Just yesterday, General Motors pulled the sheets on the refreshed 2022 Chevy Silverado, debuting a host of updates and changes over the 2021 model year and pre-refresh 2022 Chevy Silverado 1500 Limited. Among these is a substantial increase in torque for the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine.
The gains come thanks to a more rigid cylinder block casting and a 30-percent-stiffer crankshaft. The boosted four maintains its fully forged bottom end.
With the introduction of the 2022 Chevy Silverado, the pickup’s turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine now produces 420 pound-feet of torque at 1,500 rpm, a 72-pound-feet increase compared to the previous model’s 348 pound-feet. That’s 20 percent more than the 2021 model year. Meanwhile, horsepower remains unchanged at 310 ponies at 5,600 rpm.
| 2022 Silverado 1500 Limited | Refreshed 2022 Silverado 1500 | |
|---|---|---|
| Power (hp / kw @ rpm) | 310 / 231 @ 5,600 | 310 / 231 @ 5,600 |
| Torque (lb.-ft. / Nm @ rpm) | 348 / 473 @ 1,500 to 4,000 | 420 / 569 @ 3,000 |
| Towing Capacity (lb. / kg) | 9,600 / 4,354 | 9,500 / 4,309 |
Despite this massive increase in torque, refreshed 2022 Chevy Silverado 1500 models equipped with the turbo 2.7L I4 L3B boasts a 9,500-pound towing capacity when configured with two-wheel drive, or 100 pounds less than with the 2021 and pre-refresh 2022 models.
For those buyers that need extra towing capacity, the 2022 Chevy Silverado 1500 once again offers the 3.0L I6 LM2 turbodiesel Duramax, which now offers up to 13,300 pounds of towing for the 2022 model year.
The turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B connects to an eight-speed automatic transmission, which was revised for the 2022 Chevy Silverado 1500 to offer smoother shifts, as well as quicker downshifts.
Further updates for the 2022 model year include a completely overhauled interior, equipped on LT trim levels and above. The new cabin features a 13.4-inch color touchscreen as standard on LT, RST, LT Trail Boss, LTZ, and High Country trim levels, plus the new ZR2 off-roading trim. Further tech features in the cabin include a 12.3-inch configurable instrument cluster offered as standard on all models with the new interior, as well as Google-powered features like Google Assistant, Google Maps, and Google Play. High Country trim levels will also offer the GM Super Cruise semi-autonomous driver-assist system.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Silverado news, Chevy news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
I watched the gm press release on youtube, and it shows the 5.3 will be available with both the 8 and 10 speed. Why? Why won’t they make the 10 speed standard across the board? At this point, why not just cut the 5.3 from the lineup and make the 6.2 more readily available? The 6.2 is mostly a bored out 5.3 anyway, and you can’t tell a difference by looking under the hood. Fuel economy isn’t that different either. The 2.7 could easily fill the void left by the 5.3, they just need to increase the horsepower a little and add the 10 speed.
You don’t want to cut the 5.3 because when towing, you don’t want your fuel economy to drop to pre 2000’s big block. Also the 5.3 is a ton faster as it 1, makes 15% more power, 2 doesn’t require 2 seconds of turbo response to achieve that torque, it’s instantaneous. The 5.3 is a much better mid level engine, and last I saw, it’s makes better fuel economy, as both engines are rated at 23, but that more or less only applies when you drive 65 mph. Past 70, the 5.3 is way better.
I’m really sad they didn’t touch the V8’s. Anyone who has looked at cam swaps is familiar with long duration cams, and how they boost low end torque, and with proper valve timing high end power at the same time. The problem with high duration cams is they idle poorly due to vacuum. With skip fire tech, which reduces pumping loss, couldn’t they idle with just 2-3 cylinders to keep the lopyness down? If you look at gen 5 small blocks, a “mild” lopy cam returns ~ +30tq across the entire band, and ~ +40-50hp. We should have seen a 5.3 with 400hp and 410tq
The 2.7 l3b is also considerably lighter, and could easily have a slight hp bump and be quicker than the 5.3 while being able to type more too. Less rotating parts also helps in a more reliable package. I should also ask, you did see that the 420ft lbs of torque (much more than the 5.3l comes with) is available at 1500rpm… You know what the max torque on the 5.3 is? Like 5000 rpm! So actually your theory is backwards. The 2.7t would have mountains more torque before the smaller maximum of the 5.3 would.
