Thoughts on the Silverado 2.7 turbo engine

edyvw said:
6.2? Maybe.
Same like my Tiguan can dance around my Sequoia on that particular route, 2.7 will do to those you listed.
Altitude? Always boost over displacement regardless of number of cylinders.
Lower altitudes, different story.
Click to expand...

No, the v8's outperform that 2.7. And more importantly, they'll last longer doing it. Also don't forget the downhill experience will be much better in the v8's, those tiny engines have 0 engine braking power. The v8's are no cummins of course but you'd be surprised how effective they can be at braking, as long as they have the displacement for it.
 
hemioiler said:
Around town it's more than adequate, but shows its lack of HP quickly when towing. Don't be fooled by the 430 lb/ft of torque, it can't tow better than the 5.3 or any v8 though it will probably do better than the NA v6s from the past.

The Ford 2.7 is a big upgrade over the GM 2.7, despite the identical displacement, though both Ford and GM have transmissions issues (especially with that particular 8 speed, the newer GM 8 speeds are supposed to be quite improved).

You could consider a 2020 Ram Classic with the 5.7 for a proven/reliable drivetrain in a cheap-to-purchase truck, or the tundra 5.7 for one of the most reliable half tons in the 2020 year market though it is a very old truck and it shows. Just depends on your priorities.

Also keep in mind that all half tons sell like crazy, so horror stories go up as well just due to volume of trucks sold. No matter which truck you research you can find scary stories, unfortunately. And the amount of scary stories goes up directly with how well the truck has sold.
Click to expand...
+1 on the Ford 2.7 Ecoboost.
 
We have Two 2023s they do anything a half ton should do both burn a little oil

Haul about 700 to 800 pounds in bed of general electrical materials ....lots of idling on hot days to cool off in the AC

We have Super Duties for the real work
 
hemioiler said:
No, the v8's outperform that 2.7. And more importantly, they'll last longer doing it. Also don't forget the downhill experience will be much better in the v8's, those tiny engines have 0 engine braking power. The v8's are no cummins of course but you'd be surprised how effective they can be at braking, as long as they have the displacement for it.
Click to expand...
Well, I own V8, so yeah, I am aware of their engine braking. I will grant you that. Also, in mg vocabulary, slowing down is more important than going forward.
As for altitude performance, sorry man, but math is math. I tow camper with my friend over Ike in Silverado 5.3 and very often one comes to wonder if it would help to just get out of the truck and push it.
Most law enforcement departments in the mountains here run Explorers with ecoboost bcs., well, math.
Air density and pressure are unforgiving to naturally aspirated engines. Some do better than others. My 5.7 drops like a rock power wise over Ike. BMW, does too, but not as noticeable as Toyota or especially that 3.5 V6 in Honda (coupled with absolutely horrible transmission gearing).
 
Last edited:
edyvw said:
Well, I own V8, so yeah, I am aware of their engine braking. I will grant you that. Also, in mg vocabulary, slowing down is more important than going forward.
As for altitude performance, sorry man, but math is math. I tow camper with my friend over Ike in Silverado 5.3 and very often one comes to wonder if it would help to just get out of the truck and push it.
Most law enforcement departments in the mountains here run Explorers with ecoboost bcs., well, math.
Air density and pressure are unforgiving to naturally aspirated engines. Some do better than others. My 5.7 drops like a rock power wise over Ike. BMW, does too, but not as noticeable as Toyota or especially that 3.5 V6 in Honda (coupled with absolutely horrible transmission gearing).
Click to expand...

Suit yourself man, like I said the other day, I'm not going to spend much time trying to change your mind.
 
JTK said:
Even with all the shortcomings we could dream up, given how most owners use their 1/2 ton pickups, the 2.7 turbomax is probably all the engine they'll ever need.
Click to expand...

But OP clearly stated his use case and concerns. Recommending the 2.7 in this case is a side grade, not an upgrade.
 
thunderfog said:
Not true on the premium part. Maybe better to use 91 if you're doing serious towing, but otherwise, 87 is fine for daily driving. Is your truck fleet the Colorado work truck? That's a really detuned version of the engine.
Click to expand...
I took the time to read the manual- I read what I read.
 
