General Motors unveiled the fully refreshed 2022 Chevy Silverado 1500 in September, introducing a long list of updates, changes, and upgrades for the highly-popular light-duty pickup truck. Among these was a torque boost for the turbocharged 2.7L L3B gasoline engine, which is now rated at 420 pound-feet at 3,000 rpm. However, that figure may in fact be underrated.
GM Authority has learned from sources familiar with the matter that the turbocharged 2.7L L3B gasoline engine in the fully refreshed 2022 Chevy Silverado 1500 could actually produce an SAE-certified 430 pound-feet of torque, rather than the 420 pound-feet announced previously.
We reached out to General Motors for comment, however, the automaker reiterated that “maximum torque is GM-estimated at 420 pound-feet (569 Nm) for the 2.7L Turbo High-Output engine.”
As a reminder, the L3B engine – initially introduced for the overhauled 2019 Silverado 1500 – is offered in High-Output form for the refreshed 2022 Chevy Silverado 1500. Prior to the 2022 model year refresh, the L3B engine was officially rated at 310 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 348 pound-feet of torque at 1,500 rpm, while the refreshed model is currently officially rated at 420 pound-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm. Horsepower ratings remain identical at 310 between the pre-refresh 2022 Silverado 1500 Limited and the refreshed 2022-model-year vehicle. In fact, the high-output L3B engine replaces the naturally-aspirated 4.3L V6 LV3 and 5.3L V8 L82 engines to becomes the standard base engine for the refreshed 2022 Silverado 1500 WT, Custom, Custom Trail Boss, LT, RST, and LT Trail Boss models.
| Model Year | Engine | Horsepower @ RPM | Torque @ RPM |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-2021 Silverado 1500 | Atmospheric 4.3L V6 LV3 | 285 @ 5300 | 305 lb-ft @ 3900 rpm |
| 2019-2021 Silverado 1500 | Atmospheric 5.3L V8 L82 | 355 @ 5600 | 383 @ 4100 |
| 2019-2021 Silverado 1500, 2022 Silverado 1500 Limited | Turbo-charged 2.7L I4 L3B Regular Output | 310 @ 5600 | 348 @ 1500 |
| 2022 Silverado 1500 Refresh | Turbo-charged 2.7L I4 L3B High Output | 310 @ 5600 | 430 @ 1500 |
Further updates for the 2022-model-year refresh include new exterior styling, which GM Authority was the first to tell you about, as well as a completely overhauled cockpit on the LT trim level and above.
- Check out the redesigned interior in the exclusive GM Authority cabin tour video.
In addition to the High Output 2.7L L3B, the fully refreshed 2022 Chevy Silverado 1500 is also offered with the naturally-aspirated 5.3L V8 L84 gasoline engine, the naturally aspirated 6.2L V8 L87 gasoline engine, and the 3.0L I6 LM2 turbodiesel Duramax. The truck rides on the GM T1 platform, with production taking place at the GM Silao plant in Mexico, the GM Fort Wayne plant in Indiana, plus the GM Oshawa plant in Canada later on in the model year.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Silverado news, Chevy news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
The ratings on these is relative anyways. The L83 when dynoed constantly exceeds 400TQ, and occasionally approaches 400hp. The SAE ratings is a benchmark that is to be taken into consideration for purchasing and can vary significantly depending on the outside temperature, oil you put in it or weather your engine was the first one of the day with groggy employees after thierr first coffee or mid shift after a good lunch. Various examples of this engine may hit 470-490tq on a good day with cool fresh air. And that’s before performance parts
You mention external factors affecting dyno ratings but forget the dyno itself. SAE and GM would get their ratings from a specifically calibrated engine dyno. Not a chassis dyno in a strip mall exhaust shop.
The engines may be underestimated a little, as they need to ensure each engine in a pool of hundreds of thousands made each year is representative.
I really don’t see an SAE 490lb-ft on 87 pump from the L83 without modifications; even basic bolt ons and tune won’t get it there.
You would on a broke in engine, on a 40 degree day with high humidity. There are lots of veriables. HOtRod tested a L83 junkyard motor that pulled 400hp 450tq from a stock 5.3 with 70K miles. The SAE rating is a baseline.
