Jump to content

Say Hello To The Silverado's New 2.7L Turbo Four

Zane

Recommended Posts

Imcrazy Senior Enthusiast

Imcrazy

Posted
Posted

Those little motors are cute / cool but, I’ll be sticking with a V8 in my truck, made the mistake of getting the 4.3 on my ‘14 cause it looked good on paper but, nothing can replace the smoothness of a v8 and the truck loses almost all of its macho factor once you drop below 8cyl in a gasser.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Colossus Senior Enthusiast

Colossus

Posted
Posted

not to mention the weak sound of a 6 and 4 cyl vs the true sound of an 8 cyl

Imcrazy Senior Enthusiast

Imcrazy

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Colossus said:

not to mention the weak sound of a 6 and 4 cyl vs the true sound of an 8 cyl

Yeah the 4.3 doesn't sound too bad but, still not quite right compared to a 5.3 or 6.2.... The 4 cyl in a big ole truck is going to sound pretty dang odd.... Kinda like a cat that barks lol...

WilliamBos Senior Enthusiast

WilliamBos

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, AgDoctor said:

@WilliamBos If a 6.2 does nothing for you sir, then nothing will.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

GM’s V8 engines are anemic torque managed boat anchors.  After going Hemi, I will never own a GM V8 again.  

 

A Turbocharged gasser will be my next engine, whether its the 2.7 Ecoboost and its 400 foot pounds of torque, or the GM 2.7 GTDI, it will outwork an LT V8.

Imcrazy Senior Enthusiast

Imcrazy

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, WilliamBos said:

GM’s V8 engines are anemic torque managed boat anchors.  After going Hemi, I will never own a GM V8 again.  

 

A Turbocharged gasser will be my next engine, whether its the 2.7 Ecoboost and its 400 foot pounds of torque, or the GM 2.7 GTDI, it will outwork an LT V8.

I guess we're all entitled to our opinion lol... I wouldn't say that my 5.3L EcoTec is anemic but, after driving a Hemi Ram I will say the Hemi was more responsive and felt quicker... What I couldn't get past was the the very dated design that's been out since 2009 and the very sub-par crash test scores of the 2018 Ram 1500 I was considering trading my 2016 Silverado and the dependability / over all build quality on Ram is still not on par with General Motors & Ford, Chrysler is sure trying and I think they'll finally get there now that they're Fiat but Chrysler products are still in third place when it comes to American Automobile Brands... Just look at their resale value & crash test scores and I am out based on those two things alone...

AgDoctor Senior Enthusiast

AgDoctor

Posted
Posted

The power an engine produces is called horsepower.

In mathematical terms, one horsepower is the power needed to move 550 pounds one foot in one second, or the power needed to move 33,000 pounds one foot in one minute...torque times RPM divided by 5,252 is how you calculate horsepower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WilliamBos Senior Enthusiast

WilliamBos

Posted
Posted

The Ram got a refresh in 2013, interior tweaks in 2016.  The GM interiors have gotten worse since 2007, they are absolutely horrid.  The Ram seats are far more confortable, more legroom, sit up higher, and do not have that low slung frame that GM is obsessed with.

 

 Ram uses a superior rear suspension, a superior transmission (ZF 8) and unlike GM and their obsession with waxxing frames, Ram still paints theirs, hold up far better in the salt/chemical belt. The GM frames rust hard and fast.

 

Ram truck sales have increased signifigantly each year since 2009, GM’s have not.  As for resale, thats regional, and regardless of resale, trading at a different brand dealer will get you a lower $$ than at the same brand dealer.

 

As for build quality, Ram equals GM in every way, exceeds them in others.  The Rams are still built simple, well thought out and not unnecessarily complex.

WilliamBos Senior Enthusiast

WilliamBos

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, AgDoctor said:

The power an engine produces is called horsepower.

In mathematical terms, one horsepower is the power needed to move 550 pounds one foot in one second, or the power needed to move 33,000 pounds one foot in one minute...torque times RPM divided by 5,252 is how you calculate horsepower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they produce torque, HP figures are calculated from that.  Torque is the number that counts and is what gets  the job done.  

Daly Senior Enthusiast

Daly

Posted
Posted

This, let's face it, big little 4 banger is a cool little engine. And will likely be a fun surprise. But I think it's going to suffer from the same problem the EcoBoosts have, It'll have great fuel economy until it has to go to work.

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Colossus said:

not to mention the weak sound of a 6 and 4 cyl vs the true sound of an 8 cyl

One word for ya Colossus:

 

Offenhauser :seeya:

AgDoctor Senior Enthusiast

AgDoctor

Posted
Posted
No, they produce torque, HP figures are calculated from that.  Torque is the number that counts and is what gets  the job done.  

Dude that is a copy and paste from Wikipedia. Go write a book with all your knowledge and settle down bro.


Sent via Morse code
Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, WilliamBos said:

As for build quality, Ram equals GM in every way, exceeds them in others.  The Rams are still built simple, well thought out and not unnecessarily complex.

Like you, I am pleased with my current truck and would say the same except switching GM with RAM. As for build quality, GM equals RAM in every way, exceeds them in others.  The GM's are still built simple, well thought out and not unnecessarily complex.  The fit and finish on my '15 Sierra is way better than my '09 Sierra.  The specs on my current 4.3 are very similar to those on your "04 5.3 and even a little better than my '00 Silverado 4.8 V8.  It achieves this power on about 2/3rds of the fuel!  I think GM has a great handle on its market and this 4 cyl turbo is going to be a great engine.  As suggested earlier, adding turbo's to the 4.3 would also make for a pretty impressive powerplant!

MaverickZ71 Senior Enthusiast

MaverickZ71

Posted
Posted

A 4 cylinder engine standard in a full-size GM half ton.  With a big hair dryer hung on it, no less.  

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Oh sweet baby Jesus, I can't breathe from laughing so hard over here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

:rollin:       :loser:

 

PS  No matter what the numbers say, for 35 years, most of the tests and reviews show that most small turbo engines do not deliver the promised fuel mileage in the real world.  "V8 power with V4 fuel economy!"  Yeah, right.  Ford's Eco-bust motors have already disproven that theory.  There's no such thing as a free lunch!  They sound like crap, and you have to keep your foot in it so hard that you only get 15mpg.  So what's the point, especially after 100K miles, when very expensive parts need to be replaced??  Leave it to the General to overreact to CAFE, right when the Trump administration is lowering the mandating fuel mileage requirements.  

Doug_Scott Senior Enthusiast

Doug_Scott

Posted
Posted

I am confused.  Reading that big blurb on the 4 cylinder diesel leaves me wondering how efficient can it be with a claimed high compression ratio of 10.0:1 and the use of direct injection to help control spark knock.  I always thought "spark knock" was the premise of how a diesel worked.  How are they getting a 10:1 diesel engine to fire up cold? 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...