Jump to content

2.7 Turbo 4 Fan Club

ShamrockShooter
 Share

Recommended Posts

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Mike Borowski said:

I’m not sure it’s JUST software. But it’s business. It’s been that way for years. They have tamed down the LS LT motors for years so it doesn’t look better than the corvette in other cars. There’s “tiers” to the Colorado for a reason. They put an amazing engine in it and people will still complain lol. 

 

I'm kind'a with the wanderer on this one. I'm a work truck guy and a truck that WORKS needs to have a motor than can. Putting the stump pulls in a Lincoln want to be doesn't make sense. 

  • 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

Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

I'm kind'a with the wanderer on this one. I'm a work truck guy and a truck that WORKS needs to have a motor than can. Putting the stump pulls in a Lincoln want to be doesn't make sense. 

Colorado’s aren’t exactly “stump pulling” trucks. Unless I misunderstood. I have no idea what the Lincoln reference is. 

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

Colorado’s aren’t exactly “stump pulling” trucks. Unless I misunderstood. I have no idea what the Lincoln reference is. 

 

As mentioned earlier the Colorado is now the size of a GMT800. It's midsized in name only. Yea, not a stump puller but could be IF they put the top tune in it. Not many years ago the 5.7 wasn't making the power of this four pot.

 

The Lincoln reference is putting the highest output motors in trucks in the highest trim levels only. Town Cars with CUMMINS motors. About the same sense to me. 

 

Hey it's just a opinion and one is as good as another, right? 😉 

  • Like 1
Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

As mentioned earlier the Colorado is now the size of a GMT800. It's midsized in name only. Yea, not a stump puller but could be IF they put the top tune in it. Not many years ago the 5.7 wasn't making the power of this four pot.

 

The Lincoln reference is putting the highest output motors in trucks in the highest trim levels only. Town Cars with CUMMINS motors. About the same sense to me. 

 

Hey it's just a opinion and one is as good as another, right? 😉 

They don’t want to step on the toes of the Silverado. The Colorado is a lite-lite duty truck. Not a stump puller. More of an off-roader or grocery getter. I think the 2.7 is a perfect option and I don’t mind the tiered approach. Watch for the 2.7 in the traverse and acadia next. 

Edited by Mike Borowski
  • Like 3
4banger Enthusiast

4banger

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/31/2022 at 6:30 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

 

I'm kind'a with the wanderer on this one. I'm a work truck guy and a truck that WORKS needs to have a motor than can. Putting the stump pulls in a Lincoln want to be doesn't make sense. 

 

it's a good thing we drive Silverado's😉, I hear the argument on the low power in the work truck colorado's, I've also see the fleet, parts, run around truck argument as well where they mostly get sold to do and good to keep it from being a hotrod...likely that low tune is going to get economy similar to the 3.0 diesels while still having respectable power, 237 hp & 259 ft/lbs at any elevation is pretty sweet, example; city I live in is 4000' and my Jeep Gladiator rated at 285 hp & 269 ft/lbs but has 252 hp and 238 ft/lbs here, so the jeep would have about 15 more hp but 21 ft/lbs less torque, basically a wash, and something tells me the longevity of that base tune motor will also be next level, I'd guess they aren't giving it the full 22 psi, so maybe it's more like 12-14 psi (ford ecoboosts around 18 from recollection) and maybe the 390 ft/lb tune is getting 18-20 psi? just gotta step up to a z71 to get the 390 ft/lbs tune which should fit a lot of needs and not be too Lincoln, I'm sure that will feel every bit as strong as the 430 ft/lbs in the Silverado, heck that's within 10-20 ft/lbs of the gen 1 cummins torque with nearly double the hp, I think it's great to see those options, also I think if getting the kids a base first truck the low tune makes lots of sense for economy and keeping it from being too fast

 

for a light duty daily where economy and longevity are top priorities I'd be looking awful hard at that low tune model, it could be a total cost of ownership king, not just in truck land but auto land period, a retired guy's wet dream perhaps?, especially appealing if one didn't have a trailering need preferring naturally aspirated v8 power levels

Edited by 4banger
  • Thanks 1
4banger Enthusiast

4banger

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/31/2022 at 7:03 PM, Mike Borowski said:

They don’t want to step on the toes of the Silverado. The Colorado is a lite-lite duty truck. Not a stump puller. More of an off-roader or grocery getter. I think the 2.7 is a perfect option and I don’t mind the tiered approach. Watch for the 2.7 in the traverse and acadia next. 

