The 2.7-liter turbocharged four cylinder 2019 Chevrolet Silverado returned worse fuel economy than a similarly equipped 5.3-liter V8 model in a recent Car and Driver comparison test.
For reference, the EPA fuel economy numbers for the 2.7L four cylinder Chevrolet Silverado is 20 mpg city and 23 mpg highway at most, while a 2019 Silverado 5.3L is expected to return at least 15 mpg city and 20 mpg highway (depending on which 5.3L V8 you get). But it’s important to know some details of this standardized fuel economy test.
The publication conducts its own real-world highway fuel economy tests, which are run at a speed of 75 mph, much faster than than the EPA’s slow 48 mph test. This makes perfect sense to us, as consumers are more likely to travel at around 75 mph on the highway than 48 mph.
Car and Driver noticed the 2.7-liter turbo four cylinder Chevrolet Silverado and 5.3-liter V8 Silverado returned similar EPA combined fuel economy figures (20 mpg and 18 mpg, respectively) so they decided to compare the two in its own 75 mph test. They didn’t have identical models on hand, instead comparing a 2.7-liter Silverado RST double cab vs 5.3-liter RST Crew Cab, which was 314 lbs heavier, but that didn’t seem to have much of an effect on the end result.
The four cylinder Chevrolet Silverado averaged 18 mpg during the test, whereas the V8 model average 21 mpg, representing a difference of 28 percent. This isn’t that surprising of a result to anyone familiar with the ploy behind small turbocharged engines. These tiny displacement, forced induction motors perform well on the EPA tests, which are conducted at unrealistically low speeds, but at higher speeds when more boost is needed, the fuel economy falls off a cliff. This dip in fuel economy for turbocharged four cylinders under heavy load can also be observed when accelerating quickly from a stoplight, for example.
Car and Driver conducted the same highway fuel economy test with a a 6.2-liter V8 equipped Sierra 1500 Denali with the eight-speed automatic transmission last year and observed an average of 18 mpg – the exact same as the four cylinder Chevrolet Silverado RST. The 450 hp Ford F-150 Raptor also returned the same 18 mpg figure. The only truck that did worse on the 75 mph highway loop test was the Toyota Tundra TRD Pro, which got 17 mpg.
(source: Car and Driver)
Comments
Shoulda put time and effort into the interior instead of the 2.7 engine. Not that the interiors are “bad”, but they lag behind the competition. If GM wanted a turbo engine they should have stuffed the 3.6TT in it and called it a day
Agreed, the upcoming refreshed Colorado and Canyon for 2020 would stand a better chance with this 2.7 Liter as an update to their Power Train Portfolio options, while the Silverado for 2020 should discontinue that option until they get right, this is a true embarrassment, the 2019 RAM 1500 Mild Hybrid along with the upcoming All-Electric F-150 will have a “Field Day” with that 2.7 Liter in Comparison Test. I still love the truck, but won’t buy the 2.7 Liter by any measure if the benefits in savings at the Fuel Pump aren’t there, no matter the technology.
Who buys a full size pick up with the small engine option and a “four-by-four transfer case” which you forgot(?) to mention. Jumps on the highway and expects to get good fuel mileage at 75 mph?
It’s pretty easy to set up a scenario where you have two completely different engine types and test them in conditions that would favor one over the other. I’m surprised they didn’t hook a trailer to them for that test. Would you use a 3HP 240V electric motor as your coy pond pump? If I needed a full size parts runner for my company, I would probably go with the 5.3. Either way, I wouldn’t want my driver out there “speeding” around.
The EPA test are valid. If you ever look at your average MPH on your vehicle it’s probably under 35MPH unless you live right off a highway exist. Most time you’re stuck at lights, traffic, non highway speeds. In these cases the 4 cylinder will do better. Picking 75MPH is just cherry picking a speed that the 4 cylinder will do worse at. At least pick a legal speed limit in most states – 70MPH.
The legal limit on our “major” hwy (476) is 70 mpg. however, one cannot go 75 without getting passed. speed on that road is routinely 75-85.
Hell the legal speed limit on another local hwy is 55-65, and cops routinely sit as people drive by at 70. “Speeding” is not as big of a deal in our area (SE PA).
It is just a bit scary doing 80 in a 2001 2500 Duramax. Especially on a windy day like yesterday.
75mph is not real world lol. Try going 65-70mph. Trucks are naturally not aerodynamic friendly.. as your speed increases, the drag does as well, which causes the engine to work harder. But seriously, who the fu*** goes 75 naturally on the highway…!!?
Let’s see. I do, going on I69 in Michigan, where is is a legally posted speed.
