Chevy Silverado 2.7L Turbo Engine Gets In-Depth Look: Video42
The Chevy Silverado 1500 is available with several engine options, but don’t be fooled – the standard turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine is more than up to the task when it comes to towing. Now, Chevrolet is showing off some of the features and capability of the Chevy Silverado’s turbocharged 2.7L engine with the following Chevy MyWay video.
Clocking in at just over six minutes, the video covers some of the engineering highlights that went into the Chevy Silverado’s turbocharged 2.7L gasoline powerplant, after which we watch as the half-ton pickup tows a 7,300-pound trailer.
As for the engineering highlights, the Chevy Silverado’s turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine features a stiffer crank shaft and fully forged steel bottom end with tri-metal rod bearings. The block was strengthened with additional aluminum ribbing, while the turbocharger incorporates a Dual Volute design for almost no turbo boost lag. The engine is also durable, claims GM, with more than a million miles of over-the-road testing.
Put it all together, and the engine produces a maximum of 310 horsepower and 430 pound-feet of torque, besting the 400 pound-feet of torque produced by Ford’s 2.7L EcoBoost V6. In addition to more peak torque, the Chevy 2.7L produces more torque at a lower RPM than the Ford V6.
So, what does all that mean when towing in the Chevy Silverado 1500? Around the 2-minute, 48-second mark, the video heads out to the track, where we see the pickup hitched to a massive 34.5-foot, 7,300-pound travel trailer. Behind the wheel is Chevy Truck Legend member Jeff Gibson, who tests just how well the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B handles the weight. Unsurprisingly, the four-cylinder performs flawlessly.
“She gets up and moves!” Gibson says. “That’s effortless.”
Check out the full video right here:
As a reminder, the Chevy Silverado 1500 is also available with the naturally aspirated 5.3L V8 L84 gasoline engine, the naturally aspirated 6.2L V8 L87 gasoline engine, and the 3.0L I6 LZ0 turbodiesel Duramax engine. Under the skin is the GM T1 platform, while Chevy Silverado 1500 production takes place at the GM Fort Wayne plant in Indiana, the GM Oshawa plant in Canada, and the GM Silao plant in Mexico.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Silverado news, Chevy news, GM technology news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
Too much makeup. This isn’t 1980 when studio light whitewashes the subjects face.
She looks to be a BIG girl that even intimidated that engineer guy.
Since the sound is absent on the video clip, it would be nice for those of us with Turbocharged engine experience to discover just how The General cools the Turbo after engine shut-down and keeps the bearings lubed to avoid oil coking. More and more people are learning the hard and expensive way that turbos must be cared for at shut-down time or the owner(s) is faced with replacing the unit.
The Ford F150 still cools after shut down. The Silverado is probably the same way. There is no care needed by the isner- you turn off the key the computer cool the turbo. Coking is so ten years or more…..
What the comment on a couple state’s investigation on the oil use on these engine’s after some miles on them
Simple non-engineer answer: Water pump is not mechanical being dependant on engine speed; it’s an electric DC motor that is programmed accordingly to run after shutdown *if required* to cool the turbo. Bonus info: if the engine requires more cooling while say pulling a hill, even if the engine is at low rpm, that electric water pump can be sped up to distribute the coolant faster in turn cooling the engine
The Ford F150 still cools after shut down. The Silverado is probably the same way. There is no care needed by the owner- you turn off the key the computer cool the turbo. Coking is so ten years or more…..
How about showing a towing test in the mountains with the same trailer on a 7-9 percent grade. What kind of speed is the 4cyl capable of maintaining there.
My thoughts exactly, it doesn’t really have to be mountainous, just decent hills. Drive it through TN, KY, AR, AL, NC. Then show us how well it tows, towing on a flat track oval doesn’t show us a darn thing. Also put some mpg numbers with it, a little engine working hard isn’t as efficient as a larger engine working easy. I proved that in 1979 pulling a 6500 lb travel trailer with a Chevy 350 getting 8-9 mpg in flat IL. Traded for Suburban with 454 and improved mpg to 11-12. On paper the 2.7T looks impressive, take it into the real world for testing, then put on your bragging shoes.
Neat now add two more cylinders to make it a proper inline six engine , i am not interested in a four cylinder in a full size truck.
There isn’t a vehicle today it would fit in. Already the 2.7 is big for a 4 and adding 2 cylinders to make it a 4L 6 would stick the serpentine belt in the radiator on a Silverado or suburban. Ditto the camaro or CT5. Rams new hurricane 6 was limited by packing and that’s why it’s only a 3L, or approximately the same size as the 2.7 in displacement.
Also, I’d like to add that 6 cylinders are not inherently more durable nor powerful if that is what is being expressed.
