Comparing The 2.7L Turbo And 4.3L V6 Chevy Silverado Engines
84
Sponsored Links
Some variants of the 2021 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 come with a choice of the two least expensive gasoline engines in the range. The Chevy Silverado engines in question are GM’s turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B and the older, naturally aspirated 4.3L V6 LV3. Since the decision to buy one or the other has little effect on purchase price, buyers often find themselves wondering which engine to pick, so we thought it would be worth comparing the two.
First, some background. The 4.3L V6 LV3 is the older of these Silverado engines, having made its debut in the 2014 Chevy Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500. It is part of GM’s fifth generation Small Block family, known as EcoTec3, and is closely related to the 5.3L V8 L83 and the 6.2L V8 L86. Its design calls for two overhead valves (OHV) per cylinder operated via pushrods by a single camshaft in the center of the Vee.
By comparison, The 2.7L I4 L3B was initially introduced in the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and the 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 and is significantly more modern. It has four valves per cylinder, and they are operated more directly than in the V6 by double overhead camshafts (DOHC). The dual-volute turbocharger spools up quickly and is therefore particularly effective at low engine speeds, with minimal turbo lag. As with all compressors, it also helps to compensate for thin air at high altitudes.
Both of these Silverado engines feature continuously variable valve timing and Active Fuel Management (AFM), which shuts down cylinders to improve fuel economy when only small amounts of power are required. The 2.7L I4 L3B also has variable valve lift, which improves its efficiency still further over a range of engine speeds and is responsible for the engine producing peak torque all the way from 1,500 to 4,000 rpm. The combination of AFM, variable valve timing and variable valve lift has led GM to give the valvetrain system the name TriPower.
A combination of all the above and the fact that the 2.7L I4 L3B is lighter than the 4.3L V6 LB3 gives the four-cylinder unit a big advantage in this battle of entry-level Silverado engines.
| Core Metrics | 21MY 2.7L I4 L3B Turbo | 21MY 4.3L LV3 V6 | +/- 2.7L I4 Turbo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 310 horsepower | 285 horsepower | +25 hp or + 9% |
| Torque | 348 pound-feet | 305 pound-feet | +43 lb-ft or +14% |
| Fuel Economy | 20/23/21 mpg | 16/21/17 mpg | +4 / +2 / +4 or 25% |
| Max Trailering | 9,600 pounds | 7,900 pounds | +1,700 pounds or +22% |
| Payload | 2,070 pounds | 2,040 pounds | +30 pounds or +1.5% |
| 0-60 mph | 6.8 seconds | 7.8 seconds | 1 second faster |
In fact, the boosted four banger wins on many levels including horsepower (up 9 percent), torque (up 14 percent) and fuel economy (up 25 percent). It also delivers 22 percent greater maximum towing and slightly higher (1.5 percent) payload. And, as GM Authority recently reported, it also delivers a 0-60 time that’s 1 second faster.
GM notes that the 2.7L I4 L3B is torquier than two leading competitor engines – Ford 3.3L V6 (by 31 percent) and the RAM 3.6L V6 mild hybrid (by 29 percent). GM also points out that its four-cylinder turbo has similar fuel economy figures to the RAM while beating the Ford in this metric.
So when it comes to Silverado engines, it’s very clear that the 2.7-liter four-cylinder turbo outperforms the more traditional V6 in almost every area.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevrolet Silverado news, Chevrolet news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a Corvette Z06 and 2024 Silverado. Details here.
Put a tune on the V6 and many of the advantages of the 2.7 I4 go away.
Without bolting anything to it you’re naturally aspirated engine tune isn’t going to do much bud
If tunes didn’t do anything then no one would tune their engines. Most engines are made for way more hp and torque then they use. With enough data you safely increase the numbers substantially without damage to your engine.
The turbo is already a more powerful engine and turbos inherently can be tuned for more power so what you’re saying is somehow you’re going to magically make more power out of the naturally aspirated 6 than the already more powerful turbo 4? Again without bolting anything to the six your tune simply isn’t going to do all that much for increasing power, bud.
