2019 Four cylinder

[DONWT15]

https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2018/11/a-4-cylinder-pickup-chevrolet-takes-a-gamble-with-2019-silverado-1500.html

 

Here is a link to an article on the 4 cylinder turbo in a Silverado at pickuptrucks.com. Supposedly going to do a beat the hell out of it test in the near future. They attached a picture of the weight sticker as well.

 

 

 

 

 

[Black02Silverado]

This all new 4 cylinder isn't your average internal combustion engine.  It has some complicated moving parts such as how the cam works.  It will be interesting to see how well it holds up over time and the miles.  A completely new from the ground up design, this would be one engine to wait and see how well it does and not be the first to go out and get one.

[rkj__]

I'll be following the news and reviews on this little engine with interest. 

 

I'm not sure how many will actually make it to dealer lots though.  When I was shopping for my 2018, my local dealer did not have a single 4.3L V6 to test.  Even the regular cab, 8' box work truck with crank windows had the V8.  So, I simply dismissed it, and happily bought a V8.  On paper, the 4.3L (and now 2.7L) easily meet my current towing requirements, but I ended up with a V8 anyways. 

 

Dealers order what they believe will sell.  Will they have faith in the 2.7L, and order them for inventory?  In order for there to be a yes to that question, I believe GM needs to work very hard both through dealer training and public media to promote the little engine.  Ford spent millions on videos and advertising to try and convince dealers and buyers that the Ecoboost V6 was up to the task of powering the F-150.  Inviting the media for an unloaded drive around Arizona has not left anybody convinced that the 2.7L is a good engine to have.  The takeaway from the linked article is; If you don't have anything to load into the bed, if you don't have anything to tow, this could be welcome...maybe, or maybe not.

 

Let's face it, this is not an easy engine to market.  When Ford introduced the Ecoboost V6, it set out to prove that the turbo was BETTER than a V8 you could get from the competition.  Then, the 2.7L V6 was introduced with a little less fuss, because Ford had already proven the 3.5L, and the 2.7L was just a smaller version of that.  Also, around the same time they introduced the 3.5L, they dropped the big 6.2L.

 

GM is left with trying to convince you the 2.7L 4 cylinder is a great choice, without trashing the image of their 5.3L V8.  Ok, sure, it's better than the V6, but so few buyers bought those for personal use.  I really don't know how GM is going to market their engine.  I have seen very little come out of the GM marketing department lately that I consider impressive.

 

So, in conclusion, I do believe that this engine could serve many buyers well, but I'm not sure GM will be able to convince many buyers of that. 

[KARNUT]

I’ve haven’t seen any increase fuel mileage numbers with this engine over the 4.3 as of yet. For a daily driver I’ll take a na engine over boosted if power and fuel mileage are close to equal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RP53]

WHY ???

my Colorado had more punch than this thing 

 

[Mad Maxx]

 

[f8l vnm]

This engine is a failure. The 2.7 Ego And even the rammwork truck DT gets slightly better mileage. 

So you can’t say one has more or one has less power. The whole point of this small engine is 95% MPG related and imo they failed.  Also saw an article that gm says real world driving will yield better results then the EPA. Lol really ? End of day the 5.3 is a decent option upgrade with less fuss 

[rkj__]

3 minutes ago, f8l vnm said:

This engine is a failure. The 2.7 Ego And even the rammwork truck DT gets slightly better mileage. 

So you can’t say one has more or one has less power. The whole point of this small engine is 95% MPG related and imo they failed.  Also saw an article that gm says real world driving will yield better results then the EPA. Lol really ? End of day the 5.3 is a decent option upgrade with less fuss 

I'd say the two leading reasons for the small engines are MPG, but also initial purchase price.  So maybe more like 70% MPG, 30% initial cost.

[Donstar]

I am confident that the 2.7 will prove to be a good engine with ample power.  The Ecoboost 4.3 has proven to be an outstanding engine and this replacement will prove better in power and fuel economy.  The pride that goes behind owning a V8 is long standing and firmly entrenched in our North American culture.  I miss the sound and bragging rights behind owning a V8 pickup but after 3 years of Ecoboost 4.3 ownership,  I've never experienced a shortage of power.   I've been searching for an '18 V8 with the plans of buying a heavier travel trailer.  However, my top picks for a new TT are still within the towing specs of my current truck!  We will come up with some pretty elaborate and technical "beliefs" to mock this new engine but it will far exceed most of our needs.  I also like what I'm hearing about the sound this engine produces.  The sound produced by my V6 continues to be my only complaint!  

