GM is poised to introduce a brand-new generation for its full-size crossovers, with the Chevy Traverse and GMC Acadia set to be overhauled for the 2024 model year, and the Buick Enclave set to be overhauled for the 2025 model year. The upcoming model redesigns will include changes to the powertrain lineup, and one engine in particular makes the most sense for GM’s next-gen full-size crossovers.
That engine is the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline unit, a powerplant also referred to as the “torque monster” internally at GM.
Turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine in a Chevy Silverado 1500
The nickname isn’t without justification. Currently found in a wide range of applications, including the Chevy Colorado, Chevy Silverado 1500, GMC Canyon, GMC Sierra 1500, and Cadillac CT4-V, the turbo 2.7L I4 L3B produces upwards of 430 pound-feet of torque in the new Colorado, Canyon, Silverado, and Sierra, besting even the naturally aspirated 5.3L V8 L84 gasoline engine’s 383 pound-feet in terms of peak twist.
As GM Authority exclusively reported last week, General Motors is now considering the L3B for additional applications beyond those listed above, and it would certainly make sense for models like the next-gen Chevy Traverse, GMC Acadia, and Buick Enclave. Of course, if these next-gen crossovers did cradle the turbo 2.7L I4 L3B, it would represent the first time in which the four-banger was mounted in a transverse application.
Typically, an engine will produce less power in a transverse layout than it would in a longitudinal layout. As such, we wouldn’t expect the L3B to produce the full-fat 430 pound-feet of torque in the next-gen Chevy Traverse, GMC Acadia, and Buick Enclave. Rather, the mid-range Turbo Plus output of 391 pound-feet of torque would seem more likely.
Even so, 391 pound-feet of torque would still best the torque figures for the current Chevy Traverse, GMC Acadia, and Buick Enclave models. What’s more, a rating of 310 horsepower would eclipse power levels for the turbocharged 2.0L I4 LSY, as well:
| Engine | Turbo Plus 2.7L I4 | Turbo 2.0L I4 | 3.6L V6 | 3.6L V6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RPO Code | L3B | LSY | LFY | LGX |
| Application | 2023 Chevrolet Colorado | 2020-2023 GMC Acadia | 2018-2023 Buick Enclave, 2018-2023 Chevy Traverse | 2017-2023 GMC Acadia |
| Output (hp @ rpm) | 310 @ 5,600 | 228 @ 5,000 | 310 @ 6,800 | 310 @ 6,600 |
| Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) | 391 @ 2,000 | 258 @ 1,500 to 4,000 | 266 @ 2,800 | 271 @ 5,000 |
All told, it’s definitely an enticing prospect. We’ll keep an eye on this and report back any updates, but in the meantime, remember to subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Traverse news, GMC Acadia news, Buick Enclave news, Chevy news, GMC news, Buick news, GM business news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
I hope this becomes a reality!
With the dismal economy reported for the L3b in the new Colorado I don’t know why they would just keep the HFv6 better economy far less complexity and a proven track record for reliability
why wouldn’t the engine make as much power if mounted transversely? couldn’t they just tune the front end to handle the power?
They would need to build a whole new transmission. The current 9 speed transaxle was designed with a V6 making 270ft lbs of torque in mind. Granted it probably has a little too to grow so the might get away with 350ft lbs, but much more than that would start breaking internals.
The best historical example would be the 2009 impala SS which featured a 5.3 turned on its side. It was rated at 303/323 vs the trucks 315/335, but that was less due to the transmission and more due to restrictive airflow in a tighter engine bay.
A 2.7 in a crossover would probably rate 310/350 and would not let you have full torque in any gear lower than 4th as the lower gears multiply that torque and could break the transmission casing. That still very impressive for the segment and even more so considering the low weight of the 2.7 vs V6’s and hybrids
oh ok that makes sense
Ford’s variant on the 9-speed (their 8-speed transverse) can do 380 lbs-ft in the Edge ST, so it might be possible to beef up the 9T sufficiently.
Wouldn’t it make more sense just to make it rear-wheel drive and mount at longitudinally?
Yes, except that would raise costs. The whole point of a transverse engine is costs, packing and weight, and the whole point of the traverse is to slot beneath the Tahoe. You make it longitually mounted, that pushes more customers towards the Tahoe. Good example is the Chevy trailblazer GMT500 chassis. It was a phenomenal vehicle that was too close to the Tahoe.
That motor would be interesting in a Malibu. Or a Buick Grand National…
Provided you could keep the torque (and the car itself) connected to the pavement.
Keep your small turbo engines that need premium gas,run hot and use excessive amount oil and aren’t as durable as naturally aspirated engines
That engine uses 87 octane gas.
