Jump to content

2.7 Turbo 4 Fan Club

ShamrockShooter
 Share

Recommended Posts

heymrdjCW Enthusiast

heymrdjCW

Posted
Posted
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.


No, you just weren’t as high as I figured you were. Torque wise, the 2.7 reached its max output 3000 RPM ago. The 2.7 did it’s rated load in the same time as the 6.2. For the 99% pavement princess grocery getters around here, it’s more than enough.
  • Like 1
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ShamrockShooter
ShamrockShooter

Well. Gals and Gents this topic was started for people who want to like or appreciate a new innovation. It will be a lot more fun to keep the negatives for another forum topic.   Yes it's a new engi

InertiaFaze
InertiaFaze

My latest 2.7T fuel economy numbers.....   400 mile AVG 29.1 mpg life of vehicle (11111.1 miles) 22.7 mpg

i82much
i82much

now they just need to make a turbo 6.2!

Posted Images

MDSilveradoGuy Enthusiast

MDSilveradoGuy

Posted
Posted (edited)

It does quite fine in the mountains with a load. I get the feeling I’m the only one here who has actually worked a 2.7 over in terms of carrying a load with any elevation. Passing and pulling hills are no issue - usually in 8th or 7th gear. 

If you’re familiar with a diesel, the 2.7 feels eerily similar. It keeps the revs down as low as it can, spools the turbo and lets the torque do the work.

Edited by MDSilveradoGuy
  • Like 3
Vicarod Enthusiast

Vicarod

Posted
Posted

So, like the original poster I was given a 2.7L turbo as a loaner.  Actually was hoping I would get one to try it out.

2019 CC LT short bed 2.7L 2wd

I am genuinely impressed with this truck.

I think the relative light weight of the short bed / 2wd set up plays really well with this engine choice.

If you aren't going to tow big weight and just need to haul stuff around, this may be the motor for you.

It's buzzy for sure...but the turbo makes a cool whistle sound (blowoff valve?  Does it even have one?)

and once it's spooled the boost is kinda fun while it lasts.

Fuel mileage is great, and I even returned 28.5mpg once on my commute home! (35 miles)

 

With any luck, the aftermarket community will have tuner packages for these trucks to get even more power out of them.

Would be fun to have one with over 400hp for sure. 

Don't know if they are tuned to within an inch of their life or not to get the 310hp out of them now, which leads to questions of the longevity of these engines.

Time will tell.

 

But I have to say I am enjoying my time spent with this little guy and really think this is a good option for people that don't need or want the V8

It also will come with a good sticker price over the V8's, and I am sure there will be additional discounts at end of year to clear out the remaining 4cyl trucks.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Jc112 Enthusiast

Jc112

Posted
Posted
On 4/5/2019 at 1:10 PM, f8l vnm said:

i was one of those who was hesitant about this motor but after a few MPG reviews , Im impressed... I agree if your not towing heavy things , this is a nice motor to have. 

Gm Needs to offer this motor on the next Colorado/Canyon . no need for the  3.6 V6 

 

 

I bought a 2019  RST 2.7 in July. Sticker was 44.5k marked down to 30.3k. No catches. I was given what i wanted for my 2 trades. A 2018 Tacoma and a 2014 Honda Shadow Aero. Yes they took my bike too.  I think GM is hurting on sales of the 2.7.  For me, it was a no brainer. I needed, wanted, more room than my Tacoma and could not justify paying way more for a Tundra with a 13 yo design.  The Tacoma’s drivetrain was hideous, Toyota really dropped the ball on the 3rd generation. Another reason for trading up.

Currently I have 4100 miles on my truck. Lifetime MPG is 25.9. Yes I drive like an old man. The engine and 8 speed are smooth as silk. I cannot tell when it is is AFM mode. Not sure if I should get an AFM disable device, been thinking about it. Been thinking about a catch can also.

this truck suits my needs perfectly, gets my boat in and out of the water, i get a few loads of mulch and stone a couple times a year, and my wife and I have plenty of room for our road trips with the 2 dogs in the back. The back seats lift up to expose the whole floor(no storage compartments) and allows the dogs plenty of room.

The ride is stiff but smooth. I’m hoping, with proper care, it will last as long as a toyota.

The only quirk is that you need to get to 57 mph to get to 8th gear, you can the set the cruise and drop down 1 mph at a time down to 40 mph and it will hold 8th. 

  • Like 2
Jc112 Enthusiast

Jc112

Posted
Posted
On 4/10/2019 at 11:44 AM, ShamrockShooter said:

400 miles in a week and the average DIC was 22.2 mpg for mixed driving including some city and highway rush hour stop and go. I didn't have it long enough to do a full tank hand calc with an entire tank, but I do know I brought it back with a little less than a quarter tank gone and I had already gone over 200 miles. My v8 5.3 barely gets to 200 miles on a half tank if I am lucky.

