Will GM’s New 2.7-Liter Turbo Gas Engine Pull Stronger Than Its 2.8-Liter Duramax Diesel?

[michigan2500hd]

1 minute ago, Doug_Scott said:

Just how many of the yet to be released 2.7 4cyl trucks have you had "line up and think their cool

Aren't you talking about the 2.7 egoboost? ( Obviously the GM 2.7 4 cylinder isn't out yet. My cousin has the 2.7 Ford and it's not much at all. 

[Doug_Scott]

6 minutes ago, michigan2500hd said:

The 6.2 is good for mid 5 second 0-60 mph runs stock. Not arguing, just thought you may have had a typo there.
I've actually run as low as 5.1 seconds and that's with 33" tires. ( And a tune)

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

You may want to see what others publically claim for Chev pickups.  Found this listing online https://www.zeroto60times.com/body-style/pickup-truck/fast-slow-0-60/

You can take a look at both gmc and Chevrolet trucks, not one even close to a 5 second run, even on short stock tires.  You are saying a 6.2 will run in the 5's stock.  You may want to try a different method to time your truck, it seems pretty optimistic to me. 

[garagerog]

1 hour ago, hizzo3 said:

Please, someone get the I4, tune it and to an axle pull with a V8 so we can put this to rest.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Doubt that the 1500 axle would hold up to this, but lower weight tractor sled pulls might be interesting, rapid, multiple pulls with no cool off period in-between, last man, err, engine standing.

[michigan2500hd]

1 hour ago, Doug_Scott said:

You may want to see what others publically claim for Chev pickups.  Found this listing online https://www.zeroto60times.com/body-style/pickup-truck/fast-slow-0-60/

You can take a look at both gmc and Chevrolet trucks, not one even close to a 5 second run, even on short stock tires.  You are saying a 6.2 will run in the 5's stock.  You may want to try a different method to time your truck, it seems pretty optimistic to me. 

TFL always ( or at least what I've seen) does their testing way above sea level. No idea why they do this because most of us don't live in the mountains. Forced induction doesn't have a problem breathing at that level and the TFL guys do make sure that they mention that. 

When Ford ( or any manufacturer) did the tests that the Ecoboost had the 2.7 Ecoboost coming out on top they sure didn't go up against a 6.2 with a 3.42 gear. 

I didn't mean to come across as pissy when I argued against your statement, hope you didn't take it that way. 

Another issue I have with the tests you may be referring to is that is rare to see them use someone who can drive well. As for my times they've been with my cousins meter, not sure what it is. Also several stop watch runs, etc so I'm not claiming them to be gospel but they're close. Timed his truck the same way. 

[Doug_Scott]

1 hour ago, michigan2500hd said:

TFL always ( or at least what I've seen) does their testing way above sea level. No idea why they do this because most of us don't live in the mountains. Forced induction doesn't have a problem breathing at that level and the TFL guys do make sure that they mention that. 

When Ford ( or any manufacturer) did the tests that the Ecoboost had the 2.7 Ecoboost coming out on top they sure didn't go up against a 6.2 with a 3.42 gear. 

I didn't mean to come across as pissy when I argued against your statement, hope you didn't take it that way. 

Another issue I have with the tests you may be referring to is that is rare to see them use someone who can drive well. As for my times they've been with my cousins meter, not sure what it is. Also several stop watch runs, etc so I'm not claiming them to be gospel but they're close. Timed his truck the same way. 

Car and Driver reviews show the 2.7 EcoBoost 1/10 slower than the Silverado 6.2, with both trucks being 4x4.  They say the 4x4 are quicker simply due to traction. A tenth is easily made or lost by driver reaction and is essentially a side by side race, with the first truck to leave having a fender length lead.  Hardly a trouncing.  The 3.5 is quicker than the 2.7 in their tests. 

Forced induction simply effectively increases displacement.  With 14 pounds of boost the engine will produce torque similar to an engine with twice the displacement.  A 2.7 will be like a 5.4.  Start adding in variable cam timing and variable lift/duration and it becomes a highly modified 5.4.  It does that with 200 pounds less weight and fuel mileage of a small displacement engine on the highway. 

[Nargg]

That 2.7 torque curve makes me wonder if it's artificially limited, hanging on at just below 350 for so long...

[KARNUT]

You may want to see what others publically claim for Chev pickups.  Found this listing online https://www.zeroto60times.com/body-style/pickup-truck/fast-slow-0-60/
You can take a look at both gmc and Chevrolet trucks, not one even close to a 5 second run, even on short stock tires.  You are saying a 6.2 will run in the 5's stock.  You may want to try a different method to time your truck, it seems pretty optimistic to me. 

Car and Driver has the 18 6.2 Chevy running 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. That’s bone stock, probably 323 gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hizzo3]

That 2.7 torque curve makes me wonder if it's artificially limited, hanging on at just below 350 for so long...

Most turbo motors are. They down tune to meet emissions, give room for later models with more power, and transmission.