I love the 5.3 don’t get me wrong, but they can easily add more power to this 4 cylinder and replace the 5.3, It’s not even a question. The only challenge is folks who are for hard v8 will never see the technological advance and try it. This is why alot of European vehicles have been so far ahead. They have 4 cylinders making close to 400hp with forged internals and stiffer blocks. The tech exists and has been out honestly almost for a decade.
Ryan, yet it’s only practical at in I can think of 1 setting, and that’s brake torquing. The 420 tq, is only available at 1500rpm, and after 2 Seconds of boost, so I real life, you probably won’t ever see it, as when you hit the gas, your truck will downshift before those 2 seconds are up and you’ll be at 3-4000 rpm where torque is significantly lower. Gen V small blocks also have 90% of their torque available from 1000rpm to redline, 95% from 3000 to redline, so the 5.3 has more torque off the line, and while yes, while the 2.7 is almost 100 lbs lighter is the block, that’s not including intercooler and piping weight. Your saving about 50lbs, or 1% on the total weight of the vehicle For 15% less ponies and nonlinear torque
Most of that “information” is dead wrong. Sorry. The 420 lb ft of torque is not available “only” at 1,500 rpm, it’s available FROM 1,500 rpm through 4,000 rpm (according to specifications published elsewhere on the GMA site). You’re reading the journalist speak wrong… “available at only 1,500” means that’s an incredibly low engine speed for a gasoline engine to produce that much torque, vs. “available only at 1,500” – the at/only vs only/at order makes a world of difference.
A table-flat torque curve like that is unique to an electronically controlled turbocharged engine, and is superior to the 5.3 hands down. It’s almost boring to drive because you don’t get surges in acceleration as you go up through the gears like you do with a peaky naturally aspirated engine.
It does NOT require “2 seconds” for the engine to come on boost and produce torque. I’ve driven the 2.7, as well as countless other turbocharged vehicles, and I can attest that the integration of the turbo system on the 2.7 is as good as anything else out there, is virtually imperceptible, and no boost to on boost is a fraction of a second, and certainly quicker than a 5.3’s transition to a sweet spot in its power curve. I’ve driven turbocharged vehicles that have a one-Mississippi two-Mississippi between pedal to the floor and anything happening (first-gen DuraMax, Buick 3.8, aftermarket ser-ups), but this engine’s turbo lag is virtually no existant, and comparable to MB’s 4.0L twin turbo hot-V setup.
Lastly, the weight savings DOES include the intercooler, piping, et al, as they are integrated into the engine assembly as a water-to-air intercooler, not air-to-air with large to and from piping with a large aluminum tank-type box out in front of the radiator.
Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE V8’s. But if this engine can demonstrate respectable reliability, the 5.3 is DEAD considering their ongoing valvetrain failure issues and historical oil consumption issues (related to AFM etc.). My “dream” engine would be a pair of 2.7’s mated at the crank to form a 5.4L DOHC twin turbocharged V8 with 620+ hp and 840 lb ft of torque – at only 1,500 rpm!
I have to disagree most of those statements. For the previous LB3 the torque (348) was available up to 4000 rpms, but given there is no increase in power on the update, the 420ftlbs is not available at 4000 rpms, and is likely gone by 2500-3000rpm, which is the beginning of the power band. If it held up to 4000, we would see power increase to 340-350 HP, which we didn’t.
Yes, it does take 2 seconds for max torque. No turbo is without lag. The LB3 has very little with 75% torque applies in half a second, and 90% in ~1 second (reported on chevys website and GMA)max toque is almost a second latter to get full 100%.
