Traditional truck buyers may be hesitant to get on board with the turbocharged 2.7-liter L3B four-cylinder version of the Chevrolet Silverado and it’s not hard to see why. Many of these customers are used to trucks with V8 engines and may even be apprehensive to buy a truck with a V6, but the 2.7-liter General Motors trucks perform better than one might think.
Motor Trend recently tested a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado with the turbo 2.7-liter and found that it was faster from 0 to 60 mph than a similarly equipped V6 truck from Ford or Ram. The magazine clocked its four-cylinder 2020 Silverado 1500 RST test truck from 0 to 60 mph in 7.1 seconds, which is quite a bit faster than a Ford F-150 XL with the 3.3-liter V6, which could only muster a 0-60 mph time of 7.9 seconds. It was also faster than a Ram 1500 Tradesman with the 3.6-liter V6 in MT’s testing, which hustled from 0 to 60 mph in 7.5 seconds.
This isn’t that surprising when you look at these engines’ statistics on paper. The 2.7-liter L3B engine is good for 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque, with peak torque available from a low 1,500 RPM all the way to 4,000 RPM. Meanwhile, Ford’s 3.3-liter V6 makes 290 horsepower and 260 pound-feet, with max torque coming on at 4,000 RPM. The Ram’s 3.6-liter V6 is slightly more robust, making 305 horsepower and 269 pound-feet, with max torque arriving at 4,175 RPM. The L3B engine is intended to replace GM’s 4.3-liter LV3 V6 engine, as well, so it was engineered specifically to compare with a V6 truck.
One area where the 2.7-liter engine may leave room for improvement is with regard to fuel economy. The EPA rates the four-cylinder, 4WD Silverado at 19 mpg city and 22 mpg highway for a combined rating of 20 mpg. Meanwhile, a Ram 1500 with 4WD and the 3.6-liter V6 gets an EPA rating of 19 mpg city, 24 mpg highway and 22 mpg combined. An F-150 4WD with the 3.3-liter V6 is comparable to the Chevy, with EPA ratings of 18 mpg city, 23 mpg highway and 20 mpg combined.
A slightly lower-than-expected fuel economy rating can be forgiven considering the 2.7-liter Silverado’s pep, though. MT was impressed with the way the four-cylinder pickup performed in its 0-60 test and also when towing, with features editor Scott Evans saying the truck “pulls like nothing else here,” during testing for the publication’s 2020 Truck of the Year award. Evans also said that anyone who says the 2.7-liter engine doesn’t belong in a truck “can shut up,” with MT encouraging the doubters to get behind the wheel and experience the engine for themselves.
Source: Motor Trend
Comments
This engine is ridiculed, but I respect it.
This engine doesn’t belong in this truck not this small, also this review was very skewed and inaccurate atleast on fords side. Their v6 is N/A which this 2.7 turbo 4cyl motor is not. Try doing their 2.7 v6 turbo vs gm 2.7 4cyl turbo seems logical to me then come at us with a review. Turbos will be quicker on trucks mainly due to low end power curve even with less power.
How about saying something about how GM has nothing to compete with the 3.5l twin turbo EcoBoost. In fact GM cant keep up with the 2.7l twin turbo EcoBoost. And let’s add ford has the 10 speed transmission. Let’s face it GM is way behind. Really is a shame too. GM makes a really good looking truck but a crappy drivetrain.
LOGICAL?? There is only dumb logic in thinking that a TWIN turbo SIX cylinder engine is the equivalent of a SINGLE turbo FOUR cylinder engine.
The review comparison is for entry level engines, literally the slowest, cheapest, and most efficient of the lineups So Ford has a slower entry level than Chevy. Ford’s got too many engine choices anyway. They are just saying that this engine is replacing the 4.3 v6 so get used to it. That is why they are reviewing these trucks. Everyone knows the 3.5 eco-boost is the king of the hill.
Why would you test a turboed engine against naturally aspirated engine? If you want a real test then test your engine against the 2.7 EcoBoost. Or are you afraid that you’ll lose?
Ford would lose cuz I test drove the 2.7 Chevy and it actually did 6.6 seconds 0-60
Lol sure you did , anytime anyplace the 2.7 EcoBoost will spank the gm 2.7
True. The Ford 2.7 EB is a beast. It has more hp and a lot more Tq than the GM 2.7. GM doesn’t want the consumers to compare 2.7 to 2.7.