I believe I remember seeing those numbers disputed as a generously calibrated dyno
I’d love to see those Dyno graphs because they don’t line up with what I’ve seen. 355/383 on a good day is mor accurate.
5.3 is decent and gets pretty good mileage but it’s far from a powerhouse.
I ordered 6!
Unless GM adds two cylinders to make it a proper inline six i am not interested.
I’m not interested either way. Given it gets no better fuel economy than the 5.3, and ~15% less power, I’ll stick with the 5.3. What I don’t understand is why GM doesn’t unlock the true potential of the 5.3. It’s a simple cam swap away from 400hp. I guess it’s to not compete with the 6.2?
You’re worried about peak power at 5600rpm, nothing about torque, and drive a truck. You have it all wrong in the worst ways bud.
Negative, I’m worried about output power at 3000-4000 rpm, where my truck is working hard. If the 2.7 turbo had a flat torque curve, its output power would be near 400hp if its torque is 420. Instead it’s obviously very lumpy, dropping off just as the power band is starting, and I’ll need to go even higher in the RPM band to access hill climbing power than the 5.3. Think if I’m maxed out, and need all that 310hp. The LB3 makes that at a screaming 5100rpm. The 5.3 makes that much power at around 4500. It’s not just max torque, but how it’s applied.
Yes, while towing, low end torque would be nice while cruising, but I’ll take the 5.3 which will just cruise at 300-500rpm higher with better fuel economy
Toruqe is what you want, and with more torque you can run at lower rpm when pulling loads
The turbo will very likely drink more fuel than the 5.3 when working, but it will tow more effortlessly so it’s a value trade off
You want power, as power is physical work, torque just let’s you get power. An engine that makes maximum torque of 420, but only has 310 hp has that torque at a very limited point in the band. When working, as the 5.3 makes 355 hp at the same RPM that the 2.7 makes 310, that said you can pull more up a hill with the 5.3, when towing hard in the tow band, 3000-4500 rpm, the 5.3 will actually pull at 200-300 rpms lower!!!! At the cruising band, 2000-3000 rpm, yes, the 2.7 will pull at 500 rpm lower, but will consume way more gas. The 5.3 is the superior engine. Overlay the power curves to see what one talking about.
The turbo will very likely use more gas to tow the same load. But you have it backwards about torque vs HP and rpm.
Physics 101, HP=torque X RPM, work = force X distance and power = work. You need power, torque will give you power, but if your torque is limited to the low RPM band, you are limited on the work you can do. The 2.7 has a higher max torque, but is way down on power. Somewhere in there the torque curves of the 2.7 and 5.3 cross. It is looking like it’s inbetween 3000 and 4000 rpm, where your power band is. So when your towing heavy, where that torque is supposed to help you tow, the 2.7 is going have to run higher anyways, right in the weakest part of your torque curve.
You can’t beat an OHV V8 for towing for this reason, the torque curve is almost perfectly flat.
A turbo gas engine has a very good torque down low, but pathetic upper end torque
A DOHC engine has poor down low torque, but great upper end torque,
Diesels have very flat torque, but are often limited to 3500 rpms while under power (6500 is available for engine braking on the LBZ duramax)
I remember taking with a neighbor who traded in his vortec 8100 in for the Ford 6.0 power stroke to save fuel. Even with the extra torque, and the 5 speed transmission, the vortec 8100 and its 4 speed outpulled the diesel all day. I’d love to see an LT version of GM’s 8.1
What’s with the complaints about the base engine anyways?, if you doing tons of towing daily either get a V8 or a used truck with a v8, no one was yelling when the 200 or so hp 4.3 was available years ago. Even when I did construction 4.3 trucks were strictly message running trucks.
Lol hp is not toque X rpm. Actually your physics 101 needs a 200 level lecture. You over simplified being wrong.
The 2.7 will likely not need to rev outside of its 90% peak torque curve 1300-4500 rpm.
At 4500rpm is making basically the same power but WAY more toque than the 5.3 at the same RPM.
For longevity the 5.3 ‘should’ be better, but for in-the-moment towing the 2.7 will pull way better.
