What would you have said if, six years ago, we told you that the future, 2019 Silverado 1500 would offer a four-cylinder engine? Coincidentally, it was just about six years ago, on December 13th, 2013, that GM revealed the K2 generation Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra. Fast forward to today, and the all-new Silverado can be had with a purpose-built, turbo-charged four-banger – one that can really scoot.
According to Chevrolet, the 2019 Silverado with the 2.7L turbo I4 L3B engine can do the 0-60 mph sprint “in less than seven seconds”. Pretty good and somewhat unexpected for a four-cylinder in a full-size truck that has grown for this generation, wouldn’t you say?
Two attributes assist the L3B in propelling the 2019 Silverado to 60 in six-point-something seconds:
- An improved 8-speed automatic transmission; the engine can not be mated to the new GM 10-speed transmission, at least for the 2019 MY
- A significantly lighter weight for the truck; Chevy tell us that the 2019 Silverado with the 2.7L Turbo L3B weighs 380 pounds less than the outgoing Silverado with the 4.3L V6 LV3 EcoTec3 motor. Notably, the L3B also makes 25 horsepower and 43 pound-feet more than the LV3, which is still offered on the 2019 Silverado as the base engine.
Chevy has yet to release 0-60 mph times for the rest of the 2019 Silverado line, and we’re rather curious to see what they will be for other models and powertrain combinations in the range. In the meantime, we can at least bask in the glory knowing that the L3B is by no means a sissy, and that it means business.
2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Powertrain Summary
RPO Code | LV3 | L82 | L3B | L84 | L87 | LM2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline | Gasoline | Gasoline | Gasoline | Diesel |
Displacement | 4.3L | 5.3L | 2.7L | 5.3L | 6.2L | 3.0L |
Layout / Cylinder Count | V6 | V8 | I4 | V8 | V8 | I6 |
Configuration | OHV | OHV | DOHC | OHV | OHV | DOHC |
Aspiration | Atmospheric | Atmospheric | Turbo | Atmospheric | Atmospheric | Turbo |
Fuel Saving Tech | AFM | AFM | AFM | DFM | DFM | None |
Engine Family | EcoTec3 Gen 1 | EcoTec3 Gen 1 | New I-4 gasoline fam | EcoTec3 Gen 2 | EcoTec3 Gen 2 | New I-6 diesel |
Transmission | 6-speed auto MYC | 6-speed auto MYC | 8-speed auto MQE | 8-speed auto MQE | 10-speed auto MQB | 10-speed auto MQB |
Power (hp / kW @ RPM) | 285 / 212 @ 5300 | 355 / 265 @ 5600 | 310 / 231 @ 5600 | 355 / 265 @ 5600 | 420 / 313 @ 5600 | TBA |
Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ RPM) | 305 / 413 @ 3900 | 383 / 518 Nm @ 4100 | 348 / 473 @ 1500-4000 | 383 / 518 @ 4100 | 460 / 624 @ 4100 | TBA |
Max Towing (lbs) | 8,000 | 11,000 | 7,200 | 11,600 | 12,200 | TBA |
Max Payload (lbs) | 2,500 | 2,430 | 2,280 | 2,190 | 2,100 | TBA |
EPA MPG estimates (city / hwy / comb) | TBA | TBA | 20 / 23 / TBD | 17 / 23 / 19 | 16 / 20 / 17 | TBA |
- DOHC: Dual Overhead Cam
- OHV: OverHead Valve (push-rod)
- AFM: Active Fuel Management
- DFM: Dynamic Fuel Management
- EcoTec3 engine family
Comments
Keyboard jockeys are enthralled with ripping a mildly updated interior. Personally I liked the last interior and glad the money went to new front suspension/lighter weight/ new power trains.
Ford and Ram spent money on both interior and powertrans soooooooo why couldn’t GM?
Listen I am as huge of a fan of GM as anyone here. I try to get everyone I know to at least go look at GM vehicles but 80% of the time it is the interior that gets them to walk away. Why do we need to make excuses? We the GM fans need to be the ones screaming this to GM so they can change their ways. Don’t we all want GM to be the best and to make the most amount of money? They need to step up their interior game. No more excuses.
