Where The 2019 Silverado 2.7L Turbo Engine Needs To Go Next
75
Sponsored Links
In a race to the fewest cylinder count in the name of fuel efficiency, Chevrolet has officially announced a stout 2.7L turbocharged inline four cylinder engine for the 2019 Silverado 1500. Expect GMC to follow suit shortly. The size and power density of the engine is on another level when it comes to GM four cylinder engines, with an SAE-certified 310 horsepower and 348 lb-ft of torque. It also scoots from 0-60 in less than seven seconds, and helps bring the weight down to astonishing 380 pounds less than the current base Silverado with its base 4.3L V6.
Given the compact cylinder count and the robust power density, we can’t help but think where this 2.7L engine should go next. Here are our picks:
Chevrolet Camaro
The Camaro 2.0L Turbo represents the base line of the Chevrolet pony car. With a power-dense 275 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque, it has proven to be quite the athlete, with some skilled autocross drivers taking top positions with it on indexed times. The tuning crowd seems to like it, as well, as Chevrolet has seen some conquest from the hot hatch/Japanese sport coupe demographic thanks to the Camaro Turbo. However, when looking at its direct rival, the Ford Mustang EcoBoost, the Camaro 2.0T appears a tad overmatched on power. The 2.7L engine, and all of that juicy low end torque, could fix that. Just imagine that with a 1LE package. And maybe, with an engine offering like that, customers could look beyond that controversial 2019 Camaro refresh.
Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon
The 2019 Ford Ranger is on the way, and it seems to be offering a rather agreeable powertrain. The 2.3L EcoBoost engine, connected to a 10-speed transmission. For anybody that’s sampled either the Colorado or Canyon, in either V6 or diesel form, you’ve likely observed the there either doesn’t feel like enough torque from the V6 – which is essentially meant to be a car engine. Or, you’ve likely observed that the 2.8L Duramax lacks the sort of highway passing confidence that GM trucks otherwise provide. On paper, the 2.7L could deliver both ample horsepower and torque, while rivaling the expected output of the 2019 Ford Ranger in one fell swoop.
Cadillac XT4
No, we’re not going to suggest that the 2.7L should replace the standalone 2.0L turbo engine in the 2019 Cadillac XT4. When looking at its similarly priced rivals, on paper, the power output of the XT4 is sufficient. What we are suggesting is that this 2.7L turbo engine slot above the 2.0L in the lineup, for a sort of XT4 V-sport model.
Chevrolet Traverse RS
The 2.0L turbo engine exclusively offered in the RS trim level of the Chevrolet Traverse, frankly, makes little sense. It’s marketed as the “sportier package” of the lineup, yet falls 55 hp short of the numbers offered by the Traverse’s standard engine – a 3.6L V6. The additional 29 lb-ft of torque the 2.0L offers over the base V6 appears net negative. The 2.7L, with 310 horsepower and 348 lb-ft, would match the hp of the V6, but offer nearly 100 lb-ft of more torque. In doing so, the Traverse RS would transform more into what the official messaging wants it to be.
Buick Regal GS
The 2018 Buick Regal GS moves like a welterweight prize fighter, and its sleeper car presence makes it all the more interesting. One of the few drawbacks of the Regal GS is that we wish it had more low-end torque from its naturally aspirated V6, which the outgoing model had. Sure, what performance enthusiasts really want in the Regal GS is a twin-turbo V6, but if a four cylinder engine is pushing out nearly 350 lb-ft of torque from the factory, it’s likely only few would still care about the cylinder count.
Cadillac CT5
The suspected replacement of the Cadillac CTS/ATS, and the next passenger car in the Cadillac family is presumably the so-called CT5. While the naming leaves something to be desired, the new 2.7L turbocharged four cylinder engine likely wouldn’t. That said, we’d hope that Cadillac would also remember V6 and V8 engines for the CT5, as well.
Chevrolet Performance Crate Engine
Chevrolet made positive inroads with the tuner crowd by announcing the 2.0L LTG engine as a crate engine for longitudinal applications a few years ago. The 2.7L turbo four would build on that momentum, in a catalog that’s otherwise dominated by V8 crate engines.
Where would you like to see the 2.7L turbo? Sound off in the comments below.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
Sponsored Links
I highly doubt seeing it applied to any cars.
Right from the press release:
“Designed as a truck engine
The new 2.7L Turbo engine represents a clean-sheet design for Chevrolet and was developed from the outset as a truck engine”
However I fully support putting this in the Colorado/Canyon!
I agree for more use of this engine but be careful for what you wish.
The added use of this engine could end the use of the 3.6 in many applications or preclude a use of a more potent 3.6.
The 2.7 is going to be a good engine but it will still sound like a 4 cylinder and there is nothing you can do to fix it. Even the 60 degree 3.6 V6 can sound decent with a duel outlet exhaust.
