Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
People want Diesel for low and flat torque curve, but this turbo gas engine makes it look like a moot point. Put that thing in a new Equinox Sport.
Correctly sizing the turbos, variable vanes, and variable valve timing have made turbo lag pretty much disappear. There is still some F1 tech waiting to make its way down - attach an electric motor to the turbo, controlled by the ECU. Kinda makes me wish I could get one.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted
On 2018-05-22 at 1:02 PM, newdude said:

The big difference is the HP.  That 2.7 Turbo gas makes near double the HP of the 2.8 Duramax.  The 2.8 is a sweetheart of a powerplant, but as you break 3000rpm, she starts to steam off due to the torque loss.  The 2.7 Turbo peaks its HP near double the RPM, and has near twice the HP.  To me that alone shows its faster, and would probably be faster at yanking a similarly weighted trailer around.  The 2.8 Duramax though would probably eat it in mileage with and possibly without a trailer.  I've never ran less than 24mpg per fill up, and that includes winter time idling.  I'm on 28.5mpg on my current tank, 150 miles into the tank. 

 

To me, the Silverado's secret weapon might be that 3.0 Inline Duramax, providing they give it some strong tow rating numbers.  The 2.7 is a potent and technologically sophisticated base engine, that packs quite a punch, but will it pack that with potential customers?    

I think the new 2.7 will be a success like Ford’s Ecoboosts, particularly the 2.7 EB.

Can’t wait to see the 3.0 Dmax numbers.

 

 

Posted

I do not understand the interest in this tiny motor. Wish they’d bring the good ole 350 back, make the 327 the base motor and ditch all these tiny motors. Full-size trucks just don’t make sense with out a V8. Strange times we live in these days. There ain’t no replacement for displacement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted

All these, one, tiny motors?!?! That also eclipse the small block chevy in power and economy. While I will have a V8 every time I buy a full-size, I'm good with the 4 banger. What ever they GM needs to do to meet the EPA's stupid requirements for a full-size.

  • Like 1
Posted
All these, one, tiny motors?!?! That also eclipse the small block chevy in power and economy. While I will have a V8 every time I buy a full-size, I'm good with the 4 banger. What ever they GM needs to do to meet the EPA's stupid requirements for a full-size.

I was lumping ford in there with there ego boost 2.7 and 3.5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted
15 hours ago, Imcrazy said:


I was lumping ford in there with there ego boost 2.7 and 3.5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 2.7 EB will humiliate and small block and any LT.  The 3.5 EB crushes the LT 6.2.  The new GM GTDI 2.7 will sell like crazy, and should have an excellent tow rating.  It will also outshine any V8, especially when it comes to passing a gas station.

  • Sad 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, WilliamBos said:

The 2.7 EB will humiliate and small block and any LT.  The 3.5 EB crushes the LT 6.2.  The new GM GTDI 2.7 will sell like crazy, and should have an excellent tow rating.  It will also outshine any V8, especially when it comes to passing a gas station.

LOL to all, except what's highlighted... The 3.5 competes with the 6.2, hardly "crushes it". And I'm willing to bet the 2.7 4Cyl GM is going to suffer the same major drawback as the Ford Ecoboosts, great fuel economy, until you put something behind it and ask it to do work. Then the fuel economy tanks and it'll hit the gas station faster than a 8.1 Vortec.

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Daly said:

LOL to all, except what's highlighted... The 3.5 competes with the 6.2, hardly "crushes it". And I'm willing to bet the 2.7 4Cyl GM is going to suffer the same major drawback as the Ford Ecoboosts, great fuel economy, until you put something behind it and ask it to do work. Then the fuel economy tanks and it'll hit the gas station faster than a 8.1 Vortec.

The V8 engines also suffer from horrible mpg when towing the max, so no difference.

 

The difference is the GTDI 2.7 will get superior empty mpg.  Thats what most light duty trucks do - drive around empty.  

 

66% of all F150 sales are Ecoboosts - says a lot for their engine program.

