mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

GM Doesn’t Use The Term “Four-Cylinder” To Describe GM Trucks’ L3B Engine

Simply put, modern engine technology is amazing. Engineers have figured out how to extract loads of power and torque from relatively small displacement and low cylinder counts, as evidenced by the turbocharged 2.7L L3B inline four-cylinder found in GM trucks like the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500. However, GM appears apprehensive to use the term “four-cylinder” when describing the engine, which is perhaps an indication that public perception hasn’t quite caught up to the realities of modern technology.

Looking over the terminology and wording used for the Silverado and Sierra GM trucks, including each respective vehicle’s website and various marketing materials, nowhere is the L3B engine referred to as a “four-cylinder.” Rather, GM seems intent on referring to it as simply “2.7L Turbo” wherever possible.

Which raises the question – why?

It’s possible the reluctance is due to certain customer perceptions of what a four-cylinder is “supposed” to be, and how those associations are misaligned with the muscle-bound image of GM trucks. Of course, it bears mentioning that those perceptions aren’t necessarily justified when looking at the actual specs offered by the turbocharged 2.7L L3B inline four-cylinder. For example, output is rated at 310 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 348 pound-feet of torque at 1,500 rpm, which is more than adequate for light-duty GM trucks like the Silverado and Sierra. Output is routed to the wheels via an eight-speed automatic transmission.

For reference, we’ve listed the L3B engine availability in the charts below:

2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2.7L L3B Engine Availability
WT Custom Custom Trail Boss LT RST LT Trail Boss LTZ High Country
A A N/A S S N/A N/A N/A
2020 GMC Sierra 1500 2.7L L3B Engine Availability
Sierra Base SLE Elevation SLT AT4 Denali
A S S N/A N/A N/A
  • A = Available
  • S = Standard
  • N/A = Not Available

So then, dear reader, is the reluctance to call the L3B engine a “four-cylinder” when referencing its usage in GM trucks justified? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section. And make sure to subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevrolet Silverado news, GMC Sierra news, Chevrolet news, GMC news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

[nggallery id=1061]
[nggallery id=972]

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

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. I like the idea of this engine, but I like it for the Colorado.
    If I were to order a Silverado today it would be the 3.0 diesel

    Reply
    1. Andrew, you hit it on the head. This 4 banger ( don’t say cylinder….LOL ) is the perfect engine for a special model of the smaller Colorado pickup. In fact, GM could make a 5 cylinder out of this engine and use it in the full size pickups. Since the 4 banger has 358 pounds feet of torque, all things being equal, a 5 banger of the same 2.7 liter turbo will have 447 Lbs feet of torque. That’s perfect for a heavier truck. Oh, wait, there’s more…..how about the 5 banger in the Colorado and call it a Redline ( i like SS ) version. With all that power it should only come in a 4 wheel drive model. In fact the full size van could use the 5 banger version as a base engine or an optional base engine. . Even the baby SUV’s would be much more desirable with that 5 banger, but detuned a bit for the baby Caddy and GMC baby Denali SUV versions, to offer a lower RPM when the max torque starts.

      Reply
      1. I want to see a gas version of the new 3.0 Duramax!

        Reply
        1. Would be nice to see the 3L Duramax itself.

          Reply
    2. GM did make a 5 cylinder engine a few years ago . They put it in full size Blazers. Very bad DESIGN! The engines timing chain was not in the front of the engine it was put in the back of the engine . To change the timing chain you had to remove the transfer case and the TRANSMISSION, to replace the chain only to find out it was nothing more than a bicycle chain ,REALLY WHOS EVER BRAIN STORM THAT WAS NEEDS FIRED!! So how did that engine work out for GM or the cost the owner had to pay to get a bicycle chain replacement when out of warranty? GM clams that little 4 cylinder engine has 310 HP . What is it to the rear wheels ,just think a little e banger powering a 4200 lbs plus full size pickup for how long before it gives up the ghost?

      Reply
      1. I don’t ever recall the 5 cylinder being put in any Blazer named SUV. They did put a 5 cylinder in the h3 Hummer. Also that 5 cylinder engine was in a lot of canyon/ Colorado

        Reply
        1. BETTER GO AND DO YOUR HOME WORK,FEW YEARS AGO GM “DID” PUT A 5 CYLINDER IN THE FULL SIZE SUVS!

          Reply
          1. Better learn to turn off the caps lock. Decades ago, computers did start to support lowercase characters.

            Reply
          2. No, no they didn’t. Colorado, canyon and the h3 were the only ones. None of those were full sized. Reply back only if you have proof. I expect crickets. Since you had to yell at me in caps, I’m going to call you out.

            I’m talking production vehicles in the US, btw. I’m sure some test mule got one, but never a production full size SUV. Even the trailblazer the base engine was the 4.2 6 cylinder and that was a mid sized SUV.

            Reply
      2. That engine was designed by Isuzu and was called the LLR Vortec 3700 and was discontinued in 2012. I had a 2010 Colorado with that engine. Not a bad engine but I much prefer my 3.6 ltr 2017 Canyon. I’m getting 24 MPG as long as I run Premium gas.

        Reply
      3. Timing Chain was in the front and it was a dual overhead cam engine.