Dude, the same publication (GMA) that says “420 lb ft” also says “1,500 to 4,000.” This ain’t a buffet – you don’t get to pick and choose your facts.
Respectfully, you have a gross reading compression deficiency that prevents you from understanding written technical data. You have misunderstood no fewer than three specific things in this thread and then espoused junk – with a strange confidence. I’m sure you think you read somewhere that it takes two seconds to make maximum torque, but it’s implausible on every level. I challenge you to copy and paste the entire text of what YOU THINK said “two seconds” and I’ll gladly explain to you what it actually means.
Additionally, I STRONGLY encourage you to go drive a 2.7 – then you will see for yourself it doesn’t take two seconds to achieve “max torque.”
You sound like a complete asshole to put it mildly. Your desperate attempt to sound like the “BIG BRAIN” in the room but unfortunately you couldn’t pull it off. You couldn’t afford a new truck if it came as a shell and completely empty. Do everyone a favor and go hang yourself. If that doesn’t work because you don’t know how to tie a knot then stick a pistol in your mouth and pull the trigger.
Ahhh…jake (with a small “j”) has a girlfriend. Do you know Manti Te’o’s girlfriend?? I bet you do…
GMA’s publication was based off GM’s publication from 2019, that the LB3 makes its peak torque (348 ftlbs) from 1500 up to 4000 lbs. I have not seen anywhere from GM that the updated version maintains that 420 ftlbs over the same band. I really doubt thats the case. If it were, there would be a horsepower boost. GM has announced that the new torque is available at 1500 rpm’s, but not how long that torque holds.
yes, it take 1 second to reach 90% of its torque, and just shy of 2 for 100% course that last 10-5% doesnt feel dramatic. That statement comes direct from GM on their engine as well
GM 2.7L L3B I-4 Turbo Engine Info, Specs, Wiki | GM Authority
https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/l3b/
There you go…I’ll spoon feed you like a baby: There’s the GMA table that shows 2022 Silverado L3B with 420 ft lbs. @ 1,500-4,000 rpm.
Now I’ll wait on you to provide me with ANY documentation that says “it takes 2 seconds to make torque.” Tic toc.
You win the ASSHOLE of the YEAR award ! Nice going Ace. NASA needs someone just like you for their rocket program. Since your only able to split your time between fixing all the problems of the world and having a new MAN every weekend up to his thighs in your ass there just isn’t enough hours in the day. For all of us citizens of planet Earth we just want to say thank you for everything !
Lighten up, Francis. Buy a dictionary. And maybe talk with someone about your anal fixation.
Only words to say is longevity of the throw away turbo 4 cyl. It will never last 200-400k with extreme oil consumption. Just as a side note. I believe the 4cyl has its place Just not in a working truck.
The fish gills are gone the Ugly taillights remain
Variable valve timing prevents the need for a “big stick” camshaft with a compromised idle. GM has had it in every truck since 2009. Usually they have a setup for idle to about 4000rpm and a way to change the timing/duration from around 4000 to redline. So you get the best of both worlds. Currently nobody does skip fire at idle that I know of. It has to do with poor vibration characteristics, and also issues with cylinders getting too cold and possibly the cat converter getting too cold. So a 4 cyl for city driving always makes the most sense. I’ve rarely seen a V8 get the advertised city mileage, but I’ve seen 4 cyls do it all the time. So forget about mileage while towing or long freeway trips, the HUGE savings in fuel with the 2.7 will be around town and in situations where the truck needs to idle at a job site.
My 2019 silverado Z71 4×4 5.3 is getting 24mpg. I don’t live in flat areas of the country. Yes it’s good engine. Some days I wonder if they 10spd is worth getting over the current 8spd..
