Jump to content
  • Sign up for FREE! Become a GM-Trucks.com Member Today!

    In 20 seconds you can become part of the worlds largest and oldest community discussing General Motors, Chevrolet and GMC branded pickups, crossovers, and SUVs. From buying research to owner support, join 1.5 MILLION GM Truck Enthusiasts every month who use GM-Trucks.com as a daily part of their ownership experience. 

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jc112 said:

Correct, 4hi only.  No. 

And 4Auto.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.