When it comes to midsize and full-size trucks, engine performance is a critical factor for most buyers. The GM turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B and the Ford twin-turbocharged 2.7L EcoBoost V6 are two standout contenders in this space, offering different engineering philosophies aimed at balancing power, efficiency, and usability. Both engines can be found under the hood of popular vehicles, but which one delivers the better experience?
The GM turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine.
Let’s start with the specs. In the 2025 Chevy Silverado 1500, the L3B delivers 310 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 430 pound-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm, surpassing the 2025 Ford F-150’s EcoBoost V6, which doles out 325 horsepower at 5,000 rpm and 400 pound-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm. The L3B also boasts a higher towing capacity (9,500 pounds versus 8,400 pounds) and payload capacity (2,260 pounds versus 1,775 pounds).
| GM Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B | Ford EcoBoost 2.7L V6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Power (horsepower @ rpm) | 310 @ 5,600 | 325 / 5,000 |
| Torque (pound-feet @ rpm) | 430 @ 3,000 | 400 @ 3,000 |
| Max Tow Capacity (pounds) | 9,500 | 8,400 |
| Max Payload Capacity (pounds) | 2,260 | 1,775 |
| City/Highway/Combined (mpg) | 17 / 20 / 18 | 16 / 24 / 19 |
| Recommended Fuel | Regular | Regular |
The story is similar in the midsize truck segment. In the 2025 Chevy Colorado, the L3B produces 310 horsepower and 430 pound-feet of torque, narrowly edging out the 2025 Ford Ranger’s EcoBoost V6, rated at 315 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque. Towing capacity for the Colorado is slightly higher at 7,700 pounds compared to the Ranger’s 7,500 pounds, though payload is virtually tied.
Chevy Colorado
Ford Ranger
Efficiency is another important metric for any truck buyer. In the Silverado, the L3B achieves a city/highway/combined rating of 17/20/18 mpg compared to the F-150 EcoBoost’s 16/24/19 mpg. For the midsize trucks, the Colorado with the L3B return 18/23/20 mpg, matching the Ranger EcoBoost’s 19/23/20 mpg in combined efficiency.
| GM Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B | Ford EcoBoost 2.7L V6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Power (horsepower @ rpm) | 310 @ 5,600 | 315 |
| Torque (pound-feet @ rpm) | 430 @ 3,000 | 400 |
| Max Tow Capacity (pounds) | 7,700 | 7,500 |
| Max Payload Capacity (pounds) | 1,710 | 1,711 |
| City/Highway/Combined (mpg) | 18 / 23 / 20 | 19 / 23 / 20 |
| Recommended Fuel | Regular | Regular |
Both engines run on regular fuel and are tuned to deliver robust performance, but other considerations like reliability, engine sound, and resale value should also be considered. It’s also worth noting that General Motors’ L3B can be found in models like the GMC Canyon and GMC Sierra 1500, as well as the Cadillac CT4-V and the Chinese-market Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon.
That all said, we want to hear from you. Is the L3B’s torque and efficiency edge enough to win you over? Or does Ford’s EcoBoost V6 strike the perfect balance of power and refinement? Let us know your thoughts by voting below!
Comments
Needs the diesel back in it
I own a 24 Canyon Denali. Horsepower and torque numbers are pretty good. Fuel efficiency sucks for a four banger and it sounds like sh!t. Seriously, there’s no exhaust kit or mod out there that will improve the sound if this engine. All this emissions bs is choking the engine from producing better fuel economy. Pretty sure my next truck will be a full sized truck, at least it will sound like a real truck.
# of cylinders does not equal good or bad fuel economy. Please elaborate on how the “emissions bs” is impacting the fuel economy. I am fascinated by your thinking.
I’ll explain how it can….
More cylinders does increase surface area to volume ratio, IE more heat to the radiator and not the crank. Good example of this would be the 6.7L Triton V10 vs the 8.1L Chevy big block. The V8 had less surface area, and would net 10MPG vs 9 for the ford despite being the bigger engine. Technically, less cylinders the better. Advantage 4 cylinder.
Now when the S10 had a 4 banger, it towed 4000lbs (vs 7700 now) and was a 2.2L, not a 2.7L with a turbo. That’s a big jump. Also, today’s colorado/canyon are almost the same size as a GMT500 half ton. Really I would be comparing the current canyon with 2.7 to a GMT500 sierra with the 4.8. that’s what your looking at from a towing/size class. From there your looking at low 20’s combined vs mid teens. Looks pretty good to me.
Now as for emissions vs fuel economy, item #1, ethanol blended fuel. Today’s ethanol mix has 5-10% less BTU’s/gallon, so yes, there’s a hit. Also, like in the 70’s to reduce NOX, compression ratios are being reduced, or EGR’s are being implemented which hurts FE. As far as carbon Emissions go, if they would allow for a little more NOX, we could save 5-10% more on carbon emissions, but the point isn’t to save fuel, it’s to force the purchase of EV’s.
The V6.
The chevy is better. Why? Price. The ford 2.7 was supposed to compete head to head with the 5.3 in the half tons. It’s an expensive, complex, less reliable engine. The ranger with the 2.3 already is pricier. 2.7 is worse.
Ditto with the half tons. Granted Ford prices them closer, the “NanoBoost” engine is expensive to manufacturer compared to a small block V8. It’s twin turbo’d, DOHC, dual injected, CGI block, with spray on bores. This really has been what’s hurt Ford financially. Ford makes less on their truck sales than GM because their engines cost more to make internally and their aluminum bodies. Ford’s making 5-7K per truck sold while GM is making 10+. Hence EV’s are sinking Ford while GM is surfing through despite bigger EV investments
What the writer fails to tell us is the Ford 315 HP/ 400 TQ is for premium fuel and premium is the recommended fuel. The numbers are lower for 87 octane.
The Chevrolet 2.7 looks good on paper until you really dig into it. That peak torque of 430 at 3000 ends around 4500 whereas the Ford has a much wider peak powerband. The Chevrolet Colorado feels great in daily driving as long as you stay below 4000, anything above that is sounds bad and engine feels weak.
Hook up 7000 pounds and let’s do some towing. My money on the V6,
My 2015 f150 gets 23 mpg. What is the point with a bosted smaller engine?
Fits in some peoples pants better.
I’ll take the 5.3L V-8 over any of them. My experience with them is in the Avalanche. Have one now (2002) with over 200K on it and runs like new. Had another with 90K (2013) but that one was totaled. Wish I had gone a different route that day. Damn!!! Owned Fords before that with the 5.0 L (302 ci) and a Ranger with the 2.3 in it. Both ran great but I like the 5.3 over them too.
The ranger, with its 2.3, out performs the 2.7 in the midsized segment with a lower rear-end and the 10 speed.
How does towing less, burning more fuel and making less power translate to put performs? Are you referring to a drag race on YouTube where “auto journalist” drag raced a Ranger with 29.5″ Street tires against a Z71 Colorado with knobby 32.5″ tires and belly armor? FYI, MT found the Silverado with the 6.2 RST beats the F150 platinum despite the platinum having more power, likewise the 6.2 High country which includes the Z71 package was a full second slower than the RST 0-60 despite the same engine. If your buying a truck based on 1/2 second acceleration times, you need you head checked.
don’t forget, that 2.7 twinturbo is not a cast aluminum block as the 4 cylinder GM engine,
when subjected to a heavy work day in day out, Ford 150 with 2.7 engine will outlast the GM rivals
Disagree as the turbomax engine has cast in iron liners and a forged bottom end. The aluminum block is cast around that skeleton to control the heat and oil flow. The ford on the other hand is known for timing chain issues and turbo replacement. I had a 2.2 ecotech first gen with a lost foam aluminum block, and it wasn’t the block that failed in that engine.
Fun WW2 tidbit, a mathmetichian advising the air force was tasked with finding the best way to make B17’s survive better. He recommended looking at bombers returning from Germany, and draw circles around the parts that had no bullet holes and add armor to those locations. Why? Cause the bombers that made it home were not hit in these “weak points” and could afford to take bullets where they were hit. Likewise, I don’t hear many block failures these days. Mostly timing chain and oil starvation. Chevys 2.7 definitely has the edge there.
The 2.7 hasn’t had documented timing chain issues, it’s arguably the most reliable engine Ford has from a technician’s standpoint – we barely see any in. It’s a CGI block, much more robust than the GM counterpart, offers dual port injection so it doesn’t suffer from the GDI issues others and the GM will, and has a proven track record.
Sorry, you’re wrong here in terms of having an edge.
GDI issues??? You must be a Ford fanatic. I keep hearing about GDI issues from fordies who claim GM valves will gunk, but in practice I’ve never seen or heard of it happening. Lots of forums on the original 3.6 high feature digging into this issue with owners who are approaching 200K miles wondering if their heads will need cleaned. Shocker, none as of yet have needed it. People have been pulling manifolds and are finding next to no carbon buildup. Makes sense as Duramaxs don’t ever need their valves flushed even after a million miles. GDI buildup is a phenomenon almost purely related to early VW and Opel DI engines with no oil sepatjon in the PCV valve. I opened up an ecotech once and drained a quart of oil from the manifold. Not an issue on a port injected engine, but a huge issue on a Di. The 3.6 high feature, ecotech 3 V8’s and tripower 4’s all have a laberynth oil seperator for the PCV that catches 99.9% of oil and returns it too the sump.
On the other hand, bothe the 3.5 and 2.7 EB are KNOWN for both premature turbo and timing chain failure, both which can be fatal to an engine. Once again, someone worried about something that can be fixed with a bottle of brake cleaner, and ignoring something that will crack pistons and heads.
The downvoters may be Ford Loyalists.
I have to add one thing: the engine bay in the Ford Ranger 2.7 V6 is a MESS. The wires look like a nest of wires, similar to the new Tacoma.
The Turbomax seems to be just better packaged. And yes, the engineers have said that the 4 cyl was torture tested THOROUGHLY…..
We have the Canyon w/ 4 cyl now here in Qatar…so far no complaints.
Driven both extensively. Both are impressive engines overall. But I bought the Ford and it really was no contest. The Ford V6 is much more refined, smoother and quieter than the big 4 bore GM. I also found the torque spread with the 10-speed to feel Much wider than the Chevy. The Ford just oozes torque everywhere from right off idle to the redline. The Chevy makes big power but you’ve really got to give it the spurs to get the boost up. Mine is averaging 19.5 mpg in mostly urban driving and gets into the low 20s on the highway. And Ford recommends regular unleaded, only the HO 3.0 Raptor engine requires premium. Finally, Ford Performance offers a Power Up kit for about $900 that remaps the boost and transmission as well as calibrated the engine for premium. If Ford installs it the full warranty stays intact. A friends Bronco with it is remarkably stronger with ever crisper response throughout the powerband. I’ve not gone there yet as I like the regular unleaded ability. The Ford’s also seem to be holding up well, lots of F150s with 6 digits on the odometer reporting zero issues with the 2.7. Hopefully the GM 2.7 will prove similar.
Slow response isn’t a 2.7 thing…. It’s a Chevy thing…. I tell everyone who cross shops Ford V Chevy, Chevy is tuned to mimick a 1950’s Cadillac lazy, smooth power delivery and if you want it to go you got to get it some peddle. Ford’s on the other hand are trying to impress and if you apply almost half peddle, it adds 100% throttle, and from there on up just manipulates the gears. Driving the F150 with the 2.7, half way down on the peddle, it had no more torque and from there it started shifting to increase HP. In reality the 2 are very well matched on power and acceleration. FYI, same for the V8’s. The 5.3 needs you to smash the peddle for the computer to realize you want to go fast. But once it commits, it commits.
Colorado needs the diesel back and a 6 ft bed. After owning two diesel colorado’s i am VERY disappointed with the v6. Pulled my daughters camper (3300 pounds) a couple of miles and the v6 hated it. Glad I wasn’t on a big road. I would not even think about pulling my tractor with the v6 much less with fewer cubic inches. My disease averaged 28 mpg combined 36 mpg on hwy. 24 mpg pulling ski boat 19 mpg pulling 6500 pounds of tractor trailer and attachments. Don’t forget exhaust brake of diesel.
I have a Colorado 2.8 and it is amazing. 32 mpg is an easy target. Pulling 6500 lbs is no problem. GM really needed to update the 2.8 with steel pistons and move the DPF closer to the exhaust manifold like they did for the 3.0… I dread the day I have to go back to gas with its poor milage
Love my 2017 Colorado diesel with 6′ bed. The better mileage and utility of a 6′ bed has kept me from upgrading to the 3rd gen.
The 3.6 also needed a better transmission. I use a traverse with the 3.6 to tow a flat bed when I pick up classic cars, and it handles 6000 lbs well, but I have to manually put it in 8yh gear or it gear hints between 8 & 9. I also get 15-17 with the cars on the trailer, 19 empty. The 3.6 was paired with the 6l45 and latter 8l45, which are better than the tacos transmission….. But can’t handle the V6’s torque in low gear. It needed the 10l80. Id like to see what the 2.8 Dmax could do with the 10l80 as well. the 6 speed it’s paired with doesn’t have direct drive and more parasitic loss.
GM 3.6 works just fine for towing in a Canyon. I have had no complaints with this engine whatsoever.
Looks like the Fird did better on combined milage. 24 is not a bad number.
But I follow a lot of issues with car mfgs bad engineering and I would have to go with the GM 2.7 for its simplicity and reliability than the Ford. Ford is has changed the design to a wet belt and has had many issues including valves dropping onto pistons. Eco Boom is a well known nickname. It seems buying parts from the cheapest suppliers has become a Ford commitment of poor quality.
I’m getting 17-20 mpg in my 2018 1500 with the 6.2 liter. And these four bangers can’t do any better? I’ll just keep my V8 thank you.
I have been underwhelmed by the real world gas mileage of the current turbo trucks in both the Ford & Chevy lineups.
Half-ton tons trucks irrespective of the brand, time period, & engine typically get 15 city and 18 highway. Admittedly aerodynamics are poor in a truck bc it is a flying brick. Aerodynamics come into play only on the highway. A poor choice by Detroit/consumers is the ever increasing tire sizes. The rotating mass of a 275/60/20 is huge compared to a 235/78/15.
More gas is consumed by bigger tires, simple physics.
A return to true compact trucks is the only way to get better mileage, but the profit margins aren’t as great.
Ford’s eco-boost has been a problematic design. Ask any mechanic, they have gotten rich from Ford eco-boost engine repairs. These repairs are often in the thousands of dollars! Their water pump is timing chain driven. This foolish design costs the customer huge amounts of money compared to a simple accessory belt-driven water pump replacement. The engineer that did this one should be fired.
At first I thought that Chevy’s four-banger looked impressive from an engineering standpoint. It is throughly ruggedized (is that a word). However the NVH is abysmal. GM, look to Honda on how to build a great four-banger.
My truck preference has always been about the same:
Time period: 1999-2006
Ford: F150 5 liter V-8, nothing else
Chevy: 1500 5.3/6.2 liter, nothing else
The time period is b4 the insane use of sensors on everywhere on vehicles.
The 5 liter Ford is solid with few problems.
Chevy has used the same basic V-8 design since 1955. Parts are everywhere & cheap. Labor charges are reasonable bc most everything is accessible.
Toyota: any early Tacoma 4-cyl w/ MT, this truck is indestructible.