I previously lived in Fort Wayne, IN. I-69’s speed limit through the entire state is 65MPH. The only state where I’ve seen have Posted Speed Limit signs higher than that were in Texas, and they had 80MPH
70 in Indiana except in Ft Wayne/Indy/Evansville, Michigan has stretches of 75
South Dakota here, 80 mph I-90 and I-29.
I like that answer, count me in too on that one…..Lol!!
Most of the country were the limit is 70.
people who buy the 4 cylinder are most likely just use it to do local driving with a load of air in the bed
That 2.7 will do nicely in the next gen Colorado. I think GM will be doing a quick refresh on these trucks like they did with the Malibu a couple years ago
They really should’ve introduced it in the Canyon/Colorado first. Having the 2.7 as a big news item with their new full size is just another brain cramp from GM. They are really testing the loyalty of their truck base right now with some of the decisions they’ve made.
Engines today are engineered to meet government mpg and emissions test. That is why you also have start stop and AFM.
Matters little what numbers a magazine gets at their own test as they do not count to the government numbers.
Time to stop being mad at GM and more concerned about regulations that are leaving us with Rube Goldberg engines that are not all that much better and much more expensive, complicated and annoying.
This is no different in California where if a modification to add power proves to be cleaner it is still not legal to do.
You can see where the government can’t manage this yet so many are wanting the, to manage their Health and life?
@Andrew
I think you just nailed it! Could these trucks get anymore bad press? I hear all the hype and advertising but this truck is almost like GM just phoned it in. I have looked at the truck in person several times now on different trim levels and I keep finding more reasons not to buy than buy.
I think you are right, it will never be said publicly, but I bet GM will quickly move to fix a lot of things on this truck. And I hop e a lesson is learned and the 2022 SIlverado is the truck we all thought we were getting!
It look like no matter what gm do car and driver will always complaining,,,maybe change the name of the magazine the mother in law ,,
This is car and driver now. It’s sad they feel the need to conduct an unfair comparison test simply to prop-up a predetermined headline they think will get clicks.
It looks like it would have been better just to put the turbo in the reliable V-6.
Blow the competition away and make the customers happy.
I am really curious to see the 2019 sales numbers when it is all said and done. I think Ram is going to really lay a beat down on Chevy this year.
Worse mileage then a 5.3? The 4 cylinder engine is DOA. GM has been building small block V-8’s since 1955, they are pretty well sorted. The complexity alone of the 4 cylinder makes the decision a no brainer. There are places where a 4 cylinder makes sense, but it’s not in a full size pick up.
And the dealerships must agree as I have yet to see a single 4 cylinder Silverado to date. They are all 5.3 and a few 6.2’s.
Going by GM’s own stated MPG the 4 was only slightly better than the 5.3 in some areas worse. Even the price difference for the option was about the same. Thats why I didn’t understand the reason for spending the development money for this Engine. For a company that seem to be so obsessed with saving money they sure don’t seem to mind wasting money.
the dyno test is a govt requirement and ford has the same problem with the ecoboost as real world mileage is less. when that turbo spools up you need to feed it fuel so it does not go lean and damage the engine
While GM Management has seemed to back away from hybrids, my initial thoughts about this 4 cylinder, was that it could be used at some point, in conjunction with an electrical motor setup for higher output and better mileage?
What was the point then developing this engine?
Cruising empty is exactly where this engine is supposed to stand out. Nobody would expect a big difference hauling / towing heavy loads or in stop and go driving.
This is sad you people can give this a thumbs down if you want to but TFLT had announce last year that fuel economy didn’t improve in these trucks even with that new dfm an with the 8 an 10 speed transmission it’s like I said before it almost like Gm doesn’t care about the people buying these trucks the only thing they are worried about is profit to me its dumb to bring out an entirely new truck an the only thing your best in class in is the box size I love SILVERADOS but it doesn’t surprise me that ram is taking the number 2 spot they been building trucks for a 100 years an the only thing this 2019 Silverado can brag about is the PICKUP box an how many tie downs it has
A Shake-Up in the leadership is what they need at this point, they have the wrong person overseeing and giving the “Green Light” for all the wrong reasons when it comes to some of their vehicles right now.
GM misses Bob Lutz, but won’t admit it.
Guess what, this is not a “real world” test. The 4 cylinder will be bought in very small numbers by people who do most of their driving around town, in-city. It’s not for people doing long hauls through Idaho at 75mph. Also, remember that GM pickups have a nasty habit of getting much BETTER mileage in the real world, meaning, in customers hands not the EPA or big publication reviews. The real question is why does Car and Driver do everything they possibly can to rag on GM pickups.
