2.7 Turbo 4 Fan Club

[customboss]

1 hour ago, 622Trailboss said:

Just wondering if you have experimented with a tonneau cover related to your mpg?  I plan to switch to either BFG KO2s or Nitto Ridge Grapplers once my Duratracs need replacing. The duratracs are roughly 20lbs heavier and it  reducing 80 lbs of rotational mass should do wonders for mpg and acceleration.

No for the bed cover on this Trail Boss because I’m off improved roads most of the time and drive under speed limit on highways.
Up here I need E rated tires for less punctures that the C rated Duratracs have provided, not to mention better snow and ice performance. 
 

[Texcl2]

I have a truxedo cover on my 2022 2.7 Ho trailboss and don’t really see a difference in the mileage but man is it handy when grocery shopping ect… I now have 3k on my m1 0w-30 oil change with no oil consumption. It’s been down below -20 the last couple mornings and supposed to stay cold for a couple weeks. Glad I put it in, will change it in the next 1k miles like I always do. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Texcl2

[622Trailboss]

1 hour ago, Texcl2 said:

I have a truxedo cover on my 2022 2.7 Ho trailboss and don’t really see a difference in the mileage but man is it handy when grocery shopping ect… I now have 3k on my m1 0w-30 oil change with no oil consumption. It’s been down below -20 the last couple mornings and supposed to stay cold for a couple weeks. Glad I put it in, will change it in the next 1k miles like I always do. 

I only have 1100 miles so I’m still on the factory oil but I intend to run Mobil 1 as well.

[4banger]

On 1/27/2023 at 9:06 AM, newdude said:

 

 

Are you talking about Burger Motorsports?  The dyno chart clearly has the truck listed as a 2021 in which case the power represented would agree with the non HO.  The torque curve is the giveaway in the chart that they used a non HO for the baseline.    

 

I don't buy that chart being tied to a 2022 HO if that's the claim they are making.  I own an HO and have driven non HO.  My butt dyno says there's no way at all that chart is from an HO baseline.  

please go back further, I have response from them confirming they mis labeled the dyno chart and will go back to relabel it 2022, I posted the direct quote from my email from them, so they dyno'd a 2022 refresh! been too busy to get mine dyno'd to see if same, its work then ice fishing all weekend in the trailer, got lots of hard water season left so might be spring before I get a chance to see if my dyno is same as the tuner's results

[4banger]

On 1/27/2023 at 7:43 AM, Mike Borowski said:

Getting old-school folks over the “4 cyl in a truck” thing is the only hurdle this engine has. The thing is great. Do I miss the sound of a V8?  YES!  But otherwise there is 0 incentive to choose the 5.3L. 
 

Since most truck owners these days use it as a family hauler and for trips to Home Depot, it’s a perfect engine for them. 

ya my ice fishing buddy has 5.3 and we both pull similar cargo trailers every weekend and we're about the same on fuel use and no issues with power, pick one, I'll take the turbski 

[Mike Borowski]

Just now, 4banger said:

ya my ice fishing buddy has 5.3 and we both pull similar cargo trailers every weekend and we're about the same on fuel use and no issues with power, pick one, I'll take the turbski 

I don’t think people talk about how much better 2.7 trucks handle than 5.3/6.2. Lighter front end is noticeable. Another pro for the 2.7. 

[4banger]

On 1/27/2023 at 9:16 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Simplicity? Efficiency?

 

When they say "A more efficient design"; they are not referencing the motors' ability to use fuel efficiently. They are referencing the most efficient way to get X lb./ft. torque.  It is a nature of the design that allows this power on slightly less fuel. Sounds like hair splitting I know. 

 

In the days of the flathead if you needed more power, you added displacement. When the OHV motors arrived the 'design' allowed more power from the SAME displacement making it a more efficient air pump. As time toddled on, they learned to make the OHV a more efficient combustor. Increased compression. Vortec heads. Juggling bore/stroke ratio and so on but the point is the motor made more power from less fuel from the SAME displacement. It's power density increased, and its fuel efficiency followed the improvements in combustion dynamics. By the time we reach the 21 century we have small displacement V6's and V8's making the power of 7-to-9-liter 8- and 10-cylinder motors of a few decades before on a fraction of the fuel. As a bonus the reliability and longevity of these motors increased as well. If they were to follow the natural path 'Free Valve" motors would be next and propel combustion efficiency well past the 50% mark only Mercedes-Benz race motors enjoy today. The unwillingness of the OEMs to follow this path is the wind pushing electrification. 

