2.7 Turbo 4 Fan Club

[mafd2]

Wouldn't own a 4 cyl. in a full-size truck unless no there were absolutely no more V8's available.  In my wife's Encore yes.  Full-size truck?  Hell no... No place.  Couldn't get used to the Mini Cooper bumble bee buzz sound.  Plus I'm very satisfied with my V8 mileage. 

[Daverado]

16 minutes ago, mafd2 said:

Wouldn't own a 4 cyl. in a full-size truck unless no there were absolutely no more V8's available.  In my wife's Encore yes.  Full-size truck?  Hell no... No place.  Couldn't get used to the Mini Cooper bumble bee buzz sound.  Plus I'm very satisfied with my V8 mileage. 

 

Wrong thread.  Read the title.

 

-Daver

 

[mafd2]

Well then... Not a fan

[heymrdjCW]

Wouldn't own a 4 cyl. in a full-size truck unless no there were absolutely no more V8's available.  In my wife's Encore yes.  Full-size truck?  Hell no... No place.  Couldn't get used to the Mini Cooper bumble bee buzz sound.  Plus I'm very satisfied with my V8 mileage. 

What’s the 400 mile average? A highway stint doesn’t matter, that’s why these trucks have a V4 mode. What’s the 100% city 25 mileage look like?

[Thomcat]

I'm a fan of 4 cylinders, just not this one.

 

I have nothing against 4s, owned my cars with them. Even the itsy bitsy 1.5T and 2.0T in my Malibus;  basically a two scroll single turbo thrown on an aspirated designed engine with electronically controlled wastegate. They are adequate for the task, the 2.0T more so but dumped it when premium exceeded .50 more per gallon (without running on premium is like taking the crack pipe away from the hamster running in the wheel.

 

Actually has to go out of State to find a Silv with a 2.7T to test ride and spend hours with clueless salesmen who didn't have a clue about what they were selling beyond the cheaper MSRP and fantastic mileage saving claims. Test ride and looking under the hood convinced me that this was everything I thought it would be: convinced me the V8 was worth the extra bucks, and dealer's in a rural truck loving State don't carry them for a reason. Before I make a decision both my a$$ and my brain have to be in agreement.....my a$$ loved the sound and feel of the accelerator but my brain disagreed telling my a$$ that the vehicle was designed more with him in mind. But, the screams coming from the salesman on the test ride when I took a really sharp, fast looey and the front end with the $hitty stock tires and less weight of the lightweight 4 over the drive axle and the front end broke loose. Brain said go for $1400 the heavier V8 and the $3K for 22s with lower profile and better tires.

 

Brain says that there is nothing wrong with a 4 cyl in the proper environment and an 5.0l design with a turbo similar to the 1.5/2.0T babies might have both the power and durability and LONGEVITY required of a truck engine. Also that this 2.7T using new not time proven technology was reminiscent of previous GM abortion sticking a new 4cyl design where it doesn't belong. I cursed the days I had to work on my girlfriend's '62 Tempest with 194-1/2 slant 4 (basically a GHM 389 with the right cylinder bank chopped off......no counter balanced cranks in those days, one spark miss and it was a bucking bronco. Same genius came up with the Vegas's aluminum 4 with sleeveless liners to reduce weight; cancer on the cylinder walls burned 2 qts/ 500 miles. Let's forget the genius behind the V4/6/8 nightmare and forward to the 2.7T.

 

If the 2.7T was essentially a bored and stroked on a larger block 1.5T or 2.0T might be OK, although still underpowered and undersized for the Silverado. But, no once again GM assumes the role of Merlin the Magician conjuring up old solutions to a new problem. The engines new fantastic innovative SLC sliding cam lift system brings back sad memories of a similar effort the V4/6/8 kludges on the valve train, roller bearings on a timing chain, an electric pump redirecting coolant to different areas of an aluminum engine brings to mind future upper end, head gasket failures and timing chain failures. No problem, tout over 1 million test miles on the engine, but perhaps not on a single engine. What makes you think that design a wiring harness that is too short for the engine can design the engine for durability and longevity. Owners should enjoy it now because they might just be stuck with it.

 

Unfortunately, Techlink site is down and .pdf too large to post, but include a few screen shots showing what appears the ingenious modifications to increase hp and torque for the hamster..........might well be a recipe for future problems.

 

 

[Thomcat]

Techlink on 2.7

 

https://gm-techlink.com/?p=11837

 

https://gm-techlink.com/?p=11876

 

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Thomcat

[MDSilveradoGuy]

*yawn*

 

I’m done with you. Continue to be a sad forum troll in a thread that your nonsensical ramblings aren’t welcome. 