Who doesn’t go 75 on the freeway? Sounds real enough world to me.
Someone looking to get good fuel mileage, that’s who!
Someones gotta rag on them every once in a while or GM will go back to making the junk they made in the 70’s and 80’s. The engine was a mistake and they’ll learn from it. Maybe the 2.7 will be a better base engine for the C1 SUV’s. The Blazer needs a better base engine to get the AWD.
Those turbo will be the first item to fail on trucks after they get some miles on them. What’s that going to cost?
Fuel milage being somewhat equal, I’ll take the under stressed V8 over the stressed Turbo 4 everyday.
So what’s the point of this turbo I-4 motor?
Why would anyone opt for it over a V8? I would rather just save my money and get the 4.3L V6 or opt for the 5.3L V8.
In fact, this crappy I-4 is justification for expanding the models available with the V6.
What a freekin’ joke. You cannot make this stuff up. If I did not know better, it would seem that GM was doing everything in its power to screw this launch up.
it will along with the 1500 series diesel help with chevys corporate fuel mileage on the trucks since they go by the dyno test and chevy wants to put the 6.2 into more models which will hurt their average.
I don’t doubt the 4 cylinder gets relatively poor fuel mileage, but it must be said that the longer bed on the double cab means more air on the tailgate which is more drag. This is why they have turned the CHMSL into a defacto spoiler, elongate the cab and keep air off the tailgate. Add to that, the tailgate most likely sets higher in the air due to less weight on the rear springs, again more drag. The extra bed length alone is probably counts at least -1 MPG at that speed. This comparison is worthless on these points alone.
Reminds me of my friend who bought a 2.0 EB 2015 Taurus thinking he would get better mileage than his wife’s 2015 V6 Epsilon Impala. How wrong he was. Turned out they both got identical highway mpg going at speeds in the 72-73 MPH range with the Ford actually getting lower city and combined than the 3.6 Chevy. They even traded vehicles for a few weeks and had similar results.
I suspect this engine might do ok in a regular cab configuration used for in town deliveries. A business that serves inside the big city. As noted by others, the Colorado / Canyon twins might be a better utilization of this power plant.
2.7 L turbo is an engine for The Rocky Mountains. Above an elevation of 4300 feet it will make more power then the 5.3 L V8. Above an elevation of 8700 feet it will make more power than the 6.2 L. 5.3 L V8 is an Engine for you flatlanders.
Another nail in General Motors CEO Mary Barra’s coffin as logic should have seen this blunder given the Silverado’s specifications and job requirement as the 3.0L DOHC-4v 4-cyl turbo simply needed to work too hard to gain any advantage over a Ecotec V6 or V8.
Unfortunately, we all know the day is coming where V8 powered vehicles will be no more. What GM is doing is testing the waters with new tech to see what it will do, and what it won’t do. This engine is meant to be a pioneer into the world of smaller turbocharged engines. Once GM works this engine out and refines it, the 2.7L will do fine. I do see it being the base engine for the next generation Camaro along with a variant of the 3.6L twin turbo V6 as the new engine for the SS. I strongly believe that the next Gen Camaro will do away with all V8 engines, and a variant of the E-COPO Camaro’s electric drivetrain will power the next gen ZL1 in a fight with an all new Electric range topping mustang, and possibly something from Tesla as well as Dodge. The Z28 will return in a slightly hopped up form of the 3.6L Twin turbo with the 7-speed DCT transmission and a suspension and braking system set up as a hotter blend of track and street. The SS will have the 10-speed hybrid transmission plus a 7spd DCT a performance AWD, Brembo brakes, magnetic ride and a lot more tech and better visibility with more of the current 1LE baked into it and tech from the Cadillac ATS-V, the 2.7L Camaro will have a lot of the same 1LE baked into it but as the entry level car with better fuel economy. I also see this engine going in the Colorado, and the new blazer as I’m quite sure the Blazer will move to a RWD platform to compete with the explorer and I foresee a 3.0L 400hp twin turbo engine in the mix as well as the 3.6L twin turbo as both vehicles will fight to dethrone the Durango as the best midsize SUV on the road in terms of power and performance. I also foresee Chevrolet putting the Malibu on the upcoming VSS-R platform along with the Camaro and the Blazer and offering the 2.7L and the 3.6L Twin turbo in a trio, along with electric variants for each of them. The Malibu will carry the SS badging again with the 3.6L Twin Turbo V6 and 10-speed automatic with performance braking, suspension, aerodynamics, drive line, and styling. Chevy is going to follow in Ford’s footsteps, just like Ford is following in Dodge’s footsteps and go to two cars, a sports coupe and a sedan, the SUV market will include