Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Anyone have any updates on their impressions of the I4? I’m wondering if it may be a good option over the 5.3/8 speed combo.

Posted

I actually wanted a turbo 4 Silverado, but there weren't any within 300 miles of me. So I went with the 5.3L V8.  Fuel economy is fine for what it is.  I'm averaging 24mpg highway and about 18mpg city.  But I definitely miss the turbo bov noise from my Cruze.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Ion said:

I actually wanted a turbo 4 Silverado, but there weren't any within 300 miles of me. So I went with the 5.3L V8.  Fuel economy is fine for what it is.  I'm averaging 24mpg highway and about 18mpg city.  But I definitely miss the turbo bov noise from my Cruze.

I’m looking to move up from my ‘08 hhr ss so I know what these turbo engines can do.

Posted

I think I'll be in the market for a crew cab turbo by the end of this year, or spring next year. My dealer has 6 on the lot, so I might try to test drive in the coming months when my work projects are done and it's not so busy every weekend. 

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Jricharc said:

I’m looking to move up from my ‘08 hhr ss so I know what these turbo engines can do.

Used to be a mod over at CobaltSS.net, so I do as well.  One of my buddy's at the time was a Trifecta tuner and owned an 09 CSS Turbo sedan. Damned thing roasted tires in 3rd. He took it up to top speed in no time at all.  I wanna say it was making 430whp. Those LNF motors are incredible. Shame they gave the Cruze the putrid LE5 1.4L.

Edited by Ion
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

My latest 2.7T fuel economy numbers.....

 

400 mile AVG 29.1 mpg

life of vehicle (11111.1 miles) 22.7 mpg

C0F25821-8D87-41DB-98AC-CA8947E5A27D.jpeg

Edited by InertiaFaze
  • Like 7
Posted
9 minutes ago, InertiaFaze said:

 

 

 

My latest 2.7T fuel economy numbers.....

 

400 mile AVG 29.1 mpg

life of vehicle (11111.1 miles) 22.7 mpg

C0F25821-8D87-41DB-98AC-CA8947E5A27D.jpeg

 

9577667B-4181-4B32-9253-A9804BEF80F6.jpeg

  • Like 1
Posted
18 hours ago, InertiaFaze said:

 

9577667B-4181-4B32-9253-A9804BEF80F6.jpeg

 

So, what kind of truck do you drive for this kind of gas mileage?

Posted (edited)

GMC Sierra Crew Cab 6.5’ box 2WD 2.7T 8Spd

Edited by InertiaFaze
Posted
On 7/14/2019 at 8:27 AM, Jricharc said:

Anyone have any updates on their impressions of the I4? I’m wondering if it may be a good option over the 5.3/8 speed combo.

Love the engine and can accept the transmission.  Just turned 2300mi/3.5months and I'm a lifetime 19.2 mpg on Costco 87.  I don't do much hwy driving.  Maybe 200mi of the above is highway which was a run up Snoqumie pass and the turbo torque made it effortless. The rest is North Seattle/Everett commuting.

 

Some of the V8 milage numbers have sounded pretty good and some turbo owners have had some early teething issues.

Posted (edited)
On 7/15/2019 at 10:26 PM, InertiaFaze said:

 

9577667B-4181-4B32-9253-A9804BEF80F6.jpeg

 

Edited by InertiaFaze
Posted

I'm at 6,400 miles and counting. Every weekend I've had mine has been spent with the boat behind it for at least 300 miles - and this thing is an absolute champ in the mountains. I could not be happier with how it tows.

 

I'm still very soured on the whole experience with this wiring harness clusterf*. I can't go into too many details right now, but GM refused to buy back my truck even though it spent more than 30 days in the dealer's possession over issues related to the wiring harness. I ended up hiring an attorney and we have settled out of court over it for enough to allow me to trade for something else and not lose anything. I haven't decided what I am going to do yet (waiting on the Ecodiesel Grand Cherokees to come out in Q4 and may go buy myself a Summit, or I may sit on the settlement as I have a wedding and honeymoon that I need to plan for). The truck is running fine now - although I don't trust the repairs. GM shot my new car experience to hell and I hate to say it but they have lost me a a customer (a very brand loyal customer who buys 2 new cars every other year at that...).

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 7/28/2019 at 8:36 PM, kc classic said:

MDSilveradoGuy is it safe to assume if it wasn't for the wiring problem, you would have been satisfied with the Silverado with the 2.7l turbo?

Very. 10/10 I would do it all over. The only thing that would improve it would be the 10 speed auto instead of the demented 8 speed behind it.

 

Presumably, any of the new ones would have the remediated part which failed repeatedly on mine as the part number has changed.

  • Like 1

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,914
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    AidenVorpagel
    Newest Member
    AidenVorpagel
    Joined
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 504 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • 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. 
    • 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.  
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...