It’s time again to reach into the GM Authority Mailbag and answer one of our readers’ questions.
Willard Thomas writes: “Nissan Frontier is going V-6, why can’t Chevrolet bring back the good ol’ 4.3 V6?”
GM L3B engine
You raise an interesting point, Willard. After all, V6 engines are better than four-cylinders, right? It’s the age-old adage of six being more than four. Sure, V6 engines may not be as good on gas as the typical 4-banger, but don’t they offer more power and torque? Not necessarily.
Turbo 2.7L I-4 L3B engine in the engine bay of a 2023 Chevy Colorado Trail Boss.
Many, if not most, people may be under the impression that V6 engines are more powerful than fours, but thanks to recent developments in internal combustion engine technologies, that’s just not true in some cases. For example, compare the naturally-aspirated 3.8L V6 in the 2025 Nissan Frontier with the Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B in the 2025 Chevy Colorado.
| 2025 Nissan Frontier | 2025 Chevy Colorado | + / – Colorado | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | Atmospheric 3.8L V6 | Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B | - |
| Horsepower @ RPM: | 310 @ 6400 | 310 @ 5600 | Equal |
| Torque @ RPM: | 281 @ 4400 | 430 @ 3000 | 149 |
As you can see from the table, both engines are rated at 310 horsepower, but the Chevy Colorado’s L3B engine offers way more torque – 430 pound-feet compared to 281 pound-feet in the Frontier. Not only that, but the Colorado’s L3B makes peak power nearly 1,000 RPM lower in the rev band, and peak torque an entire 1,400 RPMs lower. That means that the Colorado’s four pot doesn’t need to work as hard as the Nissan’s V6 to deliver those 310 horses.
2025 Nissan Frontier PRO-4X in Afterburn Orange
So then what about fuel economy? Those numbers are nearly identical, with the Nissan Frontier getting one more mile per gallon on the highway.
| 2025 Nissan Frontier | 2025 Chevy Colorado | + / – Colorado | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | Atmospheric 3.8L V6 | Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B | - |
| City MPG: | 18 | 18 | Equal |
| Highway MPG: | 23 | 22 | -1 |
| Combined MPG: | 20 | 20 | Equal |
Basically, both engines offer the same horsepower and gas mileage, but the turbo four in the Chevy Colorado offers way more torque. How is it able to do that? First and foremost, by being a modern engine with a Dual Overhead Cam (DOHC) configuration. Second, the L3B features a potent dual-volute turbocharger with electronic boost control and tri-port exhaust, while also featuring a high-tech TriPower valvetrain. Check out the video below where our own Alex Luft tests the 0-60 mph performance of GMC’s equivalent to the Colorado – the GMC Canyon.
Sure, GM could have put the 4.3 V6 LV3 engine in the Chevy Colorado. But that engine – rated at 285 horsepower and 305 pound-feet of torque – is even less potent in terms of both horsepower and torque than the 3.8L V6 in the Nissan Frontier.
So, we think it’s clear why the Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B is a better engine choice than the 4.3 V6 for the Chevy Colorado. After all, who wouldn’t want gobs more torque with the same level of fuel economy, while having access to power and torque at a lower rev range?
PS: for context, the high-output version of the L3B – branded as TurboMax – becomes the only engine in the 2025 Chevy Colorado, removing the lower-output version called L2R.
This article is part of the GM Authority Mailbag series, where we feature and reply to your questions, comments, and observations. Ask your question right here.
Comments
While I don’t like the sound of the Turbomax in my Colorado, the power and driving feel is V8 like making up for it.
Also 23mpg average so far in 8500 miles is more than I expected too…
Imagine an engineer knowing what they’re doing and having a multi-million dollar budget to test it with . Amazing .
Ummm the V6 in the frontier is DOHC and GDI as well. It just doesn’t have the Turbo and all the complexity/reliability issues Turbo’s cause.
Now which engine will go over 200k miles without serious issues & teardowns? My $$$ is on the frontiers V6.
I quit looking at the Colorado as a choice for a new vehicle because of the lack of a V6. I am now looking at the Frontier. GM needs to wake up.