There is nothing wrong with the interior. It’s about functionality rather than look. This interior will prove once again that it’s the most comfortable and functional of the bunch. Just like previous generation has. I drive Ford and Ram at work and will tell you their interiors don’t inspire me at all. There is plenty that can be done to make them better. Once again, it’s not about the looks. Interior has to be comfortable and functional first. And that’s where Chevy has spent the money on.
I never said anything about looks/design, I stated that the materials used are not up to par with the competition. I’m personally done with making excuses for GM in the Interior department. They need to start providing better materials in their interiors. This is why they are continuing to lose ground on Sedan, CUV, and Luxury markets.
The interior in the F-150 isn’t all that great. In an XLT, which competes with the Silverado LT, the interior is all hard plastic. The 2018 Silverado LT by comparison is far nicer and was even a little nicer than the previous gen Ram 1500 IMHO. I can’t comment on the new Ram or Silverado as I haven’t seen either in person, but I certainly have no issues with GM keeping the same look inside. It’s simple, easy to use, and is well built.
Sounds like a great little engine but I sure hope GM has other applications in mind for this engine. I just don’t see owners of a full sized pick-up getting excited about a 4-cylinder regardless of how powerful it might be
put it in the traverse please!
I say make a detuned version for the Colorado
The 2.5 has to be retired by GM. Oh wait, the all new Blazer has it LOL
Why do you want it detuned? It runs on 87 octane. The Colorado can handle the power.
B/C Chevrolet will never get rid of the 3.6 HF V6 and this 2.7 Cyl makes more power.
I’m excited about it. I live in Colorado at an elevation 5600 feet above sea level. At that altitude the 5.3 L will be down to 295 hp. At Vail Pass 10,662 feet elevation 5.3 L will be down to 242 hp and the 6.2 L will be down to 286 hp. The LTG engine has no power loss to 12,000 feet. And one of the Cadillac TwinTurbo V6 I can’t remember if it’s the LF3 or LF4 has no power loss to 10,000 feet. I have not seen any information for the elevation that the L3B has no power loss.
Turbos make a difference! I live at 5600 in Arizona and my Ecoboost F150 never noticed the difference when I moved from Houston (sea level) to the mountains. At 120k it’s still hitting hard!
It might not be selected by the majority, but the popularity will spike if and/or when they retire the 4.3L LV3 and make this the base.
It’ll be interesting to see how this four compares to the upcoming Ford Ranger. 2.7 vs 2.3. The Ranger is slightly smaller tho-
Let the battle begin!
I’d say the Ranger is significantly smaller. Ford’s 2.3EB is a good engine… has an interesting snarl to it, too.
The MPG will be the deciding factor for some.
Why can’t it be connected to the 10 speed this year? ALL engines should be connected to the 10 speed.
GM Beancouters are the reason. Just as they are the ones to blame for Current lackluster Chevrolet interiors and especially in Cadillac vehicles. Lets all start demending better from GM or they will continue to lose ground in Sedan, CUV, and Luxury sales.
Capacity planning and plant changeovers take both time and money.
I think it would be a great optional engine for the Colorado! And I think it should replace the 2.0 in the Traverse RS
I wonder how did GM reveal the K2 generation of trucks on 12/13/13 when I was looking at my first K2 truck at the dealer in August of 2013?
I could give a hoot which interior looks more cheap. Give me hard plastics that last 20 years and I’m good. But the real shame for GM customers is that they can’t get advanced power trains until they reach the $39K mark and accept a configuration that they may not want. This I not what their customers meant by more power train options. Value conscious customers are the ones who would mostly appreciate a 4 cylinder turbo that carries good payload and gets great mpg, but that engine is not available in the e category. Moreover, more options does not mean eliminating the RCSB entirely from the segment and relegating the long bed to only a work truck trim and old power trains. That’s not the definition of value..