Stock vs modded is a bad comparison. Tune the 2.7 and it gains its power advantages back.
Put a tune on both of them and the gap widens with the I4 on top. I don’t understand why people are worried about n/a 6 cylinders going away. You will still have forced induction 6 cylinders, and more importantly naturally aspirated V8s because they are a niche. The sooner the 4.3 is gone, maybe the sooner we will see an update to the 5.3 to further separate itself from the 2.7 in terms of power and performance.
I have the 4.3L in my 2017 Silverado and its a great engine. The 2.7L is a great engine as well, and I wouldn’t mind having that engine in my short bed/reg cab, but I don’t see the 4.3L going away anytime soon as I think its popular with the fleet buyers for ease of servicing.
Compare the specs on the 2021 5.3 vs 2.7 and see how much of a difference there is. Not a whole lot. The 2.7 can be tuned to out perform the 5.3.
So you want to compare a fully tuned V-6 turbo to a fuel injected non-tuned 5.3? An apples to watermelons comparison!
Why not do the exact same thing to both and then compare? OHH that’s right there wouldn’t be any comparison a tuned 5.3 turbo would eat the 2.7 turbo’s LUNCH! And my money would be on the non-turbo 5.3L with just a tune.
What was it Daddy Don Garlits used to say, “there’s no replacement for displacemant”! If these little V-6’s were so great you see them in top fuel funny cars and dragsters, BUT you don’t!
It’s kind of like those little baby speakes, a lot of people that say “they put out just as much sound as the big speakers do”, no they don’t or bands would be using those little cheap speakers instead of those huge high dollar Marshall’s and Peavy’s!
I don’t see why people are counting cylinders and displacement. If the engine is doing the job the truck owner is asking it to do, and is doing it reliably, I see no problem.
Reliability is a question with the 2.7 4. The 4.3 has a much longer history.
I have owned the 4.3 and I currently own the 2.7 and hands down 2.7 in my opinion is extramly superior over 4.3.
And this 2.7T belongs in every midsized Cadillac on the road !
Great Engine !
Get them moving 2 years ago !
It doesn’t belong in a car. Putting it in a Cadillac as the performance offering of all things was a mistake.
It drives more like a diesel than anything else – it’s absolutely perfect in a truck for pulling, hauling, and things a truck is used for. It never has a rush of power, and it is not an exciting engine to drive (like one would expect in a car) – when you stand on the pedal you get a consistent pull. It’s got a very low redline, and when you do get it up in the revs where it is not happy, it booms through the floorpan.
It’s a phenomenal engine for a truck which it was a designed for, but from day one when I heard they were going to put it in a Cadillac I thought it was a mistake.
Drives like a diesel? Truck engine? It has a 6000 rpm redline and a powerband similar to an LS1. The irony of calling it a truck engine when there are more LS and LT V8s in trucks than in Corvettes, Camaros, and Cadillac V-series models.
The CT4-V 2.7T ran a 13.2 second quarter mile in Car & Driver’s test drive and it only costs as much as the old ATS V6 trim.
Made in Mexico junk.!
That 4 cyl will wear out faster than the v6 due to it being s smaller engine with smaller parts enduring more power! That’s just a scientific fact!
The 2.7 is built in Spring Hill TN you pinecone. It’s also built with stronger internal components to deal with the added stresses of forced induction.
And right along with the EcoTecs, not ?
All provided by the lowest bidder. Yeah, good luck with that.
I think GM needs to add two more cylinders to the 2.7 liter four cylinder to make it a proper inline six cylinder.
I think MoPar needs to bring back the slant 6 and the star-30 engine for tanks. But, my pleas fall on deaf ears.
It would be interesting to see the take rate on each engine….
Even more: are dealers even stocking the 4 except for the Sunday come-on “two at this price” bait.
I’m reasonably l sure it’s a competent engine. It’s been out for a while and I’ve not heard of any nasties with it. Fleet buyers (water companies, gas companies, etc) are likely buyers. What has anyone heard?