        Reply
  2. Most modern cars now only have four cylinders, and manufacturers are very proud of showing off what their engines can do. Compare to the obsolete V8 and V6 engines of the past century, newer four-bangers generate more power yet get good MPG ratings. My own Fusion Hybrid has a 2.0 L four cylinder engine, yet I get up to 54 MPG in a two ton midsized sedan. That is progress!

    Reply
    1. Hybrids are not the topic of discussion here and what’s this..?

      The Fusion Hybrid is rated at 43/41/42 mpg, while the Energi plug-in hybrid is rated at 103 MPGe, or 42 mpg combined. Some hybrid competitors do better, especially the newest Toyota Camry, which is EPA-rated at 52 mpg combined.

      https://www.newcartestdrive.com/reviews/2019-ford-fusion/

      Reply
    2. Fusion Hybrid does not equal crew cab 4WD Truck. No duh 4 cylinders are very common today, they’re cheap to make, throw a turbo on it and you got yourself 300 hp. Wonderful in a car. Not a pickup. It’s already been tested. The 4 banger in the Silverado returns worse mpg than the V8 in real world applications. Engine longevity aside, the 4 banger is just working too hard. Now if you live in the flattest part of the earth and never use your truck for things like, towing and hauling. Getcha a 4 banger. For the rest of us who live in the hills and use our trucks, the V8 it is.

      Reply
      1. “Now if you live in the flattest part of the earth and never use your truck for things like, towing and hauling.”
        http://www.yellowmaps.com/maps/img/US/elevation/USA-elevation-map-088.jpg

        I would venture to guess that there are more miles per year put on parts trucks, construction company owners, job foreman/site superintendent per year then you might think. Not to mention the fact most truck owners rarely if ever use their truck to it’s capabilities.

        Also, doing a fuel efficiency test on this truck at 75mph (as C&D did) is as usefully as doing one on a Bugatti at full throttle or a towing range test on a Prius.

        There is a place for this truck in the service industry, which does not need or expect 4 can shafts. If they choose the single can shaft route then at least they have the choice.

        Reply
        1. A comment like this ->
          “doing a fuel efficiency test on this truck at 75mph (as C&D did) is as usefully as doing one on a Bugatti at full throttle”
          shows you definitely do not live in Texas, or anywhere else where doing less than 70-75 on the highway will get you a lot of dirty looks and make you a danger to 90% of the other vehicles. I am personally all for fuel efficiency testing a REAL WORLD speeds of 70-75 and couldn’t care less about putting around at 55 or 60 as though I lived in some state smaller than the D/FW area.

          Reply
        2. “Not to mention the fact most truck owners rarely if ever use their truck to it’s capabilities.”

          That is not a fact. That’s actually entirely anecdotal. Just because the 2 people you know with trucks don’t use them for truck purposes doesn’t mean the other 2 million trucks sold every year aren’t used in that degree.

          Here’s an actual fact, trucks don’t need to have a fully loaded bed and/or towing a loaded trailer to be “used to their capabilities”.

          Reply
    3. Raymond, if your Fusion weighs 2 tons, that’s 4,000 pounds, i suggest you kick your 800 pound mother-in-law out of the car.

      Reply
      1. The suspension would be so happy as would be the motor!!

        Reply
    4. Saab new that since the 70s and 80s. Too bad they’re not around any more.

      Reply
  3. The average person has no clue what is under the hood of the car they drive or what 4, 6, or 8 cylinder even means. Some may know key words they have heard but wouldn’t be able to identify the parts if they were sitting in a bench in front of them.

    All they care about is the carrots that are advertised such as horse power, MPG (right Ray?), “Alexa”? or some safety feature what ever the manufacturer decides to call it.

    Reply
    1. I wouldn’t call most truck owners “average person”. Most truck buyers (especially if the truck ‘works’) are traditionalists – ‘no replacement for displacement’ kind of people, and they trust what they know. Even if a truck-buyer is a ‘big hat, no cattle’ type, they probably didn’t buy a truck for its ‘adequate’ power.

      Ford made the transition to the 3.5L EcoBoost as their mainstream half-ton option successful, I think, because it offered all the grunt of the V8 it replaced, and maybe a bit more. The numbers and set-of-the-pants thrust did all the talking, along with the press they had about their long-term durability testing. GM’s L3B is better than the most recent V6, but that hardly brings any bragging rights with it, nor does the fact that the L3B output is in line with GM’s 5.3L V8 from 10 yrs. ago. On it’s own, it’s impressive…for a 4-cylinder. Like others, I think it would be more successful in the Colorado/Canyon.

      To me, leaving the ‘4-cylinder’ tag off the L3B description is evasive. It’s presuming that the shopper doesn’t need to know, shouldn’t need to know, and isn’t going to ask. I can see why they’re doing it, but as a consumer, I really resent when any manufacturer conveniently omits or hides details about their product that would otherwise help me make an informed decision. If the strategy drives traffic to the showroom and gets people out on test drives, and then they find out (like the Pepsi Challenge), “You chose the 4-cylinder!”, I suppose the marketing people will deem their reluctance justified. But I think it would take more than that to change conventional logic about how much engine a full-size truck needs.

      Reply
  4. Gay. Gay. Gay.

    Reply
    1. Ed Johnson

      Baskin-Robbins has 31flavors of Ice cream. If Vice President Mike Pence had his way, we would all be forced to have plain vanilla.

      Don’t be a Pence!

      Reply
      1. You’re an idiot

        Peter G

        Reply
    2. Eddy the rainbow extraordinaire.
      Back to your closet Eddy!