If you want to take the simplified approach to this, just google “HP vs Torque towing”
Soooooo…. tow lightly with the 2.7? I thought the debate was which engine tows better. It will handle 5000lbs in the flat just fine, better than the 4.3 it is replacing, but past that the whole point is the larger V8’s outclass it. Still even then you’ll get better towing range with the V8’s
The shear definition of power is torque X RPM. There is a mathematical correction as HP is a per second measurement, and not calculated based off lbs and inches as other measurements of power are.
If at 4000 rpm they are making the same power, they are making the same torque. That is physically impossible. One can make the same power at a differ RPM with different torque, but if it’s the same it’s the same.
Haha that IS NOT the formula for horsepower with a rotational force.
And “shear” is a completely different force.
The 2.7 will not need the higher RPMs to pull 5,000lbs. With this huge torque bump it has made the 5.3 irrelevant except for those who “need” a V8. As long as long term reliability is solid and it can stay cool – which it seems it can since they up’d the J2807 tow rating even before this H/O 2.7 was announced, it’s possible it gets an even higher tow rating.
The 2.7 behaves much more like a turbo diesel, but hey, they never use diesels for towing because they are low power, low revs, high torque with flat curves.. which as you ‘proved’ no one wants in a towing vehicle.
8.1 never came with 4speed
Tell me then good sir, why do semi trucks use diesel where they redline at 2000rpm instead of gas engine with much bigger power number??
For example, Cummins ISX makes 400hp at 1800 rpm. GM 6.6 L8T makes 401 hp at 5200 rpm. Applying your logic, the semi makers are so dumb to go with a much more expensive diesel.
Fuel prices. Pre 70’s gas crisis saw most heavy trucks with gas engines, granted our economy wasnt as relient back in theo 40’s-60’s on long haul trucks, but plenty of vintage Interational and Chevy heavies can be found with gas I6’s and V8’s.
I will bet my bottom dollar that long haulers would return to gas motors if gas were to drop significantly yet diesel would remain at its current rate. It would also usher in a new breed of large displacement gas motors.
@Steven you are so full of it
The previous (current) version of the 2.7l achieves it’s torque peak (348) from 1,500 to 4,000 RPM. I would expect when we see the new engines curve it will be similar. The 2.7 has a very diesel like power band. GM would never let the 2.7L upstage the 6.2L as they charge a pretty hefty premium for it and it doesn’t have much of a cost difference to them over the 5.3L and both engines most likely are cheaper to produce than the turbo so they are good with letting the V8 guys not wanting it.. The mileage estimates have seemed to be a light on the 2.7 compared to my personal experience but considering that you can hear the turbo spooling up while driving in a parking lot, I would imagine that the engine wasn’t optimized to the EPA cycles. One of my friends has a 2019 2.7 Crew and can’t get over the mileage he’s getting. Near 30 and over on his extended trips with a 15 mile daily commute in the mid 20’s. Sadly it sounds like grandma’s Malibu. It’s a stout little motor and so far has been more reliable of late than the newer small blocks.
From my understanding it’s the VVL and boost that mills the economy. When it stays in low boost, low valve lift, you’ll see 26-30 mpg. When boosted in high lift, 18-22. The problem is that the brick face of the Silverado means that at 75mph, your running boost. You’ll see significant gains dropping down to 65.
Can’t wait to see this in a Colorado. A smaller lighter vehicle should cruise at 70 and still get incredibly economy. Keep in mind the Colorado with the 2.5 4 cylinder got 26 mpg, and that motor is very similar to the 2.7 turbo, but didn’t have low valve lift, active thermal management or cylinder deactivation.
Aerodynamic drag is exponential and really starts to impact objects at approximately 45mph.
This is where active-aero and diffusers help.
The story contradicts itself
“GM-estimated 420”
“officially rated at 420”
GM’s uncertified estimate is 420, once it get SAE certified it may actually be “officially rated” at 430. That’s what it is.
Also a correction as 5.2L was also referenced twice
Either way, the more torque the better. Impressive if not skeptical of this little mill. As long as people remember it’s still the base engine and not meant to tow max weight daily…. It’ll also suck down fuel when towing too, like any other gas turbo.