I have one of the first ones off the line. 30K later, I have zero complaints other than it is mated to the 8 speed (which is a product of Satan himself).
They are picking up in popularity based on the forums and groups – word is getting out about it. The torque curve is a table and it drives quite well. If you drive it with sense the fuel economy is decent, but like any FI engine it will drink if you start beating on it.
I agree, I’ve had mine since Feb, great engine. Best mikeage ive gotten so far was 27 mpg coming back from the Catskill Mts, about an hour and a half trip. Yeah, it’s mostly downhill, but my 2015 5.3 would not come close the that, maybe 21 with a tail wind.
MDSilveradoGuy,
I love that ( which is a product of Satan himself )
GM needs to get the 10 speed behind this and yesterday !
I mean it’s only 30k it’s hardly enough time to tell if it’s reliable. That’s a year of driving for me.
I took a 2.7T custom for a test drive and really liked it. I would like to see it offered with the 10spd auto exclusively though. It is a great value.
It’s basically the 6.5 Creedmore of truck engines.
I do love the inline six, and they are the perfect balance engine.
You all did know that the 3.0TD in the Silverado IS just that, Another GREAT GM Engine !
One more thing, old and heavy and slow, no longer wins the longevity race !
New alloys and designs will FAR outlast the old.
Yet the GM problem is cost. Will ? did ? GM let the engineers this time spend what they needed to .
They don’t use old heavy V-6 engines in fighter jets.
This is 2021 lets get going here people !
Doing it cheap means you are going to be behind.
The world !
My local dealer will not stock either engine. It’s a small dealer and the owner says he can’t sell em. Says GM even offered big discounts and he still didn’t want em.
I did a quick search in the Houston area and it showed 252(4cyl) ,111(I6), 109(V6), and 1110(V8) available.
‘the 2.7-liter four-cylinder turbo outperforms the more traditional V6 in almost every area.’ Except long term reliability – The V6 will still be running fine after 150,000+ miles.
And, the four-cylinder will not be, because…?
You’re going to get the same old crap reply about “Runs too hot, works too hard for the size” blah blah blah.
It happens any time there is forward progress. Given the valvetrain issues, piston slap and other issues that the LS has blessed the truck world with, the rose colored glasses don’t work so well any more.
Yes, I know what answer I’d get, and notice that none was forthcoming. The same old songs are still being sung about 3-cylinder engines, yet, they have been in use – successfully – for decades.
As for four-bangers: Folks back in the 60s put hundreds of thousands of miles on Volvos, Datsuns, Toyotas, Simcas, and Citroëns with just oil changes and carburetor rebuilds. Maybe a valve job, but valve jobs were relatively common on cars back then.
Back on 3-cylinder engines: The Geo/Chevy Metro is an example. There are few left, but that is because they started life as a cheap econobox and most weren’t cared-for. Those that received any attention at all easily clocked 6 figures on the odometer, and did so reliably. Most are gone now to rust or just got thrown away as “not worth fixing” when it needed a few hudred in wear-parts to make it roadworthy.
Ironically, I’ve got a fully restored 1992 Metro Convertible sitting in the garage right now with 110K on it. I’ve always had a love for odd engines, and 3/5 cylinders are a favorite. 3s in particular have such a good sound when they go about their business – and aside from the end to end harmonics that are killer on engine mounts they aren’t a bad design. I pulled mine last year and went through it, and aside from leaking oil like a sieve from shrunken seals it showed no wear.
I ordered one of the first smarts that came to the US in 2008, and the Mitsubishi sourced 3 in that was also a gem. I didn’t do anything to it aside from preventative maintenance in the 4 years that I owned it.
I’m glad to see GM is bringing them to market here again – they have an uphill battle, but once enough of them get out there they will start winning people over like the 2.7 is.
I freely admit Iike the sound of a multi-cylinder engine at high power. Examples include the 392 Hemi with two four-barrels in a “real” 300C, or, a Wright 3350 on a DC7C at full takeoff power. Dear me…!