      Reply
  5. We shall see if this engine is reliable. We all know the GM of the past, but hopefully this one is a bright spot and not another blemish.

    Reply
  6. I purchased a 2019 with the 4 cylinder. It is a great truck. I love telling people its a 4 cylinder.

    Reply
    1. I purchased the 2020 LT with the 2.7L. I’m 2,000 miles in and average 21MPG city and 27.1 highway. Oh, i have also pulled my 16′ tandem axle trailer with 6,000 lbs of trees i cut down last weekend without issue. It’s got plenty of power when needed and i’m pleasantly surprised with the mpg’s. I’m a fan.

      Reply
      1. I note that as of this reply, you’ve received three down-ticks. I guess some disapprove of the good results you’ve had so far.

        As for me, I’m giving it a year or so to see how they hold up. I’m not a size queen; if the engine holds up, I’ll consider one if it’s offered in the 2022 Tahoe.

        Reply
    2. Precisely! Let’s hear from someone who actually has one and lives with it day to day. Way better than all this conjecture. Also real life use from actual owners is more valuable to me than C&D reports.

      Reply
      1. I love my truck. Tows my boat like it weighs nothing. My last 900 miles, (I towed a 5000 pound boat 100 miles of that, and a smaller boat for 150 of that) I am at 20.5 mpg. That also includes about 550 around town miles.

        Reply
  7. Eric Nast is100% right in his reply. GM is being evasive by not mentioning that this is a 4 cylinder engine.

    Typical GM sleight of hand. As consumers, we shouldn’t feel like we are being duped when we spot stuff like this.

    Reply
    1. They are not evading anything. Go to the site, click specs, and it’s right there to be seen.

      Reply
      1. I looked…the hp & torque specs are there, but no mention of the 2.7L Turbo being an I4 engine. They describe it as “responsive” and note the fact that the 2.7L has active fuel management, but I see nothing about the number of cylinders.

        Otherwise, they proudly describe the other engine choices as:
        4.3L EcoTec3 V6
        5.3L EcoTec3 V8
        3.0L Duramax Turbo-Diesel I6
        6.2L EcoTec3 V8

        To be clear, I have no doubt that the L3B can move a full-size truck with some authority, and if you have light duty tow/haul jobs and an exhaust note isn’t your priority, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a large-displacement turbo-4 in a truck. What’s annoying is that GM is happy to outline the rest of the engine configurations, until they’re afraid that you (the typical truck buyer) won’t like what you see/hear.

        At least Cadillac describes the L3B as a “2.7L Turbocharged I4” when they talk about this “Developed from the outset as a truck engine…” being used in the new high-performance CT4-V sedan. But that’s a whole ‘nother story… lol.

        Reply
    2. I think it’s less an issue of being evasive and more an issue of knowing who your real customers are. In the case of full sized pickups, there is more than one type of customer. The sales figures bear that out. You have your “I need something with a high ride-height and a comfortable ride that I can take to Costco and Home Depot when I need to” crowd. And you have your “I need to be able to get to and from work, tow my boat / snowmobile / wave-runner on the weekends and go hunting / camping / on vacation whenever the heck I want to” crowd.

      The first group probably doesn’t read past the hp and fuel economy numbers (what’s that torque number mean, anyway?). The second type is gonna be nose-down into the specs down to the axle ratios, towing specs, and cargo capacity. Fuel economy? It is what it is. They’re gonna breeze right past the L3B because they were already looking for the L87 or the LM2. That’s right, they already know what engine RPO they want. Thing is, the first group is actually growing pretty fast.

      Reply
    3. Much the same way GM is duping the public when you buy a 4×4 and only get a single speed transfer case because you didn’t buy the 6.2L or the Z71/X31 package. Fortunately though some the dealers have caught on and only order 4×4’s with the 2 speed transfer case.

      Reply
  8. If this engine proves to be reliable in the Silverado it will go along way with the mid size fans.

    As for “I really resent when any manufacturer conveniently omits or hides details about their product that would otherwise help me make an informed decision.”

    You mean like Ford continues selling cars with the CVT transmission knowing all along it has major flaws?

    Yea, I think that a fair comparison.

    Reply
    1. What Ford vehicle are you taking about with a cvt? The only ones I can think of were freestyle/ 500’s, but those were pretty decent. Ok, the fusion hybrid had one currently, but I’ve yet to see any issues with that. Are you taking about the DCT in the 2011+ focus/ Fiesta? If so, there’s far more egregious cost cutting major lawsuits by GM. Gm’s Ignition switch lawsuit caused multiple deaths. All over a cost savings of a few pennies a switch.

      Reply
      1. Sorry, yes it is the DCT acronym I was referring to and don’t get me started on the Pinto.

        Reply
        1. Yeah, don’t start with that, when there’s GM’s bean counter decision to not line fuel tanks mounted outside of the frame rails instead of inside where they belong ( GM didn’t pay attention to the pinto deal) on full size Vans and trucks from the 70’s-late 80’s? Or what about the corvair?

          Reply
          1. That was a bunch of bull $#!+.The testing group placed small charges in the fuel tanks to detonate on impact. The sold millions of those trucks for almost 20 years. Never saw or even heard of that happening. Kinda strange huh?

            Reply
            1. The trucks also exceeded required Federal standards of the time.