The GTDI engines are here to stsy.  I wish GM all the best, hopefully they have an I-6 GTDI to go along side with the I-4 in the 1500.

Edited by WilliamBos
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Daly said:

LOL to all, except what's highlighted... The 3.5 competes with the 6.2, hardly "crushes it". And I'm willing to bet the 2.7 4Cyl GM is going to suffer the same major drawback as the Ford Ecoboosts, great fuel economy, until you put something behind it and ask it to do work. Then the fuel economy tanks and it'll hit the gas station faster than a 8.1 Vortec.

The V8 engines also suffer from horrible mpg when towing the max, so no difference.

 

The difference is the GTDI 2.7 will get superior empty mpg.  Thats what most light duty trucks do - drive around empty.  

Posted

So, we still know next to nothing on the new 3.0 Dmax straight 6? Is this the engine that is supposed to go into the 2500? What transmissions will be offered, all like 8 and 10 speed automatics? No manual  trucks in some of the upper trim levels, maybe? With fuel prices starting to go up, some better economy would be nice to maybe look forward to...

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, WilliamBos said:

The V8 engines also suffer from horrible mpg when towing the max, so no difference.

 

The difference is the GTDI 2.7 will get superior empty mpg.  Thats what most light duty trucks do - drive around empty.  

My 5.3 High Country gets 21-22MPG, empty, during day to day driving. Towing my Duster it gets 16-18MPG, that's not much of a hit, considering thats close to 6500lbs behind the truck. Compare that to my buddy that has a 2016 3.5EB F150 Sport Super Crew that gets similar empty MPG, he's says he gets anywhere from 20-24mpg day to day driving, but when towing his lighter Fox body to the same track at the same speed (we go together), he has only ever been able to manage  11-13MPG tops. Our other body with a 2011 Ram Sport does even better in a way. He gets about 15-17MPG towing his Valiant, and has told use he gets 19-20MPG day to day. Less MPG, but also less of a drop. The EB and all turbo engines suffer from the same problem, when the turbo spools up and forces more air in, it needs more fuel to maintain a good air/fuel ratio. The more you use the turbo, the more fuel you use. Ford can spout off all the MPG claims they want, but real life use is showing other wise. 

 

And Ford sells 66% EB, because they push the EB more. If you read/watch the reviews, the hidden gem is almost always the 5.0 V8.

Edited by Daly
  • Thanks 1
Posted

The 3.0 Diesel will likely be 200-220hp and 350-400ftlbs. It's going to be inline with the Ford and Dodge 3.0 diesels and if GM continues their trend, it'll likely be lower than the competitors numbers.

Posted

Looking at the tech integrated into this motor, I'm actually quite impressed. I don't think there will be any major durability issues- a well-designed turbo 4 can be very strong. 

Posted

Cite all the data you want, there is no replacement for displacement... Turbo charged v6's in trucks don't seem like a good recipe for long term durability...

Posted
5 hours ago, Daly said:

My 5.3 High Country gets 21-22MPG, empty, during day to day driving. Towing my Duster it gets 16-18MPG, that's not much of a hit, considering thats close to 6500lbs behind the truck. Compare that to my buddy that has a 2016 3.5EB F150 Sport Super Crew that gets similar empty MPG, he's says he gets anywhere from 20-24mpg day to day driving, but when towing his lighter Fox body to the same track at the same speed (we go together), he has only ever been able to manage  11-13MPG tops. Our other body with a 2011 Ram Sport does even better in a way. He gets about 15-17MPG towing his Valiant, and has told use he gets 19-20MPG day to day. Less MPG, but also less of a drop. The EB and all turbo engines suffer from the same problem, when the turbo spools up and forces more air in, it needs more fuel to maintain a good air/fuel ratio. The more you use the turbo, the more fuel you use. Ford can spout off all the MPG claims they want, but real life use is showing other wise. 

 

And Ford sells 66% EB, because they push the EB more. If you read/watch the reviews, the hidden gem is almost always the 5.0 V8.

The 5.0 is where it's at...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • 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.
    • 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. 
    • 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.  
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...