mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Take A Closer Look At The 2019 Silverado’s New 2.7L Four-Cylinder Engine

General Motors will take the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado into new territory with the introduction of a new 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine.

Chevrolet announced the new powerplant alongside the rest of the 2019 Silverado’s engine availability on Friday but also provided additional technical details on the engine. So, let’s dive into some of them.

The basics: 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque, with peak torque arriving from 1,500 rpm to 4,000 rpm. Chevy said the engine will help the 2019 Silverado sprint from 0-60 mph in under seven seconds and the mill weighs 380 pounds less than the 4.3-liter V6 engine it replaces. The V6 engine will stick around, but only in lower-spec models. Both the block and head are made from aluminum to reduce mass.

According to the brand, the 2.7-liter turbo-four engine features an “innovative double overhead cam” valvetrain that enables active fuel management (a first for a four-cylinder engine at GM), high- and low-lift valve profiles and continuously variable valve timing.

2019 Chevrolet Silverado RST front fascia

Active fuel management works with an electro-mechanical variable camshaft to provide three different cam profiles: high-valve lift for full power, low valve lift for balance of power and efficiency, and two-cylinder operation during light loads.

Other highlights of the new engine include:

  • Dual-volute turbocharger housing for improved low-speed torque
  • Active thermal management to improve engine performance in hot and cold temperatures
  • An integrated exhaust manifold for a reduction in turbo lag
  • Stop/start technology
  • An electric water pump

Chevrolet said the engine was built from the ground up as a truck engine, first and foremost. That meant loads of torque available from down low in the powerband. To achieve this, engineers implemented a long piston stroke of 4.01 inches for better combustion and a higher compression ratio.

To ensure things run smoothly with high cylinder pressures that come with turbocharging, the crankshaft and connecting rods are made of forged steel and the pistons are made of a tough aluminum alloy with a cast iron ring groove insert. Engineers also subjected the engine to the same set of rigorous tests that V8 engines endure.

The engine will enter production at GM’s Spring Hill, Tennessee, facility this fall and launch in the fourth quarter of this year. EPA fuel economy estimates, payload and towing ratings will all come closer to the engine’s launch.

Former GM Authority staff writer.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Sounds like this engine’s pistons will be primarily cast aluminum with cast iron where GM’s cast aluminum pistons typically fail.

    Is this a cost savings measure over the expense of forged aluminum pistons? I feel like this could be a repeat of the LTG Ecotec engine debut all over again.

    Reply
    1. Ford has been using cast pistons in their Ecoboost engine line since the beginning. The only time GM had cast aluminum pistons fail was due to LSPI, which will destroy an engine regardless of whether the piston is cast or forged.

      Reply
  2. Its a Saturn engine technically …….

    Reply
  3. I am wondering are they making the 310 HP on regular gas? Is it listed as Premium Recommended? What is the compression and boost?

    My Eco was 9.5 compression. I was at 23 PSI and was making 300 HP. Have they found a way to do this on regular fuel or do they recommend the premium to make max power and you can use regular to make 270 HP?

    They only expect 10% of the trucks to use this engine so they are being conservative on expectations.

    I would expect this will find its way into the Colorado and Canyon.

    Reply
    1. Compression ratio is 10 to 1. Maximum boost is 22 PSI. It requires 87 octane. 6100 RPM fuel cut off.

      Reply
  4. LOOKS LIKE DODGE IS OUR LAST HOPE!

    Reply
  5. This engines seems like it would make a fun GM performance crate engine someday….

    Reply
    1. The first thing that popped in my head was swapping this into an older xtreme s10 for a daily driver.

      Reply
  6. This the engine I want if I go to a new Cadillac XT4. The low HP (<240 hp) engine they are starting out with is a deal killer for me.

    Reply
    1. Yep deal killer for me also. This engine would help. Any improvement over what they are offering, PLEASE.

      Reply
  7. 348 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm = 265 hp. That’s more power (at a lower engine speed) than any Gen I or Gen II (Vortec) 350, and close to the last 454, IIRC, at about 270 hp.

    Reply
  8. This engine will be the future of full size trucks! People on this site had better get use to it. People who say start/stop feature, cylinder deactivation, VVT, are anoyoning and hate the new technology are the reason for this direction.

    If you keep pushing back on technology that keeps v8 engines a option then this is your future! This is why I love all of the new gas saving technology, it allows for engines like the LT1, LT4, LT5

    Reply
  9. With driving our 2.0 with a turbo Envision and the great power that turbo gives,
    I can’t wait to test drive that 2.7 turbo truck.
    Should be awesome. Really looking forward to all the numbers on it.
    Also putting it in the Canyon and Colorado would be great. Would have to beat the heck out out of the V-6 in my 2016 Canyon. Doggy dang thing. That Turbo is just the greatest thing
    since peanut butter. The response of that turbo alone would beat the socks off that
    V-6 in that Canyon.

    Reply
  10. it all sounds good + can be if the bean counters don’t cheap out on “global” parts. anything totally new will will have bugs in the real world + GM’s track record is less than stellar lately, can you say beta tester!! it will take 3 to 5 years for this engine to be proven + i will “stay tuned”!!!