 

well it's not a small motor as a 2.7 four banger may sound, it will be interesting to see what they can stuff it in, they got it into a caddy so could make it's way around wherever the v6's fit, now the Colorado's too replacing the v6 there, I'm sure that was part of the overall plan, it weighs about the same as the 3.5 v6's out there ~375 lbs and seems to fit in those same engine bays as well, gm has a winner on their hands with this motor, could see it like the Chrysler pentastar...stuffed in everything lol

Edited by 4banger
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
the wanderer Enthusiast

the wanderer

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, 4banger said:

 

likely that low tune is going to get economy similar to the 3.0 diesels while still having respectable power, 237 hp & 259 ft/lbs at any elevation is pretty sweet, example; city I live in is 4000' and my Jeep Gladiator rated at 285 hp & 269 ft/lbs but has 252 hp and 238 ft/lbs here, so the jeep would have about 15 more hp but 21 ft/lbs less torque, basically a wash, and something tells me the longevity of that base tune motor will also be next level

 

We already know what a N/A 4 banger in a colorado style truck gets for MPG as that's been an option in the current gen for years, you can check fuelly but it's nothing special at all and its far far less than the 3.0 diesel. Now making the 4 banger turbo charged will only give you worse MPG. You can't force more air through a bigger engine without also increasing fuel consumption, the old n/a 4 cylinder was even smaller in terms of displacement than the new 2.7 is.

 

I highly suspect the opposite: like we see in the silverado, the diesel options are still king for MPG by a huge margin (at least 5 mpg).

 

Dropping the 2.8 diesel from the colorado is a big mistake. GM should have further developed the diesel. And the 4 banger turbo as impressive for power as it is from only 4 cylinders, will still get stomped by the v6 turbo in the ranger.

 

So the new colorado neither wins any awards for fuel savings, nor for best performance. I smell a dud.

 

GM tries to spin bad decisions into good outcomes but it's all BS. The 8 speed is not good enough when the ranger has 10 gears and even more power. Dropping the diesel option is about cost cutting, not because the new turbo is able to compete with it in MPG and towing at the same time.

 

I'm not impressed in the slightest. Guess I'll have to keep looking for my next truck, hopefully I get a few years yet out of my current one.

Edited by the wanderer
Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

 

We already know what a N/A 4 banger in a colorado style truck gets for MPG as that's been an option in the current gen for years, you can check fuelly but it's nothing special at all and its far far less than the 3.0 diesel. Now making the 4 banger turbo charged will only give you worse MPG. You can't force more air through a bigger engine without also increasing fuel consumption, the old n/a 4 cylinder was even smaller in terms of displacement than the new 2.7 is.

 

I highly suspect the opposite: like we see in the silverado, the diesel options are still king for MPG by a huge margin (at least 5 mpg).

 

Dropping the 2.8 diesel from the colorado is a big mistake. GM should have further developed the diesel. And the 4 banger turbo as impressive for power as it is from only 4 cylinders, will still get stomped by the v6 turbo in the ranger.

 

So the new colorado neither wins any awards for fuel savings, nor for best performance. I smell a dud.

 

GM tries to spin bad decisions into good outcomes but it's all BS. The 8 speed is not good enough when the ranger has 10 gears and even more power. Dropping the diesel option is about cost cutting, not because the new turbo is able to compete with it in MPG and towing at the same time.

 

I'm not impressed in the slightest. Guess I'll have to keep looking for my next truck, hopefully I get a few years yet out of my current one.

Ummm the current 4cyl is rated at 19/25. I average 22-23 mixed a little more city than highway with the 2.7T in a SILVERADO. And you get a TON more power with the 2.7. Try again. 

Edited by Mike Borowski
the wanderer Enthusiast

the wanderer

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

Ummm the current 4cyl is rated at 19/25. I average 22-23 mixed a little more city than highway. And you get a TON more power with the 2.7. Try again. 

 

Nobody cares about ratings or what you're getting individually, that's meaningless. What are the averages in the real world?

