GM Turbo 2.7L Engine: Less Power, More Torque Than Ford 2.7L V6
42
Sponsored Links
When it comes to the GM light-duty pickup lineup, both the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra offer the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine, which boasts solid specs for the application. However, on the Ford side, the F-150 also offers a boosted 2.7L engine, but unlike GM’s single-turbo L3B four-cylinder, the Ford engine is a twin-turbo V6. So then – how do these two powerplants lineup on paper? Read on to find out in the following GM Authority spec comparison.
GM turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B
Let’s start with the basics. The GM turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B is available in the fully refreshed Chevy Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500, with a bore of 3.63 inches and stroke of 4.01 inches. The block and head are made from aluminum, while the valvetrain includes a DOHC setup with four valves per cylinder and VVT. Fuel delivery is via direct high-pressure injection with GM’s AFM system.
By comparison, the Ford twin-turbo 2.7L V6 includes a square 3.26 inches for bore and stroke, while the aluminum head is bolted to a block made from compacted graphite iron. The valvetrain is also a DOHC setup with four valves per cylinder and VVT, although fuel delivery includes both port and direct injection.
So then what about those power numbers? Well, in the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra, the GM turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B is rated at 310 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 430 pound-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm. Meanwhile, the Ford F-150’s twin-turbo 2.7L V6 Nano engine is rated at 325 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 400 pounds-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm.
The end result is that although the Ford engine makes an additional 15 peak horsepower 100 rpm lower in the rev range, the GM 2.7L I4 L3B makes an additional 30 pound-feet of torque at a matching rpm – all with one less turbo and two fewer cylinders.
| General Motors | Ford | |
|---|---|---|
| Engine Type | Turbo 2.7L I4 | Twin-turbo 2.7L V6 |
| Production code / Nickname | L3B | Nano |
| Vehicle Application | 2022+ Silverado 1500 / 2022+ Sierra 1500 | 2021-2023 Ford F-150 |
| Bore x Stroke (in / mm) | 3.63 x 4.01 / 92.25 x 102 | 3.26 x 3.26 / 83.06 x 83.06 |
| Block Material | Cast aluminum | Compacted graphite iron (CGI) |
| Cylinder Head Material | Aluminum | Aluminum |
| Valvetrain | DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, VVT | DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, VVT |
| Fuel Delivery | Direct high-pressure injection with AFM | Port fuel and direct injection |
| Horsepower (hp / kw @ rpm) | 310 / 231 @ 5,600 | 325 / 242 @ 5,500 |
| Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm) | 430 / 571 @ 3,000 | 400 / 542 @ 3,000 |
| Transmission | Hydra-Matic 8L90 8-speed automatic | SelectShift 10-Speed Automatic |
| Gear Ratios (:1): | ||
| First | 4.56 | 4.69 |
| Second | 2.97 | 2.98 |
| Third | 2.08 | 2.14 |
| Fourth | 1.69 | 1.76 |
| Fifth | 1.27 | 1.52 |
| Sixth | 1.00 | 1.27 |
| Seventh | 0.85 | 1.00 |
| Eighth | 0.65 | 0.85 |
| Ninth | - | 0.68 |
| Tenth | - | 0.63 |
| Reverse | 3.82 | 4.86 |
| Axle Ratio | 3.42 | 3.15 / 3.55 / 3.73 |
On the other hand, the GM four-cylinder consumes more fuel on average than the Ford six-cylinder, although some of that may be down to gearing, with the GM vehicles equipped with a 3.42 axle ratio, and the Ford F-150 offering a 3.15, 3.55, and 3.73 axle ratio (the EPA likely tested fuel economy for the F-150 with the 3.15 axle ratio).
Nevertheless, it’s clear the GM L3B has some impressive capability to it, even against the more complex Ford 2.7L V6.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Silverado news, GMC Sierra news, Chevy news, GMC news, GM technology news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a Corvette Z06 and 2024 Silverado. Details here.
Sponsored Links
Lol…you have data to back your opinion… You know opinions are like ashholes and everyone has one except your significant other which has 2, one they dump through and one they send to work that trolls this site… lol.🤣
Is it reliable? Or has GM’s horrific cylinder deactivation tech ruined this one too?
This tech is from the 2014 Malibu. It’s had almost a decade and is proven to be very reliable.
It’s got 4 cylinders to begin with. Cylinder deactivation would make it run really rough.
They’ve demonstrated it, but I don’t think anybody’s actually shipped a CDT 4.
Don’t you think the poor hamsters get abused enough already???
I have a 2019 with the 2.7T and the AFM is absolutely seamless. I’ve never been able to tell when it’s in 2 cylinder mode, unlike the 5.3 with DOD in my friends dad’s 2009 Silverado, or my old 3.9L 9c1 Impala.
It works well because it’s way different than the system on the V8s- instead of collapsing lifters (and the associated oil starvation) this has sliding cams with 3 sets of lobes: high lift (power), low lift (econ), and 2cyl mode, with flat lobes for the deactivated cylinders.
I have the 2.7 in my 2020 Silverado and it has been a great motor with good gas mileage. I would do it again in a heartbeat.
Come drive one and tell me if it is rough!
I hate the looks of the front facia on the work truck and custom! Wish it could be changed!
