The 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 pickup will introduce a handful of changes and updates over the preceding 2023 model year. Notably, the 2024 GMC Sierra 1500’s turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine will also gain the TurboMax name, referencing the powerplant’s prodigious torque output. The L3B engine is equipped as standard on 2024 GMC Sierra Pro, SLE, and Elevation trim levels, and is not available on other trims.
The name change follows a GM trademark filing made this past January, as GM Authority covered previously. The TurboMax name will also be applied to the 2.7L I4 L3B engine cradled by the 2024 Chevy Silverado 1500.
The TurboMax turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine is rated at 310 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 430 pound-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm, and will be one of four powerplants on offer with the 2024 GMC Sierra 1500. The other three engine options include the naturally aspirated 5.3L V8 L84 gasoline engine, rated at 355 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 383 pound-feet of torque at 4,100 rpm, 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 finally, the 3.0L I6 LZ0 turbodiesel Duramax engine, which is rated at 305 horsepower at 3,750 rpm and 495 pound-feet of torque at 2,750 rpm.
Notably, the 3.0L I6 LZ0 turbodiesel Duramax engine will be equipped as standard in the 2024 GMC Sierra AT4X off-roader trim level. The diesel engine will connect to the GM 10-speed automatic transmission. The naturally aspirated 6.2L V8 L87 gasoline engine, which was offered previously as the standard power unit in the GMC Sierra AT4X, will now be offered as optional for the trim level.
Under the body panels, the GMC Sierra 1500 rides on the GM T1 platform. As GM Authority covered late last year, production of the 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 will kick off this July at the GM Fort Wayne plant in Indiana and GM Silao plant in Mexico. Dealer orders will begin this coming June.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GMC Sierra news, GMC news, GM technology news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
Ok, but does it cheapen the Duramax brand at all? Seems too obvious of a piggyback attempt.
D’ya think maybe that’s the point? To create a “-max” naming convention for GM engines?
It was polite sarcasm sir, sorry it didn’t land right.
I guess I could say the same of my reply. Straight answer to your question: The alternative take is that it could strengthen the brand by building a family resemblance in the naming convention.
VortecMax please 😎
All I can think about is TurboTax. Kinda lame as to the brains behind naming this turbomax…
Just like Fords Ecoboost all boost no eco. Although I’d take the 2.7 from GM over Fords. Since I use my truck as a truck I’d still only buy the 3.0 or 5.3
Well, it is that time of year….
Well the 2.7 Turbo is a lame engine.
2 less cylinders than Fords 2.7 Ecoboost, a lighter block, newer technology, more torque and yet it gets 20% WORSE fuel economy than Fords 2.7 Ecoboost.
The silvy is also wider and less aerodynamic than the ford.
Not to mention almost 10K cheaper. That MPG can be explained by the 2.7 using a towing rear end (3.42 vs 3.21) an 8 speed vs a 10, and no active chin spoiler. Remember the 2.7 is to replace the 4.3, not the V8’s. It’s a heck of an entry level engine that allows budget concious buyers to go up in features and maintain capability without compromise.
I’ll take a RST silvy with the 2.7 vs a ford XL with the 2.7 any day.
Keep telling yourself that nonsense.
The 2.7 Turbo has a higher maintenance cost and lower reliability than the 4.3 V6 or even 5.3 V8 yet the fuel economy isn’t noticeably better.
When your Turbo goes out in the 2.7 let us know how much it costs to replace. Likely over $5,000 since it’s integrated into the exhaust manifold.
“Compared to the ford” I would rather have a gen 6 4.3 small block in all honesty
Seems kinda funny that after introducing the new name, they used the rest of the article to describe all the other power plants, focusing on the 3.0 DURAMAX, and not so much the turbomax.
In the last four years, I’ve had the 5.3, 3.0 and now the 2.7. 5.3 sounded the best, but was the worst to tow with. 3.0 was in the shop a third the time I owned it, but was the best to tow with. 2.7 is better than the 5.3 at towing and more reliable than the 3.0. I’ll be keeping it until they offer a 2.7 with the 10 speed. Then I might have to upgrade.
5.3 with which transmission? That makes a difference. Next gen 5.3 will be out soon and that might change your mind. Should be a hoss of a motor
That’s fair. it was a 2018 with the 6 speed. I’m sure the 10 speed is better. Either way the torque was way higher in the revs than the 2.7.
The biggest GM 1/2 ton problem has been, and remains, payload. Looked at the Sierra 2.7L, 5.3L, and 3.0L on the lot two days ago. I REALLY want the 3.0L diesel.
Payload numbers (may not be 100% accurate, I didn’t take pictures, but near enough):
— 2.7L Elevation: 1,787 lbs
— 5.3L Elevation: 1,655 lbs
— 3.0L SLT: 1,480 lbs
Sure, there is some discrepancy between Elevation and SLT trim levels, but it is apparent that payload numbers tank with the weight of the diesel — and GM did nothing to beef up the capacities of the components to compensate.
What good is 495 lb-ft of torque if you can’t put the family in the truck, some gear in the bed, and hook up the camper without being overloaded? My 2014 GMC Acadia SLT with heavy dual sunroofs has more payload at 1,557 lbs!
So the 2.7L does have a very compelling argument for many truck owners — how much you can actually load on the thing. The problem is, even if you wanted a 2.7L just for the payload capability alone, you’re stuck with a lower trim level and no luxuries — no leather, no sunroof, limited options/packages.
Why not offer engine availability on all trims and give the customer options? The 3.0L payload doesn’t work for me, but the 2.7L does — just let me buy it in an SLT or AT4.
JUNK LINK