 

The current 2.5L 4 cylinder in the colorado gets on average about 21 to 22 mpg:
https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=53&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Throwing on a turbo, and increasing the displacement to 2.7L is not going to make your MPG better; both those actions reduce MPG as soon as you start using the truck beyond sunday-strolling through town.

 

The current 2.8 diesel is about 24 to 25:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Diesel gets you much better MPG while also giving you very high tow ratings (important to many truck owners).

 

Now for the silverado. The silverado with the 2.7, on average, gets about 19 to 20 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

With the 3.0 diesel it gets about 26 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500?engineconfig_id=148&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

 

Edited by the wanderer
Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

 

Nobody cares about ratings or what you're getting individually, that's meaningless. What are the averages in the real world?

 

The current 2.5L 4 cylinder in the colorado gets on average about 21 to 22 mpg:
https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=53&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Throwing on a turbo, and increasing the displacement to 2.7L is not going to make your MPG better; both those actions reduce MPG as soon as you start using the truck beyond sunday-strolling through town.

 

The current 2.8 diesel is about 24 to 25:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Diesel gets you much better MPG while also giving you very high tow ratings (important to many truck owners).

 

Now for the silverado. The silverado with the 2.7, on average, gets about 19 to 20 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

With the 3.0 diesel it gets about 26 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500?engineconfig_id=148&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

 

“Nobody cares about your individual ratings”. THAT IS REAL WORLD!  Jesus.  It has an 8 speed now too. So yes it can be better or as good. 

Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

 

Nobody cares about ratings or what you're getting individually, that's meaningless. What are the averages in the real world?

 

The current 2.5L 4 cylinder in the colorado gets on average about 21 to 22 mpg:
https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=53&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Throwing on a turbo, and increasing the displacement to 2.7L is not going to make your MPG better; both those actions reduce MPG as soon as you start using the truck beyond sunday-strolling through town.

 

The current 2.8 diesel is about 24 to 25:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Diesel gets you much better MPG while also giving you very high tow ratings (important to many truck owners).

 

Now for the silverado. The silverado with the 2.7, on average, gets about 19 to 20 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

With the 3.0 diesel it gets about 26 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500?engineconfig_id=148&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

 

The current 4cyl will reduce when you use it beyond Sunday strolling too. Quit complaining just to complain you sound like an idiot. 

the wanderer Enthusiast

the wanderer

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

“Nobody cares about your individual ratings”. THAT IS REAL WORLD!  Jesus.  It has an 8 speed now too. So yes it can be better or as good. 

 

Well my hemi got 27 MPG the other day on a 3 hour trip, somehow I suspect you won't be as excited to use individual user reports for that  my guess is you'll just prefer the fuelly.com rating which is well below 20, right?

the wanderer Enthusiast

the wanderer

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

The current 4cyl will reduce when you use it beyond Sunday strolling too. Quit complaining just to complain you sound like an idiot. 

 

That's your only play, making everything personal and start calling names. Well done!

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

    • Chuck FB
      2024 Silverado 2500 HD with the 6.6 Gas (L8T) Engine

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      How many miles were on the truck when you bought it and was there some form of oil change history generated through a dealer or an independent shop although not much would show up if the owner had changed their own oil. Just curious if it was a maintenance issue or if there was something off from the start, surely one would think the original owner would have realized it was using a lot of oil, its hard to go back in time and find out the true story of mysteries like this. Well hopefully the warranty company will go for it and just install a new engine, that would be the ideal outcome.    I still have so few miles on my truck as per not quite 9000 and will be changing the oil shortly which has around 2700 miles on it or so and its down so little on the dipstick from where it was at the beginning of this oil change that I could make the "claim" that it uses no oil but in reality would be a very small amount, less than a 1/16 of an inch. Just driving empty/not towing and easy driving so hard to say what it would do if it had a load behind it for oil consumption. So far very impressed with the very minimal oil usage. 
    • BIGBOYS
      Doors lock and mirrors fold in while driving

      By BIGBOYS · Posted

      I have a 2015 Silverado and sometimes I can not get in to the truck. I use the key to unlock the driver door. Something is locking the truck when I unlock it, last night I left the truck open and this morning it was locked with the mirrors folded in. This happens while driving so it is now a safety issue. I reach down for the folding button and they open, then they close again.  Any advice, thank you,   Ed
    • Paul8556
      Headlight issue...