the current lineup except the Traverse will probably disappear in a few years as the Blazer will take over on the VSS-R platform. The Suburban will more than likely meet it’s demise as will the Impala while the Tahoe will live on to compete with the Expedition with the extended wheel base being the Tahoe XL (like the Denali or the Expedition L) GM will drop the engines down to a 3.6L Twin turbo V6, same as what they’re going to do with the Silverado and the Cadillac 3.0L will be used in the lineup as a mid level engine under a different name than the blackwing as the black wing will undoubtedly receive upgrades in the near future. Dont forget, the 3.6L Twin turbo V6 also had a 410hp variant in the CTS V-Sport and the XTS V-Sport and it’s torque out put was in the mid 400lb-ft range putting it on par with the 6.2L V8 in the Silverado currently. Tweaks to the turbo system along with a hybrid 10-speed auto could do wonders for it not only as a regular duty variant, but also as a high performance Silverado SS pushing just over 500hp and nearing 600lb-ft of torque. Not to mention we all know that Ford is planning not only an electric F150 but also a off road Super Duty which will probably have a diesel option and a twin turbo V6 option. I foresee GM doing a bit of the same. Not to mention the Ram HD now has a Cummins Diesel I-6 turbo that makes 1000lb-ft of torque. I could easily see Ford switching it’s Powerstroke to an I-6 Turbo diesel pumping out numbers near that along with GM doing the same for it’s Duramax. While unfortunately the V8 will no longer live on, I’m quite sure performance will live on as electric vehicles and hybrid automobiles become more common place in the market.
This 2.7 liter 4 banger has a stroke of 4.01 inch. Since the fuel economy suffers, a longer 4.25 inch stroke will help that low end, so a different rear end gear ratio could be used, to give an extra 2 or 3 MPG. If the bore was left the same at 3.63 inch and the longer stroke, it will be a 2.88 liter and boost the cubic inches from 166 to 176. you will have an increase of torque of about 6.2 percent more, or 370 lbs feet of torque. Make the the 2.7 liter a 5 cylinder engine and you will have a decent 435 lbs feet of torque. Use a 5 cylinder with a longer 4.25 inch stroke, you have 488 lbs feet of torque. For a bit more turbo boost of about 5 percent, you will be over the 500 lbs feet range. Use E85 gas and that will add 8.5 percent torque, you will have 530 lbs feet of torque at just 1500 RPM all the way up to 4000 RPM. percent for the GM full size vans or full size pickups. Even better for the Colorado SS or Redline version, with AWD to be able to get that torque to the ground. While i’m on the topic, a longer 6 cylinder version will be 636 lbs feet of torque for the stroked engine running on very high octane E85 gas. Two wheel drive trucks can’t handle this, but this huge amount of torque is perfect for the full size Chev Suburban and Tahoe SS or Redline models. For you not familiar with past engine history, GM used three different versions bof the same design engine in the GM trucks. There was a 2.8 liter 4 banger in the Colorado, a 5 banger 3.5 liter later became the 3.7 liter 5 banger with 277 HP and an inline 6 cylinder. The HP version of the 6 banger was used in the Chev Trailerblazer, that had 400 HP. Of course they only had AWD, to handle the high torque. So taking this 4 banger 2.7 to and inline 5 and 6 cylinder engine is no big issue. an inline 6 will run very smooth, as everyone knows from past experience. The engine could also be cast in iron as well as aluminum, so it can be used as an heavy duty industrial engine as well. There is a huge world wide market for industrial engines, so it will pay GM to do this.
Wow, that’s alot of engine tech numbers you have there Mark, I do believe GM has their budget and market analysis for power trains well sorted out.
As far as your tech numbers go, in aerospace they say to check, recheck and then check your numbers again.
The Atlas engine family you refered to, the move from 3.5L to 3.7L for the 5-cylinder netted a 20hp increase to 242hp/242ft-lbs . The 4.2L 6-cylinder produced from 270hp – 291hp (’06), there was a concept trailblazer with a turbocharged 4.2 (6-cyl) that produced 400hp but that was all it ever was.
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/trailblazer/2002/chevrolet-trailblazer-turbo/
This is why people need to realize and accept that turbocharged engines are not a solution to every problem. It matters not how you get plenty of horsepower because all the methods require plenty of fuel. Simple fact of life
Physics. A certain amount of weight with a certain size/shape frontal area pushing air will require X amount of fuel, period.
What I don’t understand is that they say they want to cut back on options and inventory complexity yet they double the Engine option with no power gain and in some cases with less gas mileage. IMO they had 3 Engine option they should have improved on what they had in power or gas mileage increase or left well enough alone.