They should get rid of the 5.3 and add a truck version of the Corvette’s new 5.5L V8.. increase displacement of the 6.2 to 396(6.5) .. I mean they’re getting rid of fossil fuel engines anyways.. might as well go all out with them
The 5.5 is a terrible truck engine. It’s is basically a low torque engine that makes power by spinning faster than a wankle motor. (I believe the RX engines had a 9000rpm deadline, the 5.5 is 9100?) As a DOHC it will also be as big and bulky as ford 6.2 “Boss” SOHC heavy duty engine. The 5.5 exists because Corvette is having limitations put on them in GT racing. Europeans got tired of muscle car motors 💪 winning everything. As defiant as Texas and Florida are, gas isn’t going anywhere soon, especially as most those who want EV’s only tend to not be car buyers and take public transit anyways, there will be a demand for V8’s long from now. A YouTube search shows that anyone with pocket cash and the internet can build a 500hp 5.3, without turbos. GM, just give us some love and update these almost a decade old engines.
Gas engines are expected to be around for another 10-15 years. New York State has already ban the sale of fossil fueled cars completely by 2035. You’re going to see California follow this as well.. I’m with you on hoping they stay around longer.. as for the 5.5L. I’m not saying make it spin to the recline of 9000rpm and use a flat plate crank. Make a truck version, tuned for low end torque.. with decent horsepower numbers.
I honestly expect gas engines to outlive NY state, no not even joking. NY can survive and has survived everything others has thrown at it. Nobody never has survived self destruction, the path that NY is currently on, it will go the way of the dodo. Ditto Cali. The California 5 years from now will be dramatically different from the California we have today.
I hope that this makes its way into the next gen canyon / Colorado considering that the 2.7 will be the only option. if the next gen midsizes get this then I’ll legit consider buying one.
Eventually the trucks, suvs, and vans will be 2.7, 3.0, and 6.6. Everyone can complain about the 2.7, but it will replace the 5.3. It’s torque is close enough to the 6.2, so that they will need a light duty version of the 6.6 for the small block to stay relevant in the trucks. People down thumb me like i like saying this. I’m not always stating what i want, but rather I’m trying to anticipate what move gm is gonna make in the future. Sometimes the inevitable isn’t always pleasant. People also need to realize that peak power numbers aren’t the only thing that matters. Also, di turbo engines produce peak torque numbers throughout wider rpms than n/a engines. That’s because these turbo engines boost early, then taper off at higher rpms, which is why they don’t always have high hp. But they can, they just aren’t tuned that way because of emissions. What most people don’t realize is, emissions are hurt the most at high rpm, especially when an engine is putting out a lot of hp. Engineers figure they can give you an engine with plenty of torque, ample hp, and plenty of gears and everyone is satisfied. Your seat of the pants, your towing abilities, and the government with emissions. That 2.7 could probably make 375 hp and 450 lb-ft EASY. The tow rating is held back because gm wants to upcharge you on an engine that is less efficient (V8), helping them make a profit after they pay tesla for emissions credits. This is how v8s stay on the market, making you pay for them until you the consumer deems it not worth the cost. It is our pockets that will determine the life of the v8, because at this point the government is no longer a variable but rather a constant in the car market.
This 100%! If gm spent money on completely forged internals and a power bump to 400hp and like 420 – 450tq, the l3b could literally be a jack of all trades and replace every motor for the silverado, colorado, and even runfaster in the ct4v non blackwing! Better gas mileage, more broad and max torque for towing, and more power with lighter weight for better passing power. But many people will say no way or thats impossible and not believe it. To many people love the v8 which is awesome but to be completely honest is like prehistoric tech compared to the l3b 2.7t.
They can’t get better gas mileage though. It’s no secret that boosted engines guzzle gas under load, the 2022 ranger tremor gets 20mpg highway!!!!! That’s the same as Toyotas 5.7 from 2009 in a truck that’s way smaller! Meanwhile GM with cylinder deactivation without Atkinson cycles, without hybrid tech, without a lean burn cycle or any other tech is getting a large displacement pushrod in a brodozer to 22-23 mpg. Remember emissions isn’t just NOX, it’s also fleet average mpg, which boosted engines can’t deliver.