Bye Felicia
Maybe you should drive that 4-cylinder one time .
So what’s the extra complexity . Exhaust blows into a snail which blows into the intake . Wow so much more complex . It’s literally two extra steps that have been proven since the ’40s
The turbo itself is an added part to break. The added stress on the engine from the turbo can shorten the engine life. I know they’re not in this article, but look at the poor lifespan of Ford Ecoboost turbocharged engines.
You forgot, turbos need an intercooler and oiling. Turbos also may need larger fuel injectors.
Turbos plus increased oil and Coolant systems. Increased crank case pressure, increased oil consumption, more complex variable valve adjustment and valve timing system and additional Counter balance shaft system. I’m a turbo fan all the way but most the 4cyl turbo engines out here are junk. A straight six or V6 turbo is the way to go if you’re going to do it. All these motors out here are throw away motors now days. No different than the appliance industry these days.
That turbo also requires additional plumbing for oil and coolant (water cooled turbo); not to mention the addition of charge air piping for the intercooler at the front of the truck.
Did someone say the Nissan isn’t a DOHC? They didn’t.
The argument about modern turbo engines not lasting as long is out of date. Plenty of around now and they’re just fine.
Also, might want to look into tripower. It’s what makes the L3B unique.
I would have to agree with you. They are asking that engine to put out way too much power for the amount of cubic inch that it has.
You would be mistaken, turbo max 4cyl engine in way more durable, built with much higher quality components. I know very well how both of these engines are constructed Chevrolet turbo max should last just about twice as long as V6 Nissan. By the way Nissan is really struggling with quality issues, do your homework. I personally Like the body styling of both of these trucks and have driven many miles on both 2023 Frontier and 2024 Colorado. There is absolutely no doubt Colorado’s engine and tech are superior to Frontier.
Simple Physics that a “boosted” engine is far more “stressed” than one that is not.
Simple metallurgy and engineering fixes that .
You can reduce that stress in a turbo by reducing the compression ratio. Example, the Ecoboost 3.0 has a compression ratio of 9:1, which is abysmally low compared to the 12:1 of most of today’s non turbos DI engines. It still isn’t the most reliable however.
They could easily given the 4.3 the Corvette cam grind, raided the power to 330 hp/330 tq, and still maintained good gas mileage. The reason they didn’t was for costs. It’s easy to add a turbo to the Malibu 2.5 and a striker crank.
I have had zero luck with turbo engines despite being on top of all the maintenance.
Suuure . Just like Dodge charger drivers are responsible .
The old saying, there is no replacing for displacement. The 2.7 turbo works hard. Say what you want. My 2024 Colorado ZR2 only has 400 miles on it and runs about 17.3 mpg. My 2022 Colorado ZR2 V6 would get 21+. That is the engine they should have put a turbo on. Especially on the ZR2 and AT4X. Just my opinion. In all actuality GM would have had the top dog if they would have dropped the 5.3 in the 2023-2024 ZR2 and AT4X.
AJ, I agree with you, the switch from the V6 to a turbo 4 for the Colorado was not a well thought out decision.
Why not ? The 3.6 was plagued with problems .
The 3.6 in the Colorado was not plagued with problems. It used both the LFX and LGX versions of the 3.6 that have proven very reliable when you do proper oil change intervals on it. I know several 3.6 Colorado owners that have racked up 200K with zero engine issues. My 2019 Impala has the LFX 3.6 with almost 100K with zero issues and my best friend has a 2014 Impala with the same engine pushing 175K and it has been flawless. The one thing we al lhave in common- 5-6K oil change intervals!
I’m kinda with you, but I’m still a real fan of the SS 396. I looked at the Colorado thought I was interested in trading my 08 Wrangler and 2012 Silverado 2500. It was much larger than I imagined but a beautiful interior, lots of gadgets. Then the salesman started explaining how much more powerful the four cyl produced and the only option available. Took me back to the days when the government restricted the quantity of the size of engines to be manufactured. I’m still driving my old vehicles.
.