But, in today’s car world, I look at the drive-train and see if it matches up with my needs before making a buying decision. Example: a this close < to ordering a 21 Pacifica Hybrid because I liked my 2018 so much that I want another one. It served MY needs. I’ve no need for tire-burning power, or ego-enhancing “numbers”.
4.3 has vibration issues (I traded 4.3 for 2.7) ask anyone with 2015 or above and they will tell you it does.
Turbos scare me. Any time I see a car show on TV and the vehicle has a turbo, it leaks or needs some kind of service. Not cheap, either. I can live with a few less HP if it means less problems or expense. Can’t get a RCSB anymore so I’m not in the market, anyway.
The 4.3 has better E85 numbers. Not looking it up, I recall 300/330. Get the 4.3 people. And when it goes, GM gives you V8 guys get the axe next..
300/330 is less than 310/348.
A hoary old 90 degree V6 isn’t going to compete with a forced induction inline 4. Even if you built the V6, as soon as you tune the 4, game over.
I realize that & don’t care. I was replying about the V6 only, to a fella with a similar outlook. I’ve grown to despise turbos.
Despise or not, they are the future of the internal combustion engine.
It’s either that, or you’re stuck with electric. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a turbo than a soulless motor under my hood.
6 or half dozen another
I’d go with the turbo 4. Ford sells bucketloads of their ecoboost engines and they are reliable. I don’t understand why they don’t use their 2.3 L eco as the base engine in the 150, it’s numbers are very similar to the 2.7. What I love about modern turbo engines is there are no holes in the power band, like NA engines, I’m a believer!
Imagine if they made a straight 6 turbo gas.
Here in the wholesale market it is common knowledge that turbo engines don’t last,they do not move enough oil y for the amount of power they make. The oil gets cooked and ruined way too quick. ..add the fact that oil companies claim their oils are good for 10k plus and you have a recipe for disaster…and fixes aren’t cheap! Nearly every turbo (especially truck) vehicle we get in has low and horribly burnt oil…or new oil that smells burnt and a chunky dipstick. Head gaskets are also a HUGE issue!
You have zero long term experience with the 2.7 to make any statements like this. Any engine will suffer at the hands of abuse, and turbocharged engines mores. That being said, a properly maintained turbo isn’t going to experience these issues.
Add in the fact that this engine was designed from the ground up to combat these issues (variable flow oil pump, enhanced cooling radiator + the active cooling system), and there’s no reason to expect that it will have the same fate. You also have zero data on head gaskets on the L3B…
About 12-13K of the 30K on mine have been spent pulling 5,000lb of boat and trailer through the Blue Ridge mountains, and the oil is no different than any other vehicle out there when it comes time to change.
And YOU have experience with ONE engine for 30k! Not enough to have the attitude and smart assedness you exhibit. Please think before you post smart-ass comments. Let me know how 100k works out for you…until then you are irrelevant.
And yet I still have more actual experience with this engine than you do. 😅
Call it smart assedness, or call it whatever you want.
Quite frankly, you don’t own one and don’t have any real experience with one, so you’re nothing more than an armchair reviewer spouting garbage. “Here in the wholesale market” versus my 20 years in this field with engineering credentials and SAE credentials to back it up. You are the one who is irrelevant here, bud.
Bring on the downvotes, they warm my soul and it is getting cold outside.
Again…check back in 100k. I have a feeling you’ll be strangely silent. You see an engine that hasn’t been out any longer than this one can not have long term reviews (30k is NOT long term) therefore we just don’t know how it will hold up. It may be the best thing ever…but that is yet to be determined (and doubtful) small displacement engines making big hp (for there puny size) have a terrible track record (so far) When you go through approximately 80 vehicles per week this becomes obvious. So….have a nice Christmas and good luck!
The problem most likely would be ppl tuning the vehicle and driving it like a maniac. I’m in the market now for a truck. Doing research on this 2.7 motor.