It may also be good to remember that the EPA finded GM 50 million last year for “selling too many trucks” the last then need is a gas guzzling turbo
What? Everything is going boosted. Not something i like, not trying to piss you off, just being honest. Read what i posted above. These boosted engines boost to say, 4,000 rpm then taper off for emissions. The engines that hurt emissions are the ones that have to be strung out. Do you know what naturally aspirated means? Atmospheric pressure, 14.7 psi. Boosted engines add additional pressure to that. Meaning each combustion chamber is its own atmosphere when the valves close and a turbocharger or supercharger adds pressure to each combustion chamber. As long as the block and valvetrain can handle the pressure, you can add as much pressure to the engine as you want wherever in the powerband you want. This engine is being held back by emissions, it’s meant to be a work horse. I honestly like V8s, i have a hemi, but i am impressed with the technology. After the hemi dies, ive got to make a decision. That’s why i keep my eye on this sort of tech. The next gen gm trucks will more than likely be 2.7, 6.6, 3.0, and an ev. I see gm skipping hybrid trucks, i could be wrong. But gm has had hybrid and mild hybrid trucks already in the past.
Many engines are going boosted for cost reasons. Look at the Malibus I3 and new tundra engines. Neither are advanced complex engines with the most complicated aspect being direct injection, as both will be smaller volume vehicles and neither companies are going to dump R&D into them. Toyotas new 2.5, their bread and butter engine for the Camry and rav 4 and the Highlander hybrid, 2.5NA with a Atkinson cycle…. For emissions and efficiency. Honda ditto. Turbos don’t help with emissions, they just are the anithese of cylinder deactivation to reduce pumping losses at low power. A turbo engine will have no effect on NOX emissions whatsoever. Direct injection already eliminats fuel prematurely entering the exhaust
FYI, turbos don’t taper at 4000 rpm for emissions. Turbos have a limited scope of operation before they can’t flow any more air. IDK If you have tried sizing a turbo for an engine, but there are options for turbos that are designed to not start boost till 3-4000 rpm to allow for solid boost up to 9-10,000 engine RPM, (actual turbo speed is 5-15000)
The mighty 2.7T wonder rates a worst in class 17/20 in the volume 4X4 Silverado for all 2022 models I have seen shipped. This makes it one of the lowest rated base engines of all the current pickup trucks for highway and combined. Not at all impressed.
I’m another non-fan of later gm v-8s because of there engine management caused failures. New 2.7turbo and 3.0 duramax engines are still to new to have a track record. I would like to state that with all the towing references in previous comments, speaking from personal experience, turbo induction engine will have a definite advantage at higher altitudes than a naturally aspirated engine even if on paper the turbo appears to have a minor power disadvantage.
Let’s upgrade the ct5v below it does now…
We all know what the blue state government mandates are for electric vehicles, but like so many other blue edicts, reality is standing squarely in their path. To support the charging requirements for a 100% electric passenger vehicle fleet in the US, electrical generation capacity would need to more than double. Currently, generation capacity is being reduced (not increased) in an effort to eliminate the less-green options, and the brown-outs we see regularly on the left coast prove there’s inadequate capacity at present to supply existing housing and industry – long before any meaningful volume of plug-in cars is added to the demand.
Additionally, transmission and distribution grids would require wholesale replacement/reconfiguration to move the new level of energy. And, lastly, many (most?) homes would require significant upgrades to their electrical services to supply home charging stations – which probably cannot be accommodated (period) at most multifamily and or inner-city residences. And forget about rooftop solar making up the difference…the sun is on the wrong side of the world when you need that all-night-long charge.
Considering the current political climate in the US, we may well be on the way to a fully electric fleet…but if we are, we ain’t goin’ too far.
West coast industry??? What Industry??? They ran out Toyota, and the Tesla, and the only thing they make over there is movies and designs for computers, not even the computers themselves! Their have almost no HVAC load as the climate is wonderful! I bet you anything their house power loads are 1/3 of where I live in the Midwest, where we have metal and chemical refineries that eat up most of our power grid. Here is wager your guess on doubling the grid to power EV’s is correct, out west??? No, they need 10 times the grid capacity.
