” was different. The tundra fell from 16mpg to 10 with the load, while the ford dropped from 21.5 to 11. The tundra lost 1/3 of its efficiency, while the ford lost half.

I’ve read here that the turbo engines will go a little rich when run hard under load, whereas a NA keeps a more normal mixture. That might account for some of the difference? Gas engines are also more efficient when under load because the pumping losses are decreased with the open throttle plate, although it seems to me that relative pumping losses would be higher in a forced induction engine due to extra plumbing, turns, orifices and pathways. The gain in this case with the turbo engine is daily operation under light load.

Given a choice to tow with a NA vs turbo? Turbo night and day better with low-end torque and a relaxing pull. That 2.7 is the best part about our 150.

 

[hemioiler]

This is interesting to me, and I think comparisons get difficult between engines/forced air and the rest of the drivetrain behind them. Towing the same travel trailer, our 2.7 ecoboost was about 1.5 mpg superior than the previous 4.7L Toyota. Maybe. It was probably closer to 1 mpg. But it was indeed slightly better. But the ratio of “better” was different. The tundra fell from 16mpg to 10 with the load, while the ford dropped from 21.5 to 11. The tundra lost 1/3 of its efficiency, while the ford lost half.

I’ve read here that the turbo engines will go a little rich when run hard under load, whereas a NA keeps a more normal mixture. That might account for some of the difference? Gas engines are also more efficient when under load because the pumping losses are decreased with the open throttle plate, although it seems to me that relative pumping losses would be higher in a forced induction engine due to extra plumbing, turns, orifices and pathways. The gain in this case with the turbo engine is daily operation under light load.

Given a choice to tow with a NA vs turbo? Turbo night and day better with low-end torque and a relaxing pull. That 2.7 is the best part about our 150.

There is more going on in your comparison than just turbo vs NA. Different weight trucks, the 4.7 is an old design (does it even have VVT?), different transmissions, different rear axle ratios and so on. You'd need to compare a 5.0 vs your 2.7 in an otherwise identical truck.

I know a lot of people do enjoy the lower torque that a turbo brings, but for me I greatly prefer a strong, beefy v8. It's not just about the power, it's the knowledge that I'm not pushing some small thing past the limit and turning it glowing red. My truck isn't even the most powerful v8 out there, that title belongs to the GM 6.2, but there is nothing better than hearing a v8 digging into it and winding up once in a while. (Guys pay extra for this experience in mustangs and camaros, why not enjoy it in a truck too?) For the most part my truck pulls at 2200 RPMs on the freeway all day long, brief and seemless downshifts into 2700 and 3400 territory, I rarely exceed 3500 as I'm not in a hurry and I don't have mountain passes to climb. 8 and 10 speed transmissions greatly reduce the mental fatigue some experience with say a 4 speed v8 from the 90's and 2000's, and that would also play a role in your truck vs the old toyota.

Even with the new hurricane in the ram putting out 540 hp, not interested, I'll keep my v8 thanks. For me if I want more power, the next step is something like a GM 6.6, Ford 7.3 (both gassers), or the cummins. Those engines aren't just putting out more power, they're putting out more power while designed to work like that all day every day. The duty cycle of a v8 is still much better than a small turbo, and that's what I'm looking for, I want to run my truck until it rots out from under me.