GM Doesn’t Use The Term “Four-Cylinder” To Describe GM Trucks’ L3B Engine
Sponsored Links
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:
| 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 |
| 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.
Sponsored Links
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
Jake, You are about the only one on this whole page, that is even anywhere near the problems with an I4 in a full size truck. Sure it will have gobs of torque, Get great gas milage. And cost less to begin with. BUT… and it’s a big BUT. They just won’t last as long as ANY V8! It’s history proven fact. One only has to follow GM engine history, with any of the small I4 engines. Yes technology has gotton better. But that still doesn’t stop an I4, from working over twice as hard to do the job a V8 can and will do. To make an I4 work anywhere near as well, you’ed need 4:56-4:88 gears in the rear end to pull a loaded trailer or to fill the box. If they were as great as GM has always made them out to be, we’d still be driving Vegas and Chevy Astro vans. ‘ There is NO “replacement for displacement” ‘Nuff said!
I agree 100% — My 2003 Tahoe has over 400,000 miles and it has the 5.3 and the Z71 package.. Great car.
I doubt very seriously if a little 4 cylinder could have lasted 400,000 miles.
And I have had 2 Astro vans and each of them had over 250,000 miles on those 4.3 V6 engines.. I miss those vans — I would buy another one if they were still made today. Just cannot find a decent used one — people keep them until they just wear out with Many thousands of miles…..
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.
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.
Amen, James! GM is building trucks more cheaply internally, and selling them for more. With a very short life span if used as they are really supposed to be. Have an early fail, and “It’s all the consumer’s fault”. Remember the cam shaft “fiasco”, of the late ’70’s and early ’80’s. It was every problem OTHER than GM’s. Also the failing of the I4 engines in the Vega and Astro vans. I had all the problems. Finally had to go to court. Been a Chevy guy all my life. Just a bit sore from some of their “better” ideas. Just sayin’
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.
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
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.
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 !!
But what about what Chevy’s “Real People” want. Lol
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/
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.
Ha
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.
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..
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.
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.
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?
How about making a V-6 Turbo or even a V-8 Turbo.
If you buy a 4 cylinder,
Remember to buy the GM
Extended warranty.
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.
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.
I used to have a 1998 Toyota with a 2.7l I-4 (150hp). This is a huge step up!
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.
WOW! I could’ve had a V8!
Just bought my truck, and I asked for this engine. Always driven turbo engines and now I cant go back to naturally aspirated.
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!!