Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

It's already at 375 kPa (54 psi). Indy car territory. I'm thinking it's tapping out as is. 

If you look at the boost curve it's on the limiter from the hit. 

Not sure where you saw that at. It runs up to 22psi of boost. It’s not really pushing any design limits - GM wasn’t stupid enough to stress it like Ford does with the EB. 

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, MDSilveradoGuy said:

Not sure where you saw that at. It runs up to 22psi of boost. It’s not really pushing any design limits - GM wasn’t stupid enough to stress it like Ford does with the EB. 

Gorehamj's post which I see I read incorrectly. I read that line at about 200 kPa or 29 psi. My bad. Thanks for making me look twice. :thumbs: 

 

27engine_deepdive_slide16.jpg

Edited by Grumpy Bear
  • Like 2
Posted
5 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Gorehamj's post which I see I read incorrectly. I read that line at about 200 kPa or 29 psi. My bad. Thanks for making me look twice. :thumbs: 

 

27engine_deepdive_slide16.jpg

Haha no worries - what an interesting chart.

 

I will say that from my butt dyno and audible perspective that it is spot on. The turbo spools (and starts whistling loudly) right off idle. My neighbors used to be able to tell when I was coming up the road from the exhaust on my Colorado - now they can hear me whistling up the hill.

  • Haha 1
Posted

Anybody else hopelessly waiting for some performance mods to come out for these 2.7's?!

  • Like 3
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Have a question regarding the 2019 GMC sierra. In the center of the dash board, in front of the catchall is a square domed area (between the catchall and the windshield). It is about 1.5" square. What is it?

Posted
3 hours ago, kc classic said:

Have a question regarding the 2019 GMC sierra. In the center of the dash board, in front of the catchall is a square domed area (between the catchall and the windshield). It is about 1.5" square. What is it?

Light sensor for the auto headlights.

Posted

Anyone else with the 2.7 having 8-speed transmission Issues? I still have a harsh shift 1-2 and 2-1 after getting the new transmission fluid. 

  • Like 1
Posted
19 hours ago, LT4Banger said:

Anyone else with the 2.7 having 8-speed transmission Issues? I still have a harsh shift 1-2 and 2-1 after getting the new transmission fluid. 

I have the occasional rough 1-2, the occasional 2-1, and it shudders like a wet dog pretty much all of the time under light acceleration. The 8 speed is Satan's own transmission and needs to be recalled, taken out back, and shot...

  • Like 1
Posted
On 4/5/2019 at 8:53 AM, the wanderer said:

I suspect that little 2.7 gets better MPG than EPA. TFL Truck tested it and got like 25MPG on their Highway loop. I'm seriously considering it, but the reports of turbo lag at highway speeds does not bode well.

 

I plan on pulling a trailer, nothing more than 5 to 6 thousand pounds so it would work there, but I don't know. My gut tells me to let them work out the hiccups in the motor first, and fix that lag issue before I'd consider owning one in a truck I hope to keep 10 years.

 

The 5.3 is not that powerful compared to competition, but it's bullet proof for the most part.

I know this is an older post, but I pull a trailer in the 5 to 6 thousand pound range and my 5.3 was straining when crossing mountain ranges.  And the trans temp was over 200° going uphill.  No way would I ever try to tow that much with the 2.7 unless it was short distances over flat terrain.  That's the whole reason I upgraded to the 6.2 and max trailering package.

Posted
I know this is an older post, but I pull a trailer in the 5 to 6 thousand pound range and my 5.3 was straining when crossing mountain ranges.  And the trans temp was over 200° going uphill.  No way would I ever try to tow that much with the 2.7 unless it was short distances over flat terrain.  That's the whole reason I upgraded to the 6.2 and max trailering package.


Turbos get a huge benefit over NA vehicles crossing mountain ranges. If you were crossing the Rockies, you were probably down over 30% of your horsepower.
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, heymrdjCW said:

 


Turbos get a huge benefit over NA vehicles crossing mountain ranges. If you were crossing the Rockies, you were probably down over 30% of your horsepower.

 

HP Loss = (elevation x 0.03 x horsepower @ sea level)/1000.  7000 x .03 x 420/1000 = 88.2/420 = 21% loss.  I'm still pumping out more horses than a 2.7.  I imagine it's the same for torque.  And I have that 3.42 rear end.

Edited by AlaskaErik
  • Like 1

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

    • Yes, and also pulling heavy trailers or a large camper up steep grades as well as descending grades such as the more rustic off road camping locations and using engine braking with that low gearing as well as soft ground can just suck the power . I realize pickups these days tend to have an over all lower first gear ratio compared to automatic transmission pickups from years back so that has helped a lot in its ability in high range but there comes a point if in four wheel drive the torque runs out at the wheels, certainly with a gas engine. They don't put two speed transfer cases on pickups for a cool factor, they have a function if one needs that massive torque to the wheels that high range can't deliver. 
    • Notes 7/18/2026   3,400 miles on this batch of Mobil 1 Euro 5W40 since the GDI pump replacement. Alcohol runs very clean when ring seal is tight and the sump isn't getting hosed with fuel. Checked oil level at fill up today as is my practice and grabbed a white Kleenex to look at the color. What color?  I was going to change it but.....  
    • 4 low is really nice on steep boat ramps. 
    • Interesting, I suspect I would have fueled up in Lee Vining as the day prior I would have filled up either in Laughlin or near there and maybe again before I entered Death Valley and once out the other side late that evening as I kept on driving into the night up near Lee Vining. Next morning I most likely fueled up in LV before heading over Tioga Pass into ( as I refer to it as "Yose .... Mite" 😁 ). And again that was 19 years ago but the price then must not have jumped out at me like the 5 bill a gallon theme of nutty cult hippy country Big Sir or head so far up their rear Aspen. I'd be curious to know where the highest prices are in the lower 48, I probably would not be far off to guess somewhere in Cali forn ie. Coldfoot and Prudhoe bay may have those prices beat but that is a whole other world up there and when prices are more normal elsewhere that is about what they can be up there I believe in no mans land. Anyway interesting that the 395 corridor is hosing people and the thing is, its tourist season and its not like there are a lot of competition options when driving up that highway from what I could see. Yup, big ole Boaterhomes and various other RV's ahead and behind me at the Yosemite entrance gate and they have to get their fuel somewhere.  
    • Those can be high, as well as the big California cities. The ones that will pop your eyes out are the 395 corridor on the Eastern side of the Sierra Nevadas. Lee Vining, $7.19 for regular and $8.89 for diesel is what the Google said right now.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...