“the fact that the 2.7L I4 L3B is lighter than the 4.3L V6 LB3”
Really? Source and figures please, and don’t forget to include the turbochargers, intercoolers, etc.
https://gm-techlink.com/?p=11837
You can’t include the intercooler in the weight – it’s part of the chassis of the truck. At this point, you’re just splitting hairs though
So… it weighs 80 pounds less until you count the intercooler + coolant etc, at which point it weighs the same.
I have the 2.7T with the 10 speed in my CT4. The power band is smooth from idle on up through the rpm range. I haven’t heard any “booming” noise through the floorboards as you suggest and I’ve owned diesels. This is no diesel. One has to understand, the 2.7 in a truck isn’t the same 2.7 in the Cadillac. It has different mapping and tuning with controlled shift points. That makes this engine a whole different animal in the sedan. I suggest you test drive the CT4 2.7T AWD with the 10 speed and then make that comparison again. I guarantee it will change your mind. I respect another person’s opinion, but this just isn’t the case here. As for longevity, I guess only time will tell. 13.4 in the 1/4 without spilling your latte and no road noise is compelling. My 5.7L hemi Challenger was only 0.4 seconds faster. Now that’s perspective.
I’ve actually driven the 2.7 in the CT4 recently, and I stand behind my statements regarding the engine. I’ve also owned Diesels as well (and have a Diesel Suburban on the way to replace this Silverado), and have had a 2.7 longer than almost any other customer on the road so I am not speaking out of my ass. The tuning is not that different in the car version of it – most of the changes you are going to feel are because the 10 speed is vastly superior to the 8 speed – which does need to drag out the gears longer in the truck.
Not putting the 10 speed behind the 2.7 in the trucks is the greatest sin GM has created.
The power band is smooth in the Cadillac, but it never really excites, and it does not sound pleasant when it is going about its work. It is quick, but it is not as engaging as its competition.
It comes down to the more subjective “metrics”.
How do the engines FEEL, or SOUND?
Is one coarser feeling than the other? Does one sound more pleasing?
These less tangible things are important to some people.
The 2.7 has a flat torque curve and pulls like a small diesel. It’s generally quieter and grumbles in the background if kept down in the rev range where it wants to be. It’s about as refined as you can make a big bore 4 cyl but is by no means perfect. The turbo is about the most audible thing on the 2.7 around down.
The 4.3 sounds every bit like a 90 degree V6… there is only so much you can do to make them not sound crude and with an uninspired exhaust note.
Why does GM refuse to make a gas V6 turbo competitor to Ford’s 3.5L V6 turbo? The standard ecoboost, not the high output Raptor version. The 5.3 just can’t compete when buyers test drive both.
MDSilveradoGuy, Jason, Jason Thornton, Dan
This is a great conversation.
If they did make the 3.0T in an inline 6, yet the V8 would go by, by. If anyone could remember the 292 I6 in the early GM days, That thing ran, and ran, and ran. The inline 6 does not need the balance shaft of the I4 so it is a better engine, throw a turbo on that, now we are talking. ( and that’s where the Europeans have been for years )
So some are correct here on the torque curve of the I4 or I6, yes they are shorter than the V8s, yet that is where the 10 speed comes in ( and great ) get your self behind one of these I6 3.0TD or 2.7T – I4 with the 10 speed, then come back and comment, please, do it !
For the two of you on the low end throat sound, Jason, is the premium luxury better on this than the sport ? We don’t know this ? And MDSilveradoGuy, this was wanted in the sports cars of the past, that low end throaty grunt sound, so it is a plus to some.
Now to the Eco Tech in general. My son has owned two Cobalts, with Ecotechs, these engines are bullet proof, today, if GM does not cheapen them out . One of his 2.2 EcoTechs ran just about 300,000 miles, and that was after he his something in the night and drove it 30 miles without coolant, bullet proof, the only reason he quit driving it is the chain to run the balance shaft failure ( just wore out ) and 300,000 miles is worn out, not 50,001, ( Cadillac )
For those who say ” This is a truck engine and does not belong in a Cadillac ” Its the SAME engine as the DUD 2.0T, and that thing does NOT belong in a Cadillac !
