Jump to content

Where are the 2.7L engines


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Nanotech Environmental said:

Chatted with the sales guy at the dealer where I bought my '17. I want to test one of them as well, due to the amount of highway miles I drive. He said as soon as he gets one, I'm to come in and try it out.

 

23 MPG'S enough for ya?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us know when you get the chance, I have a strange feeling that the NA V6 and maybe even the 5.3L V8 will outshine the 4banger on the highway. Especially you lucky Americans with the high speed limits and interstates. It takes a good amount of power and torque to keep these trucks lugging down the highway at 1,500rpm at 70mph. I can see the turbo4 shining in the city and low speed highway driving. The Duramax may be the economy option, however the initial cost and DEF fluid + guaranteed aftertreatment problems may knock it out of the running.

 

The old 1990's 5.0L 305's got worse mileage than the 5.7L 350 because the engine had to work harder to do the same work, mind you this was on the old 4 speed transmissions where the range between each gear was longer. I believe there is sweet spot in between power output and mileage, so many factors come into play, gearing, drag, weight, tire size, HP/TQ. Obviously you can't get good mileage in a truck with a 1.7L NA 4cyl, nor with a 7.0L DOHC V8, but somewhere in the middle is the sweet spot. It will be interesting to see the results, even though they will vary depending on specs and test location. Where a V8 might loaf at 1,500rpm, this TT4cyl may want to run at 2,000rpm and 3lbs of boost? Remember when Ford introduced the 3.5L ecoboost saying it is the most efficient engine out there, yet the 2.7L has a hard time beating the 5.3L economy, real world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, L86 All Terrain said:

It takes a good amount of power and torque to keep these trucks lugging down the highway at 1,500rpm at 70mph. 

Not that I'm a fan of this engine it does produce it's peak 348lb/ft at 1500 RPM through 4000 RPM. It should cruise reasonably effortless minus some top end passing power. It's highway rating of 23mpg seems pretty low to me but as you say around town could become a favorite with municipal or other needs to run around the city but I was expecting this thing to turn fuel economy in trucks upside down. I guess we'll see the real results over the next year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give em 2 years to improve things.  Hopefully by then they will have hired some high quality best in industry engineers and designers, because what they have right now obviously are sub par. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Colossus said:

I'll give em 2 years to improve things.  Hopefully by then they will have hired some high quality best in industry engineers and designers, because what they have right now obviously are sub par. 

I don't get why they didn't incorporate the 2.7 with the new 10-speed. Just having the 10-speed across the line would be a major boost to this fairly dull rollout. The only real highlite to me is the Trailboss.

 

They seem to be riding the fence between Toyota and the other Big 2, more change than Toyota but much less than the Ford and Dodge. This is probably good for profit and future health but not so great in generating excitement for current owners and potential new buyers. Maybe a building a more truck-like truck will be a great move in the future but they'll have to overcome the new wave of buyers that want feature over function. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, magnum74 said:

I don't get why they didn't incorporate the 2.7 with the new 10-speed. Just having the 10-speed across the line would be a major boost to this fairly dull rollout. The only real highlite to me is the Trailboss.

 

They seem to be riding the fence between Toyota and the other Big 2, more change than Toyota but much less than the Ford and Dodge. This is probably good for profit and future health but not so great in generating excitement for current owners and potential new buyers. Maybe a building a more truck-like truck will be a great move in the future but they'll have to overcome the new wave of buyers that want feature over function. 

Trailboss is cool. Then you see 5.3 and 3.23 gears only.  How exciting.  

 

I just don't understand what they're thinking.  And no more using "CAFE" as an excuse, it is not relevant to GM being unable to properly package their trucks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most economical engine for a 5500lb truck is dependant on the driving conditions. I don't think they are approaching it properly by reducing cylinders and added boost, but I am not an engineer just someone who spends a lot of time in vehicles. Why not just reduce displacement and add boost if you are looking for the turbo to do all the low end work anyway? If you can achieve 90% peak torque at 1,500rpm via today's turbocharger technology, then why not make a small FI V8? How about a 3.8L - 4L Cam in Block (OHV) with a small turbo? To spool a turbo you need exhaust gases, to get a lot of exhaust gas from a 4 or 6 cylinder it means your burning more fuel. Add two cylinders to that and you get more gases per revolution of the crank, which yes means more fuel, but probably less than a V6 burning mad gas in an attempt to make more boost (cough, ecoboost 14psi, cough). My class 8's are a good example, my big 15L 550hp Cat's burn less fuel than a 13L 500hp Cummins empty, but more when they are loaded. The bigger engine needs less fuel and boost to make it roll along empty where as the 13L with higher boost needs to work harder. But when they are loaded the 13L will get better economy with loads up to 60,000lbs, beyond that weight class and the bigger engine becomes more efficient once again. I don't think this 4 cylinder will be a good choice for high speed highway driving, but will probably be a top option for town guys, businesses in the city limits, municipalities etc. I also think we will see it make its way to the top choice for the Colorado/Canyon truck line if it doesn't find its customers in the 1500's. Fuel economy is always trial and error, where a small engine will shine in one area, a larger will outshine it in another area. You have to pick the balance you need.  

 

 

Link to comment
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.