Jump to content
  • Sign up for FREE! Become a GM-Trucks.com Member Today!

    In 20 seconds you can become part of the worlds largest and oldest community discussing General Motors, Chevrolet and GMC branded pickups, crossovers, and SUVs. From buying research to owner support, join 1.5 MILLION GM Truck Enthusiasts every month who use GM-Trucks.com as a daily part of their ownership experience. 

Gorehamj

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

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.