HVAC load accounts for only 25% of electrical consumption in a modern home. So even in a “modest” climate there’s not a meaningful impact.
Industry is Industry – I didn’t say “manufacturing,” I said “industry” – which includes healthcare, banking, insurance, tech, education, entertainment, etc. Generally speaking, “Industry” uses twice the energy, per capita, than residential applications.
My “more than double” the electrical generation capacity statement is US-wide, not specific to a state or region.
Also, in Californiastan, expect new, bigger taxes on electric vehicles…currently the state gets more money from each gallon of gas sold than the hardworking men and women who extracted, refined and delivered that gasoline. As that revenue source dries up, they will have to replace it with different taxes. 58 million gallons a day of gas + diesel usage in CA; over $1/gallon in direct taxes, nearly that again in embedded taxes/fees – call it $100M/day in revenue to the state from fuel sales, or about $36B each year. Gotta make it up somewhere.
I know lol, just saying that as I got 2 steel Mills down the road and they account for 80% of our local generation plants power. It’s a big generation plant as well. Try replacing that with solar
Well. Itll be a good time to be an electrician.
If you don’t mind walking to work!
better get the extended warranty with that tiny engine!
Real trucks are made with wrenches, not chop sticks
Maybe drop V8s, add 2 cylinders to this L3B for a 4 liter I6 and offer NA version as base and turbo as top engine?
GM needs to quit screwing around and add two cylinders to 2.7 liter four cylinder and make a proper straight six.
4.0 liter
460 horsepower
650 torque
Absolutely!
Keep in mind (gm) is run buy a women making 40 million a year
That interior just doesn’t look right. It doesn’t look interesting or expensive
I just don’t get that wow factor
The old dash looks better at first glance. Yes it lacking but the new dash is Ram looking but not as good.
They totally missed the mark.
Is the plastic wood real? Is it sustainable? Where do they harvest it from?
Lets all run out and buy a Volvo. The company is owned by the Chinese Communist. The cars are still made in Sweden but the big profits go to the Commies. Every time we buy a new Volvo it gives them that much more money to build and make more weapons and bullets to kill us all some day. The Commies did a pretty good job with COVD. Things are going to be a lot easier now that we have a low life rabid sewer rat for a president
The only reason the Chinese are such a threat these days is because we taught them how to build all the junk we want and use there slave labor to do it.
Now they have nukes and nuclear reactors.
Because of the west they actually are way a head of us when it comes to commerce…..
hey GM Trucks,
Any way you could find out if the 2019-2021 2.7L Silverados are going to get the transmission update? I have the 2021 and the shift points are BAD.
Which L3B in the 2022 Silverado LTD Trail Boss? HO or earlier engine?
Whatever….you can have your 4 banger turbo….how long do you really think the longevity of that boosted 4 popper is going to be vs. the 5.3 or 6.2. That little engine is working overtime to come close to the V8’s. Sorry, but 4 cylinders belong in small trucks and cars……not full size trucks.
Its all a hoax. The masses wont buy electric vehicles and GM will be forced to offer the 2.7 and the like. What they would like to do and will be forced to do are two different things entirely.
Does anybody remember the “Quad Four” fiasco of the late 1980’s. Those boat anchors produced 180-200 BHP and had all kinds of problems with the timing and DOHC valve train. Now they’ve added a turbo charger to that mess? I owned a 1988 Olds Calais with a 160 hp Quad Four and it ran like hell to about 50,000 miles and it was ready for the crusher. Get ready to see 2013 Silverados lined up in the discount used truck lots in a couple of years, and they will be available for pennies!
I’m just wondering if they’ll do like Ford and put a Turbo V6 under the hood. Cadillac’s CT4-V engine would be a nice touch. But GMs Gen 6 Small Block is just around the corner.. so maybe no V6s