For example the indestructible strait six’s from Detroit in the 60’s-80’s have more in common with a Chevy 350 than the strait six’s of BMW of that same era or even today. They had loose tolerances, pushrods, timing gears instead of chains, low pressure high flow oil pumps that you could run sludge through, and even then, they could run dry for thousands of miles with little wear. At the same time, a BMW of that era will be doing great if it reaches 100K.
Then their are 4’s like the iron duke that are by far more reliable and act more like a Cummins than your bread and butter I4.
I don’t lament that the 2.7 isn’t a 6. Actually any motor will work if built right. The only motors I physically knock on are DOHC in a V configuration. All the extra parts just add to weight, friction and costs for a little extra power at the top of the RPM band that you won’t see unless you race all the time. Remember that fords 2.7 V6 that makes less torque than Chevys, and only more power because Ford allows for a noisier exhaust, costs more to make than a 5.3 V8 and weights just as much.
DOHC inline six would actually reduce the number of parts required, though the ones left in some cases would be physically longer. the 6 naturally balances, and if the heads are flow through they can even make HP. Honestly the Atlas 6 should have replaced the old 4.3 long ago, but for whatever reasons it never did. it should have been the base motor in F Bodies when they returned and honestly a twin turbo mill should have powered RS Camaros, leaving V8’s for the SS and LT1 crowd, but again missed opportunity.
That’s why I didn’t want that 4-cylnder diesel in a van. Sorry, it needs to be 6 cylinders. I always thought 4-cylinders was for small cars.
I’m just curious how they got it to tow at all. Myself and many others are unable to tow with our Silverados because the trailer brakes don’t work. 6 months and still waiting on resolution, with some getting a buy back. Class action suit is in the works.
May have a total of a million miles of testing but I bet it’s not all on one engine. They always compare it to the 2.7 Ecoboost but I still haven’t seen a direct side by side comparison. I’d like to see that.
My concern is engine life in the long term with a little gasoline engine pulling a towed load in the Western United States or even in Pennsylvania. Lots of stress and pressures in the engine with the rap up on an uphill grade. Hello guts and gaskets.
This engine like others is meant to meet federal fuel consumption mandates, not long term life. Designed component life of less than 200K miles is in play here.
compared to the smooth torque curve on 2.7 Eco, the GM 2.7 torque takes a nosedive at 3000, and they don’t show the curve in the video above 3500 – I’m guessing the nosedive continues. While impressively higher for a while, I’m not sure I like the narrow powerband – not a fan of engineering for an impressive peak for advertising bragging rights vs an overall smooth curve. And the MPG’s are worse than the Eco, especially highway ratings.
And regardless of all the above, the sound of a 4 cyl vs a 6 is a still a disadvantage, just as much as people prefer the sound of an 8 over a 6 in a truck.
almost forgot – the Eco 2.7 has a compacted graphite iron block (like a diesel), which should be quieter and more durable long term. It’s about the only current gas engine I can think of that isn’t cast aluminum, I’d like to see the decision process they went through to make that call.
I agree real world testing needed here. Towing on flat can be done with 4 cly Saturn Vue, but I wouldn’t dare hill it or take on cross winds. RV owners I talk to are dumping it for the tried and true 5.3 after a few harrowing uphill trips. Even my 4.3 is a struggle. As for needed post-drive cooling, I learned from my ’78 Buick Turbo coupe that it is always a best practice to run a cool down period of a few minutes. Today’s turbos are much better, and intercooled, but as a rule I still treat my engines with respect. Let it cool or you’re the fool.
How are they having “harrowing” uphill experiences towing with the Silverado? I pull ~4,300 lbs of travel trailer behind my 2014 Acadia, and am close to maxing out GCVW, and even with less horsepower and way less torque, I have no issues maintaining 60+ MPH on 6-7% grades. That’s in the Appalachians, but I probably could do 55 MPH in the Rockies no problem. I did install an extra ATF cooler beyond GM’s lazy “HD” radiator.
I don’t see how an engine making +22 HP and a whopping +160 lb-ft of torque (at lower RPM) would have any issues pulling ~7,000 in the mountains.
Sounds like they don’t know how to drive/tow.
Probably with toyhaulers. Your Acadia weights 4000lbs+ a 4300 lbs trailer. A Silverado with a toy hauler can easily weight 5500 + 7000lbs. That’s 50% more weight with worse aerodynamics. That will need 50% more power. I argue all the time that towing you don’t need torque, you need power. Mathematically, force X distance = power. Yes torque helps you get power, so a torquey engine will make enough power off idle to sit right there at idle while towing on the flat, which gives the impression of effortless towing, but the first hill you hit, you need as much power as possible, so your at 5000rpms anyways and voila, your out of torque. That’s why the v8’s feel so much more convenient towing. There’s that in between cruising and climbing where the 2.7 will be superior, but that’s a very small amount of your towing experience.