The 2.7 EB is an oil burning valve wobbling clunker. So many of us f’d over by Ford because they don’t stand behind their new trash engines. The worst part was taking a hit on the 2.7 and the 5.0 I got was one of the new 3rd gen Coyotes that turned out to be an oil burner. I didn’t know until after I bought it that Ford cheapened up the engine by getting rid of the cylinder liners. Aluminum piston riding in an aluminum bore. Greeeat idea Ford.
Yeah there’s a TON of guys with busted or oil burning 2.7 EcoBoosts. Cheaply made over boosted engine. The heads are so cheap the valves wobble a eventually break. Steel valves riding on steel inserts because Ford was too cheap to use bronze guides.
Fwiw, the cylinders are lined on the 2018+ F-150 5.0. they are not as you say, simply aluminum bored. Since 2015, the blocks have Plasma Transfer Wire Arc cylinder liners. There’s been a few with issues in the 2018+, but not before that. It was certainly a supplier issue, and I know Ford’s been taking care of these.
The 2018 and newer Coyote engines are total junk and Ford refuses to fix it for many guys. The decision to remove cast-in-place sleeves was a sleazeball cheapskate move by Ford. Clearances are huge and you can hear the pistons slapping from a mile away. No wonder they’re burning a quart of oil every 1k miles.
Lets get that 2.7T in the Colorado, like yesterday!
Gm claiming that this engine is so great, harkens back to the late 1980’s with the olds quad 4 engine. Feels and drives like a big v8 they said. Ha! Not even close! A rough running anemic waste of an engine, this looks like history repeating itself, because nobody remembers. Well I do, and so does pepperidge farm.
never has GM said this 2.7 was supposed to imitate a V8 just to be their entry level engine which is far better than the old 4.3 V6.
If I’m not mistaken the “old 4.3 V6” is actually an LS based engine these days. A very good updated engine that is perfect for the base engine in trucks, and a good choice for a Colorado I think. And that 2.7 four banger does drop down to two cylinders running at cruise with those two cylinders running at nearly full blast to keep up. Yet another GM four banger failure – wait and see folks.
I can hear that old nasally New England voice now, like he was sitting across from me.
ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE 2.7 ECOBOOST ?? IT WOULD SPANK YOUR BUTT ?
Are we not surprised? I’m not. The Ford 3.3 v6 is the base engine, and not super easy to find. Compared a turbo 2.7 to a turbo 2.7. the Ford will destroy the GM in that race.
I love some of the comments here about how they should of tested it against fords 2.7t… Because that’s a fair comparison even tho you’re forgetting about the extra 2 cylinders, but besides that this article is not about who’s got the faster truck it’s about trying to persuade people into choosing the 4 cylinder option instead of the base v6 cuz they may be afraid the 4 cylinder in a truck won’t have enough power, honestly the only thing they could of done better is also compared it to there own 4.3 v6 as well then showed acceleration of each towing a 5000lbs trailer
2 more cylinders and twice as many turbos. Doesn’t make any sense. Just like Ford says the 2.7 EB is meant to compete with V8’s, GM is saying their 2.7 turbo is meant to compete with a V6. Not a twin turbo V6.
The 3.5 Ecoboost is meant to compete with V8’s, the 2.7 Ecoboost is meant to compete larger V6’s.
No it isn’t john. You clearly don’t know jack sht about the F-150’s engine lineup. The 3.5 Ecoboost replaced the 6.2 Boss in the F-150. That’s why the 5.0 stayed even after the 3.5 showed up. When the 2.7 Ecoboost came out, Ford ran a major advertising campaign where the compared it to the 5.7 Hemi and 5.3. It was designed to target V8’s, not V6’s or inline-4’s.
Exactly Ben. At least someone here has the ability to think critically.
So it gets worst gas mileage than the Ford and Ram NA v6s. Its barely faster and requires more expensive premium fuel. Then you have higher maintenance costs and repair bills do to the added hardware. Yeah sounds like a real winner.
Chevys 2.7 L turbo requires 87 octane fuel. Go to YouTube and check out “the fast Lane”. They’ve got one video testing the mpg they average slightly over 24 miles per gallon at 70 miles an hour. And another video towing a trailer. It was around 6700 pounds. On I 70 from Dillon Colorado 8 miles up a 7% grade, the elevation at the top of the grade is 11,158 feet the highest point on any interstate. It was able to maintain the speed limit of 60 mph all the way up the hill.