              Reply
            2. Reply
          2. How about the ludicrous “Twin Traction Beam” front suspension on all those Bronco II’s, Explorers and Rangers?

            26psi running pressure in a tire Ford required Firstone to trim pounds of weight from during manufacturing?

            https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Highways-Ford-Firestone-Killing-Machine/dp/1938757017

            “I SEE NO ‘REAL’ RISK IN FAILING THE CONSUMERS UNION TEST EXCEPT WHAT MAY RESULT IN SPURIOUS LITIGATION” – Roger Stornant, Ford engineer.

            In developing the Explorer, Ford’s engineers were constrained from the start by previous decisions that locked the SUV onto a narrow truck frame and into a front-end suspension that was designed in the 1960s. As early as 1987, a Ford memo warned that “light-truck rollovers are 2 to 4 times the car rate” and urged Explorer developers to consider “any design action that improves vehicle stability or helps maintain the passenger safety in the vehicle.” Ford maintains it did exactly this.

            The Explorer’s platform dates back to the late 1970s, when Ford created a new line of light trucks—code-named Yuma—that came to include the Ranger pickup and the now infamous Bronco II. Both vehicles used a unique “Twin I-Beam” suspension that raised their center of gravity by placing crisscrossing beams atop one another between the front tires.

            The company marketed I-Beam directly to consumers, since it had been used on the original and highly popular Bronco. But the Bronco II became a nightmare for Ford, which by the late 1980s faced more than 800 lawsuits that stemmed from accidents involving rollovers. That didn’t deter Ford from using the same suspension on the new Explorer, which allowed the automaker to build the SUV on the same assembly lines as the Ranger pickup.

            This choice soon produced unsettling results. While undergoing handling maneuvers in 1989, an Explorer prototype showed a greater tendency to lift its wheels while turning—a possible prelude to rollovers—than even the Bronco II. The test report observed that the Explorer had to be “at least equivalent to the Bronco II in these maneuvers to be considered acceptable for production.”

            That was a rock-bottom standard, since the image of the Bronco II continued to worsen. In June 1989 a Consumer Reports article titled “How Safe Is the Bronco II?” rated its handling as poor in a test that simulated rapid lane changes. The Consumers Union publication advised “prudent buyers” to steer clear of it. According to an original analysis prepared for TIME by University of Michigan statistician Hans Joksch, an expert in automotive statistics, the Explorer has had approximately the same rate of fatal rollovers as the Bronco II.

            The Consumer Reports results stunned Ford engineers, who acknowledged in a memo that passing “the Consumers Union test became an implicit requirement for Explorer due to the potential for adverse publicity.” The memo was referring to a double-lane-change test that Consumers Union used to evaluate an automobile’s real-world maneuverability.

            Ford made a curious choice with regard to the Explorer’s tires. After putting the SUV through the Consumers Union test, engineer Roger Stornant wrote that the results yielded “a high confidence of passing CU with [Firestone’s] P225 tires and less confidence on the [Firestone] P235.” Ford chose the larger P235 anyway. Marketed first as the ATX and then as the Wilderness AT, the P235 became the tire that Firestone later recalled.

            In a chilling aside, Stornant wrote that Ford “management is aware of the potential risk with P235 tires and has accepted [that] risk. CU test is generally unrepresentative of the real world,” Stornant said, “and I see no ‘real’ risk in failing [the CU test] except what may result in the way of spurious litigation.”

            With the Explorer’s 1990 production date approaching, Ford engineers listed four options for improving the stability of the SUV: widening the chassis by 2 in.; lowering the engine; or lowering the tire pressure and stiffening the springs. Ford chose the latter two fixes and recommended a tire pressure of 26 p.s.i.—rather than the 30-to-35 p.s.i. that Firestone normally used in its tires—to produce a more road-gripping ride.

            Reply
      2. In a discussion over on bitog there’s a guy with a fiesta, that he claimed to have all of Fords redesigns / fixes for the DCT, and he liked it. Also we recently we had some visitors that rented a Fiesta (looked brand new) and they too claimed it was a great car. Surprised me!
        So clean up a mess of a DCT, then cancel the car. Good job Ford. But there’s plenty of that to go around.
        So would I buy one? Oh hell no!!!

        Reply
      3. PAY THE PRICE GM FOR HAVING PARTS MADE IN CHINA!! WHATS THE PROBLEM,AMERICA CARS CANG BE MADE WITH AMERICAN MADE PARTS?

        Reply
  9. The issue is not that it’s a four cylinder. The issue is that the 4 cyl engine gets lousy gas mileage, so there’s no advantage to it. GM is embarrassed that their 4 cyl is working so hard that it compromises efficiency.

    Reply
    1. It’s all about what it does on the treadmill, to satisfy Our Betters In Washington. Real-world performance doesn’t enter into it, because it can’t.

      Reply
  10. This is a great engine in my mind for the Colorado, traverse and even the entry level Camero. As a rule, I hate the idea of turbos. You overcharge an engine and use the energy that a larger engine could use for propulsion to turn a turbo and add more gas to an engine already running past optimum efficiency. We see that with all the towing test of the Ecoboost engines, poor mileage under load. The ideal engine would be a 7L I6 with cylinder deactivation, Atkinson cycle and variable cam lift if you want power and ultimate efficiency. I don’t mind the 2.7 4 cylinder in a Silverado, mind if it’s a suburban truck that takes the boat out 5 times a year, the 2.7 is a perfect motor!