B.S. The L3B literally makes more horsepower and torque (at lower RPM) than a circa 2000 Chevy Silverado 2500 w/ 6.0L V8. I didn’t see too many people saying “don’t tow 7,000 lbs” with that “power” back then.
Nay verily nay, the 6.0 I’m assuming your referring to is the LQ4. 330HP at 4800 rpm beats 310HP at 5100rpm. Course then there was the vortec 8100 which made 340HP at 4000rpm with a long wide power band at that 340hp. Both were paired with the 4l80, which was a close ratio version of the 4 speed and is a great tow engine, just hates highway cruising. No wonder they would out tow the LB3.
I’m talking about the standard Vortec 6000 LQ4 which when offered in the Silverado made 300 HP @ 4,400 RPM / 360 lb-ft @ 4,000 RPM. Those trucks were rated to tow 10,000+ lbs. Only very select vehicles got the tuned LQ4 (mostly recently introduced Denali trims).
I’m just saying that you’re totally wrong about whether the L3B can tow. If a lesser rated LQ4 could do 10,000+ lbs, then the L3B can do 7,000 lbs, no problem.
My point still stands that the L3B has better specs than a 20 year old V8.
SAE J2805 ratings are more stringent than older truck ratings helps favor the older trucks ratings
Though if we’re talking about 20 year old trucks, the 6.0 was only rated 300 HP 99-00, almost 25 years ago. I can vouch that trucks from the late 80’s likes climbing hills at 35mph and you dealt with it. If we’re talking about 20 year old trucks, We’re now talking about 330HP V8’s, and when you look at the transmission ratios of the 4l80 with 4.10 rear axle ratios, the shift spread while towing is similar to the 8 speed, just lacks high cruising gears. Also, large displacement V8 for downhill engine breaking. Also, 8 lug wheels and bigger brakes as well.
Also helps that early 2K trucks had smaller, lighter bodies with less weight from heated seats, 4 zone climate controls, extra airbags, 4” of leg/head/arm room, single cabs/3 door king cabs and a smaller frontal area profile. They were a little more aerodynamic and 500-1000lbs lighter.
Their is no comparison between your 4.3 and this 2.7. The 2.7 high output 4 cyl is way more powerful, being rated 310 HP and 430 lb/ft of torque at 3000 rpm vs the 4.3s 285 hp and 305 lb/ft at 3900 rpm. And the new turbos are nothing like your ‘78 Buick, they are way more dependable. And unlike your Buick, the 2.7 was designed from scratch for the turbo.
Go look up TFL towing test on this engine. It does very well in the mountains. Todays turbo engines are so different tha 15 years ago. They are built to last.
I have a 2019 Silverado with this engine and drivetrain and it has been a lemon since 2500 miles. If it was not a company owned vehicle I would have never kept it to 5000 miles. When brand new with 6 miles when I received it it had plenty of get up and go and got great gas mileage as long as you weren’t pulling anything. After the first motor problem and first reprogramming it has been terrible on gas mileage and does not perform as when new. It has had many reprogrammings, several purge pumps, a new turbo, new oil pump and the list goes on. And when pulling even a small trailer with a lawnmower or ATV on it, the total performance is terrible. I would not recommend this drivetrain for anyone and I’ve been a GM man for years owning many bow tie vehicles.
Sorry to hear WTV
With any of these turbos, the main advantage is that when you don’t need the power, you’re running a small displacement motor and get decent mileage – biggest advantage is city driving with an empty vehicle. The turbo is there for when you need power, but when you use it, it’ll cost you. Perfect motor if you want it for commuting to work economically, and having the power when you need to pull the camper 2-3 times/yr. But if you’re having hauling all the time, the turbo will not only be working hard, it’ll be cramming fuel into the motor that will give you the power you need, but probably consuming more than a V8 – so not the ideal motor if you’re going to work it hard all the time. The big V8 will casually do the heavy work, with similar MPG’s, but will won’t be as efficient for the commuter.
I understand your thinking, but I don’t know that reality is what you think it is. the 2.7 is rated at 18 town, 21 highway. a 5.3 with a 10 speed is 16 town, 20 highway. both 4X4. I don’t know that I would want the lesser truck just for 2 MPG at best.
the 2.7 is fine for replacing the crappy old 4.3 those have forever been weirdly inefficient. But it is really just a lower price point thing to buy.
Unfortunately it is more about payload, braking and GVWR violations than towing power. These kind of videos get people in trouble.