Haters are gonna hate, but it is a great 4cylinder powerhouse!
First off, this 2.7 turbo doesn’t require premium. 2nd, you’re comparing EPA estimates, which is a complete joke. You clearly don’t pay attention to the news, otherwise you would know that Ford’s EPA estimates are total fantasy numbers.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2019/07/22/1-2-billion-lawsuit-ford-falsified-f-150-fuel-economy-tests/1799619001/
“According to the suit, plaintiffs conducted tests using EPA-mandated coastdown procedures and found that Ford overstated the fuel economy in its F-150 trucks by 15% for highway mileage and 10% for city mileage.”
“Ford fudged its coastdown testing and used inaccurate drag and resistance figures to boost the vehicles’ EPA mileage ratings,” the lawsuit says.”
Who needs 0 to 60 times in the real world. A more practical test would be simulating a freeway on ramp speed of 20 MPH and accelerating to 75 MPH unladen and while towing maximum trailer weight which is the legal limit in some states.
Nobody is going to buy a 2.7 inline 4 with just one turbo with towing performance in mind. Just lile nobody buys a naturally aspirated V6 to pull a trailer doing 75 down the interstate.
Ford’s 2.7 EcoBoost is quicker , gets better fuel economy, does not require premium fuel, and also hauls more. This engine is a joke
I owned a 2.7 EB. Total POS. When it wasn’t leaking oil from the cheap plastic oil pan, it was blowing blue smoke out of the tailpipe and rattling its timing chains.
I own a 2017 XLT with the 2.7 EB. I bought it new and now the truck has 97k miles on it. It does not leak oil. It does not have a plastic oil pan (I change my own oil, the pan is aluminium), it does not emit blue smoke and it does not rattle. I get 23-25 mpg fuel economy. The machine runs today just like it did the day I bought it. I’m still on the original brakes. Its the best vehicle I have ever owned.
The GM 2.7 L4 does not require premium fuel. Where are you people getting this from? I also question the real world fuel economy because as everybody is aware the EPA underrated this combo for some reason or other in the real world.
Every manufacturer creates their own EPA fuel economy estimates. GM tends to be more conservative when calculating their estimates. Ford on the other hand, is wrapped up in a lawsuit because an anonymous Ford employee blew the whistle on their fuel economy estimates.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2019/07/22/1-2-billion-lawsuit-ford-falsified-f-150-fuel-economy-tests/1799619001/
A headlight to make people think this truck competes with the f150 ecoboost, hoping people don’t read that they are talking about the na trucks. What it should say is fleet owners beware. Replaced entry level engine now requires premium fuel, gets worse milage per dollar spent.
The gm 2.7 isn’t the base engine. The 4.3 v6 is. The gm 2.7 doesn’t need premium fuel. What I see is funny is that GM wants to compare their 2.7 to Ford’s 3.3 base engine. The reality is that the 3.3 v6 is a hard to find in consumer trucks, as it’s in a lot of fleet trucks, and the 2.7 Ecoboost is in a lot of f150’s that consumers buy. The 2.7 EB is the most popular engine sold in Ford’s for many reasons.
This 2.7 turbo is just as rare as the 3.3 v6 F-150. It makes no sense to compare it to the 2.7 EB. The 2.7 EB has two more cylinders, twice as many turbos, and Ford markets it as a competitor to a traditional V8. It blows the Hemi 5.7 away. GM markers their turbo 4 banger as a replacement for a naturally aspirated V6. Why then would they compare it to an engine that Ford says is an alternative to a NA V8.
The 2.7 gm is a lot more common than the Ford 3.3 is in consumer trucks. Fleet truck buyers will buy the 3.3, and the 4.3 v6’s because they are the standard engine. They do just fine for their intended purposes.
Weird the two closest Ford dealers both have more than one XLT with the 3.3 V6. It’s even the standard engine IN an XLT trim, which isn’t a fleet trim. It’s the equivalent of an LT trim Chevy.
That is odd. Definitely nothing like that around here at any dealers.
