Twin Turbo 4cyl Engine for 2019 Silverado 1500?

[Cujet]

I am a huge fan of turbocharged engines. I see no reason to avoid a well built, downsized engine with a turbo. Many don't understand that back in the 1980's F1 cars achieved 1500HP from 1.5L.

Today, go to any dragstrip, along with many road race tracks, and you will find the high end cars have that kind of HP per CC also.

My lowly Honda S2000, 2.2L, with just a "stage 1" turbo kit, produces 407RWHP at 19.5 psi boost. On 93 octane. It's truly nothing special. Just a log manifold, a ball bearing turbo, a big intercooler and big injectors, along with lower than stock compression.

The manufacturers can now produce some incredible turbocharged engines. Ones that meet every need, while being emissions compliant and fun to drive.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: eyeofthetiger
The TBI 4.3L V6 in my K1500 makes do with 160 HP and 235 torx. Well, it probably has more like 106 HP now, since it is 30 years old and is partially fueled by oil. These days, it is easy to make a 4-cylinder that far exceeds those numbers, and with half the displacement. But ... why not put twin turbos on the Ecotec 4.3? It already has direct injection, cam phasing stuff, oil cooled pistons, and what-not. Oh, but Ford already does a TT V6. In that case, GM can put three turbos on the 4.3. The new EcoTecBoost3 4.3L V6 ... now with three turbos. That is more turbos than the Ford F-150!


I've also been thinking GM should do a twin-turbo 4.3 V6. It could easily make 390-400 HP and 450 ft*lbs of torque, and probably get better fuel economy than Ford's Egoboost.

 

[Alex_V]

Originally Posted By: Tman220
The 4.3 has been on the same platform as the 5.3 and 6.2 since 2014

I wish they would have changed displacements slightly to avoid this kind of lasting confusion.
The new ECO-Tec3 4.3 is rated at 285 HP 305 ft/lbs tq on 87 octane and 297 HP 330 ft/lbs tq on E85


Huh - good to know. I assumed it was just a substantial, but gradual evolution of the original Vortec.

A turbo 4.3 with the power density of the Ecoboost V6's would almost be 3/4 ton territory. But, then again, I give Chevy kudos for sticking with good N/A engines. Either way, it'll be a long time before I tire of my 454 - what will catch my eye is a truly small pickup.

 

[A_Harman]

I'm skeptical about the concept of a boosted 4-cylinder engine in a standard size pickup truck, especially after Ford has been on the market with a 2.7L V6 for years before GM's 2.7L turbo comes out.

Which would you rather buy in your $40,000 truck, a 2.7L turbo V6, or a 2.7L turbo I4?

On the other hand, GM has the 3.0L twin-turbo high-feature V6. Why not put that in a truck, detuned to maybe 360 HP.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I'm skeptical about the concept of a boosted 4-cylinder engine in a standard size pickup truck, especially after Ford has been on the market with a 2.7L V6 for years before GM's 2.7L turbo comes out.

Which would you rather buy in your $40,000 truck, a 2.7L turbo V6, or a 2.7L turbo I4?

On the other hand, GM has the 3.0L twin-turbo high-feature V6. Why not put that in a truck, detuned to maybe 360 HP.



To answer your 1st question: I would not want ANY small displacment 4cyl or 6cyl engine in my $40,000++ truck regardless of turbos or not. I am not against small displacement turbo engines...I've been on that bandwagon WAY before most of you guys because I have still have my bought new in 1987 - Buick Grand National. I spent most of my time back in the day teaching many a 454 Chevelle and other V8's serious lessons down the straights with that 3.8 Turbo lol. I just don't want all that in a truck. I want V8 power and less complexity. Ford did a great job with the ecoboost but a 4cylinder just is a big NO to me with a full size truck.

Now your point about the 3.0 TT V6 is a viable option as is the 3.6L engines. I still won't be interested but it's better than the 4cyl idea.

 

[HoosierJeeper]

Offer the turbo charged whatever as a base engine/ option, but always offer a V8. Gotta have the V8 soundtrack.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
It was a actually gph. It was a 1412 hp DD 16V149TI that was the prime mover for a Stewart Stevenson 1000KW generator set. One of the smaller engines I've been around.

I thought is was going to be a radial engine in some kind of WWII era fighter plane.

 

[Alex_V]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
It was a actually gph. It was a 1412 hp DD 16V149TI that was the prime mover for a Stewart Stevenson 1000KW generator set. One of the smaller engines I've been around.

I thought is was going to be a radial engine in some kind of WWII era fighter plane.

I thought it was gonna be a locomotive power plant.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
To answer your 1st question: I would not want ANY small displacment 4cyl or 6cyl engine in my $40,000++ truck regardless of turbos or not. I am not against small displacement turbo engines...I've been on that bandwagon WAY before most of you guys


The Ford 2.7 EB is an absolute pleasure to drive in the F150. It's also a fantastic performer, while returning excellent MPG. Better MPG in real world use, than other gas powered trucks. I see no reason why a properly tuned, 4cyl 2.7 TT would not be similarly excellent. Especially if pared with a 10 speed automatic.