My 24 Silverado gets 22 and I have a lead foot . You are just a terrible driver
The gearing in the Silverado is different than the Colorado so it gets better fuel economy. The ZR2 Colorado is only rated at 16 city/ 21 Highway which is laughable given that’s worse than my ZL1 Camaro.
They should have kept the diesel!
Who wants a turbo ? No thanks
Turbo diesel Golf. 24 yrs old..470,000 miles. Turbo diesel Colorado. 183,000 miles. I know. Not apples to apples but just talking about the turbo part and reliability.
Agree with the longevity comment. I drive vehicles till “the wheels fall off” .. I have a 2003 Chevy Tahoe with over 500K miles – a little tired but still going !!! I will venture a guess that the Turbo will not last that long … So, if you trade vehicles every few years – maybe the turbo is for you. BUT – if you like to get the most “Bang for the buck” – I would recommend getting a Naturally aspirated engine in your next vehicle.
BTW – Fire Mary Barra before she completely destroys GM – Capital letters !!!!!
You go ahead and get that V8 with the failing lifters .
I’ll ride on by with my little turbo whistle and wave .
Yes get rid of Mary. And strongly agree GM capital letters
Let’s drop this leftist BS
Needs the diesel to be competitive
Do both run on regular gas normally??
Yep the l3b runs on 87 just fine
Bring back the v6 will not buy chevy Colorado again
All I see is a bunch of haters that don’t understand The engineering simplicity of the L3B . Anyone that’s actually driven it , has nothing to bad to say. I love it , I have the L3B in my 24 Silverado . I also have a 03 and 05 Silverado 5.3 . The L3B is on a completely different level . If you don’t like it don’t buy it . Oh turbos are unreliable . No they aren’t . They’ve been reliable since the 1940s . I just see a bunch of man babies in the comments afraid of change .
Must be a thrill to pop that hood at car hop.
GM I love your vehicles but cone on you had an awesome 3.6 V6 in the Buick Enclave and chevy Traverse 312 hp they could tweak that engine up a tad and the MPG is 29 highway We’ve owned 2 enclaves I just can’t bring myself to buy a 4 cyl
It seems to me the 2025 Arcadia and Tranverse are very well designed cars. However, in NJ the lots are filled with them as many people find the engine far too noisy and question the long term reliability of the engine. Maybe if the increase warranty coverage people like myself would buy one.
I have to agree with “Dr. Westside”, I love the L3B in my ’24 Colorado. Great gas mileage, sound is a bit like a farm tractor, but I don’t care. The mileage and power are awesome.
I guess GM needs to stop putting turbos on the Duramax engines since they are so unreliable.
And stop using OHV engines. Rocker arms and push rods make engines so complex. Flat heads forever!!!
As long as the engine is built to handle high torque at low RPM than a turbo is great. A turbo puts a lot of stress on the top shells on the crank. The rod end bearing top shell takes quite a beating. Changing the oil early will help a turbo last a long time.
But I am very disappointed in the poor fuel economy with the 4 cylinder turbo. I just don’t see a benefit with using a smaller engine and getting poor fuel efficiency.
Do some research on the 2.7. It has huge cam and crank bearing surfaces. The head bolts are from the freaking LT4.
Can i please have a truck made to be a truck, i dont need $40,000 worth of tech that sucks…adaptive cruise control, engine shut off at stops and all this other mechanical midigation crap. I want a v8 colorado naturally aspiration same with v6 same with v4 and youll see what the people think. Stop telling me an engineer with bias terms knows what i need..
TURBO 4, No Thanks! This is why I bought an off-lease certified 2021 GMC Canyon with the V6.
Let’ s see which one will go over 100 k with NO PROBLEMS. Piety the person who has to pay out of pocket to replace the turbo and associated other parts. The last time GM HIPED an engine like this was the VEGA 4.
Mary Barra should be running a Family Dollar store
I have a 2nd Gen ZR2 with the 3.6l V6. It is a complete dog. Especially at high elevation in the mountains. I am not saying the 2.7L is more durable but the torque advantage is huge. The twin turbo 3.0 from Cadillac is what is needed imho.