    Reply
  11. Its got an electric water pump and electric VVT. Its gunna have one hell of a big battery.

    Reply
    1. Alternator!

      Reply
  12. GM finally released their first non-OHV engine for pickup trucks after 22 years. Ford already did way back in 1997 with Triton V8 SOHC. What took GM so long?

    Reply
    1. My guess is that they did not have the right group of developers to make that happen until now.

      Reply
      1. GM have great engineers, the one’s who hold GM back are the business dorks who run the company. Until recently they just didn’t want to invest the necessary funds to develop modern engines.

        I believe the saying at GM HQ goes: “Never enough time to do it right, always enough time to do it twice.”

        Reply
    2. Ford has had fancy pants DOHC 4V multi turbocharged engines for all those years and just now got ONE of them to surpass the torque (by 10 whole ft lbs!) of that silly old dinosaur pushrod engine…what took them so long? In another decade or two they may get in the same horsepower neighborhood, then maybe they can focus on matching the fuel economy of a Chevy small block V8. But they’ll never match the simplicity or durability with an engine that has >2× the moving parts.

      Reply
      1. In a decade or two well have electric trucks that do 0-60 in under 5 seconds

        Reply
        1. Electricity, batteries, and electric motors are not magic! Technological progress is making them better, but so are ICE technologies making ICE vehicles more efficient.

          I’d be all for a pickup that is propelled by an electric motor due to their reliability, simplicity and efficiency, but the challenges are amplified applying these technologies to a high utility vehicle like a pickup where much more battery fuel and weight will be required. Moreover, engineers are not even to the point of making products work for most Americans, and that’s before considering these products are over hyped versus reality.

          1. MPG-e is exaggerated by OEMs and those exaggerations are supported and allowed by the EPA. Many gas and diesel cars get a somewhat truthful rating when driven in a reasonable manner in a typical environment. The gov’t doesn’t allow them to exaggerate and when they’re caught or err, they correct their published data or pay. E-cars and e-everything gets a pass on truthfulness.

          Fuel range is exaggerated by OEMs and those exaggerations are supported and allowed by the EPA.

          True battery life is hidden from consumers or lies told to us about how long they’ll last with an acceptable range.

          Battery replacement costs are hidden from consumers.

          The media, the EPA, and electric-or-bust proponents minimize information regarding infrastructure requirement costs for refueling at home.

          Electricity as a fuel currently costs about double that of gasoline or diesel on an equal energy basis. Consumers are not warned about this important factor by those such as the auto media and EPA that are supposed to be consumer advocates. Therefore, if you drive an electric vehicle that gets 70 mpg-e real world and rated by the EPA at 108, that will cost in the world we have to live in by about as much for fuel as a gas car at 35 and a diesel at 40.

          Battery range shrinks over time. Think about cell phones, which are usually charged and discharged daily just like a typical electric car usage. How long does it take to notice reduced range with a cell phone and an e-cars charges and discharges at an even faster rate. So even if a battery last ten years, how much fuel does it store after only five years.

          I’m not against electric cars or pickups as a technology, but they’ll have to work together so that all fueling is universal and not dependent upon brand or model, and they must start giving us realistic data.

          Reply
    3. Google 1932 Ford roadster, you will see a whole bunch of GM OHV small block V8’s looking at you Walter!

      Reply
    4. Not true the Vortec 2.8L and 3.5L I4 and I5 engines were DOHC

      Reply
    5. Yes and for the next 20 years, Ford’s engines have been an absolute disaster and a reliability nightmare. Rattling cam phasers, stretched timing chains, broken timing chain guides, leaking timing chain tensioners, broken timing chain sprockets, etc. Sure the 2-valve SOHC V8’s didn’t have as many issues but they were also gutless and offered zero advantages for the trucks.

      Funny, rumors are circulating that Ford is now developing a large pushrod V8 for their F-250/350 trucks.

      Reply
      1. “Funny, rumors are circulating that Ford is now developing a large pushrod V8 for their F-250/350 trucks.”

        The last OHV pushrod engine Ford produced was in year 2008, a 3.0L V6 Vulcan and 4.2L V6 Essex. I seriously doubt it will ever come back again because the current new V8s are all based on Modular SOHC or DOHC design since 1991. I don’t think Ford will build a new V8 engine from scratch again due to its limited future now.

        Ford also build a lot of new vehicles today with TWIN-TURBO, while GM continues to go naturally-aspirated (no turbo). You know who wins on reliability still.

        Reply
  13. This seems strangely similar to the LK5 found in the 1st generation Canyon/Colorado/I-Series but with some major updates. I wonder if they’re potentially related.

    Reply
    1. The 2.7L Turbo L3B is an all-new design that’s not related to the LK5.

      In this case (with major technological improvements), it would cost more to re-engineer an old engine like the LK5 than it would to create an all-new design like the L3B.

      Reply
  14. Stop/start. UGH!!!

    Reply
  15. I would like that engine in my Colorado.