Keep your decades-outdated understanding of automotive technology and reliability
GM needs to stay with the Tried and True High Feature 3.6L V6 it’s done well and they tune it for even more Hp .
The worst thing about the 2.7L is the sound. It runs great! Personally, I could never get past the sound. Make it sound like a torque monster and then you’ll have something. I smile every time I start my Suburban.
I current y have the I4 from 2016 in a colorado and did fine until a month ago when the truck hit 62500 miles..have an overheating problem that cant be diagnosed by chevy after having it for a few days and a few pressure tests. and the trans tailshaft seal has given out when they gave it back to me…nice job fellas
That’s an entirely different engine.
I wish they would get off the turbo 4 cylinder band wagon , future turbo problems and engine trouble from the heat and torque.
4 cylinder engines and EVs, how about building cars Americans actually want to own and drive GM?
A 4 cyl. engine that only gets 21 mpg combine do not entertain me. The V6 get that mpg rating, so just keep it as it is. Keep the recalls down.
27 combined in the CT4. You see, that number depends A LOT on the vehicle you put it in. How much it weighs, how much air resistance the design experiences at various speeds, the rolling resistance of the wheel and tire assembly, etc.
There’s more to automotive/product design than entertaining you.
What about those of us that still want to tow a mid sized trailer? These I4 turbos will never hold up for that in the long run. I have a side by side and Love my Enclave. No need for a truck.
The 2.7T is rated to tow 9k+ lbs in the Silverado, I doubt it will have any problem towing even in a smaller platform.
I’ll take the 3.0L V6 twin turbo
Here’s an idea: make the Chevy rear-wheel drive to compete with the Ford Explorer and compete for police department sales. No point in doing it for the Buick and the GMC.
Torque monster? My first thought was a 572 BBC. So much for that……..
Can’t believe you took away the adjustable pedals in the Tahoe & Yukon’s !!!! I’m 5’2″ and have always had them ” AND NEED THEM ” I have short legs than most 5’2″ Women. Also was in a SERIOUS AUTO ACCIDENT ( NEAR DEATH , & took 5 years to walk again. I need the larger Vehicles that sit up higher. And to help protect me. People drive to crazy today.i like it that I can see down the road farther before I get there. I’m sure your not concerned about 1 persons opinion, but now what do I do ?? Ready for a New Yukon or Tahoe in the next year! Had a Tahoe for 14 yrs & now a Yukon for 7 yrs in June 2023. VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT THIS !!! I WILL NEVER BUY A SMALL VEHICLE , EVER !! GUESS I WONT BE GETTING ANOTHER VEHICLE @ ALL. I’d like to know who’s bright idea was this to stop using them ? Not everyone is 5’6to 6’2″ TALL !!!
Counting the factory installed turbocharger on the 1.8L I-4 in my wife’s 2014 Chevy Cruze, it was on its fourth turbocharger. September 2016, the first failed outside of Lexington, SC, on the way to Anniston, AL; that was a long trip watching the RPMs spike upwards going up hills. I’ll take an aspirated motor over a turbocharged motor.
1). Needs to meet full-tune L3B specs (310 HP / 430 lb-ft).
2). Mount it longitudinally and RWD-biased.
3). Design/use a new gearbox, if needed. Revised 8-speed for the Colorado/Canyon should work though!
4). Keep high payload numbers from the Lambda models (has mostly carried over to C1XX).
5). Boost the GAWR of the rear up slightly from ~3,527 lbs to ~3,700-ish.
6). Give it a 6,000 lb tow rating and actually design a tow package with an external trans cooler — not just a larger, shared radiator.
Take my money.
As I said above, some of these at least should be rear-wheel drive. All-wheel drive will still remain a possibility for those who need or want it. Also, design it to have a hybrid option. GM hasn’t been smart about that, going mostly for all ICE and all electric. Canceling the Volt was moronic.
You need a Tahoe.
Transverse engine mounting is cheaper, and in 2wd models has superior traction as the engine is over the wheels. The only time RWD is superior is in a track vehicle, which SUV’s/crossovers are not and are more likely to roll over than spin out.
No need for additional cooling in modern vehicles like this. Transmission coolers are to deal with torque converter heat. If you look at most manuals, they don’t have coolant line except a tiny aux in the heaviest of HD manuals. Cause no tq converter producing extra heat. Compare a modern 9 speed to the 4’s, the converter is locked in every gear past 2, and doesn’t unlock to assist smooth shifting. The extra case room and fluid for the extra gears also acts as a heat sink. You also don’t have coolant for the power steering fluid so that heat source is gone as well.
How to tell me you’ve never towed with a Lambda/C1XX vehicle without telling me. Well, guess what, bub? I’ve been doing it for a while now. Want to know how GM masks temps on the water gauge with the V92 package? I don’t think you really do, because you’re such a GM stooge/shill. Shows on every comment section.