Not mentioned in the article is that under boost a turbocharged engine gets poor fuel mileage, due to needing a richer fuel/air mixture. Towing a travel trailer the engine will be under boost a considerable amount of the time, and thus mileage and range will suffer greatly. The smallest turbocharged gas engine adequate for towing a travel trailer is 3.5 liter, because it will be under boost a lot less.
GM basically gave up the travel trailer towing market with the third generation, doing away with both the V6 and the Duramax.
All the comments criticizing people for not wanting a 4cyl is hilarious.
You all sound like tesla drivers trying to convince ICE drivers that EV’s are better lol.
First Gen ecoboost weren’t good from a reliability or efficiency standpoint. This is the first time GM is using a turbo 4 for this type of application. And anyone with experience with ecotec’s know there have been some quality issues over the different versions, which gives legitimate reasons for caution towards a 4 cyl only lineup.
I would take a v6 over a turbo four cylinder any day. Small turbo engines don’t last as long as bigger non turbo engines because they are pushed harder to get that power.
Why would anyone want a Chevrolet turbo four cylinder when the Nissan V6 delivers the same economy in a much more efficient and reliable six cylinder platform. The turbo is gong to require running premium fuel to reduce destructive engine knock, the turbo is going to fail between 80-120K resulting in a costly turbo replacement at a minimum and likely engine damage as well, and it offers unnecessary complication. Bring the 4.3 l V6 back with a modern valve train, intake, and fuel management and get rid of all the unreliable turbo nonsense; that turbo is working that 2.7 l I4 way harder than that 3.8 l V6 is working.
I’ve owned 3 GMC Canyons with the 3.6 V6 engine. I averaged 24 MPG and even 23MPG With 2-1/2 inch lift and larger Toyo tires. Although a very small difference, Why would we go backwards with fuel economy with a new product? I’m only asking
I’ll keep my 2.7 because it pulls like a locomotive. Hauled my daughter’s sail boat out and up a huge hill yesterday, like it was bothering. Love it!
Oops, ” nothing!”
I can tell with the amount of haters here on the turbomax, that they have never driven one or even looked into how it was made. Not to mention it is the only engine so far that has not failed during GM’s rigorous engine testing. It comes with a 5yr 100k mile powertrain warranty on the Silverado 1500.. I’ve seen more 5.3s, 6.2s and 3.0 duramaxs have issues that have under 30k miles. I’ve had one customer have an issue with the Turbomax Silverado and it was just a loose ground.
The 2.7L does have loads of tech, like the variable speed water pump. What is missing is that Ford added back in port inject while keeping direct injection on their 2.7L v6 Echobost. Let’s see how this engine does over tume with the offset centerline crank.
Can anyone explain why almost no one makes an extended cab midsize truck? People can buy what they want but I almost never see more than one passenger with the driver. I would rather have the extra bed length
But the 6 is way smoother and quieter.
I’m willing to give up some torque for smoothness and quietness in a daily driver
I have nothing against turbos.
I have a Solstice GXP with the LNF 2.0 turbo and the car’s a hoot.
But not for a bigger vehicle.
Why not a small displacement V-6 or I-6 with twin turbos for the bigger vehicles where NVH is important?
I own a 2016 GMC Canyon 3.6 crew cab long bed 4×4 with 111,000 miles. I love the looks of the new Canyon. It’s a step down for me. The only thing I’ve done on it are tires, brakes & batteries. Very reliable truck. New canyon high ⛽️ consumption, no longbed, & no V6. No thanks.
Why not give customers the choice of 4 cyl or 6 cyl just like the old days, everyone is happy
One reason and one reason only. Unrealistic draconian emission standards from the current regime. There is literally no other reason to make engines with few cylinders than emissions. The less cylinders the easier it is to meet these drastic new standards. So everybody that is complaining about the lack of V6 and V8’s know who to thank!
I am always baffled when I see the MPG ratings for the Chevy V6. I have a 2015 Colorado with a V6. City MPG falls into the advertised 18-20 MPG range. But, the highway MPG typically returns 30-33 MPG. The worst MPG I got was driving in the mountains in WV, and I still got 28. So, when they rated this engine, did they do all uphill driving with a max payload?