Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 10/21/2019 at 12:50 PM, Tungsten251 said:

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.  

The price point was to good to pass up so.... I purchased a 2019 2.7 Crew Cab 2WD.  I traded in a 2018 5.3 Crew Cab Z71 w/ level and Borla exhaust.  Very different experience's in both trucks but the lower overall debt and payment was enough to justify.  I'm very pleased with the 2019 features over the 2018 (except autostop and missing fog lights on LT trim).  My truck has the All-Star and convince II packages.  The HD rear camera is enough to justify the convince II package upgrade.  As I stated above I hoped for better MPG but i'm happy with the return so far.  As for the 4 cylinder haters out there you would never know  it was a 2.7 if you couldn't hear it (except if you were towing a large load).   Plenty of "get up and go".  

  • Like 1
Posted
On 10/14/2019 at 5:26 PM, heymrdjCW said:


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.

My old man has a 2016 Canyon CCLB with the 3.6  and 2wd and in the same driving to work and back when I have borrowed his it constantly gets 3-4 mpg better than mine. Now I do have a small level and 1 inch larger P-rated all terrain tires which should knock down about 1 mpg, so figure that truck is beating mine by around 2-3 mpg overall stock for stock (with correcting for tire size). The 2.7 I would imagine would be another 2-3 mpg in a midsize. I am all for saving some gas, less emissions, etc, especially in a package that will tow and haul everything I need it to. 7.5k towing capacity and 1600 lb payload will comfortably handle a wet loaded 5k boat or my GTO on a trailer along with the usual yard loads. Package that with a crew cab and the longer 6ft bed like my pops has (which is bigger longer than my current bed with nearly as much volume) while being overall shorter his truck fits much more comfortably in my garage than my silverado. I am over being wasteful if I can help it while still accomplishing what I need a vehicle to handle. Plus his mid size drives and rides nicer along with being cheaper, though room is less but I am still comfortable being 6'5 and 275 and people can fit behind me.

 

Tyler 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
On 10/14/2019 at 5:20 PM, Limelight said:

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. 

The 5.3 is a great motor and certainly efficient for a V8 (or non V8 when comparing to other brands mid range engines in terms of actual mpg). I am a big fan of my 5.3 but my next truck will be a mid size and I hope with that 2.7 in it. Your numbers are great and above average. Would be interesting to see what you would get in the same driving with the 2.7.

 

Currently my truck in regular driving with correcting for the tire size disparity is just under 17 mpg, stock I was barely getting 18mpg (everyday 400 mile average). This is with a 1.25" level front, 1" rear, trimmed air dam and 1 inch larger P-rated AT tires. Road trips I never saw anything north of 23 mpg at 70 stock unless I dipped down under 65. Would be nice to see north of 20 every day in my next truck and upper 20's on road trips. 

 

Tyler

Edited by amxguy1970
Posted
14 hours ago, sharkman said:

who's got the most miles on their 2.7 T?  any issues?

5200 miles. 25.9 mpg lifetime. Picked up 1 ton of wood pellets last week, drove home about 19 miles, performed flawlessly. 

I changed the oil at 3500 miles, the oil drain plugs is a 3/8” square fitting and only takes 1/4 turn and it drops out quickly. It has a large oil drain hole and it seems all 6 qts came out at once.  Somewhat messy. I like to see Fumoto develop an oil drain valve for this particular oil pan.

other wise no complaints, the 8 speed transmission paired with this engine is flawless. Never downshifts uphill. For example, I drive over the high rise bridge in Virginia Beach a few times a week, you can feel it calling for gas but the rpms hold steady.  Low end torque is outstanding. My 2018 Tacoma would have shifted to 4th and rpms would skyrocket. 

All in all, I’m impressed with this truck, although leery of switching from Toyota to Chevy, Hopefully I’ll take care of it and it will at least see me to 200k. 

I’m thinking I should install a catch can, but I come from the era of “points, plugs, and condenser “ and have no clue where to start or if it will void my warranty. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

Anyone that plans to do anything with exhaust mods to this motor, beware of what you put on and take off. I had a Carven TR with no resonator and it droned like a m*********r then had it replaced with Magnaflow 5x11 22" body but was still loud for my taste. So I had the shop put the stock resonator back on. It did tone it down a bit and removed good amount of the drone but I honestly thought it would do better being the Magnaflow I used is a big body muffler and would tone it down close to stock. I was on the verge of just putting it back to full stock but the noticeable gains with a straight thru muffler got me persuaded to keep it. Also keep in mind that this motor is a high compression motor (10:1) I believe, and also has DFM (which is dumb) shutting down 2 cylinders on very light acceleration pressure and lastly the adapter valve on the exhaust. If I could do it again, I'd go with a bigger body Borla, longer resonator and keep the flapper on. Once it shuts down 2 cylinders, it kills your ears were you get this inaudible really deep tone. It doesnt get loud but it's like a subwoofer hitting the lowest tones. In the morning, it would vibrate walls and would hear cups shake. Cant wait till a tuner comes out to soley deactivate DFM. 

