General Motors debuted the refreshed 2022 GMC Sierra 1500 in October of 2021, unveiling the fully updated pickup truck with a long list of changes and upgrades. Notably, refreshed 2022 Sierra 1500 models with a Regular Cab Standard Bed configuration will be available with only a single engine choice.
2022 GMC Sierra 1500 Pro Regular Cab Long Box
As it stands, refreshed 2022 GMC Sierra 1500 models with a Regular Cab Standard Bed body style will only be available with the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine. As GM Authority covered previously, the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine now produces more torque, officially rated at a maximum of 430 pound-feet at 1,500 rpm. Output remains static at 310 horsepower at 5,600 rpm.
It’s also worth noting that refreshed 2022 GMC Sierra 1500 models with the Regular Cab Standard Bed body style will only be available in the base Pro trim level.
That said, although refreshed 2022 GMC Sierra 1500 models in the Regular Cab Long Bed body style are equipped as standard with the L3B, the configuration is also offered with the naturally aspirated 5.3L V8 L84 gasoline engine as an optional upgrade. The naturally aspirated 5.3L V8 L84 gasoline engine is rated at 355 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 383 pound-feet of torque at 4,100 rpm.
Further engine options elsewhere in the lineup include the naturally aspirated 6.2L V8 L87 gasoline engine, rated at 420 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 460 pound-feet of torque at 4,100 rpm, and the 3.0L I6 LM2 turbodiesel Duramax, rated at 277 horsepower at 3,750 rpm and 460 pound-feet of torque at 1,500 rpm. Transmission options include the GM 8-speed automatic and GM 10-speed automatic, depending on the configuration selected.
The refreshed 2022 GMC Sierra 1500 rides on the GM T1 platform, with production set to take place at the GM Silao Plant in Mexico, and the GM Fort Wayne Assembly facility in Indiana. However, as GM Authority reported previously, production of the refreshed pickup has been delayed slightly.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GMC Sierra news, GMC news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
FFS GM add two cylinders the that engine and make it a proper inline six there is no way i am getting a four cylinder in a full size truck.
Just because you have an image complex doesn’t mean most others do, especially fleets to workers.
I’ve got 50k on my ‘19 2.7L it has been nothing but solid and has met or exceeded my expectations. In fact the only reason I didn’t order it in the refreshed 22 is because I couldn’t get it in the trim I wanted so I went with the Duramax.
So your complaint is the against the number of cylinders, and not the power of the engine?
That seems pretty ridiculous.
The little engine that could…………. Blow up!
We need a dealer to use COPO to order some rcsb with V8s.
The point of this 2.7 engine bewilders me and sends very mixed signals. It’s supposed to replace the 4.3 V6 and be an entry level engine. Yet it has all this rip roaring torque, much greater complexity with stop/start, cylinder shutdown and loads of other expensive tech but comes nowhere near the mileage figures of literally every other competitors base engine and even many V8’s and turbo V6’s. For example Fords 2.7 and 3.5 twin turbo V6’s are rated 3 better highway and the same city as is Toyota’s new 3.5 twin turbo V6 in the Tundra all with more HP.
This raises the question what the heck is the point? Obviously this engine is working too hard and digging into the turbo to drag the mileage down so much. I agree with SCWS. Add 2 more cylinders and the 10- speed and figure out how to get MPG at least up to 23 highway like everybody else. Yes the diesel is offered at greater cost on certain models for MPG fans but lower end customers seem stuck with a single torque monster complex noisy 4 cylinder engine and no other choice. What is GM’s major malfunction with this?
Every automaker has to add stop/start, cylinder deactivation, etc to save mpg and keep their engines going these days, nothing new.
No where near the mileage of the competitors? It ties the Ford for combined (21 mpg) versus the 3.3 and beats the Ram which has 20 mpg, how is that no where near when it ties or beats them and it won’t drive like a dog? The milage is already at 23 hwy like everyone else with 2wd.
There was no malfunction with this, it was a great move. smaller less displacement engines thrive in city and stop and go when idling which is what many of these will do with work. It is physics that a smaller displacement engine will use less fuel in most situations and on equal ground. This is an impressive motor which on fuelly exceeds the 5.3 in mpg comfortably and in most cases the 4.3 which easily beats the V8 from Ram and 3.5 from Ford. So not sure where you are getting your numbers from can data says otherwise…
The actual EPA numbers for these base engines tells a slightly different story:
GMC with the 2.7 is rated 19/22 (20 avg).
Ford is 18/24 (20 avg)
Ram is 20/25 (22 avg)
Ram Classic is 17/25 (20 avg)
The best you can say is, the 2.7 isn’t any worse in the city. Honestly, I’m not even sure it’s the engine. Those highway numbers make me think the real issue is the truck itself.
To be fair, the Ram 3.6L has 48V e-assist. But you also can’t get it without it *shrug*.
Why would anyone want it without? Our Wrangler has it and it’s pretty amazing. That extra torque when you step on it is really noticeable.
Anyway, it’s standard on the Ram.
Ah go and actually look at a truck instead of looking at incorrect internet information bub. Every single 2022 Silverado/Sierra 2.7 4X4 I saw had ratings of 17/20 and 18 combined. I have yet to see any RWD 2.7’s anywhere so let’s use the one everybody stocks and actually buys as it’s the volume by a landslide. All other base engine 4X4’s from Ford, Ram, Toyota etc have better MPG ratings than GM’s base 2.7
I’d say do a gas version of the 3.0L diesel – add the cylinder deactivation and valve lift setup from the 2.7T and you’d probably have a motor with as good or better efficiency in the bigger T1XX series than the 2.7T. Hard to make it the “base” motor though when it’d eclipse the 5.3L in power and and probably the 6.2L in torque. The 2.7T should be in the great part of its BSFC profile in the smaller, lighter Colorado though.