 

Most modern turbo motors can handle a better intercooler and a tune (that increases boost) and you will see a 10-20% increase in power. I've seen some stock motors go up 30% more, reliably on this formula.

 

From a physics standpoint (yes I know some of you think that is witchcraft), increasing boost is equivalent to increasing the displacement of an NA motor.

 

I just wish the 2019's weren't so ugly. I wonder if the engine swaps. Bye bye 5.3, hello tuned 2.7

 

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Dixon700]

On 6/5/2018 at 3:48 PM, Daly said:

I'm not talking about diesel's, but nice try. I'll gladly take the 3.0 duramax in the 1500. But in gas form, IMO, it's a V8. 

You made a broad statement and I made a broad rebuttal.  Smaller cube forced induction engines are coming a long way and run quite well. The 1.4l in my '17 Trax makes about as much power as 70-80's 350ci (5.7l). It has 140hp 140tq and it's a bit of a dinosaur as far as technology. Early 90's is about the last of n/a diesels also. Diesels run very poorly without forced induction. Look at the 350ci diesel Chevy had in the 70's. 

[Doug_Scott]

4 hours ago, Dixon700 said:

You made a broad statement and I made a broad rebuttal.  Smaller cube forced induction engines are coming a long way and run quite well. The 1.4l in my '17 Trax makes about as much power as 70-80's 350ci (5.7l). It has 140hp 140tq and it's a bit of a dinosaur as far as technology. Early 90's is about the last of n/a diesels also. Diesels run very poorly without forced induction. Look at the 350ci diesel Chevy had in the 70's. 

That diesel was more of an attempt to convert an olds 350 to run on diesel.  It never should have made it out in the news let alone in production.  It was GM's new Coke. 

Engine technology has advanced more in the last 25 years than it did in the 100 years before that. 

[KARNUT]

We (my family) we’re frequent GM buyers till the early GM attempts with the diesel. We had 4 of those 350 diesels. In a very short time they all were converted to gas engines. I didn’t buy a new GM again till the impala ss. So needless to say when GM comes out with something new I have a wait and see approach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cowpie]

I would consider something like the 2.7 inline 4, because it is an inline.  Far less complicated to turbocharge inlines than V motors.  I have never been a fan of turbo V motors irregardless of what fuel they use.  Just me.  And inlines of similar displacement as V motors have traditionally offered better overall torque curves.  Maybe GM finally got one right.  Would seem the best place for this would be in the Colorado/Canyon platform.  A 5 or 6 turbo inline of 4L would be a good choice for the full size.

[Doug_Scott]

10 hours ago, Cowpie said:

I would consider something like the 2.7 inline 4, because it is an inline.  Far less complicated to turbocharge inlines than V motors.  I have never been a fan of turbo V motors irregardless of what fuel they use.  Just me.  And inlines of similar displacement as V motors have traditionally offered better overall torque curves.  Maybe GM finally got one right.  Would seem the best place for this would be in the Colorado/Canyon platform.  A 5 or 6 turbo inline of 4L would be a good choice for the full size.

You need to keep in mind that at 14-15 pounds boost you are essentially going to get torque numbers of an engine that's double in size displacement wise. You will also consume the fuel as though the engine is double the size. A 4l engine would end up consuming fuel like an 8 litre engine when under max boost. The hit on CAFE numbers would make it not worthwhile. 

[Cowpie]

2 hours ago, Doug_Scott said:

You need to keep in mind that at 14-15 pounds boost you are essentially going to get torque numbers of an engine that's double in size displacement wise. You will also consume the fuel as though the engine is double the size. A 4l engine would end up consuming fuel like an 8 litre engine when under max boost. The hit on CAFE numbers would make it not worthwhile. 

That is possible, but not always the case.  It depends on the efficiency of the design.   Also variances in atmospheric conditions can be negated with turbo or supercharging.  Also, if one has the power at lower RPM to get the job done, while there may be more fuel being used per combustion cycle, the significantly fewer combustion cycles at lower RPM may actually end up with a lower overall fuel consumption.  It is not quite as simple as you suggest.

 

And design comes into play.  I refer to heavy diesel engines of the last 30 years, all of them turbocharged, and all of them ECM controlled.  Fuel economy has been almost doubled, while at the same time base power numbers have also been increased.    it is not uncommon for a heavy diesel motor today to be laying down 1800 lb of torque and 500 hp and getting 8-9 mpg.   The typical heavy diesel of 30 years ago was laying down 1500-1600 lb of torque, 350-400 hp, and getting 4-5 mpg.  Same fuel, same air, so what is different?  The design.

[Hazmat401]

Honestly.... this should be a very good motor. 

 

Lets be real... this engine is perfect for "those" who want a pick up truck more than they need one... especally when a mid or full size sedan or a mid sized pick up would better suit your purposes

 

Also and this should go without saying for any turbocharged engine.... you are going to have to run 91-93 gas to achieve maximum hp/tq along with maximum reliability

 

I'll gladly call myself a hypocrite because I rather have a 6.2L