 

While a turbo motor is a more efficient air pump, in that it decreases pumping losses, it does not automatically make it a more efficient combustor. It's primarily a means of increasing displacement artificially. Getting a 2.7-liter motor to make the power of a NA 6 liter. This kids, causes cooling issues as combustion efficiency does not follow power improvement and now......it gets complicated. Rings seal, a thing I preach is not keeping up with power density. 

 

This is just the OEMs getting the most power from the CHEAPEST package that will last just long enough to keep expectations in check and keep Uncle Sam's wolves away long enough to complete the transition to batteries. 

 

We have the technology to do better it just isn't profitable. 

 

  

I give you the 5.9 liter 2v p-pump cummins, turbo. Better than any pick up NA diesel v8 or gas v8 ever.

 

And dig into that electric battery thing, not sustainable, far worse for environment mining that then using the 2nd most common and regenerating fluid on earth (oil), if you still buy the Dino juice theory from the Rockefeller's started in early 1900's then you're way behind. The electric cars are part of a far bigger plan bud, control, tied to your chip, digital currency and 15 minute cities, limit you easily to where they want, and turn you off whenever they want also...end goal, you don't get a car but they have to do it in steps over time. Never bring up this electric vehicle nonsense on the gasser forum. It's surprising in the Information Age how far some are behind. Lots of psychological stuff at play to learn about first, start with cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias but then the fact that humans are nothing more than a product of their information...control the microphone and you control the people, you can make them believe the sky is green. It's called trauma based programming, crisis/relief cycles (our news), in perpetual fear state is the only way for us to believe the irrational, smart and evil people figured out human psychology long ago and they know how to nudge public perception, pretty clear by now eh? It should be. If you haven't noticed the unravelling of this green sky phenomenon yet in the past 3 years then I don't know what else to say...maybe just remain silent on the subject until you have ALL the information and you process to your own conclusions? The choice to know is yours. We need to be a little better in this day and age. If you think the news/govt/hollywood (all the same entity - they always spit the same narrative together) is telling you anything of value, let alone anything other than lies over our lifetimes then you're so far behind you think you're first. It's going to be a tough ride for many. Anyhow...you're welcome. Oil - the 2nd most common and regenerating fluid on earth, don't forget that. They said a long time ago we'd run out...lol. Hope this doesn't burst your bubble either but climate change hoax...is just that, always has been....a hoax (sky is green right?), same a-holes telling you this nonsense as well, and it's much worse than that sadly, they like an inverted world, so you're about to discover just how much we've been lied to about, it's far greater than these two topics...fasten your seatbelt and fix the tray in the upright and locked position, turbulence ahead

Edited January 30, 2023 by 4banger

[4banger]

13 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

I don’t think people talk about how much better 2.7 trucks handle than 5.3/6.2. Lighter front end is noticeable. Another pro for the 2.7. 

the list of advantages over the 5.3 is way bigger than the other way around

 

elevation disappears

160 lbs lighter (good for handling and not getting stuck)

peak torque 1100 rpm less

no lifters

long trip unconscious stress is less, so relaxed and quiet, does the same for you

half the parts (simplicity)

 

I'm sure there's a few I'm missing but those are some key ones

 

[Mike Borowski]

2 minutes ago, 4banger said:

the list of advantages over the 5.3 is way bigger than the other way around

 

elevation disappears

160 lbs lighter (good for handling and not getting stuck)

peak torque 1100 rpm less

no lifters

long trip unconscious stress is less, so relaxed and quiet, does the same for you

half the parts (simplicity)

 

I'm sure there's a few I'm missing but those are some key ones

 

100%

 

side note, I think I’m sending the tuner back. It’s cool, you notice some power but it’s all up higher in the RPM’s and that’s just not how I drive. I don’t race. I just wanted some more grunt around town and on the highway. 

[Mike Borowski]

2 minutes ago, 4banger said:

the list of advantages over the 5.3 is way bigger than the other way around

 

elevation disappears

160 lbs lighter (good for handling and not getting stuck)

peak torque 1100 rpm less

no lifters

long trip unconscious stress is less, so relaxed and quiet, does the same for you

half the parts (simplicity)

 

I'm sure there's a few I'm missing but those are some key ones

 

100%

 

side note, I think I’m sending the tuner back. It’s cool, you notice some power but it’s all up higher in the RPM’s and that’s just not how I drive. I don’t race. I just wanted some more grunt around town and on the highway. 