When I was truck shopping, I drove a bunch of different rigs. The 2.7 impressed me with it's torque, transmission was smooth (2025 model). My only complaints on the test drive was the sound of the motor, and a slight vibration at idle. Not saying they all do it, but that one did with 15,000 miles on the ODO. I wouldn't think a pontoon boat would stress it too much, any heavy loads though; it may struggle.

I didn't consider buying it due to the NVH, as well as the interior; GM base model interior looks and feels the part! I much preferred the 2.7 Ecoboost in every respect.
 
dfarr67 said:
I took the time to read the manual- I read what I read.
Click to expand...

From my 2024 Colorado manual:


fuel87.webp
 
My buddy is on his second. First grenaded the transmission. My coworkers blew up a few weeks ago with 11k miles on it. Aside from burning oil they're the most reliable engine in the GM lineup. The 8 speed is well... it's the 8 speed. I would be looking for the updated engine and transmission vs a 2020 though.... 22+ i believe.

Any sort of towing you do will be high single to low double digits. They drink fuel under boost as do all boosted engines. Around town towing it's kind of a wash compared to the 5.3 but start with elevation and you get the 2.7 keeping going. You still lose power with turbo engines at elevation, it's just not as much. It feels like and makes the noises of a base engine in a base truck though, that's for sure. But it's got spunk.
 
Seems all engines "drink" heavily while towing. As if pulling a house uphill and at speed takes energy or something. Question: does this 2.7 get less, more or the same mpg while doing the same work at the same speed? I know some engines can run stupid rich at high load so as to control temperatures; could the 2.7 do likewise, as an engine that might not be expected to be worked so hard so often? tradeoffs and all, if it gets more mpg when not worked and less when worked, if worked in frequently is that a net gain?
 
supton said:
Seems all engines "drink" heavily while towing. As if pulling a house uphill and at speed takes energy or something. Question: does this 2.7 get less, more or the same mpg while doing the same work at the same speed? I know some engines can run stupid rich at high load so as to control temperatures; could the 2.7 do likewise, as an engine that might not be expected to be worked so hard so often? tradeoffs and all, if it gets more mpg when not worked and less when worked, if worked in frequently is that a net gain?
Click to expand...
I have had two GM 2.7L GMC Sierra’s and one 5.3L Sierra. MPG towing the same camper the get about the same 9-10 MPG.
 
I've seen consistently about 1 MPG better towing NA but you typically accept the penalty for how much less painful it is letting the turbo eat.

BSFC is nearly always worse on boosted vehicles though. The 2.7 has pulled power down when the 5.3 hasn't and vise versa. If given the option I'd take a Chevy with the ford 3.5 ecoboost though. Makes the 2.7 almost laughable.

Edit: just for clarity, the only reason I bring up the drinks portion is my buddy was convinced up and down it would be significantly more fuel efficient both unloaded and loaded than the other options. He (an engineer) got a quick refresher in physics that day.
 
PMT133 said:
I've seen consistently about 1 MPG better towing NA
Click to expand...

That's kind of what I've been seeing from forum reports and TFL runs etc, the turbos get worse MPG towing.

1 or 2 mpg may seem like a wash, but when we're comparing 8 or 9 vs 10 mpg, that's a 10 to 20 percent loss in fuel efficiency vs a NA.
 
That will be a nice upgrade for you. It will have way more power than your current 4.3L engine.

I went with the 5.3L but if I could go back and do it again I would have went with the 2.7L engine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4wd
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pezzy84
Rental car review - 2025 VW Jetta 1.5T.
Replies
14
Views
1K
gregk24
T
2024 Colorado ZR2 ~40k miles review/update
Replies
18
Views
887
4wd
shortyb
Rental review, Chevy Trax and Hyundai Elantra HEV
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Pete in PA
OVERKILL
Rental Review - 2024 Ford Expedition XLT
Replies
14
Views
7K
autoapprentice
R
My 10,000 mile review of the 2024 Tahoe
2
Replies
26
Views
14K
redhat
Back
Top Bottom