Posted
9 hours ago, 808 HI said:

Anyone that plans to do anything with exhaust mods to this motor, beware of what you put on and take off. I had a Carven TR with no resonator and it droned like a m*********r then had it replaced with Magnaflow 5x11 22" body but was still loud for my taste. So I had the shop put the stock resonator back on. It did tone it down a bit and removed good amount of the drone but I honestly thought it would do better being the Magnaflow I used is a big body muffler and would tone it down close to stock. I was on the verge of just putting it back to full stock but the noticeable gains with a straight thru muffler got me persuaded to keep it. Also keep in mind that this motor is a high compression motor (10:1) I believe, and also has DFM (which is dumb) shutting down 2 cylinders on very light acceleration pressure and lastly the adapter valve on the exhaust. If I could do it again, I'd go with a bigger body Borla, longer resonator and keep the flapper on. Once it shuts down 2 cylinders, it kills your ears were you get this inaudible really deep tone. It doesnt get loud but it's like a subwoofer hitting the lowest tones. In the morning, it would vibrate walls and would hear cups shake. Cant wait till a tuner comes out to soley deactivate DFM. 

The 2.7I4 utilizes “AFM”. The latest Range AFM delete is fully compatible. 

I like the fact mine is quiet. I bought this truck solely base on the overall price on how much it would cost me to drive, the only extras I have done are Ionic tube steps and a Gator cover. I have had both on all of my trucks in the past and they have served me well.

Posted
On 11/1/2019 at 10:22 AM, sharkman said:

who's got the most miles on their 2.7 T?  any issues?

5.7k here, down to 30 percent oil life on first oil but trying to hold out for 10 to get the free dealer service.  No mechanical issues beyond the common 8spd gremlins which have definately improved with miles.

 

19.5 lifetime mpg doing 95% suburb/city driving on Costco PNW 87

Posted

14,500 miles on mine. The engine has been flawless from a hardware perspective - just the wiring harness issues earlier that were hell to fix. The 8 speed is a rough shifting piece of garbage, IMO/IME, but at least it's reliable.

 

My average fuel economy has dropped over the past 2,000 miles and I am at about 21.4 right now - about half of those have been spent towing the boat so I am not going to gripe.

 

Posted (edited)
On 11/7/2019 at 7:49 PM, SilveradoRST said:

The 2.7l doesn’t come with a 2 speed transfer case (correct me if I’m wrong).  Anyone here miss not having 4lo?
 

 

Correct, 4hi only. 

Edited by Jc112
Remove a word
Posted

I've got a 2015 F150 just about as basic a full size truck as one can get in as small of a configuration as one can get except that it's a V6 twin turbo with only cruise and power door locks/windows as added options. I'm a different kind of pickup truck enthusiast. I like trucks that don't have lots of gadgetry tech unless we're talking about automotive tech with power train advancement kinds of tech. I also like trucks being sized closer to the way they used to be but with all the driving and ride advancements of today.  So even though I've got one of the smallest newer trucks sold in our market today, I wish that it was lower to the ground so that I didn't need to stand on top of the front tires to clean the windshield. But I absolutely love all the power train and aero advancements that now have us up to 33 mpg highway with a diesel engine and up to 26 with a gas engine. I've been averaging 24 lifetime with a low of 21.7 low and a high of 26.7, measuring only tank to tank for 46,000 miles and 90 tanks measured via hand calculating.

 

So as is usually the case with new and advanced GM power train products, when it was announced that GM would offer a base 4 cylinder turbo gas engine for Silverado and Sierra, even though most enthusiast hate that idea, I was excited, because I think a rather large turbo 4 makes a far better base engine than a  weasly V6s for refinement and performance and possibly even mpg in a full size truck. I'm really a much bigger advocate for an inline 4 turbo than a V6 twin turbo, at least for a base engine, especially since it's the lighter duty applications in a truck where a gas turbo makes more sense, but I really much prefer turbo charging due to the fact I hate the need for high revs to accelerate or to maintain speed on hills, and diesels, though great, have become far too expensive and complex due to an anti diesel bias in our country with regards to emissions regulations.

 

But as always is the case with GM, they'll come out with a fantastic  new power train that was designed to be, not only efficient and reliable, but also in a manner that should have costs in check more than the competition, but even though a simple turbo 4 represents a substantial cost saver as compared to Ford's twin turbos, this doesn't mean they'll offer it to the masses with any sort of value. So just like was the case with their 2.8L Duramax with cast iron construction and solenoid injectors to keep costs low, and the new 3.0 Duramax straight six with exhaust treatment compacted and stuck along side the engine and solenoid injectors, and American manufacture, this turbo, just like those diesels, although they save on costs versus the competitons' products, they are not offered in lower trims or in all configurations and start at an even higher price than the competitors' products.

 

So yeah, I'd live to have purchased a Silverado RCSB with a large turbo 4 for less than $30K and 24 mpg and simpler/cheaper maintenance than a V6, but not only does GM not offer a RCSB truck any longer, but they also won't put a simple turbo 4 in anything close to ia basic pickup truck.

  • Like 2
Posted
On 11/7/2019 at 7:49 PM, SilveradoRST said:

The 2.7l doesn’t come with a 2 speed transfer case (correct me if I’m wrong).  Anyone here miss not having 4lo?
 

 

it does have a terrain mode, which supposed to be similar to 4wd low

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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.  
    • Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • 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.  
    • 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...