    Reply
  11. Most of us” Baby Boomers ” love our V8
    engines and don’t get me wrong I like some of the 4-cylinder turbo applications, especially in my Buick regal it moves great it gets great gas mileage but once you get up into the higher RPMs turn the air on Mandy got four people in the car it struggles a little bit. But as far as I’m concerned four-cylinder that’s being discussed what do best in the Colorado and the canyon not in the full size truck. And I recall someone saying that v6 is envy eighths are obsolete, I don’t think so there will always be a demand until eventually everything becomes electric which I hope I’m dead by the time that happens. Along with the GM is being evasive comment, what else is new been driving GM is my whole life, and since Rodger Smith they still kind of continue to disappoint and miss the mark.

    Reply
  12. Just did. Chevy’s site says no cylinder count on the 2.7 turbo. Anywhere… I even dug to find the cylinder count. Nada…

    Reply
  13. The fundamental issue is putting the right truck together with the right engine and the right job. Don’t expect more from this four banger than it’s able to deliver in real world day to day situations. It’s ultimately up to the buyer to know the intended use of a specific truck and engine combination and whether the spec’s get the job done. It’s a matter homework and research prior to purchase. Buy it if it meets your needs and you can live with it’s limitations.
    Even the old S10 with its 4 banger was sufficiently powerful for some jobs.
    WF

    Reply
    1. But don’t forget ,the s10 weight wasn’t over 4000 lbs an was a bigger truck. I’ve own 4 s10s 4×4 an my last new one is a 1998 an as of today has 307,000 miles on it an it has a Vortex v6. It has been taken care of every 3000 miles! Wish GM STILL MADE THEM!!!

      Reply
  14. Nothing wrong marketing this and not calling it a 4.

    Many people who have never driven a 4 like this would snub it due to cylinder count and not the true power or torque.

    My choice would still be a V8 here but this is still a very good engine and if people would just get over the cylinder count issues they would be very happy with it.

    I tire of it is just a 4 or the turbo will blow up etc. my last turbo went 9 trouble free years even running 23 pounds of boost.

    Since most people don’t tow or even haul much for loads the 4 would serve them well. But GM understands and has set expectations to reasonable levels.

    Reply
  15. Maybe this is why my dealer has a nicely loaded SLE and can’t sell it?

    Reply
  16. Squeezing that much power out of a little engine come with a cost. Reliability and wear. I have an ‘84 GMC 3500 with an M code 350 and a 4 speed and it makes its power at low rpm right where a truck needs it. Also has 4.56 gears to get rolling easy. Early on I got that engine real hot. Like a fool I put off replacing the temp gauge. I heard the coolant boiling in the radiator took an laser temp off the head and it was 340*. Thermostat stuck closed in July, hauling a trailer. No damage, heads were fine no issues two years later (new thermostat and gauge) . Try that with a new aluminum engine

    Reply
    1. What kind of mpgs you getting out of that thing?

      Reply
  17. Its a 4 cylinder, they suck. Theres no other way around it. I dont care if it has 500hp, its still a 4 cylinder in a truck. They’ll sell a few to liberal hobby farmers who grow organic tomatoes but thats it. Im a GM fan but these people on here need to stop drinking the Koolaid and see that GM is a shell of the corporation it once was.

    Reply
    1. You are totally wrong about 4 cylinder trucks and who would buy them.
      You are totally right about GM being a shell of what it once was.
      I cannot vote you up or down.

      Reply
  18. Can someone explain the advantages/disadvantage a 2.7L 4 cylinder have over a 2.7L V6? Both Ford and GM have 2.7L engine, one has 4 cylinders, the other has 6, I really don’t know which setup makes better sense

    Reply
    1. Ford v6, higher boost to make more power, Chevy, optimized for fuel economy and low end torque. Chevy has variable valve lift, electric water pump and independent upper and lower coolant systems for better heat manangent and more efficiency and an inline design for more reliability and lower cost of production. The Ford is shorter because it’s a v6. Both are designed like deisels as the headers and blocks are concerned for the increased stress of turbo charging. The Ford has the fantastic 10speed, the Chevy the 8. In a nutshell, the Ford is more powerful and exspensive, the Chevy is more efficient and cheaper.

      Reply
      1. Thanks for the explanation. My question was more about a 2.7 4, vs 2.7 V6 in general, not necessarily Ford’s engine vs GM’s

        Reply
        1. I4’s are longer, only need one set of timing cams, need less complex balance shafts, v6’s have more complex balance shafts, are wider and need more parts for 2 sets of cams, pistons valves, etc. A i4 would have less friction with less parts and less ring area than a v4. While on the topic of balance shafts, v8’s and i6 can for the most part avoid these friction robbing devices as they are naturally balenced.

          Reply
    2. The Ford 2.7 V6 Ecoboost doesn’t have cylinder deactivation, which as far as I’m concerned, is a BIG plus.

      Reply
    3. For one, the Ford 2.7 doesn’t have cylinder de-activation.

      Reply
  19. This Turbo 4 cylinder was built as a truck engine , Not for car use and not for front wheel drive ! If you remember or even know ,The other High output 2.0 4 cylinder engine, That is offered in the Camaro is for car use only and that is because GM does not have a drivetrain for the front drive cars to handle the Torque above 260 FT pounds !!

