Jump to content

2.7 Turbo 4 Fan Club

ShamrockShooter
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dunn Senior Enthusiast

Dunn

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, CTB said:

95% of the time spent in whatever truck I buy, will be commuting. 60/40 highway/city. 22 miles one way. 5% of the time I’ll be pulling a camper that weighs just under 4000lb loaded. Considering the previous, purchase price is one of the biggest factors going into my decision. My only concerns are; how relatively new this engine is and how many problems the 8 speed has had over the years. I plan on driving this truck for at least 10 years. 
 

I go back and forth daily between ordering a custom trail boss with the 6.2/10spd and finding an rst with the 2.7. If the 2.7 came with the 10 spd I wouldn’t be nearly as reluctant. 

yeah its perfect for a lot of people, I just don't understand why it was stock motor is all

  • 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

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

2.7 Turbo power is a weeee bit greater than the Ecotec3 4.3 on E85. 5 hp. and a few pounds/feet more torque. The 2.7 comes with the lower geared 8 speed. The T1 has a new frame that is suppose to be all that and a bag of chips. Yet when I look at the tow and payload ratings the 4.3 on 87 octane still out pulls and out hauls the 2.7 buy a few hundred pounds in both. In theory the motor claims a bit more city mileage and about the same highway numbers. In practice ????? Doing less with more?

 

Other that the fact that you can get the 2.7 in nicer trim levels I'm confused as the point of this motor.

 

Educate me. 

L86 All Terrain Senior Enthusiast

L86 All Terrain

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

2.7 Turbo power is a weeee bit greater than the Ecotec3 4.3 on E85. 5 hp. and a few pounds/feet more torque. The 2.7 comes with the lower geared 8 speed. The T1 has a new frame that is suppose to be all that and a bag of chips. Yet when I look at the tow and payload ratings the 4.3 on 87 octane still out pulls and out hauls the 2.7 buy a few hundred pounds in both. In theory the motor claims a bit more city mileage and about the same highway numbers. In practice ????? Doing less with more?

 

Other that the fact that you can get the 2.7 in nicer trim levels I'm confused as the point of this motor.

 

Educate me. 

I can't answer your question, but could it be that the turbo 4 outweighs the V6 with its turbos and intercooler taking away a couple hundred pounds of payload? Seems odd to offer both of these engines being so close statistically. Seems very odd you can spec the V6 to move more with the 6L trans vs the 4cyl with the 8L trans. 

  • Like 1
heymrdjCW Enthusiast

heymrdjCW

Posted
Posted
2.7 Turbo power is a weeee bit greater than the Ecotec3 4.3 on E85. 5 hp. and a few pounds/feet more torque. The 2.7 comes with the lower geared 8 speed. The T1 has a new frame that is suppose to be all that and a bag of chips. Yet when I look at the tow and payload ratings the 4.3 on 87 octane still out pulls and out hauls the 2.7 buy a few hundred pounds in both. In theory the motor claims a bit more city mileage and about the same highway numbers. In practice ????? Doing less with more?
 

Other that the fact that you can get the 2.7 in nicer trim levels I'm confused as the point of this motor.

 

Educate me. 



2.7 has better driveability because the 4.3 takes over double the RPMs to make its torque. Much of the US outside of the Midwest doesn’t have easy accessibility to E85, so it’s kind of silly to use the numbers like your average every day driver is pumping that.

My guess is the limitation on towing comes from maxing out the intercooler, where as a 4.3L doesn’t need one. In the real world, there won’t be any difference in the use case for either engine.

I personally believe that the 4.3L will be phased out for a gen 2 2.7 eventually. They don’t make much sense in the stable together. I do think GM made a mistake going for 4 big cylinders instead of 6 smaller ones on the design. I think a 2.7 6 banger would have delivered better MPG. Either way, having driven both quite a bit now, I wouldn’t take a 4.3.
zzrsouth Enthusiast

zzrsouth

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

2.7 Turbo power is a weeee bit greater than the Ecotec3 4.3 on E85. 5 hp. and a few pounds/feet more torque. The 2.7 comes with the lower geared 8 speed. The T1 has a new frame that is suppose to be all that and a bag of chips. Yet when I look at the tow and payload ratings the 4.3 on 87 octane still out pulls and out hauls the 2.7 buy a few hundred pounds in both. In theory the motor claims a bit more city mileage and about the same highway numbers. In practice ????? Doing less with more?

 

Other that the fact that you can get the 2.7 in nicer trim levels I'm confused as the point of this motor.

 

Educate me. 

The turbo offers more usable torque at low revs.  Most apparent when climbing a mtn pass.  NA engines struggle or have to turn high revs whereas the turbo just tractors up in top gear.