And one more tine, I do love the GM V8, the 18436572 Fire order just sounds like dreams come true, and every boomer alive just loves them ! But they are fuel pigs compared to an inline 6 T with a 10 speed ! And so are the 3.6-V6NA.
Yet I do love the 3.6TT-V6 and the 3.0TT-V6, but now we are in a whole different conversation.
And don’t forget that BlackWing V8TT,let that thing get 10 years old and tune it.
OOOOOOOO a DREAM COME TRUE THERE !
Nope, GM killed that thing.
But I have a few NorthStars to build – tune and turbo ! Woop,Woop !
For you boomers here, a 283 cubic inch, 4 valve per cylinder, twin overhead cam with twin turbos !! ( NorthStar )
I wonder?
Why did GM kill that BlackWing ?
You don’t suppose, its money do you ?
You don’t suppose it would be the end of the OLD GM NA V8 , do you ?
O well, GM seems to be committed to run the GM V8 – na, all the way to the EVs.
Lucky the boomers again, sad the BlackWing guys again ! ( twin turbo V8 )
The torque curve of the 2.7T is in fact longer and flatter than that of the 5.3, and begins at a much lower RPM, hence its better drivability.
I’m replacing my 2.7 with a Suburban with the 3.0 Duramax and 10 speed – the main motivator being that the 8 speed in the Silverado is just that terrible, and nothing GM has thrown at it makes it behave well.
I’m confused by your statement about the “dud 2.0”. You know that the 2.0 has zero in common with the 2.7, right? They’re not in the same family, of the same block design, or anything at all…
MDSilveradoGuy,
First off thank you for commenting here.
I will again learn something I hope.
I get it that the ” peak ” torque or higher torque of the 2.7 is flatter and longer.
However please correct me, like a V8, it runs from 0 to 8000 RPM, what does the I4 run ?
Our 2.0T in our ATS is never very high and when it is it id BLAH, and I get it, it just drops out of the curve.
However in a sedan, the torque only really needs to be in the low range, very little torque is needed at speed, there is simply no drag.
Like this example, I ran a 327 in a 1968 Camaro in 1985. 2 speed Powerglide. it would shift out of 1st gear at 85 MPH and the RPM was 8000+. All 1st gear, all full range torque, ( start low, then wow, than level, then shift, and start all over until you could no longer keep the car on the road.
Long torque, not as high as the I4 for a long period, but longer.
And thanks for the correction on the 2.7T as an Ecotech. It is not per say !
Like the 10 speed Allison is not an Allison per say !
And that all engines are pretty much Hemi per say !
To me its kinda like saying an LS is not a small block Chevy !
This clean sheet, talk when started with the base of ” x ” what does that even mean anylonger other than marketing ?
So we started with a ” clean sheet ” making the same old I4, we did change the angle of the ” X ” and that will make it so much better. Does it ? Is it ?
Is this not just the next step of a I4 Aluminum block GM engine ?
Just because GM marketing wants too call them ” Clean sheet ” how ” Clean can a sheet be in the year 2020 when talking I4 engines ? The cow will only milk so much !
So not to get critical but ZERO in common ?
and I will not be able to say one way or the other for a couple years until I get one torn apart so I will trust you as if you sat in the meeting as they were being designed.
You see I to have 15 years experience in the automotive industry, and was also a member of a SAE decision board.
Patent hanging on the wall !
So not everyone here was just pulling apart small blocks in 1970 +.
I do get a little crazy with this group from time to time !
And I do LOVE this 2.7T. And I feel it should be in every Cadillac mid-sized, the smallest base Cadillac engine, and in the next GMC Canyon all with the 10 speed.
I do not care how they crowl in the low end, I want the vehicle to move !
And its just my opinion.
I have the 4.3 in my Silverado. It does what I need it to do, at better fuel economy than is stated above. I could care less about 0-60,:etc. I am very happy with mine. I would only be happier with an inline 6 cyl gasser.