Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
41 minutes ago, Doug_Scott said:

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? 

It’s 11/1 compression.  And spark knock is controlled by computer.  It’s the modern age of engines.  

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted
2 hours ago, Nargg said:

It’s 11/1 compression.  And spark knock is controlled by computer.  It’s the modern age of engines.  

A diesel engine with the same compression ratio as the 5.3 and a full point less than the 6.2 engine?  Diesels have rarely strayed below 15:1 and typically can run as high as 24:1.  Diesels ignite fuel by heat of compression, and at even 11:1 it must be difficult to get it to auto-ignite, or have they put spark plugs in the new diesel?  

Posted
3 hours ago, Doug_Scott said:

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? 

That isn't a diesel. The 2.0 diesel in my 2014 Cruze is 16.3:1  I would think anything less it wouldn't run properly since they run off of compression and do not have spark plugs.

Posted

Turbocharged gasoline engines require premium fuel as well. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

That isn't a diesel. The 2.0 diesel in my 2014 Cruze is 16.3:1  I would think anything less it wouldn't run properly since they run off of compression and do not have spark plugs.

I don't know how I read that as being diesel.  But for some reason it read diesel to me right up until the compression ratio.  Even the description of the power range sounded diesel like. 

Posted

I stand corrected, thank you. I am impressed. 

Posted
On 5/18/2018 at 3:51 PM, AgDoctor said:

This is sad. I would expect garbage like this from Ram or Toyota, but not the General. Why would a sane person pony up extra money for an over complicated 4 cyl when they could buy a 5.3 that's more reliable and cheaper to build. Makes no sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the interviews they are speaking of the tests they put the 4 banger through to keep it up to par with the 5.3 also the MPG will be great and the mods will be plentiful.

Posted

Honestly I'm a v8 guy my self but turbos do wonders I mean the 2.0 in the Camaros and Ats are crazy when it comes to modding with a tune intake and exhaust 300hp is easy. So imagine this engine being tuned it would be great we could possibly see numbers in the 360's for hp and easily get into the low to mid 400's for torgue and it would still be good on gas never mind the weight diff between a 6.2 and this new engine it would be close on a race but the 4 banger might be quite faster after tuning. I mean look at ford even though they are a rival look at the ecoboost although I hate the engine it has major capabilities because of its turbos. So dont hate on the little guy atleast not yet see how much can be done for tuning. but the size of the turbo from the pictures seems promising to me.

Posted
3 hours ago, 6FOOT6Chevy said:

Honestly I'm a v8 guy my self but turbos do wonders I mean the 2.0 in the Camaros and Ats are crazy when it comes to modding with a tune intake and exhaust 300hp is easy. So imagine this engine being tuned it would be great we could possibly see numbers in the 360's for hp and easily get into the low to mid 400's for torgue and it would still be good on gas never mind the weight diff between a 6.2 and this new engine it would be close on a race but the 4 banger might be quite faster after tuning. I mean look at ford even though they are a rival look at the ecoboost although I hate the engine it has major capabilities because of its turbos. So dont hate on the little guy atleast not yet see how much can be done for tuning. but the size of the turbo from the pictures seems promising to me.

Assuming I read the blurb correctly, a base engine that can generate peak power/torque Fromm 1500 to 4800 should be perfect for the weekend warrior pulling his weekend toys in a relatively light trailer, then come Monday have that same vehicle run 0 to 60 in under 7 seconds and return car like mileage for his commutes to work seems almost too good to be true. 

 

I realize Ford started this trend of small engine plus turbo, but GM appears to have waited to see if it would hold up before tossing their hat in.  This engine really sounds like GM sat their engineers down and asked them to submit their suggestions for an engine that could produce a high, flat torque curve, be small displacement for mileage, be lightweight, while also being tough. 