Edited August 25, 2019 by MDSilveradoGuy

[Thomcat]

Thanks, it's good to hear I've heard the last from you.

[Thomcat]

Thanks, it's good to hear I've heard the last from you.

[Daverado]

On 8/24/2019 at 10:18 AM, Thomcat said:

I'm a fan of 4 cylinders, just not this one.

 

Wow, lots to unravel there but I guess right from the top it'll be off-topic.

 

On 8/24/2019 at 10:18 AM, Thomcat said:

Actually has to go out of State to find a Silv with a 2.7T to test ride and spend hours with clueless salesmen who didn't have a clue about what they were selling beyond the cheaper MSRP and fantastic mileage saving claims. Test ride and looking under the hood convinced me that this was everything I thought it would be: convinced me the V8 was worth the extra bucks, and dealer's in a rural truck loving State don't carry them for a reason. Before I make a decision both my a$$ and my brain have to be in agreement.....my a$$ loved the sound and feel of the accelerator but my brain disagreed telling my a$$ that the vehicle was designed more with him in mind. But, the screams coming from the salesman on the test ride when I took a really sharp, fast looey and the front end with the $hitty stock tires and less weight of the lightweight 4 over the drive axle and the front end broke loose. Brain said go for $1400 the heavier V8 and the $3K for 22s with lower profile and better tires.

Ok, salesmen are clueless, your a$$ and brain disagree, tires are a problem.  You can't handle understeer, and you think a heavier front end will fix that?   Do you even physics bro?

 

Still not sure what you're trying to say about the engine here.  It's hard to find one?

 

On 8/24/2019 at 10:18 AM, Thomcat said:

If the 2.7T was essentially a bored and stroked on a larger block 1.5T or 2.0T might be OK, although still underpowered and undersized for the Silverado. But, no once again GM assumes the role of Merlin the Magician conjuring up old solutions to a new problem. The engines new fantastic innovative SLC sliding cam lift system brings back sad memories of a similar effort the V4/6/8 kludges on the valve train, roller bearings on a timing chain, an electric pump redirecting coolant to different areas of an aluminum engine brings to mind future upper end, head gasket failures and timing chain failures. No problem, tout over 1 million test miles on the engine, but perhaps not on a single engine. What makes you think that design a wiring harness that is too short for the engine can design the engine for durability and longevity. Owners should enjoy it now because they might just be stuck with it.

 

Lots of doom-saying with comparisons to the V4/6/8, and other unrelated issues.  Really just a bunch of rambling FUD here.  Great technology implemented, BUT OMG it was designed by the same company that has designed both amazing and terrible engines in the past.  Don't buy this engine because something might go wrong with it and then you're stuck with it! LOL.

 

If your concerns were actually based on something substantial... anything at all really, it would be so much easier to take you seriously.

Who are you preaching to anyway?  You're in the wrong thread bro.

 

You come across like the kind of guy that walks into a friends house and criticizes their decor until they ask you to leave and not be friends anymore.

 

[MDSilveradoGuy]

1 hour ago, Daverado said:

 

Wow, lots to unravel there but I guess right from the top it'll be off-topic.

 

Ok, salesmen are clueless, your a$$ and brain disagree, tires are a problem.  You can't handle understeer, and you think a heavier front end will fix that?   Do you even physics bro?

 

Still not sure what you're trying to say about the engine here.  It's hard to find one?

 

 

Lots of doom-saying with comparisons to the V4/6/8, and other unrelated issues.  Really just a bunch of rambling FUD here.  Great technology implemented, BUT OMG it was designed by the same company that has designed both amazing and terrible engines in the past.  Don't buy this engine because something might go wrong with it and then you're stuck with it! LOL.

 

If your concerns were actually based on something substantial... anything at all really, it would be so much easier to take you seriously.

Who are you preaching to anyway?  You're in the wrong thread bro.

 

You come across like the kind of guy that walks into a friends house and criticizes their decor until they ask you to leave and not be friends anymore.

 

Thank you. You dissected something that made me recoil and need a beer. 

[KARNUT]

It could be a good engine or bad. After paying to be a Ginny Pig on some of GMs bright ideas in the past. Eight-six- four and 5.7 diesel. I’ll keep an interested eye on this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PikeFork]

Just wish GM would offer leather interior and the 2.7T together. Chevy salesman told me they have had requests for the 2.7T in the LTZ model. 

[Jricharc]

1 hour ago, PikeFork said:

Just wish GM would offer leather interior and the 2.7T together. Chevy salesman told me they have had requests for the 2.7T in the LTZ model. 

You can get it with leather but in the RST model.

[PikeFork]

2 hours ago, Jricharc said:

You can get it with leather but in the RST model.

Thanks for the info.