[4banger]

6 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

100%

 

side note, I think I’m sending the tuner back. It’s cool, you notice some power but it’s all up higher in the RPM’s and that’s just not how I drive. I don’t race. I just wanted some more grunt around town and on the highway. 

 

thanks for update, ya I don't need anything more from mine, beyond happy with it, just had it's first -21c weekend sit on ice and she turned about 4 times and fired right up, my buddies 2014 5.3 is older higher mileage groaned a whole bunch more and didn't wanna start as easily, will be trying to run this thing into the ground so only 24,000 kms so far (15,000 miles), I just hate to be lied to, if it doesn't have 120 ft/lbs more torque than hp then don't advertise that, I'd likely have bought it with the gen 1 rating no problem

Edited January 30, 2023 by 4banger

[customboss]

7 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

100%

 

side note, I think I’m sending the tuner back. It’s cool, you notice some power but it’s all up higher in the RPM’s and that’s just not how I drive. I don’t race. I just wanted some more grunt around town and on the highway. 

Thanks for testing it real time. 

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, 4banger said:

I give you the 5.9 liter 2v p-pump cummins, turbo. Better than any pick up NA diesel v8 or gas v8 ever.

 

And dig into that electric battery thing, not sustainable, far worse for environment mining that then using the 2nd most common and regenerating fluid on earth (oil), if you still buy the Dino juice theory from the Rockefeller's started in early 1900's then you're way behind. The electric cars are part of a far bigger plan bud, control, tied to your chip, digital currency and 15 minute cities, limit you easily to where they want, and turn you off whenever they want also...end goal, you don't get a car but they have to do it in steps over time. Never bring up this electric vehicle nonsense on the gasser forum. It's surprising in the Information Age how far some are behind. Lots of psychological stuff at play to learn about first, start with cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias but then the fact that humans are nothing more than a product of their information...control the microphone and you control the people, you can make them believe the sky is green. It's called trauma based programming, crisis/relief cycles (our news), in perpetual fear state is the only way for us to believe the irrational, smart and evil people figured out human psychology long ago and they know how to nudge public perception, pretty clear by now eh? It should be. If you haven't noticed the unravelling of this green sky phenomenon yet in the past 3 years then I don't know what else to say...maybe just remain silent on the subject until you have ALL the information and you process to your own conclusions? The choice to know is yours. We need to be a little better in this day and age. If you think the news/govt/hollywood (all the same entity - they always spit the same narrative together) is telling you anything of value, let alone anything other than lies over our lifetimes then you're so far behind you think you're first. It's going to be a tough ride for many. Anyhow...you're welcome. Oil - the 2nd most common and regenerating fluid on earth, don't forget that. They said a long time ago we'd run out...lol. Hope this doesn't burst your bubble either but climate change hoax...is just that, always has been....a hoax (sky is green right?), same a-holes telling you this nonsense as well, and it's much worse than that sadly, they like an inverted world, so you're about to discover just how much we've been lied to about, it's far greater than these two topics...fasten your seatbelt and fix the tray in the upright and locked position, turbulence ahead

 

I have no idea what set that off or what you THINK you know about what I believe or how that played into the word smithing above. But you might be surprised to know I didn't fall off the turnip truck last night and have made many of the same observations you have and to many of the same conclusions. I know how this works.  

[622Trailboss]

I’m toying with the idea of picking up a chin spoiler from a wrecked truck or perhaps if someone has removed theirs so I can see what difference I see in my mpg. I can simply throw it on for longer trips or take it off if off roading (which I don’t do often) Trailboss doesn’t come from the factory with one.

[Amcguy1970]

1 hour ago, 622Trailboss said:

I’m toying with the idea of picking up a chin spoiler from a wrecked truck or perhaps if someone has removed theirs so I can see what difference I see in my mpg. I can simply throw it on for longer trips or take it off if off roading (which I don’t do often) Trailboss doesn’t come from the factory with one.

 

On my 2014 doing back-to-back tests at the same cruise control mph was about 1.3mpg difference if I remember correctly, definitely north of 1mpg which is what designers and engineers have all stated at highway speeds. 

 

Tyler