 

The idea of being able to alter cam lift independent of altering duration is an idea that has been around a long time, but no one cared to invest the money to R&D it. Making the engine oversquare kills horsepower numbers simply by reducing peak rpm.  Piston speed ends up being to high to keep bottom end together at high rpm's.  The electric water pump idea to prevent the heater core from cooling off in the winter at long lights or heavy stop and go traffic was some serious forethought.  Not sure about the a/c compressor not running when engine is stopped though. 

 

We will have to wait and see how this engine turns out, but one bonus is that they did not reuse an existing design and simply modify it the best they could.  This engine simply put, sounds to good to be true. 

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

I have the 1.5 liter turbo charged 4 cylinder in my equinox with auto-stop. When the ac is running it will not auto-stop at a stop light.

Just got back from a trip where there was no interstate driving and was able to get 36.1 mpg. Very impressed with the engine.

 Can't wait till the new trucks come out. 

Posted

If it runs like the 15 Cruze I rented a couple years ago that would be cool. That Cruze seemed to have way more power than the rated 136hp. 

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Ahmmm.....No.  No to 4 cylinders and no to a V8 running on 1 cylinder. Hell to the no on start stop.

 

 

Archived

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Because that is IDIOTIC, much like this question. They've already been forced to do it by past administrations - why would you roll that back when it's a GOOD thing?  WHO IS ARGUING FOR LOWER MILEAGE???? 😂  NOBODY IS!!   I'm certainly not! What I want is RELIABLE vehicles again that are worth the price paid!    I don't get your logic here ...   In 2003 I paid $2,200 for our '86 Grand Marquis. It's STILL running and I've never been inside the engine, aside for the timing cover since it was leaking, so I threw a new timing set in since that makes sense. Transmission is ORIGINAL. Electric pump in the gas tank is ORIGINAL. Rear end is ORIGINAL. I'd have to hit my head REAL hard to want to pay $60k or more for a car that still can't come close to the comfort, seating and storage space, or reliability of this one. Nothing is even in the ball park! Hundreds of thousands of brands and models have been built and sent to the crusher while this one keeps on going!   https://postimg.cc/Z9XRrCSg   I've got a whole fleet of cars, motorcycles, and a truck close to this age for summer and winter. No one could pay me enough to buy anything built this century. I have zero use for any it.
    • Since I'm the one who has to fix them when they break, I'll take vehicles over 30 years old all day, EVERY day, over ANY modern crap. Have you attempted any repairs on anything built after 2006? It's a friggin nightmare, and gets worse the newer the model year.    If I had the will or desire, I can make any car of any age outside of a Model T (I don't have THAT much will ...) just as powerful, comfortable, and have all the tech the new stuff does, and get pretty close in mileage, too. I prefer SIMPLICITY. The less the vehicle has, the less to fix WHEN it breaks, not IF.   I'm glad you snot-nosed punks don't like them. More for us, plus that keeps the prices from climbing more than they already have.👍
    • Bringing this thread back on topic. I just noticed the incredible lack of bright chrome across the entire new lineup. Even the Denali has tinted the brightwork in the grille and has none elsewhere. None of them have chrome bumpers. As far as I can tell there aren't even chrome mirror caps. I'm curious if this also happens out back? Are there no chrome rear bumpers either? This is quite the departure for GMC.
    • Bringing this thread back on topic. I just noticed the incredible lack of bright chrome across the entire new lineup. Even the Denali has tinted the brightwork in the grille and has none elsewhere. None of them have chrome bumpers. As far as I can tell there aren't even chrome mirror caps. I'm curious if this also happens out back? Are there no chrome rear bumpers either? This is quite the departure for GMC.
    • Bringing this thread back on topic. I just noticed the incredible lack of bright chrome across the entire new lineup. Even the Denali has tinted the brightwork in the grille and has none elsewhere. None of them have chrome bumpers. As far as I can tell there aren't even chrome mirror caps. I'm curious if this also happens out back? Are there no chrome rear bumpers either? This is quite the departure for GMC.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...