TFL got 24.# something in their hand calc 100 mile loop with 2.7.

I am sure as more members get 2.7s there will be more data to support initial numbers. My gut says I could get 22 to 23 mpg all day long in this truck if you drive it right. My lifetime average in my 16 with a 5.3 was 17.2 mpg and I drive very conservative (same way I drove the 2.7)

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

My hand calculations have matched my lifetime mpg on my display. 25.9 mpg over 4100 miles. I haven’t reset the trip computer and probably won’t. I took delivery with 175 miles on the clock, it had to be driven from a sister dealership. The lifetime mpg were then 17 mpg, that tell me they beat the snot out of it. I made my concerns known and got a few extras thrown in.

shawn400 Enthusiast

shawn400

Posted
Posted

+1 for the fan club, love this motor

 

Picked up a Sierra SLE with most options available, 2WD though, with the 2.7t

 

Getting 20mpg city commute to work, and we took a 800 mile road trip and averaged 25mpg. Couldn't ask for more. The torque curve is incredible. 

  • Like 4
Limelight Enthusiast

Limelight

Posted
Posted
On 10/11/2019 at 10:59 AM, shawn400 said:

 

 

Getting 20mpg city commute to work, and we took a 800 mile road trip and averaged 25mpg. Couldn't ask for more. The torque curve is incredible. 

This is the same mileage I’m averaging (actually I’m getting a little better) with my CC LTZ Z71 5.3. 

 

I just think the little 4cyl motor should do better than that. 

Thomcat Senior Enthusiast

Thomcat

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MDSilveradoGuy said:

This is what I sued GM over due to their inability to fix properly. 
 

The TSB is a garbage repair by GM. The harnesses need replaced, not repaired. 

There's a similar one out for my '18 Malibu harness.......luckily I got to it before the edge of the battery case had only eaten through the sheathing and not 'yet completely through the wires' insulation inside. GM wouldn't replace and I had to cover all contact points with a protective length of slit rubber hose twist tied closed and reanchored. And yes, wire to wire repair is a garbage solution......didn't work for too long in my Daughter's Neon where rats had eaten through the wiring. In a vehicle where the ECU uses resistance measurements to identify and determine the status of sensors, a poorly done wire to wire repair, initially or after aging, can cause problems that are difficult to diagnose.

amxguy1970 Senior Enthusiast

amxguy1970

Posted
Posted
On 10/13/2019 at 2:22 PM, Limelight said:

This is the same mileage I’m averaging (actually I’m getting a little better) with my CC LTZ Z71 5.3. 

 

I just think the little 4cyl motor should do better than that. 

You're getting 20 city? He averaged 25mpg over 800 miles, not a set stretch either which says a lot. I would have to try really hard to get that number out of my 5.3 and it would most likely be around 55 mph for a limited number of miles.

 

I really want to see this motor in the new midsize twins.  

 

Tyler

Limelight Enthusiast

Limelight

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, amxguy1970 said:

You're getting 20 city? He averaged 25mpg over 800 miles, not a set stretch either which says a lot. I would have to try really hard to get that number out of my 5.3 and it would most likely be around 55 mph for a limited number of miles.

 

I really want to see this motor in the new midsize twins.  

 

Tyler

Ok- I misread that a little. 

I am getting over 20 in mixed driving, not pure city.

I’ve gotten almost 28 on trips though. It’s very surprising. 

  • Like 1
heymrdjCW Enthusiast

heymrdjCW

Posted
Posted
You're getting 20 city? He averaged 25mpg over 800 miles, not a set stretch either which says a lot. I would have to try really hard to get that number out of my 5.3 and it would most likely be around 55 mph for a limited number of miles.
 
I really want to see this motor in the new midsize twins.  
 
Tyler

I’m with you there. My 2017 5.3 would get 24mpg tips pure highway with the counter set to 100 miles. But real measurements (400 miles which included mixed driving) would barely keep it at 18mpg. All city was still more like 14mpg.

My 2019 Canyon is getting 19.8mpg so far in the same loop, but only has 1,300 miles on it. Still breaking in. A turbo would be amazing, the 2.3 Ranger was more impressive in that regard.
  • Like 1
22_AT4 Enthusiast

22_AT4

Posted
Posted

I had the opportunity to drive a 2019 2.7 Crew Cab 2WD Demo w/ 4000 miles this weekend while my daily was at the dealership.  I filled up when I picked it up, put 115 miles on it and filled it back up when i returned it.  I wanted to see a real world MPG so I retraced my daily commute a few times to get an accurate MPG for my drive.  I currently have a 5.3 crew cab 4WD that averages 17MPG.  I calculated 19.9 MPG on the 2.7.  The MPG was disappointing as I believe better results could be achieved with a 2.7 ecoboost in a Ford.  

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...