    Reply
  16. One still has to wonder why didn’t they go with a twin-turbo setup, an electric turbocharger for quick response at low engine rpm and then a secondary larger supercharger for higher engine speeds for a combine seamless integration; but being that this new 2.7L DOHC-4v 4-cyl turbo is being used in a large vehicle, we probably shouldn’t be surprised to see it as the new base engine or optional engine in vehicles like Buick Enclave as this generates the same horsepower as the LGX 3.6L V6 and could possibly generate better fuel mileage numbers.

    Reply
  17. I would like it in a 1988 S-10 size pick-up.

    Reply
  18. Can’t wait to race of these boosted 2.il 4 bangers with my 2.7l v6 baby boost. But then I can’t seem to get 5.3l trucks to race me since they must have been embarest by the 2.7eco already so I doubt I will get any takers from GM 2.7 owners either.

    Reply
    1. Might as well use your truck as a race car, we already know that paper thin, crack-prone aluminum bed pretty much makes it worthless as a real truck. Same goes for the plastic IWE-based 4WD setup they use. Great for reducing driveline losses but their 4WD is one of the weakest and most unreliable setups used in a half-ton today.

      Reply
  19. Where does this stop?….4 cylinder and we still need cylinder deactivation? Just make a two cylinder and get it over with and we can push with our left foot!

    Reply
  20. Reply
  21. It says “the Silverado,” as in the whole (new) truck, weighs 380# less with the 2.7 vs. the old truck with the 4.3. But that number keeps showing up in reporting as if it’s the engine alone. In the video with the engine’s engineer, he says the 2.7 is 80# lighter than an aluminum 4.3.

    Reply
  22. Lots of displacement for a 5 cylinder engine, methinks.

    This reminds me of the Citroën DS 21 of yore which had never engines with more then 4 cylinders what I thought to be wrong back then.

    Reply
    1. It’s a (4) cylinder. GM’s only(?) 5 cylinder was the 3.7L in the Gen 1 twins. It was part of the Atlas 4/5/6 cylinder engine line up!

      Reply
  23. I don’t understand where the 380 lbs of weight savings comes from. How heavy was the 4.3l (an aluminum block) that they were able to save that much weight switching to a turbo 4? I’m guessing that the number is actually total weight savings over the previous model and not just for the engine

    Reply
    1. The weight savings figure is for the total truck, not for just the engine.

      Reply
  24. As an F150 owner and a fan of Ford’s push to move pickups into the 21st century since 2015, I’m very excited to read about what seems to be another bold and innovative power train development for GM trucks in 2019. Dynamic Fuel Management for V8s go way beyond the competition; the first OEM to develop an all-new diesel specifically for the American half ton in what should most certainly give them a cost advantage over the competition due to the material savings of an inline and distribution and logistical savings found in domestic production versus European production; and now my dream engine size and type for a half ton for light and medium duty.

    I must call GM out for deceptive advertising though. You can’t introduce an optional power train in the lower trims and then compare it’s performance to Ford’s base engine. Ford too offers their 2.7L TT V6 with a ten speed standard in Lariat trim (3rd level up) and for one grand more in lower trims. That’s the right comparison. It has 325, 400@2750 & 20/26/22; for hp, torque and mpg, respectively. Almost for sure that this turbo in a half ton GM truck will take the gas-powered mpg crown from Ford, but to ignore Ford’s small turbo for performance comparison is an out-right lie.

    I love my barebones F150 truck with the small Ecoboost getting 24 mpg in the real world for commuting, but since 2015 I’ve been somewhat confused as to why Ford chose a small, expensive twin turbo V6 as an alternative to the base engine for an extra grand, and during this time Ford has developed and used three different base engines that was certainly an expensive endeavor on two occasions. They could have simply spent all their time, effort, money, and engineering prowess to add a four cylinder turbo and made that engine the base engine.

    Likewise, even though GM went partly the right direction with a slightly cheaper turbo four cylinder versus a twin turbo V6, they too chose to keep a base V6 that even fewer people will accept now that there is a turbo 4 with better performance, capability, refinement and mpg.

    Reply
  25. The best reference with respect to weight loss is comparing the new Tripower to Ford’s 2.7L TT V6 Ecoboost, because comparing GM to itself, you’ve got the lighter-weight platform truck that also works in to the mix of the comparison and GM won’t say how the power train itself compares to the 4.3 mated to the 6-speed. GM says their truck powertrain will weigh around 70-80 pounds less than Ford’s with equal displacement; I think that’s comparing power train to power train; not just the engine. If you go to the Ford site and look at specs of different power trains you can sort of figure out that Ford’s 2.7L mated to a 10-speed weighs about 100 pounds more than their own 3.3L base V6 mated to a 6-speed. The difference in weight of the two Ford transmissions is not all that significant but it’s at least 20 pounds; you can also see that Ford’s 2.7 Ecoboost with part GCI block is only 20-30 pounds lighter than their own latest V8 (the only engine they build that actually lost weight from one generation to the next). I think then, at most, GM’s new 2.7L weighs no less than Ford’s 3.3L NA V6, all-aluminum engine; probably just a tad more; and to venture a guess, probably weighs only 40-50 pounds less than the 4.3 mated to a 6-speed; and that’s being friendly, as it may not be any lighter whatsoever.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel