2.7 Turbo 4 Fan Club

[heymrdjCW]

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.

[MDSilveradoGuy]

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 September 28, 2019 by MDSilveradoGuy

[Vicarod]

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.

 

 

 

[Jc112]

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. 

[Jc112]

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]

+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. 

[Thomcat]

Any problems yet?  See page 6 of below

 

https://techlink.mynetworkcontent.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/GM_TechLink_18_Mid-September_2019.pdf

 

[MDSilveradoGuy]

4 hours ago, Thomcat said:

Any problems yet?  See page 6 of below

 

https://techlink.mynetworkcontent.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/GM_TechLink_18_Mid-September_2019.pdf

 

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. 

[Limelight]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

[heymrdjCW]

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.

[Nanotech Environmental]

21 hours ago, amxguy1970 said:

 

 

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

 

Tyler

Agreed.

[22_AT4]

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.