      By Paul8556 · Posted

      Did you ever find a resolution to this? my 2019 Silverado 1500 is showing the exact same headlights issues with the exact same symptoms.  would help a ton if anyone has any advice on this or better yet a known solution..
    • RyanbabZ71
      Gas Prices

      By RyanbabZ71 · Posted

      Wawa and Meijer here have ethanol free (88 & 89) I use for my mower and lawn equipment.  Its not much more than reg.  I paid $3.29 a few weeks ago.  
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      tl; dr I've now reached the 6th floor of hell. I'm chronicling my journey for my morning readers.   Pulling the top of the intake apart was moderately easy but it involved a lot of parts, connections, and minutae. I was preparing for the new fuel lines to arrive ("nut and bolt kit" it's called). The fuel line connections are notched and held in place by the manifold and a metal plate with a T27 screw.   It's on the back of the intake, under the firewall, with little clearance, and two hard metal fuel lines in the way. I was using Franken-tools (weird combinations of 1/4 inch ratchet with/without an extension, with a bit holder for my T27) to get in there. One of my sockets and bits fell off and has yet to emerge on the floor. I lost a second setup and that's when I almost started throwing tools. But that was the point at which I had gotten traction on the Torx head, and it promptly stripped. No more traction.   I started humming "1-877-kars-4-kids" because I was about at that point. You know what? I'm $1500 into this thing and I can make it disappear just as quickly. This isn't fun anymore. I had spent a lot of time already "tidying" around the engine bay: Fixing all the "someone's been here before!" BS. The truck has been exclusively dealer- and shop- serviced and I'm reminded of why I never let other people work on my cars unless absolutely necessary.   Speaking of dealer service. This truck has a 1" stack of records going back to 1995. I put them all in an excel spreadsheet, date/mileage/description.   The CPI spider has been replaced 4 times in 85k miles. The EGR? Another 4. Multiple, multiple O2 sensors. One Cat. 4? Sets of plugs and wires, and I swear half the stack is diagnosis paperwork for "misfire, runs rough, extended crank, dies at stoplights".   GM was producing some proper crap back then. And it was still well within the era of brittle/crappy plastic. (Windows 95 was released the same month this truck was sold new, we HAD the technology!!)   There (was) a plastic shroud around the evaporator core and HVAC fan in the engine bay. I noticed a chunk of it missing so I poked at it some more and it literally shattered. Touched it some more and pieces were crumbling off. Had a good laugh. Clearly whatever plastic garbage they were using had broken down over 30 years and was literally turning to dust. That was a good half hour of using a shop vac to remove the rest of it.   Back to it.   I was going to give up for the evening but then decided I'm already level 10 pissed off at the stripped screw: G* D* it, give me my tools back -- and my JOY. We'll do this the hard way: The whole intake is coming off.   Blazer won Round II. After finally finding and accessing the 12 intake bolts and using a pry bar to unseat it from the heads, it popped loose in an explosion of gunk and grime raining down into open ports. Awesome.   6 times I reminded myself: Be careful of the temperature sender on the front of the intake.   YEAH, I forgot again and snapped it clean off in the removal. Add another $20 to the ever-growing list of new parts this thing is consuming.   The shame is, long before removing the intake, I had changed the oil in prep for Tuesday's momentous fuel line replacement that was going to be the magic fix and I'd have a running Blazer to tool around in this next weekend. The intake removal, including raining gunk, also gushed dirty coolant all over the valley. Of course it did. Welp, there goes another $35.   I now need an intake gasket set, bolt set, coolant temp sensor, another 5 quarts of oil, some RTV. Don't worry, I've already got 3 new jugs of Dexcool and a thermostat waiting. I'll fill it with clean water first to get it running, dump it, and then add the Dex later on in case... well, let's not go there. I'm only tearing this down once, next time the truck is going on Marketplace for FREE.   Oh, and I'm going to need vacuum hose for all the stupid connections placed at the rear of the engine which have since disintegrated. Come on, GM....tell me you don't do that anymore?   Oh, and the ears on the distributor where the cap screws down are both cracked. I mean, why not put a new distributor in it too. You get a distributor, YOU get a distributor, Everyone gets a new distributor!   This truck isn't out of the woods yet...I'm already questioning how much more time I'm willing to sink in.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...