If plowing is a concern the 2.7t allows you to install a real HD plow, with the weight savings on the front end. .. vs the 5.3. where you can only do a standard or half ton type plow with all the extra weight of the v8.
What is the weight difference? DOHC with turbo+piping+intercooler, versus a OHV V8?
From what I see there is only about a 50-60lb difference.
Whatever the weight difference it’s enough to allow a 8.5′ Fisher HD on the 22′ reg cab with 2.7, that’s a legit plow. And only a 7.5′ with the 5.3. And that’s from Fisher’s official Ematch, just checked it.
A bigger cube version of the 4.3 would be a light front end without the guzzling drawback to boost.
Well, the GM Order Guide was updated this week as follows …
Mechanical section-(L3B) Engine, updated extended description to read “, 2.7L Turbo High-Output, (310 hp [231 kW] @ 5600 rpm, 430 lb-ft of torque [583 Nm] @ 1500 rpm)”.
Good eye!
Looks like most of the previous press releases on GM/Chevy’s website are updated now too to reflect the rating
Now updated to show 430 peak torque at 3000rpm
It all boils down to buy what you want, need, and are happy with… Unlike ford that had one engine offering and I am not counting the current Lighting which is the same engine hoped up like “look at me boy racer”… The same goes for the ZR2 if I want off road I will do it myself with aftermarket parts I want! The 4.3 was or is an ancient dog motor the 2.7 blows it away in my opinion besides who would have bought the 4.3 when the 5.3 V8 is available and a better engine!
Whatever the weight difference it’s enough to allow a 8.5′ Fisher HD on the 22′ reg cab with 2.7, that’s a legit plow. And only a 7.5′ with the 5.3. And that’s from Fisher’s official Ematch.
I love the 2.7
That doesn’t help my weariness of the 8-speed backing up this engine.
Side note: Why is this only offered with the 3.42 gears and no options for 3.23 or 3.73? Why not just follow how the duramax gears are laid out at least?
The talk about Hp. Tq. Over and over; in their efforts to make the truck more capable, “some” info about cargo capacity and towing capacity improvements would be valuable in the face of better engine prrformance….or do we need to still plan on carrying half a load at a time?
Sorry, nope. Not ever buying a 4cylinder full size truck. No way that engine is going to last past 100K. Too overstressed and too many moving parts. I’ve run 3 LS engines way past 200K, without issue. Using these engines is GM trying to comply with EPA/CAFE rules, not a response from from the consumer. I understand that all the manufacturers are facing this, but these tiny, overstressed mills are NOT designed to be worked.
Let me guess, you’re an old guy and not familiar with how engines work and technology. These engines are over built with forged parts and new technologies make it easy to get power. This isn’t the 1980’s, little motors aren’t over stressed, they can easily last 100k plus and work hard doing it to. Go ahead and stick with your old outdated thoughts. Want to see how technology can do big things in little packages? Take a look at the Koenigsegg 3 cylinder that does 600 hp. Overbought engine with tons of technology.
Yet can it do that for 200k miles of work? Honda no longer uses OHC engines on many of their bikes because pushrod OHV engines handle overheating and oil starvation that gets thrown at engines under heavy loads. I believe the only OHC engine Honda has left is with the goldwing bikes. Qq
I’m sorry you are an idiot. I’ve built more engines, and towed more miles than you ever will. I’m intimately familiar with these “new” technologies. I currently manage a large fleet of utility vehicles, and unequivocally the complex stuff is what breaks. That would be the reason that Ford has hung it’s Heavy Duty hat on a “new” 7.3 gas engine, that no surprise, is a traditional pushrod V8. So keep touting a 600hp 3cylinder mill from a boutique builder as the be all, end all. Makes you look like a fool.
What was wrong with the 4.3 as a base engine?
Hard to meet emissions
The 4.3 was great in it’s day but it’s outdated I mean a motor that is bigger displacement then the 3.6 V6 and less horsepower plus it would cost to much to make it DI… what I don’t understand is why GM does not offer a beefer 3.6 V6 and put that in the Silverado it’s in the Colorado it would make a great base engine no turbos… As with Ford their turbo engine is great but they break all the time and it’s thousands to fix those turbos!