[Grumpy Bear]

27 minutes ago, Donstar said:

I am confident that the 2.7 will prove to be a good engine with ample power.  The Ecoboost 4.3 has proven to be an outstanding engine and this replacement will prove better in power and fuel economy.  The pride that goes behind owning a V8 is long standing and firmly entrenched in our North American culture.  I miss the sound and bragging rights behind owning a V8 pickup but after 3 years of Ecoboost 4.3 ownership,  I've never experienced a shortage of power.   I've been searching for an '18 V8 with the plans of buying a heavier travel trailer.  However, my top picks for a new TT are still within the towing specs of my current truck!  We will come up with some pretty elaborate and technical "beliefs" to mock this new engine but it will far exceed most of our needs.  I also like what I'm hearing about the sound this engine produces.  The sound produced by my V6 continues to be my only complaint!  

I watched Mad Maxx video (above). GM is stating 23 mpg highway? That's 1 mpg better than the 4.3 V6 in the same configuration 4WD and 1 mpg worse than the 2WD version. 2 cylinder AMF? I've owned scores of Brit 2 cylinders in every configuration imaginable and a few that were not. It will take some serious balance shaft monkey motion to keep it livable. A few horsepower at the 'peaks' is a bragging number but pretty much a useless one. A  wash on fuel in a lighter but LARGER truck isn't a help either.  This has the feel of a turbo 4 hp. Briggs & Stratton installed in a Mack dump truck. Has a one ton haul? 

 

I love my fuel efficiency and I love elegance of design. This is neither. IMHO. And yet is still may prove indeed to be a good engine.

 

Tell who this will appeal to. Those young enough to not know the difference nor understand it's direction. It will likely fly. We now have a 1500 that is as large as the K2 2500 platform with a motor fit for a Honda Accord. 

 

 

[diyer2]

The buying public. 

It will sell and the chips will fall where they may.

As mentioned the lower cost will be a big factor IMO.

 

[2017Darkness]

You guys are missing the point of this engine in the lineup....it's there for GM's CAFE numbers for the EPA. That and it's a price leader to advertise with, they don't give a shit if anyone buys one or not.

[diyer2]

Good point!!!

 

[BIGDOGx]

Leave it to GM to build and try and hype a little toy motor that gets 1 mpg more on the highway then a 6.2 liter v-8!

[Donstar]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I watched Mad Maxx video (above). GM is stating 23 mpg highway? That's 1 mpg better than the 4.3 V6 in the same configuration 4WD and 1 mpg worse than the 2WD version. 2 cylinder AMF? I've owned scores of Brit 2 cylinders in every configuration imaginable and a few that were not. It will take some serious balance shaft monkey motion to keep it livable. A few horsepower at the 'peaks' is a bragging number but pretty much a useless one. A  wash on fuel in a lighter but LARGER truck isn't a help either.  This has the feel of a turbo 4 hp. Briggs & Stratton installed in a Mack dump truck. Has a one ton haul? 

 

I love my fuel efficiency and I love elegance of design. This is neither. IMHO. And yet is still may prove indeed to be a good engine.

 

Tell who this will appeal to. Those young enough to not know the difference nor understand it's direction. It will likely fly. We now have a 1500 that is as large as the K2 2500 platform with a motor fit for a Honda Accord. 

 

 

Well stated.  I remember when my father bought a new '90 Sedan De Ville with a small V8 and front wheel drive.  I told him at the time that it was too much car for fwd and such a small displacement engine. He said the car was a joy to drive and that is what was important.   I sold this car 25 years later.  It had its share of repairs over the years but nothing to do with the drive-train.  My initial concerns were well supported at the time but proved wrong.  I believe this new truck engine will appeal to those looking for the convenience and comfort of a pickup.  They can take pride in their truck without having an optional engines.  I took my 45 year old niece shopping for a SUV recently.  She is an aggressive driver but I never heard her once ask a salesman about the size of the engine.  She based her decision on her test drives.  There are many of us who treat their vehicles as a reflection of ourselves.  I have always owned a nice pickup and I'd feel incomplete without one in the driveway!   My wife would be just as happy with a '73 Pinto wagon (and just as respected)!