YouTube has a guy towing 7,200 lbs. up Monteagle mountain in Tennessee. He sets the cruise at 60. Pretty impressive!
It is – I think – to prevent further up- or down-ticks to the scores. It does that for me as well; nothing about which to be concerned.
I have the Colorado 2.8 diesel 180hp 360 torque. I hate 4 cyl vehicles
But even though the HP and Torque is lower than this 2.7 gas I can tell you the Colorado is amazing to drive. Almost never downshifts to excelerate up big hills. The little 2.8 falls on its face above 3k rpm.
But is still very impressive as it holds its gear with no screaming engine.
I pull 6k toy hauler with little effort and no gear hunting.
This 2.7 makes a lot more HP and more torque so it should be very impressive.
The one thing I do notice on YouTube videos is very unimpressive fuel milage while towing even a light trailer. And when a 5.3 can get 1 mpg less milage it make me wonder why they would even bring the 2.7 to market.
They would have been much better off putting the 2.8 diesel under the hood.
When you consider how many people reported amazing milage with the 2.8 diesel in the full sized van I think GM screwed up with the gas engine. In the Colorado the 2.8 diesel easily delivered in the low 30s.
In the full sized van the 2.8 diesel delivered in the very high 20s.
And this information came from people doing deliveries with the van and 2.8
I can get 16mpg with the 2.8 in my 4×4 Colorado pulling 6000lbs toy hauler…
Gas trucks are not efficient….. small gas engines efficiency goes out the window when towing.
Price. Ford built their 2.7T to be their version of the 5.3, and it’s their most popular engine. 70% of silverados are sold with the 5.3, and if that reasons less it’s cause the 3.0 duramax is poaching 5.3 sales.
The L3B is replacing the 4.3 V 6 in the Silverado, and the 3.6V6 in the quarter tons and the Cadillacs. It might replace the 3.6 in the crossovers as well, though that’s yet to be determined. It’s also much cheaper to make than the 3.6 and a little cheaper than the 4.3. It seams that it’s being positioned as GM’s mid size engine across multiple brands and it’s just getting tested with the Silverado.
the Nano 2.7 v6 Ecoboost along with the 3.0 variant have had quite a few issues though. and they sound terrible on cold start. Even with GM’s DFM nightmares I would probably still take a 5.3 over a 2.7 Ford. Now a 3.5 Ecoboost which seems more like the 5.3 competitor has prevent to be a more reliable and competent motor over time.
Ford is very spooky when it comes to there engines and transmissions.
Issues with their 3 valve V8. 2 liter head gaskets and dual clutch transmission failures. Water pumps in there eco boost engines are actually inside the engine that require massive disassembly just to change a water pump.
It has poor engineering and customer based testing written all over there products.
This is one of the reasons Ford stock is tanking. The small Ford gasoline engines are designed by a vendor in Germany. No surprise that the water pump is buried within the engine. Germans sometimes overly complicate industrial designs and use twice as many parts as do American and Asian automakers to accomplish the same function. Also Germans are extremely heavy on their parts pricing and the use of special tools to R & I parts. Job and revenue security for German car mechanics and dealers.
David Alan Murray
Wow I been saying that forever. Glad to see others are opening their eyes.
German over engineering.
Did you see under the cover in the frunk in the Mustang E…
Massive mess of bosses and wires. What a mess.
German Engineering (Keep it Simple Stupid) is not in there vocabulary..
Complexity is a German cultural thing that has been a double edged sword for them dating back eons. The German language is complex having three genders. Their cultural complexity has created an extreme in depth focus in chemicals, optics, metallurgy, diesel products, firearms, medical equipment, electrical apparatus, etc. This in depth applied science has been the positive sharp side of the their sword. The negative dull side of their sword is overkilling the design beyond the basics, leading to applied unnecessary complexity. You need a lot of tools and a lot of expensive parts to work on German cars. BMW means, Bill Me Whatever. BMW plays on that premium ethos to create a superior image.
Of note: American manufacturers are going overseas for their design brainpower since business has become global, and foreign costs are less. Caterpillar and Deere use Japanese engineering shops for their hydraulic excavator designs. Caterpillar is using German engineering shops for the design of their large hydraulic mining excavators.
Cummins is using engineering shops in India. The engineering department within a USA
manufacturing facility is becoming history or a reviewing office of the foreign engineering work.
Just look at Tremec in Mexico for automatic transmission design for US automakers. Or ZF in Germany for transmission design and product for US equipment makers.
Caterpillar, Deere and Cummins are using combinations of German and Japanese designed diesel fuel pumps.
Japanese starting motors for IC engines are proven to be the best.