    Reply
  20. I dont trust GM Cheverolet or GMC. I bought a 6.6 duramax and the fuel pump broke, causing metal fragments to go into the entire fuel system. $11,000 to repair. GM wouldn’t cover it because it was 100 miles over the warranty. Its confusing to me how there was no safety fiture engineered to protect that from happening. Anyway, told the dealer to fix it, and two months later they still haven’t. GM can’t get the parts for the truck to be fixed. I will never purchase another chevy gmc vehicle again. Save yourself a headache and buy a dodge diesel.

    Reply
  21. Autopal, it’s tough to compare the Ford turbo 2.7 v6 to the gm turbo i4. The big difference in those two engines is that the ford had two turbos. An i4 should weigh less, but sounds worse than a v6. The Ford has 400 lb-ft of tq, a little more than 50 than the GM. The Ford also has more hp. That said, while gm doesn’t want people to compare their 2.7 to 2.7 Ford, people will, and do. GM would rather compare the 2.7 turbo 4 to the 3.3 base Ford v6. The problem with that thought process is that it’s very hard to find a 3.3 v6 Ford, it’s more of a fleet engine. Even then, that 3.3 v6 is no slouch.

    Reply
  22. I love to see these comments about “truth” from so many likely Fox News viewers. If you can take a few minutes to verify cylinder count, why not verify the propaganda you get feed by your entertainment channel.

    Reply
  23. I think this article fails to take into account several concerns I’d have about a I4 in a full size truck. There’s more to this argument then just power, none of which seem to be addressed. Many of my other concerns revolve around weight, or lack of.

    Traction, towing capacity, center of gravity…?

    There are reasons I went with the V8 in my ’15 Silverado, and not the V6. None of them have anything to do with power/torque.

    Reply
    1. Traction has nothing to do with an engine. It’s all how the transmission and differentials allow power to be put down. That said I wish gm offered all 4×4 trucks with a 2 speed transfer case. Center of gravity would not be any higher or lower, but back farther with an engine of half the displacement of a v8. Towing should only be limited by the power output. Gm claimed the 2.7 was designed like the Duramax for reliability. That said, you need to make sure it doesn’t overhead with the extra heat of a turbo under boost. Gm rates them to 9000lvs towing. That seems decent for a truck making 310 horses. That’s on par with my 09 v8 making 325hp. I would stick with a v8 for towing personally.

      Reply
      1. Really? Does Traction have anything to do with weight?

        I think it does. This is why people put sandbags in their bed in the winter. It’s a pretty time tested strategy here in Michigan. It’s also physics. So I’m sorry, but bigger, heavier engines can have everything to do with traction.

        Reply
        1. Thing is, the sandbags add mass to the BACK, over the primary traction wheels. Added engine mass goes in the FRONT, over the secondary traction wheels, assuming it’s a 4WD. If it’s a 2WD, the added engine mass does not help traction one bit and can negatively impact braking, if the brake systems were identical (which of course they ARE NOT for exactly that reason).

          Reply
        2. 100lbs difference makes effectively no difference on a 5500lbs vehicle. Sure if you make the truck mid engine And move 600lbs to an entire different location, but we’re are talking about 100 lbs same location

          Reply
  24. My Opinion,

    The 2.7 is new but the latest GM engines mostly are proven to be good power plants as long as they are not overused.

    A 2.7 will be fine in the 1500 as long as its a runner and not a worker, if a worker the engine just will not last as it will spend its life taxed.
    This fact is just something that the GM customer for sure, is not aware of or has explained to them.
    In the past when purchasing a vehicle, the engine was sized for the vehicle, now at GM the engine is always a step to small in base or standard model.

    Every GM base vehicle is built to fail early in comparison. The weight and wind resistance of the vehicle when loaded to its max is just simply under powered.

    Its the new GM moto ” Good Enough ”

    But this 2.7T would be best suited for the GM midsized market !!!
    And the Cadillac sedan market !!!!
    This engine should be either offered or standard in place of the 3.6, better torque band at a better fuel economy level.

    The 2.0T as good of engine as it is ( now ) does not belong in a Cadillac product, when traveling loaded its a DUD !!! sure a one person CT4, OK other than the 8 speed GM junk, the 2.0 is simply too small, as this 2.7 is in the Silverado, unless its a single person runner.

    Reply
  25. You are absolutely right, I had worked in GM dealerships since 1975 and just watched everything deteriorate starting with the Oldsmobile diesel engine, Rodger Smith start at the cancer in this company oh, you should be working for them, because of my arrogance I ended up not working for them anymore over 20 years of service.

    Reply
  26. I proudly own and drive a 2016 Silverado with the Ecotec3 4.3 V6 and most people look at it as undersized even though it makes just as much power and torque as the V8s they were bragging on just a few years ago…it’s a fantastic engine in its own right and provides me with more than enough power for what I and most people need. Of course if you’re towing heavy loads and travel trailers of extreme weight a V8 or diesel are more appropriate and I get that, but the old adage that there’s no replacement for displacement is still very prominent in truck buyers mentality and I don’t see many buyers opting for the 2.7L whether it’s called a 4 cylinder or not, regardless of it’s hp and torque.

    Reply
  27. I drove a 2.7L a few weeks ago and I was very impressed… It will definitely be replacing the 4.3L soon. A lot of people don’t know it but, the 2.0L Turbo is the best selling engine in Camaro

    Reply
  28. I am not an expert but after reading the article, analyzing it from the start to end, scrutinizing the details and twists, I can see nothing because as I have told you at the beginning, I am not an expert.