Sound makes up part of the full experience of performance and not everyone loves the fart can sound.
I loved my Turbo but I kept the stock exhaust as it just would never sound like a performance engine even at 23 PSI of boost.
Perhaps a turbo V6 could become part of a lineup – something like 2.0T I4, 3.0TT V6, 3.6TT V6, TT V8
This is a truck engine. It may not be refined enough for some of the applications you suggest…Namely the Cadillacs
Yeah, it’s a truck engine that lacks a sporty character. Think of the Mustangs agricultural 2.3 vs the sonorous 3.6 in the Camaro. NVH, exhaust note, and character matter just as much as numbers.
The LGX is also a truck engine, but that doesn’t stop GM from putting it in Cadillacs. It’s an accounting decision, not an engineering decision.
There is every reason to believe this engine will be refined. When they announced that the engine was designed for truck use from the beginning, they were referring to the fact that they engineered it to have excellent low RPM torque so that it could more easily be used for towing applications. This would also result in excellent off the line acceleration.
GM can’t make refined I4 engines – at least they haven’t yet, and it’s doubtful they will start with truck engine.
Completely agree about the Colorado/Canyon and Traverse.
Why not the Equinox? With that much power will excell in her segment.
Equinox is fwd
So is the Traverse.
So it’s unlikely that either will get this engine option unless GM specifically designed it for fwd and rwd purposes. I thought in the video they said it was purpose built for the silverado. (Rwd Platform) I could be wrong though I don’t have any inside info ?
This engine can be transverse mounted for FWD use. Just like in the 3.6 TT V6 from CTS V-Sport longitudinal mounted to XTS V-Sport transverse mounted.
Have GM only offer this engine in the AWD trim…
Base engine for the Savana/Express vanosaurus?
The Colorado/ Canyon would make a natural fit for this engine. I also believe there is a crate market for a light, compact powerhouse. With a larger turbine housing, the effective rpm range could be extended (at a modest cost to low end torque), which could make it a beautiful fit in a Camaro, CT4/5, etc.
Why not offer the 2.7 liter Turbo inline 4 cylinder on the GMC Acadia and ditch the 2.5 liter four cylinder? The Chevrolet Traverse has a 2.0 liter Turbo available in the RS package.
An rwd Caprice/Impala replacement……..
To be shared with Holden
Every GM vehicle that currently uses the LTG 2.0L DOHC-4v 4-cyl turbo and even some that are equipped with the naturally aspirated LGX 3.6L DOHC-4v V6 could possibly make use of this 2.7L DOHC-4v 4-yl turbo given it makes 310 horsepower and 348 lb-ft of torque meaning it should offer better performance and mileage at the same time.
The LNF 2.0T was able to output 295 hp within warranty guidelines. I’m still not sure why GM is going up to 2.7L with so little return in output, unless they’re leaving horsepower on the table to go faster.
This engine shouldn’t go anywhere for these users. GM should retune LTG to the LNF-era horsepower levels, and work on making the 2.7T get in the 350 hp range before deploying it anywhere other than trucks.
And FCA FWIW is doing the same with the Hurricane 2.0T, 270 hp in trucks and the Wrangler, but easily capable of 300 hp in performance cars.
It’s not about how much power it can make, it’s about how much power it can make under load for an extended period of time. It probably wouldn’t be hard to tune this engine for 500 hp, and in a light Camaro that might use those 500 horses in 12 or 13 second intervals it might last for many years. But in a 2-1/2 ton truck, intended to tow maybe 4 tons more, up a mountain, it may or may not make it to the top with that tune. It’s designed for its intended application, and its torque curve represents that.
The problem is GM engineers boasted the LNF could handle 500 horsepower. If you are correct, and this is about torque, it doesn’t change that 350 hp would be the baseline for that to pencil out for a buyer.
GM made this mistake with the Malibu Turbo. Camry V6 and the 200S V6 stole that whole segment. Customers, at the end of the day, chose the more-reliable, more-durable V6 engines. I know, because I bolted from GM to FCA for that same tradeoff, and previously owned a G6 V6.
People will buy a Ram 1500 EcoDiesel instead of an unproven Turbo-4 with a timing chain and turbocharger that are unlikely to hit 300,000 – let alone 500,000 miles.
These are going to be fleet special motors for the first few years, destined for buyers that have no intentions on owning long term. Especially truck owners that do this kind of homework more than passenger cars.
So you are saying that people will not buy the 2.7T because it has a turbo charger and instead they will buy a Ram equipped with an ecodiesel… The same ecodiesel, which is simply a V6 turbo diesel… that also has a turbo charger…
He knows what he’s talking about… He previously owned a Pontiac G6 with a V6.