You’re thinking of the old 4.3. It was all new in 2014, aluminum block, direct injection, 100 more hp, alot more torque. Had zero to do with the old 4.3. But GM never marketed it, and they kept the displacement the same. Big mistake because I’ve seen endless comments over the years from people like you that just assumed it was the same engine all along.
2.7l ….one word ……. JUNK…….
Have you put more than 120,000 miles on any GM V8 with cylinder deactivation?
All of GM’s gas engine lineup for half ton trucks is junk right now because of that evasive and problematic tech. There is a good chance that the 2.7 is the least junky half ton gas engine available from GM.
Which is to say you’d be better off buying a truck from some other company.
223,000 miles, LM7 5.3 with AFM. Tows 10,000 lbs regularly, has 6000 hours on the motor. Most reliable engine I’ve owned.
i think GM,. by the sounds of it instead of spending all this time and money on refining engines should spend more time ,energy and money on transmissons in the area of previous customers and present owners with issues which gm has not yet resolved… yes i am talking about the 8 spd. trans. ,gm is losing a lot of its loyal customer base with quality issues
8 speed is fine with TCM flash and new spec fluid. And the 10 speed is a great trans
I’ve driven empty and with about 7,000lb dump trailer in a hilly region with RST Silverado 5.3 8 speed and it was perfectly fine.
Prior to the change I would agree the 8 speed was bad. If you have one, get the service done on it
I don’t mind the 2.7L as long as you aren’t pulling more than 5k lbs. It’s a nice torquey little motor that gets very good gas mileage. What frustrates me is that GM has basically abandoned their V8’s. They have had the same power output since 2014.
The 5.3L could have 400/450 easily and the 6.2L could be at 475/525 I as well. There is no reason why GM shouldn’t do it, it’s really foolish! I WANT MORE POWER!!! I know I’m not the only one.
I think just a bit different. No 2.7T. Make a regular gas 6.2L the volume V8, with a 5.2L V6 base & Colorado, and a 7.0L for the special trucks.
Gas saving features are better pushed on the loaded interior buyers, like an add on powerboost hybrid 6.2 with extra hp over the regular 6.2.
Too bad then that with this torque boost MPG goes down further in the toilet with the wonderous 2.7. Official ratings on window stickers on recently arrived 2022 Silverado 4X4 models now has this engine making only 17/20. And that is with the cylinder deactivation and stop/start still in place!!!!!! Meanwhile at the Ford dealer next door the new F-150 4X4’s with the 2.7 EB/10 speed and stop/start deleted are rating 18/24. How in god’s name is this even possible GM?
EPA fuel economy rating is based on highest volume configuration. So if they sell more AWD crew cabs than any other configuration, then label fuel economy will take a hit. Original FE label was based on GM estimation that expects most 2.7L sales will be for the work truck, which is 10% – 15% lighter than a loaded crew cab. Since actual sales does not align with that estimation, GM has to update the label with EPA. And vehicle weight is proportional to fuel consumption, everything else being equal. For Ford, they have an big advantage with the all aluminum build. Trim to trim, Ford truck is 7% lighter than GM.
The extra torque has nothing to do with fuel economy label, because on regulated dyno cycles, you are no where near that torque level.
Ksmith if that’s the real world MPG for these trucks then why even bother buying the turbo 4 cylinder over the two V8 engines? GM just could have kept the 4.3 V6. This probably boils down to a lot of factors but I am guessing that one factor in THE MPG of the turbo 4 cylinder is it’s working harder with more weight to lug around.
This motor with the 10 speed is going to be awesome in the Colorado/Canyon.
My husband and I bought one of these just before we made our biannual cross country trip on the advice of the dealership-even though we were looking at a V8 that was 10k more expensive. We told him we haul a 16′ cargo trailer with at least two bikes (Ultra & Deluxe) and about 6-8 bins of stuff. We are at this moment getting 6.2 mpg. No, we’re not in the mountains. As soon as we get back, we’re trading it in for either another V8 or diesel. GMC can keep this gas hog! Even my ’73 Lincoln got better gas milage!!!