Just me… I hate tiny motors with turbos installed in big heavy vehicles… The poor hamsters have to constantly work too hard.
turbos blow 1400 degree heated air onto aluminum pistons, possibly melting the pistons, turbos were not meant for engines made from budweiser beer cans,, and most small diesel truck owners have not a clue how to take care of the engine (big rig owners excluded) i.e. fuel additives ,( i.e( power service diesel )clean) fuel filter changes, etc .. lots of big rigs you see barrelling down the interstrate have well over one milliom miles and still trucking, their only problem is with the moronic EPA
Are you an idiot? The turbo’s job is to bring as much air into the piping to the Intercooler. It then becomes cooler (more dense) then it goes into the throttle body, then into your cylinders. The air from the turbo is going to be a max ~250°F before going into the engine at about ~100°F.
The L3B has spark plugs.
Save the hamsters! Use the 632ZZ!
I’ve had/have 2.0L turbo’s in a SKY Redline and XT4… BUT NOTHING BIGGER vehicle wise!!
3.5L in a F-150(FIL “A plan) .. No engine smaller for me••• And Like they say••• “too much strain on those hamsters”!!! I believe that
2 things,
On power, can we get a look into the exhaust system? That makes a huge impact on power in the high RPM band. I believe that Chevy has small 2.25” pipes with a flutter valve on the muffler exit for a calm sound. I know Ram uses 3” factory pipes which help the hemi make more power than the more advanced 5.3. What’s fords? Is it 2.75”? Smaller pipes actually help with low end torque though hurt high end power. That’s why Chevy does it. Somebody please slap on a cat back and do a dyno!
IDK about those economy numbers. Originally ford boasted that they made 26mpg highway with it and now it’s adjusted down to 24. Ford has been known for over reporting, and Chevy under reporting. I’ve seen many people on forums posting high 20’s or even 30’s on long trips with the Chevy.
I don’t understand why nobody has done a small 4.0-5.0L V8TT motor for trucks, it wouldn’t be as efficient as these sure but more efficient than regular V8s if done right. I’d rather have that than a turbo 4 or 64cyl especially if it was a work truck.
I truly believe we’ll see a 4.2 liter I6 derivative of this 4cyl.
They already tried that. Wasn’t as hot a performer as was hoped. (Atlas turbo) turbos have the problem that they are only 80% aidiabatic efficient, and given that there’s a turbine and a pump, that puts them at 65% efficient at their optimized conditions.
What’s more likely is we will see a miller cycle LT4. Positive displacement pumps are 90% aidiabatically efficient and screw and scroll chargers surpass that as they continuously cool while they compress. I know that’s not a true Aidabatic system, but it’s super efficient. It would be just as powerful as the turbo, but 15-20% more efficient and more reliable.
First off an iron block is a better option for reliability. Proven over the years
I do not want twin turbos as it means twin issues
Anything AFM or DFM from GM is extremely spooky. They have proven themselves a bad idea. Great for the service and parts dept.
A HUGE PLUS is the dual injection system. Direct injection has proven over and over and over to be very bad for the intake system (when there is no port injection).
Old patched up 8 speed that took GM 2 years to figure out it needed a different fluid.. Really think people will forgive GM for this.
Fords 6 cyl get better milage……….. why?
A better motor would be.
GMs 4 cyl with iron block. Does this engine have iron sleeves?
No AFM….This is really concerning as GM has destroyed the reliability of the 5.3 with this. Even if this is not an issue anymore the word is out there. And I have seen new 5.3 fail just after leaving the dealer..
Direct and port injection to keep the intake clean. We have all seen the complaints from customers of all MFGs about clogged intakes. Just add the damn port injection.
I am pro GM but I don’t think they have learned enough from past screw ups.
Anyone that knows or stays on top of the auto issue knows if there is an EGR and direct injection there WILL be an issue with caked on carbon on the back of the valves and clogged up intake.
When there is reports of valve failures on new trucks with v8s still having issues …. Doesn’t give a good impression of reliability…
I guess time will tell.
Or
Fords 6 cyl with 1 turbo not 2
To be fair Fords 2.7 is under investigation concerning a possible recall due to major engine failures.
Good read here
https://fordauthority.com/2022/06/ford-bronco-2-7l-v6-ecoboost-engine-failures-explained-exclusive/
Good thing no GM motors right now port or DI use EGR.
True I meant PCV
EGR on my diesel
In many Ford-models the former 2,7 l V6 is replaced by the updated 3 l V6 which has the same tech. It has 494 hp and 630 lb-ft of torque. Why is the article about the outdated engine?
3L is direct only. 392hp and 430tq in Ranger Raptor.
Most likely rated at 93 octane and 91+ recommended like all the other 3.0 applications though.
I have no interest in premium fuel. It’s .80 to 1.00 more a gallon here.
That Ford 2.7 is very impressive engine. And considering it has dual injection there should be no issues with carbon buildup. It’s unfortunate that ford changed supplier of the valves that are now making a great engine look bad.
When will MFGs learn that cheap parts will cost you in warranty work or at least sales losses from bad publicity….
GM hasn’t learned that yet!!
The L3B is being compared to the 2.7 Nano, because they are A. same displacement; B. bother turbo charged and (this is a big one) C. used in corresponding applications. We could, of course, compare it to the BASE engines from Ford and Ram, but what fun would that be?
I like that idea.
It would also take a lot of load of those 4 cyl
Spread that power over 6 pots.
Should last a lot longer.
Or better- use 6 pots that all make that much power. 465hp, 630lbft. and shaped just like the old Atlas I6.