Malibu, Cruze and make them AWD
That’s stupid and hilarious. I love it!
Not so stupid when Impala is on the chopping block. Expect Malibu to stretch out to E2XX LWB and replace Impala entirely. Then GM has three cars – Spark, Cruze, and Malibu. Malibu then picks up Haldex AWD as an option.
Not so magically, lines up flawlessly with GM’s plan to reduce to three (aligned) car platforms next decade, and move RWD to truck platforms (save for Corvette) after A2XX.
I could see a Cruze RS with this engine, if they get the output up a bit. I still think 350 hp is the sweet spot for this motor.
If the torque output gets high enough though, you could have some use in the Malibu as a towing car… kinda like the 2002 Bel Air concept. Could even make the Cruze RS a towing package with heavy-duty brakes and a proper tow rating.
It’s a big frustration for us 200 owners on the other side of the fence. We have a Jeep Cherokee chassis, a bigger engine, bigger brakes, and FCA won’t assign a tow rating – so we can’t risk the insurance to tow with it.
Because, these old 4.3-liter ohv v6 engine is now of commercial/work uses. And being replaced with 2.7-liter TC Four cylinder engine, made for trucks only. There will be a Hybrid system coming, and there might be a new TT V6 engine coming up.
Old 4.3 L V6. It was released in model year 2014. Just like the old LT1.
This is just a continuing effort to reduce v8 engines!
Let the race cars use the V8. The common laypersons just need a good engine to travel with performance and economy. Adding a hybrid layout (such as the Volt setup) where the electric motors can add more low end torque and cruise on electricity will improve MPG greatly, and extend the gas engine life.
First off lest set the record straight.
1 This engine is refined as much for a car as a truck. The real question is how refund is it compared to other mfg.
2 Before we get too far ahead is it even set up for FWD applications. I expect it is but we need to know first.
3 the turbo engine can use more fuel vs lower powered engine but if driven normally they get better mpg. It is up to the driver. The wide torque band will get you up to speed faster and off the throttle faster. This saves mpg. This was explained to me by a GM engineer.
4 the 2.7 has a longer stroke to add natural low end torque that is why we see an increase.
5 the loss of mass is important in many ways.
6 the cost of this engine will be lower than the Ford 2.7 due to less cylinders. 1 less turbo and lower cost block and one head two less cams etc.
Just some things to consider.
#6 as wee all know, is the reasion we have all those beautiful GM small block V8’s
2.7-liter TC four in this configuration is for truck application only. I would say we will see it in these Camaro next, but in a different way, unlike these way the truck version is made.
I didn’t mean to suggest that the exact 2.7L engine of the Silverado should be shoehorned into other cars as-is. I’d highly expect GM to engineer the 2.7L turbo for different uses. Much like what we see with the 6.2L L86 V8 in the full size trucks and SUVs vs the 6.2L LT1 in the Camaro and Corvette.
The only difference between a truck’s L86 and a car’s LT1 is the manifolds – intake and exhaust. Otherwise, the engines are interchangeable – same heads, cam, pistons, crank, etc. While a similar approach would make a Camaro fun to drive, I can’t imagine GM installing a ballsy, torque-biased engine in a car for the masses.
Ford put that 2.3L EcoBoost in everything from the Focus RS to the Lincoln MKC, to the upcoming Ranger. And it’s great in every application.
I agree 100%. Let GM use it in every line as possible, from the Sonic up.
But wait there’s more! The oil pan, oil pump pick up, and the oil pump are difference.
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?
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.
Don’t expect to see this engine in a FWD application. It has too much torque for transaxles that are on the horizon. The 6Txx in the XTS V-sport can only handle a detuned 3.6 TT, and only in AWD configuration then (at ~360 ft lbs). Trying to move 350 ft lbs through the front tires only, particularly with the very wide ratio multispeed automatics (>4:1 1st gear ratio), isn’t practical from a physics perspective. 300 ft lbs is probably the practical limit for the foreseeable future.
No but with AWD it could work easily.
But I agree I had 315 Ft Lbs and it sucked as would break loose the FWD even up to 55 mph.
The first time it happened I thought I broke something as the waste gate dumped and the car fell over on the nose with lights. Then I noticed it sail loss of traction and it was the traction control light
But with AWD it could put it to the ground.
Like on my wife’s CUV it moves 60% to the rear in sport mode.
It’s great to read about the new 2.7 liter turbo motor.
I’d love to see GM expand the application of this motor to other products. Especially in the XT4, the equinox and the terrain. Another possible application would be in an all-wheel drive version of the Malibu.
GM needs to expand the use of 3.0L twin turbo engines into other products such as the XT5 and a future Blazer model.
Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/05/hear-the-mid-engine-corvette-exhaust-during-acceleration-video/#ixzz5FusZFPAZ