As for your other BS, I don’t need a Tahoe.
I don’t need the size. I don’t need the expense. I don’t need the grandstanding.
I need a slightly more powerful and capable vehicle to comfortably tow 4,000-4,500 lbs loaded. Occasionally. The rest of the time it needs to be a jack-of-all-trades family hauler.
If GM’s goal is to force me into a Tahoe when 95% of the time its capability will be unutilized… well, there is competition. And I have feet.
I’ve towed a 4000lbs ultralight to Florida and back twice with a 2012 traverse. It never balked. Averaged 12 mpg, tranny temp averaged 210, never surpassed 250. Modern transmissions has synthetic fluid so they are less prone to varnishing anyways.
Besides, the main point of an external tranny cooler is for older oils that start varnishing at 200 degrees. Your engine coolant temp alone will raise the tranny that hot. New fluid won’t hardly varnish in excess of 270 degree, and hotter fluid is slicker and more efficient. External tranny coolers are to keep tranny temperature and engine temperatures separate. Not a bad thing to have the oil cooler in the radiator now days
Did you actually measure transmission temps with an aftermarket OBDII reader? Or just the water gauge? Because there is no way you pulled 4,000 lbs to Florida averaging 210°F on ATF unless you were going 60 MPH and no other people/gear in the car. Vehicle practically sits at 205°F just with the first drive out of the subdivision with a 4,000 lb trailer.
FYI — after adding an external trans cooler into the loop on my 2014 Acadia, my ATF temps are completely decoupled from the engine coolant heatsink dump through the shared radiator. GM’s stock tow package on these vehicles is a joke and is made to dump engine heat into the ATF to avoid a spike on reported water temps. Meanwhile, the transmission is cooking itself!
This will reduce complexity and allow GM to focus on less ICE engines and parts. FCA did similar offerings, if I recall, only Hemi and Tigarshark in most Detroit models.
No Plug. No Sale.
The only motor that makes sense for a new passenger vehicle these days is an electric one.
@ rEVolutionary
That’s why FORD is losing 3 billion dollars in EV sales/production this year!
https://fordauthority.com/2023/03/ford-expects-3-billion-loss-on-ev-unit-for-2023/
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a43399188/ford-ev-sales-to-lose-3-billion/
EV’s are the future but a long ways away…….btw…Fossil fuels run the EV charging stations little fella. And the surplus of those charging stations aren’t there yet for the entire United States
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if GM dropped the 3.6 and made the 2.0 the one and only option like the Equinox and Terrain with the 1.5.
Well, I didn’t say I wanted GM to make the 2.0 the only option, just that it wouldn’t surprise me. We have the 3.6 in our 2021 Acadia and are quite happy with it. It would be a shame if the next generation had something less powerful.
I want the 3.6
Let the customer decide and offer both engines. I know they won’t do this though…
Offer the 2.7L engine in base form for LS, LT models.
Offer the H.O. 2.7L for premier and high country trim.
Offer a turbo charged 3.6L for an all new “SS” model.
Watch the sales climb if GM would be “brass” enough to offer a true performance oriented 3 row crossover!!
This will not only raise costs but as indicated require a beefier transaxle unless this engine is detuned significantly in the torque department which negates the only real advantage this engine has over the smoother quieter V6. Now you have a less pleasing engine sound, more complexity and cost and lets not forget poor mileage as these 3 row large sized SUV’s can crest 4700 LBS when loaded up with options, larger tires etc. Currently these are rated for a very decent 17/25 with the current 3.6 and 18/27 with FWD or 18/26 for the Enclave. I would bet the entire farm that combined and highway figures would drop by 2-3 MPG switching over to the 2.7. So no it doesn’t make sense on a cost scale, MPG or even customer satisfaction especially when someone shells out 60K for a Buick only to be met with a noisy growling 4 banger!
Can we just keep the 3.6. four bangers are noisy and harsh. I don’t care about the torque, I just want a quiet smooth running engine.
It just absolutely has to run 87 octane without issue and if it could average 1 more MPG over the v6 it’s a win. The 3.6 in current form is a nice unit and far more desirable than the 2.0T in my eyes.
Id pay for the 3.0 TDI ; why dont they test it ?!? Id be curious to see fuel economy ratings.
In a World of never ending 3 and 4 Cylinder engines I am so glad I made the Switch to a BEV.
I didn’t have to settle. I got to retain insane Speed and most importantly insane Acceleration.
It will keep getting worse and worse when it comes to ICE Engine Options.
Like why wouldn’t GM just place the 3.0T in these vehicles?
The fuel economy would plummet. They would never do it. I think sales would decline as well.