I have a 2019 Sierra with this engine. It runs on 87 octane and was designed to do so. It sails up mountain passes with little effort and is relatively frugal if you dont drive like my fellow Californians. Give it a test drive before knocking it into the ground. This engine was developed specifially to be placed in a 1500. Yes, it would be better in the midsized variant but it is serving me well so far. I love to see the look on peoples faces when I tell them my engine is an inline 4!
I’d rather see them compare the Ford 2.3l Ecoboost since that is also a 4 cylinder. Only problem is they don’t offer this engine in the F-150. GM’s 2.7l turbo is not competitive at all with Ford’s 2.7l twin turbo Ecoboost. Totally different levels.
And extremely ugly. I am sorry I’m a Chevy guy to the heart. But this thing went in the wrong direction. Front end is horrid. A Chevy guy that knows the ram is the only good looking truck on the market
That outside ofbthe new Ram looms like a greasy dog turd. Horrible grill, ugly spectacled headlights, and mcdonalds arches for wheel wells. Plus the Eam’s payload ratings are laughably bad. A Ram Limited with a 10k lb payload rating but only 1,000 lbs of payload capacity hahaha.
2019 Ram payload ratings are terrible. My friend ordered a Laramie. Ram’s website said it had a 1800 pound payload rating. When his was delivered, the sticker showed just a 1290 pound rating. Worthless.
Ram isn’t worried about their half-ton only having the payload capability of a compact truck. The people that buy Ram 1500’s don’t tow or haul anything. They put skinny tires on 22’s and drive around the suburb.
Just bought this 2.7t a couple weeks ago. I like it a lot. It doesn’t feel underpowered at all. Once you get use to the 4 cylinder sound and turbo, which by the way didn’t bother me at all
I could probably see the 2.7 in RCSB for a homeowner that just wants a PU for light duty. But, that isn’t happening around here, anyway.
Who cares really v6 or 4cyl ! If it can tow and perform under full load that’s what matters and fast “ it’s a truck fools not a Ferrari trucks don’t need all the yuppie electronics and sissy soft seats to fold down for your latte , I work for a living my truck gets dirty and scratched up how about yours ? 4cyl are more powerful than ever drove trucks through out 35 yrs 70’s trucks eh no power 80’s give me a break no go week engines in v8s
But…
How long will that little four banger last…
It’s working much harder to perform!!!
So is the Ford V6 2.7. This is what you should compare this engine to.
No it isnt. It doesn’t make any sense to compare a 4 banger with one turbo to an engine that has two extra cylinders and twice as many turbos. Only a double digit IQ simpleton would think that they are the same.
Seeing as how they are the same displacement, and the bigger more powerful one, with an extra turbo and two extra cylinders is also more efficient I’d say it makes plenty of sense, you seem to be getting mad about people discussing truck engines for some reason , maybe don’t come calling people names next time.
While GM doesn’t want the consumers to compare 2.7 to 2.7, we will. This is especially true because both of these engines are not the base engines, and both are 1 step up in upgrade for powertrains. The cylinder count isn’t the big difference in power, but that extra turbo is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.
The 2.7 turbo is the base engine in the trim it’s available in. The LT trim. The 3.3 V6 is the base engine in the equivalent trim, XLT. They are equivalent engines. Only little dick Ford hicks think that the 2.7 EB is the direct competitor with a 4-banger with half the turbos.
More efficient only be cause Ford inflated their fuel economy estimate. Just like the did with the Ranger, which has such an absurdly false fuel economy rating that Ford hired a 3rd party to “investigate” it when they realized the feds were sniffing around it. The F-150’s 2.7 EcoBoost also benefits from having the 10-speed, 3.13 rear axle ratio (in the truck used to get that fuel economy estimate), and cab and bed made from aluminum foil. Yes the GM trucks have aluminum doors. Ford has paper thin aluminum everything. That massive weight difference gives it an extra mpg or two, but you trade that for a truck bed that rips and tears like reynolds wrap.
There’s a lot of incorrect info in your post. There’s no 3.13 gear ratio on the Ford. Did you mean 3.31? That’s the lowest numerical ratio they have ( which works pretty well all around unless you’re towing really heavy loads) when Ford went alloy bodies, the truck ended up weighing the same as the gm twins. Now that the hood, all doors, and I think the tailgate ( could be wrong on that) are alloy on the GM’s, the gm weighs less than the Ford, by 300-400 lbs. So it’s not due to a weight difference for the Ford. The alloy beds are just fine, compared to a steel bed. Put a bed liner in and any fears go away. The 10 speed transmission is a big factor, but even with the first gen 2.7 EB, the 6spd auto was getting 25 mpg on a crew cab 4×4 in real world freeway mpg.