    Jk this should be an engine option in the Colorado. Many will disagree, but I do really like the V6 I have right now. GM did a great job with that engine.

    Reply
    1. I am not saying the 3.6 ( now ) is not a good engine, because ( now ) it is a great engine after refining it to fix the timing chain issues etc.

      Where I am coming from on the 2.7T VS the 3.6 NA is, just like the 1500 truck, as long as you are using it in the torque band of fuel economy it is great, great engine !! But if you need the max torque of the 3.6, it is a fuel pig !!!

      And this is where I get so down on GM. GM offers NOTHING more than a fuel pig in the midsized lineup. O I forgot some you can get the 2.0T (now ) but that is to small in the torque band. Sure the 2.0T is good in a smaller SUV or something like the Camaro, a single seater 99% of the time, just like I said on the CT4 a single seater 99% of the time.

      But if you want a GM midsized product that preforms as good as an empty single seater 2.0T does,

      YOU GET NOTHING FROM GM !!!

      O that’s right the new GM moto, you get ” Good Enough ”

      Sure the 2.0T Camaro is the best selling Camaro ( now ), what’s the most on the lot ? 2.0T ?

      Its like saying the best selling CT4 and CT5 will be a 2.0T. Sure it will, why, because GM will build the 2.0T and get it out first and fill the lots with the 2.0T. If and when the 2.0T in the Cadillac or Camaro will not sell, GM will discount the h3ll out of them, POW, best selling is the 2.0T.

      H3ll it almost killed the CT6, or maybe still did, but when GM loaded the lots with the CT6 2.0T cars NOBODY wanted them, ( OK some did ), but not enough to keep the vehicle relevant. So what does GM do ? Discount the h3ll out of it , POW, best selling model for an instant, then Kill the vehicle.
      Meanwhile the V8 CT6 sells out in minutes and how does GM respond? Raise the price of the CT6 with the V8.

      Like I said, the 2.7T in the Silverado 1500 is OK, I think it is a good engine, as I do the 2.0T, but they should be an option for those who want the lowest possible price vehicle, and use it that way. And in the Silverado 1500, that’s what you have, a lower output engine, is not the majority on the dealer lot, its an option to be chosen by the individual driver, a choice he or she makes as ” Good Enough “.

      But in the GM midsized, and sedan market, you have just the opposite. GM fills the lot with the ” Good Enough ” engine and only ( now ) in a Cadillac sedan, can you get anything better than the ” Good Enough ” engine.

      Maybe GM should look at the truck sales and truck engine option strategy and duplicate it over GM as a whole.

      GM is great at the performance side of things, ( do to Mark Reuss ) but is just ” Good Enough ” in the rest of the market ( do to Mark Reuss ).
      And in my opinion, if GM is moving towards the ( step up ) market now, they will be once again to late to capitalize on it.
      GM is just HORRIBLE at any kind of true customer feedback, service wise or development wise. GM just uses the arrogance approach, build what they want, then try to convince you through marketing you want it. when that fails, GM sells it at a discount and tries something different, or kills the vehicle all together.

      Its the new GM ” Good Enough ” or nothing !!

      Reply
      1. But what about what Chevy’s “Real People” want. Lol

        Reply
        1. The “real people”, in fact, the focus group people, really want to, and do, tell GM what they want and then go buy a Toyota anyway. GM fails to ask PRESENT GM owners what they want, nor do they do DMV searches to find FORMER GM buyers to ask what they want/

          Reply
          1. OK so just like ALL human movement since existence, We learn and CHANGE !!!

            ALWAYS, look and listen, we as humans are NOT still living in caves killing our food with tree branches, we learn and change.

            Now even the most conservative among us CHANGE, yes its true !!! You are not still living in caves killing your food with tree branches.

            Every human alive has used a progressives WHEEL !!!

            Very few of us are still saying ” that automobile will never work, I’ll ride this animal !!

            Yet conservatives here are still against progress, do to a human made ” cost “, to stifle it.

            OK back to humans learning. If GM uses focus groups, and does not even follow up with those people to see what they buy, it is ridiculous !!!!

            DATA, its everywhere, yet GM chooses their own focus groups to make the decisions they want.
            Even if its a group of people, GM chose them how ?

            I have driven ONLY GM vehicles for 39 years, yet not once have I been asked what I would want in a vehicle. And I can prove it, I have all the costs of all of the vehicles I have owned, insurance records, license records, pictures etc. yet never asked what I thought, and have never bought a Toyota !!!

            This whole focus group thing is flawed. And almost EVERY human on Earth has owned a used vehicle before they have made the decision to purchase WHAT new brand !!!! OK maybe not the 1% but that still leaves 99% of them.

            So back when GM was started, the goal was to make the best vehicle for the money, now GM makes the most money they can off ” Good Enough ” vehicles. And that’s ok I’m a capitalist.

            What I cant get is GMs lack of ” real people” feedback. And I don’t mean the ” these are not actors real people ” I mean REAL CUSTOMERS !!! People who have the vehicle registrations, or future registrations after the fact. Like a quarterly online survey linked to your VIN. Every quarter put in your 2 cents worth of their ” Good Enough ” vehicles.

            DATA

            And watch the trends move. Not some kind of paid JD crap. VIN number people of their products.

            Even ANYONE can enter their data if not a GM customer.