 

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
..The Ford 2.7 EB is an absolute pleasure to drive in the F150. It's also a fantastic performer, while returning excellent MPG. Better MPG in real world use, than other gas powered trucks. I see no reason why a properly tuned, 4cyl 2.7 TT would not be similarly excellent. Especially if pared with a 10 speed automatic.


From what I observe, many ( if not the majority) of half-ton, crew cab, short-bed pickups are used as passenger vehicles, as a large, quiet sedan with an open trunk in the back. A 4cyl twin turbo could work very well for that application.

 

[JasonC]

GM put a turbo on the old 4.3 back in the early 90's for the GMC Syclone & Typhoons. Made 280hp-350tq and was a beast back in the day. The Typhoon was actually the fastest production vehicle in it's time to go 0-30mph

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
A long time ago in a far, far away galaxy, an engine I dealt with had 16 cylinders, 4 turbos, and two blowers.

What kind of mileage did that engine get?

Probably better to measure in gallons per mile!
It was a actually gph. It was a 1412 hp DD 16V149TI that was the prime mover for a Stewart Stevenson 1000KW generator set. One of the smaller engines I've been around.

Was looking at turbos on a C280-16 … Size of centrifugal pumps …

 

[bigj_16]

Originally Posted By: Alex_V
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
It was a actually gph. It was a 1412 hp DD 16V149TI that was the prime mover for a Stewart Stevenson 1000KW generator set. One of the smaller engines I've been around.

I thought is was going to be a radial engine in some kind of WWII era fighter plane.

I thought it was gonna be a locomotive power plant.

In general, locomotive power plants are(were) pretty simple. The Tier IV emissions starting in 2015 kind of complicated things. There have been some engines with twin blowers or twin turbos, but the bulk of GE and EMD engines in the last 30-40 years have one turbo. The GE's were straight turbo's, the EMD's were a hybrid turbo/supercharger. The new EMD 70-ACe-T4, has an engine that is an evolution of the old 90MAC four stroke 16 cylinder and has 12 cylinders and three turbos, but I have no experience with the new engine. EMD could not meet Tier IV standards with the 710 engine(too bad), despite them saying for 10 years that they could. The Tier IV GE EVO's, as far as I know, have the same basic EVO 12 cylinder engine, but a lot of new emissions equipment. The Tier IV locomotives are having a lot of reliability issues, more than the Tier III's. The Tier III's had a lot more issues than the Tier II's. The Tier II's for both brands were the last of the rock solid locomotives for reliability.
It seems in North America the Class I railroads have settled on about 4500 hp as a sort of de facto standard for hp. Makes things easier when making up trains. Now they just have to make them reliable again.
I have seen some pretty big centrifugal pumps. The turbos on the GE and EMD's weigh about 1500 lbs(give or take).

 

[Whimsey]

With an inline 4 cylinder engine with a single exhaust manifold how do you put a twin turbo on it. I can see a twin scroll turbo for the inline 4 as in the 2.3 EcoBoost in our Explorer. The Explorer is not a light vehicle but the 2.3 EcoBoost performs better than the 4.6 V-8 in our 2005 Explorer but with a lot better fuel mileage for the miles driven.

Whimsey

 

[4WD]

Everything from tugs, ships, to offshore rigs have relied on locomotive products … when bridged by Insolated Gate Bipolar Transistors and creatures like that for efficiency … it seems the widget and gadget kits are big factors for both success and failure …

 

[Merkava_4]

Some people still want a V8 sound and you can't get that with a 4-cylinder no matter what you try to do.

 

[eyeofthetiger]

I would like a big 4 cylinder engine. Something like the Isuzu 4HK1, 5.2-liter turbo diesel, but with gas. Yeah, do a gas-conversion to the Isuzu engine and stick it in a Silverado.

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: Whimsey
With an inline 4 cylinder engine with a single exhaust manifold how do you put a twin turbo on it.


I don't know..... this seems to make a lot more sense:

 

[HM12460]

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
A long time ago in a far, far away galaxy, an engine I dealt with had 16 cylinders, 4 turbos, and two blowers.

What kind of mileage did that engine get?

Probably better to measure in gallons per mile!
It was a actually gph. It was a 1412 hp DD 16V149TI that was the prime mover for a Stewart Stevenson 1000KW generator set. One of the smaller engines I've been around.

Sounds like a genset on an old U.S. Navy FFG-7 class ship.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: Whimsey
With an inline 4 cylinder engine with a single exhaust manifold how do you put a twin turbo on it.


I don't know..... this seems to make a lot more sense:

I get a kick out of the automotive press bragging about twin-scroll turbos in new gasoline engines. Cummins has been putting those on their HD diesels for at least 30 years. My '01 Dodge has a twin-scroll turbo with a pulse-divided exhaust manifold.