No they have a 3.15 axle ratio. It exists purely for EPA fuel economy ratings. Ford trucks still weigh less than GM trucks of the same configuration.
Real world fuel economy? I we’re going to start talking about real world fuel economy, the 2019 5.3 trucks are actually getting 2-3 mpg better than their EPA estimate.
The beds are definitely not “just fine”. The tie downs are so weak that even if you do a perfect job of securing the load in the bed with straps, the tie down anchors rip right out of the aluminum and the load topples over into the bed sides, destroying the entire bed. Everyone has seen the famous blue aluminum F-150 with blown out bed sides. It happens enough that it’s beginning to be a bit of an open joke now. The other problem with their aluminum F-150 bed is that they made it from aluminum that was too thin. It’s 6000 series aluminum which is the exact same aluminum used to make soda cans and just like soda cans, the aluminum tends to rip. So a dent doesn’t just crinkle and deform, it rips and cracks. If those cracks aren’t fixed, those cracks spread. Our foremans were given aluminum F-150’s to haul tool boxes and other equipment around the site. Every one of the beds are cracked and falling apart because a small tear or crack in the aluminum slowly grew into a huge crack or tear. The previous steel F-150’s didn’t have those issues. So no, they are not just fine or every bit as good.
https://youtu.be/-dH-ARaRgYU
I Have two 2.7 eco’s a 16 and a 18, my 16 does get the mileage it claims which is 26 highway even with over 100k miles, my 18 which is 5 star tuned is a total beast and i get 21 mpg and it was rated for 22 highway. It its how you drive them, keep them from using large amounts of boost and your good, if you tend to play with them you will not get the mileage. Without a tune I prefer the six speed, the ten speed had to much lag, with a tune the ten speed is incredible. OLD Man F-150’s should not be able to out run chargers and challengers. I have had my 16 since September 2016 bought it with 2 miles and my 18 since August 2018 and it had 51 miles both NEW, and I am still impressed with the mileage and performance from a full size truck.
There’s actually a lawsuit being formed because there’s evidence that Ford was using a false parasitic losses value that helped inflate their EPA fuel economy estimates. Several Ford trucks were listed in the lawsuit. Even their fuel economy computer in the trucks has a hidden menu with settings that can be changed it to give a higher or lower calculated fuel economy regardless of what the FE actually is.
Another American conspiracy.
Everybody in the US are trying to F#$k everybody. USA, USA #1!!!!!
Conspiracy? No, somebody that worked at Ford came forward with information that showed that Ford was cheating on their EPA tests. Ford got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
Ford is actually getting sued because an anonymous Ford employee blew the whistle on them for cheating on their EPA testing. Ford was cheating on a few different tests to inflate their fuel economy numbers.
Ben Anders,
You sound butt hurt. What have you been up to?
The old FARTS need to throw their old pre-conceptions in the garbage. The Ford 2.7 with the exact same displacement is the engine of choice for most buyers and this one outperforms it. You can build a 4 banger to be just as strong as anything else. At least, people should comment on actual facts when they become available.
The young PUNKS need to realize that logic dictates the unlikely longevity of 4-banger, stressed by turbo charging, compared to a naturally aspirated V8.
Certain old Farts would be wise to investigate that there are some 4 cylinders, mostly built by Asian brands, which may be boosted and are known to last well beyond 500K. That would even include pick-up trucks sold around the world but not in the US. There are no reasons why a 4 banger couldn’t last as long as a V8, even if that hasn’t been the case with the Detroit brands. ?
The Ford 2.7 is a POS. Cracked heads, dropped valves, burning quarts of oil in just a couple thousand miles, warped tupperware oil pans, rattling timing chains. Ford really knows how to reel in idiots with too much money. They haven’t designed a decent engine in decades and the knuckle draggers keep on walking in to buy those Ford turds.
Think it depends what you want truck to do? Looking for mpg and no load, go with 4cyl. Got full load and towing, go with V8. Think this discussion went away from topic a little? Comparing Chevy 2.7 Turbo 4 to competion 2.7 litre eng. Guess this is why they all offer different size engines. Buy what you need/want.