            GM has been good for years at making the grocery getter vehicle, it used to be the Impala, now the Equinox or Traverse, but other than the truck wars its just ” Good Enough ” from GM and I just don’t believe that MOST customers agree with ” Good Enough ” and that’s why GM can’t break out of the blah.

            Even this new truck, and the 7000 focus group. Its not a sought after truck. Sure GM is selling a huge number, but they are mostly 20 % off the price GM said they wanted. Its like the Disney villain plot, make crap and people will think a small improvement is a lot better. Like the AT4 and the Trail Boss ,Could you imagine how the GM truck would have sold profit wise if it was made the best it could be !!
            Anyway GM is already changing them, GM has already changed the 2.0T in the Cadillac CT6, Why do we have to wait for the ” Good Enough ” to be proven to GM its NOT ” Good Enough “, if there is not a better choice !!

            GM, Make a truck with a better looking interior, and the current one, put both on the lot in the same numbers see what sells better, having one ” Good Enough ” choice is NOT a choice.

            Reply
        2. Ha

          Reply
  29. 310 horsepower at 5,600 rpm. Who wrings a 4cyl… excuse me I mean a 2.7L to 5600? Let’s be realistic. I’m not trying to float the valves everytime I go uphill with a utility trailer. Put it in the Colorado. Give me a good 6 or a v8 when I use my truck. Because trucks were meant to work. U want fuel eco… buy a 4cyl car. I shouldn’t have to spend 50k just to get a truck with an 8 imo.

    Reply
    1. Get one equipped with a V8 and that’s it, don’t crow about the 4 cly if you don’t plan to buy one, even Ford still offers the 5.0 despite turbo 6 success..

      Reply
  30. The 1996 Silverado came with a 5.7-liter Vortec V8–the first Vortec V8 after a decade of Vortec V6s and four-cylinder Vortecs. The 5.7-liter Vortec engine was tuned to generate 250 horsepower and 335 lb.-ft. of torque. So basically the V8 of the late 90s for the Silverado had less power than the 4-cylinder of 2020. What’s wrong with that? The late 90s Silverados were plenty stout for average work. You could easily tow 6000+ lbs with that, which is more than 90% of people out there with a Silverado ever need. If you need more, you go with a bigger engine.

    Reply
  31. The 2.7 is just all wrong IMHO. If it is so good then why doesn’t GM make it standard in the work trucks? Because for fleet use it can’t tow and give good mileage and be reliable and have longevity. The V8’s get great mileage and can tow. And in everyday use not EPA testing the V8’s will get better mileage all day long. So will the V6 and it and the V8’s will last longer. GM just made this so they could keep their CAFE numbers up and be able to offer the 6.2 in more trims.

    Reply
  32. Ford has a 2.7 (same displacement) V6 and it sells like crazy.

    Do people have prejudice against 4 bangers or is the Ford 2.7 V6 just a better motor?

    Reply
  33. How about making a V-6 Turbo or even a V-8 Turbo.

    Reply
  34. If you buy a 4 cylinder,
    Remember to buy the GM
    Extended warranty.

    Reply
    1. Why? The powertrain warranty is already at 5yrs/60k. All you’ll be getting is an extra year and no guarantee they will cover the items that the factory won’t cover. I would say get an extended warranty though. Just not GM’s.

      Reply
  35. My son was looking for a new truck and came across a Sierra with a four cylinder engine in it. We ere both doubtful about it. He test drove it extensively and found it be very capable. The gas mileage was compariable to a V8. He found it to handle the truck adequately. He almost bought it but in the end he opted out because no one had heard on a four cylinder GMC. The old four cylinder phobia.

    Reply
  36. I used to have a 1998 Toyota with a 2.7l I-4 (150hp). This is a huge step up!

    Reply
  37. Why can’t gm make trucks like they did in the 90’s. The 350’s were a heck of a motor. All mine have well over 220,000 miles and don’t use oil. Chevy has really let there quality slip. Remember the 1990’s Chevy truck commercials. They made you feel like you were driving a real american quality built truck. I miss those days. Thank God I have 2 of them.

    Reply
  38. WOW! I could’ve had a V8!

    Reply
  39. Just bought my truck, and I asked for this engine. Always driven turbo engines and now I cant go back to naturally aspirated.

    Reply
  40. Ok 4 CYLINDER engines ,the only4 CYLINDER I would want would be the little work horse that lasted for ever is the old IRON DUKE! THEY were a cast iron engine that lasted forever! Keep the oil changed an that engine was happy . Now with the synthetic oil we have today the car would rust away before the engine needed any repairs like head gaskets !! Head gaskets on the old cast iron engines was very rare! They didn’t need $2,000 turbos to help the new an improved 4 CYLINDER engines that doesn’t last!
    Now a 4 cylinder engine in a truck ,the salesmen an the engineering people has no common sense an doesn’t live in the real WORLD!! THEY NEED to wake up an smell the coffee!! Back in the day you couldn’t get a 4cylinder in a truck, but back than people had more common sense. If people worry about gas mileage , buy a want a be car that 2 people can fit in an MY be put a couple plastic bags of groceries in the back seat! AN IF you need to haul something spend the money you save in the gas mileage you brag about an buy a SUV or ask you good neighbor that has a pickup if you could borrow it to go to the big box store!
    Just remember a miniature horse can’t do the work as a full size horse can an never will!!

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel