General Motors is set to launch a new generation of its legendary Small Block V8 engine, which is currently expected to debut under the hood of the upcoming next-gen 2027 Chevy Silverado 1500. The new engine will eventually power GM’s full line of full-size trucks and SUVs, offering a host of improvements over the current Small Block V8, including enhanced performance, better fuel efficiency, and reduced emissions. However, when compared to the competition, GM’s current 6.2L V8 L87 engine already appears to be lagging behind in several key areas, underlining the need for some significant upgrades with the 2027 Chevy Silverado and upcoming next-gen Small Block.
The current GM 6.2L V8 L87 engine delivers 420 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 460 pound-feet of torque at 4,100 rpm. While respectable, these numbers fall short in several key areas when compared to the competition. For instance, the Ford EcoBoost 3.5L V6, found in the Ford F-150, doles out 400 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 500 pound-feet of torque at 3,100 rpm, making it more torque-rich than the L87. Ford’s more powerful EcoBoost HO 3.5L V6, found in the F-150 Raptor, pushes the performance envelope even further with 450 horsepower at 5,850 rpm and 510 pound-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm. The hybrid Ford PowerBoost 3.5L V6 delivers 430 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 570 pound-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm, significantly outclassing the L87 in torque output.
Stellantis also poses a strong challenge with its latest Hurricane 3.0L I6 engines. The standard Hurricane 3.0L I6 found in the Ram 1500 produces 420 horsepower at 5,200 rpm and 469 pound-feet of torque at 3,500 rpm, while the high-output (HO) variant found in up-level trims and the Ram 1500 RHO ramps it up to 540 horsepower at 5,700 rpm and 521 pound-feet of torque at 3,500 rpm, making the HO variant the most powerful option in this particular comparison.
Meanwhile, Toyota’s i-Force Max 3.4L V6, a hybrid powerplant cradled by the Tundra, also outshines the L87, delivering 437 horsepower at 5,200 rpm and 583 pound-feet of torque at just 2,400 rpm, making it the most torque-rich of the bunch.
In terms of fuel efficiency, the L87 also struggles. With a rating of 15 mpg city, 20 mpg highway, and 17 mpg combined in 4WD configuration, it falls behind most of its rivals. The Ford EcoBoost 3.5L V6 achieves 16 mpg city, 24 mpg highway, and 19 mpg combined, while the PowerBoost hybrid variant achieves 22 mpg city, 24 mpg highway, and 23 mpg combined. Even the high-performance EcoBoost HO 3.5L V6 and the Stellantis Hurricane HO 3.0L I6 manage 17 mpg combined, matching or exceeding the L87 despite offering superior performance. Toyota’s i-FORCE MAX 3.4L V6 further highlights GM’s disadvantage with a 19 mpg city, 22 mpg highway, and 20 mpg combined rating.
Check out the table below to see how the numbers line up:
| GM 6.2L V8 L87 | Ford EcoBoost 3.5L V6 | Ford EcoBoost HO 3.5L V6 | Ford PowerBoost 3.5L V6 | Stellantis Hurricane 3.0L I6 | Stellantis Hurricane HO 3.0L I6 | Toyota i-FORCE MAX 3.4L V6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engine Type | ICE | ICE | ICE | HEV | ICE | ICE | HEV |
| Aspiration | NA | Twin-Turbo | Twin-Turbo | Twin-Turbo | Twin-Turbo | Twin-Turbo | Twin-Turbo |
| Power (horsepower @ rpm) | 420 @ 5,600 | 400 @ 6,000 | 450 @ 5,850 | 430 @ 6,000 | 420 @ 5,200 | 540 @ 5,700 | 437 @ 5,200 |
| Torque (pound-feet @ rpm) | 460 @ 4,100 | 500 @ 3,100 | 510 @ 3,000 | 570 @ 3,000 | 469 @ 3,500 | 521 @ 3,500 | 583 @ 2,400 |
| Max Tow Capacity (pounds) | 13,200 | 13,500 | 8,200 | 11,200 | 11,600 | 10,050 | 11,450 |
| Max Payload Capacity (pounds) | 2,050 | 2,445 | 1,405 | 1,815 | 1,930 | 1,520 | 1,680 |
| 4WD City / Highway / Combined (mpg) | 15 / 20 / 17 | 16 / 24 / 19 | 16 / 18 / 17 | 22 / 24 / 23 | 17 / 24 / 19 | 15 / 21 / 17 | 19 / 22 / 20 |
| Recommended Fuel | Premium* | Regular | Regular | Regular | Premium* | Premium | Regular |
Looking ahead, the 2027 Chevy Silverado is also expected to offer a new plug-in hybrid powertrain, although it remains to be seen what the underlying ICE component will be. Either way, stay tuned as we bring you all the latest on the next-gen Small Block V8 and 2027 Chevy Silverado 1500.
Comments
What the author of this article truly neglects to reflect on is that every engine he mentioned is turbo charged! It not a true apple to apples comparison. Now, I do believe GM should have updated their L85/L87 engine HP/TQ in 2019 with the T1 body, very disappointed in that.
GM can’t “punt” this up on the new small block. They need to truly step up their game and bring in 2 new V8s, and a hybrid model to be successful.
I personally would love to see a turbo V8 sports truck. In single and crew cab configurations, that can tow and GO!!!!
exactly what i was thinking. hey GM twin turbo the L87 and see what numbers come from it.
The current 6.2 can barely stay together in stock configuration, I don’t believe it could be turbo charged without significant lower end improvements.
Stock 6.2 took 16 PSI boost and made 750 HP in the LT5. Did all that and still had a factory warranty.
No turbo, SC. Super chargers are what wins in pro stock, and are more efficient than turbos.
What the article also neglects is that other competitors play games for great power numbers.
For example, Ford rates their engines on 93 octane, and their economy is posted with their 3.21:1 rear axles, which tows only 7000 lbs. A comparable GM will run on 87 and make it peak power at 89 or ethanol, and has a 3:42:1 rear axle and tows between 9000-10000 lbs. When you get a Ford with the 3:42, the
economy of the GM is usually superior. Also, GM’s torque curve is much preferred for everyday use. Then you have to factor in reliability. GM definitely Is the better one here, and while the 6.2 recall is a huge issue here, considering this effects only 3% of those engines (1% of GM’s BOF portfolio overall) that is an incredible reliability compared to Ford/ram standards. I wouldn’t say GM is behind, as much as the competition has caught up, and the 6th gen small block really will just restablish dominance.
whatever. they are talking about flywheel HP not about all this rigormoro. none of the others are SC.
You lost all credibility with this first sentence…
“No turbo, SC. Super chargers are what wins in pro stock, and are more efficient than turbos”
First, what wins in pro stock has zero to do with truck towing and hauling reliably for hundreds of thousands of miles. Second, in what world do you live in where a turbo is less efficient than a SC? Expand on that, because one draws power from an engine to make it (SC) and the other uses wasted gases (turbo)…
A turbo is basically a cork up the butt of the engine. The screw charger on the LT4 only bogs down the engine 8HP, while a turbo would bog it down for almost 40. Yes that’s less than a roots 80HP, but if you look at the LT1 vs LT5 supercharger improvement 450-750HP, and extrapolate that to the LT6-LT7, you arrive at 670HP to 1116HP. Engines also need to breathe on the back end, which turbos are a death knell to. I’ll probably just go to a screw charger when the turbo goes out on my Cummins. I’ll net a 10% power boost and better towing range.
And I did rough math for the 5.5 LT7, if your running 18PSI, screw vs turbos, the turbo back pressure robs almost 60HP, and the screw charger runs only 10. Increasing the PSI of the charger also runs that top HP up to 1225 HP. Granted that theoretical, but the choice of the turbo to me seems more like a move cause turbos are popular these days. GM has been killing turbo cars for decades with plain ol superchargers. Would have been nice to have seen a 4L Whipple nestled in the V of the LT7 instead of 2 snails.
Superchargers create a fixed amount of boost and cannot compensate for altitude like a properly set up turbo/wastegate control without swapping pullies and introducing more heat and voiding the warranty. The LT7 is able to overboost 4psi to reach commanded boost thereby compensating for elevation and giving the driver the same performance whether at sea level or Colorado. A supercharged engine cannot do that. Superchargers also create stress on the crank and main bearings. GM went to turbos on the gemini because they can easily integrate them into their emissions controls/strategy. Large scale applications of superchargers are dead. Hellcats and GT500s are it. Also, notice how no oems are supercharging diesel pickups?
GM’s 6.2 is fine. It was designed to be low stress and last forever. Well, until oil change intervals got too long and manufacturing defects entered the picture. GM could easily make a N/A 6.2L make over 500hp/tq. See the LT2 for an idea.
@ tom, great, 4 PSI of waste heat that doesn’t go into the crank. If I can make 10% more power with a Whipple, then I’ll be about even in Denver where the air is 15% thinner, superior everywhere else. Sound to me like a fallacy to base engine design on an exceptionally small geographic area.
Well said. Was going to point out same. Small engine turbos cannot be compared to normally aspirated small block engines. Turbos present their own host of problems. Those looking to achieve good gas mileage should shy away from V8 engines in vehicles weighing nearly three tons.
Turbos are quite common and reliable. My friends who were life long Chevy truck owners switched to Ford Ecoboost. It pained them, but they did it. I am not sayin anything one way or the other, just that they found something that worked for them .
They are reliable as long as you use them hard. If you baby them, then you run into issues.
And if you don’t allow it to cool down before shutting down that also creates issues.
But the cam phaser problem has been sorted however.
That said, the 2.7 EB is a bit better than the 3.5 EB and even the Coyote due to having a better reliability record.
I hope GM is on their game because a “modest” upgrade simply will not cut it. Especially with the recent rash of mechanical failures on the 5.3 and 6.3V8s.
They need to get their information software figured out too, had multiple issues with the volume control in my 25 Silverado HD, would go from low volume to blasting without touching the controls. Also, went to pick up my wife’s new Tahoe last Thursday and before we left the lot the navigation screen went blank, we left the SUV with the dealer and are still waiting for a repair.
I’ve been a loyal GM owner for over 20-years but I’m starting to question why.
Sorry to hear that you got multiple lemons….
It seems with ANY MANUFACTURER, QC is an afterthought. So you sadly need an extended warranty….regardless of the brand…
So, WHY DID YOU DOWNVOTE?
I am saying all manufacturers have issues. Going to another does NOT mean you won’t have issues…you will need an extended warranty.
It all depends on how reliable these smaller turbo charged engines turn out to be.
I have had two ecoboosts.. one took four crankcases (oil leaks) and the used coolant… i have had 3 5.3s which have real crankcases (alum not plastic) and real valve covers.. not plastic.. they have all done well with leaks except for a coolant pump. I want reliability.. 350 hp is plenty.
Turbos.. two of them need oil and coolant.. that is 8 places to leak.. i really don’t think they do much.. they make the engine have goobs of torque at lower rpm.. by it is a maintence nightmare.
Ford’s plastic oil pan….(doesn’t GMC/Chevrolet use a plastic oil pan too?)…that seems to be a shame….
I mean EBs are better if you live at high altitude…or so I read. And here in Qatar I do see some 300k km examples to their credit…
The Hellcat engines showed the way for modern V8s and there are more tweaks to make there. A supercharged V8 with hybrid setup would be fantastic for certain vehicles. Maybe now that the EPA and some other agencies aren’t pulling random unachievable goals out of their butts it’ll be possible to build vehicles some people want again.
I’m personally baffled that only BMW is trying water injection. They used that back in WW2, Buick turbo-fire V8, and it’s well tested and proven. They have systems that recirculate exhaust water just fine.
If the EPA is muted permanently, I expect DFM to be either:
A) Eliminated completely (most people want this, but I am not sure how far that is realistic given 2028 isn’t too far away)
B) Make DFM as an option , and have some engines either without or with AFM (not preferred)….
The problem is, 2028 is not that long ahead and we don’t know how things will be then.
How about putting a twin turbo on the 6.2 and blow the competition away!! Game over!!😎
They did that, it’s the LT5. They shoulda bolted a SC on the LT6. If they would have done that the new ZR1 would have exceeded 1100 HP.
I like how the article started, with a picture of an engine that was last produced in 2002.
Used to be what GM’s small blocks lacked in sheer output, they made up in simplicity and long-term reliability (and not having to pull the cab off to fix them, ahem EcoBoost).
The simplicity and long-term reliability really lost its way in 2019 and THAT’S what GM needs to bring back. Unlike certain YouTube truck comparisons I don’t need to be the fastest up the hill with a trailer, I need it to go 200,000 miles with little more than oil changes.
Unfortunately, GM’s V8’s are still the engine to do that over other competitors. While GM quality has declined, it’s not totally in the toilet like recall leading Ford, or ram which is known for quality issues. Even Toyota has joined the fray with its much maligned recent generation.
Oh absolutely.
The QC on the new ones are very bad…I have seen some 2025s with chipped paint. EXTREMELY unacceptable.
Then again, so is the QC of Ford and Stellantis, Toyota with their cracking seats…engine problems …grenades…
Am surprised how these brands lost their way in making reliable trucks…
I have been saying this for years. I have the 2014 Sierra and its has the same horsepower and torque ratings. Ridiculous! No wonder why the Ram is becoming so popular again. They could easily put in the supercharged 6.2 liter and supercharged the 5.3 liter also. Problem solved.
However, since 2014, the transmissions have advanced significantly. They are 2% more efficient at power transmission, keep the converter locked longer and are always perfectly in the right gear. 0-60 times, towing and fuel economy have improved over that decade despite no power increases. This is also despite even more stringent fuel economy ratings and requirements.
I agree with you on the transmission tuning. The 10 speeds shift quicker and smoother than the 8 speeds. I love my tuned 18 Denali 6.2L but around here to tune just the transmission is over a grand! I can deal with a lazy downshift from time to time for that kind of money.
Yes, but further, the 5th Gen small block debuted with the 6, which runs with 3 open clutches instead of 2, and doesn’t behave like how a close ratio manual would to keep you always in the powerband. Looking at Fuelly, the overall fuel economy is also improving with the exception of the COVID years of limiting options and features. Also, the K2XX saw many trucks with the 3.23 or even the 3.08 rear axle. Today’s trucks acheived the same or better economy with the 3.42 as standard with almost all configurations rated at a minimum 9000lbs towing. I am curious what numbers GM could achieve on paper with either the 2.7 or 5.3 and a 10speed backed up with the 3.08, or towing with a 2wd single cab 10 speed + 6.2. options few would actually buy, but would be fun on paper
I believe the engine shown in the first picture is a pre 87 engine. 2 pc. rear main seal vs. 1 pc. and 4 perimeter valve cover bolts as opposed to 4 center mount bolts. Great Engines. Simple and quite adequate to make up to about 500hp. Of course with the right pcs. and work.
The first engine picture is the “old” small block. In other words pre-LS. You can tell by many ways but the location of the exhaust ports is the easiest spotting feature.
Sorry premium in a truck is a no go for me, so hopefully these new engines will run fine on regular gas and not require premium to reach full horsepower.
There is no issues with turbos. They are extremely reliable. What is not reliable is GM non turbo engines, as per the most recent recall to replace those non turbo engines.
Author is drinking the Kool-Aid. Can’t convince me that turbocharged/supercharged engines that need to regularly spin at higher RPM’s are more reliable (or cost less to maintain) than naturally aspirated engines.
3..2…1 engine already recalled.
Some years of 6.2 might be bad, but overall I would say it’s the best in class for durability. Not that it’s good, it’s just not quite as bad…
Check the tow capacities, then STFU.
Absolutely!!! For Ford’s “best in class” towing capacity, you have to get a single cab, 2wd, low options, and have to reduce the towing capacity 2% for every 1000 ft altitude. GM has theirs in a 4wd crew cab with decent options and has no restrictions on altitude. Probably helps that the V8 produces less heat as their is no turbo air cooler or turbos requiring cooling for their bearings.
When buying a truck that is intended to last a long time IMHO, the thing GM needs more than more HP, is reliability. Drinking oil (6.6), imploding 6.2’s, AFM/DFM woahs. Stuttering transmissions.
All of that is why GM trucks are no longer something I look at with any desire. Ford has similar troubles, though the 3.5 has proven to be a bit longer lived than the Nano junk and the 5.0 v8 is no longer eating cams and spitting spark plugs like the tritons before them. Ram still has the Hemi Tick and it is too early to tell if the Hurricane will be OK long term, though I have a feeling things will start to surface before too long.
RAM comes with a ZF 8HP transmission made in Germany. One of the best if not the best transmission out there. Hemi tick change oil frequently and avoid idling and you will probably be OK. Many Hemis last 300 k miles.
Why are manufacturers chasing HP/Torque over durability and longevity. I own a 72 Cheyenne 3/4 ton with a Mark V big block (stock), T400 and 3.73 gears. It will tow just about anything out there and still gets “good” fuel economy. Here we are 50+ years later, with all the fancy tech and cost associated with tech and the newer trucks can’t do much, if at all, better. Hmmmmm! And best, my truck has way less “gadgets” to go wrong.
Hi GJohn. I ordered a new 1974 and a new 1977 Chevy dually pickups with the 454 engines and 400 turbo transmissions in front of 3.73 gears. Both trucks would get 8 mpg in town and 8 mpg on the highway towing a travel trailer. The transmission gave up at 26k miles on the ’74, but I never had any issues with the ’77. I really wouldn’t say that 8 mpg was “good fuel economy”, especially compared to my 2019 Denali HD with the 6.6 Duramax diesel that gets 15-16 mpg around town and 21 mpg on the highway without the trailer. This truck will do 14.9 to 15.1 pulling my enclosed car trailer with a 4,000 lb. car inside, and has power to spare.
I believe what’s killing these enemies is the governor set on these motor. Because the semi trucks done the same. Until they open up the trucks and started getting better fuel mileage and performance and less brake down.
They’re still essentially bolting stuff onto a 70 year old engine. “If it ain’t broke…” It is broke, ok.
The question is does the author know anything about engines at all? You want to talk about apples to oranges youre compareing an NA motor to turbo engines running 20+ lbs if boost. A 2000 5.3 v8 running 20lbs of boost pushes 800+ horsepower and thats a motor with 300hp facrory. You get efficiency by running a low hp motor and having a variable boost turbo. If chevrolet did that with the 6.2 you would get an NA motor that only pushed 300 hp but under boost would push 1000hp. Its not the same. With boost comes more maintenance higher repair cost and higher operating temps. He acts like chevy is behind but they are running a motor that doesnt need boost to get power. But its not like chevy doesnt know how to do it. I drive at 2025 silverado with the 3.0 duramax and it has 500ftlbs of torque right off idle highest in class for 3 liter diesels. Get somebody that understands engines to do these articles
There is no need. I have a Silverado EV and it’s absolutely amazing. It’s time to put the focus on improving the EV trucks and start evolving away from ICE engines.
GM won’t do anything other than tell lies and continue to build the absolute worst V-8 engines that have ever been put into production!! As a mechanic for over 20 years, the LS platform was fantastic when first put into the half ton trucks… since then it’s become trash, I’ve seen more engines failed before 100,000 in the last 5 years than I did the previous 15… GM still making the same junk!! I just did lifters on a 5.3 and because GM had laughable quality control and doesn’t care, 1200 I had a new lifter go out again…. They paid for the replacement of the single pos lifter and none of my time…. honestly GM v-8 are so garbage it’s probably best to just tell them to junk it and buy something else that doesn’t have planned failures. GM should have been pushed in and let die instead of getting bailed out years ago… they’ve built total garbage since.
unfortunately this is so true . GM does not build truck engines that customers need . Now they (G M) is spending millions on new engines that we all know will be subpar quality stacked with useless EPA unrealistic demands . G M will marry the new subpar engines to an equally useless !0 speed transmission . I have a 2500 HD 2024 , with 5000miles . I decided to rebuild my Alison 1000 trash with NEXT GENERATION parts . before my trans pucks . Dam the useless warranty that GM issues with only cosmetic patches .
A turbo engine will never live as long as a naturally aspirated one. I would take a chance on a turbo engine as long as it doesn’t take 2 Days of Labor to replace the turbos.