What octane rating does the 2.7 require?
In the Engineering Explained video about this engine, he quotes the power with both regular and premium gas, so I’d assume it’s fine on 87.
I can’t find any evidence that it requires premium.
87
Any and all forced induction engines are not designed engineered or tested at SAE Power or MPG on 87. All Run at a minimum 89. Read the manual of any them 87 is always listed as the “minimum” requirement.
People will absolutely crap themselves at any topic about running the 6.2 L86/L87 on anything but 93. But you even suggest that the “base” engine living under boost in any condition besides downhill or idle has no business drinking 87 and people lose their minds.
why do you show a picture of a long bed?
GM is afraid too many people would order it with the 6.2 and the $$ spent developing the 2.7 will never be made back.
They’ll get it back from the upcoming Colorado and Canyon trucks, a refined standard V6 would have been good to go for this Base Pro trim model, that’s certainly not too much to ask if the V8 is getting cut from the power train options and that would be plenty of time for that engine to thrive before gm’s Carbon Neutral Mandate 2035.
There goes a heck of a lot of buyers to Ford and Ram.
I have a 2021 Silverado 1500 with the V6 do not like deactivating cylinders if I want with all the troubles with a 5.3 and a 6.2 breaking pushrods
Funnw how all the die-hard V8 fans bemoaned V6s when they started appearing in trucks, now they’re doing the same with turbo 4s whil driving their V6 truck. No doubt they still have giant 1970s style speakers at home too, because only big speakers can deliver big bass, right? Wrong! But it’s only a phase…all pickups will eventually be electrified…can’t wait for the all the groaning then!
With the big speakers, they probably have the Pink Floyd reel-to-reel or LP vinyl album to go with it…
“all pickups will be electrified” Bwa-ha-ha-aha-ha ! When are you going to fork-over the just announced price tag of the Mary Barra Silverado EV ? It’s only $105,000.00 MSRP !!
It’s not about the power rating of the 2.7L engine, it’s the lack of choices. For a delivery or shop truck the 4 cylinder engine would be fine. But if I want a 6.2L V8 in my regular cab shortbed, that’s my choice of which engine I want. That’s like the choice of kale or steak – yes, the kale is much better for you, but the steak is so much more satisfying. I want to be able to make that choice.
“But if I want a 6.2L V8 in my regular cab shortbed, that’s my choice of which engine I want.”
I assume you mean standard bed, but a short bed would be interesting for sure with any engine.
The Middle East markets get aTrail Boss SWB 6.2 engine , guess we don’t buy enough vehicles from GM to get what we may want I would be the first to Order one if GM will call me
I thought the problem was the gas mileage and the footprint of the vehicle?
“For Model Year (MY) 2011, a new footprint-based standard was enacted for both passenger cars and light-duty trucks”
Assuming that’s still the case, it makes it harder to have a big engine in your smaller wheelbase truck.
I would be second. GM your losing this life long customer to Ford
I had a 2016 LT Z71 4/4 Short bed I sold in 2018 preparing for a new body 2019 same truck but can’t get one now , if Gm wants to sell one I will be first to order one ! PLEASE GM give me my wish I’m 68 yrs old and want what I want!
One can swap in what they want, but it will of course be more $. Someone may pay good $ for the 4 cyl!
Wow…not offering the 3.0 diesel, GM is cutting itself short. I wish GM would stop shoving EV’s down the public’s throat. GM is banking on the re election of Brandon and a federal mandate for EV vehicles.
This future planning on political forecasting can prove to be very risky and dangerous to GM’s financial health.
“Brandon ” just may only have One Term, who wants a leader that supplies Drug Kits to addicts, no a good example of fighting the overall Drug Epidemic to begin with.
“I wish GM would stop shoving EV’s down the public’s throat.”
You don’t have to buy anything from them, so it isn’t like they are forcing anything on anyone.
For that matter, this truck isn’t even an EV.
They have to realize other people are voters too and know we can’t change the world in one election cycle , I almost bet the 6.2 gets better fuel mileage at 75 miles MPH than the weak ass 4cyl pulling a small trailer
Overall, it’s not just gm trying to race to the finish line with the EV transitioning strategy, Audi and Jaguar are striving to be the first to go completely Carbon Neutral well before decades end, with Volkswagen not behind far behind and let’s not forget about RAM with it’s upcoming EV Pick Up while killing off the Hemi, certainly not a good move at this point.
Guess GM thinks only Liberal voters buy vehicles I think most car EV will succeed but HD or light duty people want something they understand not like in California where they are buying back off road 4-wheelers for trade on EV ones and crushing them now!!!
Come GM give buyers a choice , at least offer the 3 liter diesel ⛽️ as a option. Farmer Ranchers Contractors would love to have the diesel option…
Diesel engines are very expensive, so they tend to only be an option on higher trim models.
But this is dumb. They should just offer it anyway, even it’s a $10k option.
Funny I can go to Ford’s site and order my base F150 XL with a choice of 3 engines!!!!! Rams offers me a choice of 4 and Toyota gives me a powerful 3.5 turbo with better combined and highway ratings than GM’s lackluster 2.7. GM fails yet again