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

So the V-6 has the capability to get great fuel mileage with cylinder deactivation to make it a 4 cylinder. The 4 cylinder has a turbo to have the the power of a V-6. There’re playing with us. A few years ago you could get an E-85 capable 5.3 and get close to the 6.2 in power. Now they can go all the way down to one cylinder. I’ll keep watching till they figure it out. It is entertaining though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, zzrsouth said:

The turbo offers more usable torque at low revs.  Most apparent when climbing a mtn pass.  NA engines struggle or have to turn high revs whereas the turbo just tractors up in top gear.

In top gear? Up a mountain pass? At full rated towing weight? Really? I suppose at the speed limit too? 

Oh I have got to see the video on that run! 

Where can I find it? Got a link?

  • Confused 1
CTB New Member

CTB

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

In top gear? Up a mountain pass? At full rated towing weight? Really? I suppose at the speed limit too? 

Oh I have got to see the video on that run! 

Where can I find it? Got a link?

 

  • Like 2
MDSilveradoGuy Enthusiast

MDSilveradoGuy

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

In top gear? Up a mountain pass? At full rated towing weight? Really? I suppose at the speed limit too? 

Oh I have got to see the video on that run! 

Where can I find it? Got a link?

Not that I am going to engage you on this again, but let's see a 4.3 do what you are stating above. It can't, no engine can. Now, review the video above to see it operating as designed... which if you were to run neck and neck with your beloved 4.3 you would see it get its ass handed to it...

 

12% more torque and a broader, flatter torque curve where it matters...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

It makes sense that the new kid on the block actually took my request seriously an did not assume I was looking for a fight. 

 

I thank you CTB (whoever you are). I was given the information I asked for without all the forum drama. Excited I looked that site over for a test of the 4.3 Ecotec3 and found none. I'm not devoid of common sense however and have no illusions that the 4.3 will do the IKE in 8 minutes flat. I've climbed that hill hundreds of times with NA motors. 

 

All that said and as impressive as the video is it did not 'tractor' up the IKE in high gear. It spun 6 K and finally pulled down to 4.8 K or so and it didn't do it in high gear as claimed.  By the hype I was expecting a speed limit assault at 2500 rpm in high gear.  Thus my amazement. It was truly that simple.

zzrsouth Enthusiast

zzrsouth

Posted
Posted

I didn't say anything about towing, that is your thing.  I want my truck to do my thing which is 70mph+ up WA state passes with my family in the cab and my bike in the bed and getting good city mpg for commuting to work.  And my truck does my thing great.

  • Like 2
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I don’t believe any engine 6-8-10 speed combo is going to stay in its highest gear lugging up a hill. The whole point of the exercise is to use the highest gear possible in its TQ range. While keeping the RPMs as low as possible using the least fuel at the desired speed. Lugging like a tractor wouldn’t accomplish that. Even with no load. Driving awhile with stick would teach a person that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, KARNUT said:

I don’t believe any engine 6-8-10 speed combo is going to stay in its highest gear lugging up a hill. The whole point of the exercise is to use the highest gear possible in its TQ range. While keeping the RPMs as low as possible using the least fuel at the desired speed. Lugging like a tractor wouldn’t accomplish that. Even with no load. Driving awhile with stick would teach a person that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bingo! 

zzrsouth Enthusiast

zzrsouth

Posted
Posted (edited)

I realize I'm wasting my breath but for the silent thread watchers these charts show why my 2 7T truck tractors up Steven's pass.

 

The 4.3 V6 is the bottom curve but it's the same for most NA powerplants that make max torque up at high rpms. The 2.7T is at max torque at 1500 rpm.  As I am not accelerating or dragging a 6k pound trailer my truck never shifts as the grade increases it just adds fuels to produce more torque at the same rpm.

 

Turbo engines can be setup for torque or top end hit.  As MDSilverado has said multiple times GM went for torque.  The engine runs out of breath well before the rev limiter but it doesnt matter because it doesnt need to turn 4k to make enough torque to maintain 70mph up a grade and that's why its awesome.  I think the differences are magnified at partial throttle settings where we all operate 99% of the time.

 

The concept is probably foreign if you haven't driven a small diesel or other forced induction engine tuned for torque which is why there are so many doubters and haters.  But Im tired of people coming to our thread asking for explanations and then telling us we dont know what we're talking about.

 

Drive the truck and decide for yourself.  I think most will love it.

 

This is my 3rd turbo vehicle and I'll never go back.

Example.JPG.jpg

Edited by zzrsouth
  • Like 4

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...