It’s pretty obvious that this turbocharged 4 cylinder engine was designed for max MPG and wasn’t designed to be a high output engine like the 2.7 Ecoboost. GM doesn’t advertise its 0-60 times or show it towing huge loads. It was tuned to have similar power output as the 4.3 V6 but doing it with better fuel economy. Judging by fuel economy reports on a GM truck forum I’m looking at right now, the engine easily gets 25 mpg on summer blend fuel. GM’s fuel economy rating for this engine is pretty conservative.
well the same engine in the ct5 caddy make 325 hp 369 tq
Wow! I never woulda guessed!!
so the 2.7 in the ford make 325 and 375tq ct5 makes 325 369 not bad for 2.7 4 cylinder.
The 2.7 EcoBoost was updated for the 2018 model year with port and direct Injection, the power number are 325hp and 400ft/lbs of torque along with a maximum rating of 24mpg, The gm 2.7 makes 310hp and 348 ft/lbs of torque I’m not 100% on the max mpg but I believe 22mpg
Two sets of fuel injectors, two turbos, and 2 extra cylinders and we’re supposed to compare it to a mildly tuned single turbo 4-banger. What an idiotic suggestion.
GM guys always give-up so easy…
Two tiny turbos vs a bigger one? Duh!
Yes, because both 2.7’s are 1 step up from the base engines. Neither 2.7 powertrain option are that much money over the base v6’s. They also happen to both be turbo 2.7 liter engines. The gm comes with an 8 spd auto, and the Ford gets a 10 spd auto. Both 2.7’s are very high tech.
The ct4 v makes 325 hp and 380 tq while the premium luxury ct4 makes 309 hp and 369 tq. That’s impressive considering the 2.7tt eb only generates an extra 20 lb ft of tq with an extra turbo and 2 cylinders. What Ford people are forgetting is that gm is marketing the 2.7t as a base engine alternative to their v6. If you want towing go for the v6 4.3, fuel economy is the 2.7t’s forte. Real world estimates have proven that the gm 2.7t gets better fuel economy than the epa.
Even publications get this wrong when comparing the 6.2 pushrod to the 5.0 dohc. The say the BIG 6.2 v8 when in reality the 6.2 dimensions are smaller than that of the 5.0 dohc. With the a few exceptions like the litres of each engine. They are different engines that produce similar power. Ford fans sit there and say that the coyotes needs less litres to produce similar power. But the lt1 requires less valves per cylinder to generate similar power. Each engine is different, compare the car not the engine.
Same thing with this comparison. Ford fans think the 2.7t i4 ecotec should be compared to the 2.7tt v6 ecoboost. It’s gms auxiliary base engine designed for fuel economy. Whereas the 4.3 v6 is the towering/ hauling alternative. Ford doesn’t advertise their 2.7tt as a auxiliary base engine, they advertise it as a step up to their base 3.3 v6 engine. There’s a difference there.
All gm really needs to do, is reinforce the components, adjust the gearing, and add in the 10 spd. It could probably either be as quick and tow less or slower and tow as much as the 2.7tt eb. This would result in a less reliable engine. Granted with the performance of fords 2.7tt it will probably last as long as fords 2.7tt.
The dual base engine strategy is essentially the same as the premium engines. From the 5.3 v8 you could increase the the litre size to 6.2 and have it remain a gas v8 for towing/hauling purposes. The other route is to rearrange and drop 2 cylinders. Change the layout so that it runs on diesel. Then you have your fuel economy premium engine.
The problem with your argument, is that the 2.7 isn’t the base engine. This isn’t just Ford fans saying this, even GM says it isn’t the base engine. People staying that the coyote is more efficient, isn’t wrong. It simply is. GM simply kept the pushrod design, and that is why it only has 2 valves. That’s just what gm had to deal with when keeping the old tech. That’s also why they made the 4 cylinder turbo 2.7.
I have a 2.7 L GM Elevation. I live in the city and zip through town with no problems passing anybody. Great acceleration and tows my 25ft Contender without an issue. Max 7000lbs towing. Gas mileage is about 18 city and 24 Hwy the way I drive. I don’t live on a farm or in the Country, I live in the City! This engine is ideal for me and I’m happy with it.
Four years running – my 2020 Silverado 2.7 turbo packs some punch. I’ve tested it and it’s solid. The best thing about it is – it’s fun to drive!