Jump to content

2.7 Turbo 4 Fan Club

ShamrockShooter
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cougfan Enthusiast

Cougfan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Amcguy1970 said:

Might want to change your signature, it isn't a twin turbo but rather a single turbo 2.7L motor. 

 

 

 

Tyler

Oops! I had Ecoboost on the brain I guess. Thanks!

  • Haha 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

Acpantera Enthusiast

Acpantera

Posted
Posted

Absolutely loving my 2.7 so far. Power is more than adequate and the economy is pretty darn good when you try to squeeze all you can out of a gallon. Took a little road trip to visit a cousin the other day, 30 mile one way, speed limit never more than 45mph, flat land and plenty traffic lights. Averaged a tad over 29 mpg according to the dic for a 25 mile stretch, And Averaged 20.5 on my last tank all suburban driving.

20210907_115327.jpg

  • Like 2
Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Amcguy1970 said:

:wtf: I keep seeing this Bilstein koolaid. I have made the switch (after my stockers wore out nearly 70k later and miles of back country driving), the difference is slight and I can only imagine that much less so when only doing one end. I bet 9 out of 10 people if given the chance to ride back to back with only a rear shock change on stockers that are low miles at that would not be able to tell a difference. Even replacing all four when worn out the difference wasn't huge...

 

Tyler

I find this hard to believe. I swapped just my rear at around 5,000 miles and the difference is definitely noticeable. My bed is almost always close to empty and that thing hopped around like mad. Now it doesn’t. 

  • Like 1
JimCost2014 Senior Enthusiast

JimCost2014

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Cougfan said:

Oops! I had Ecoboost on the brain I guess. Thanks!

Sorry, have too, you kind of "Couged" that one🤣😂🤣😂

Cougfan Enthusiast

Cougfan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, JimCost2014 said:

Sorry, have too, you kind of "Couged" that one🤣😂🤣😂

 

Oh you're hilarious! Yes, that's exactly what I did 🤣 

  • Like 1
2.7fanboy Enthusiast

2.7fanboy

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Acpantera said:

New 2022 2.7ho will have 420 lbft of torque,  72lbft bump! 

I seriously thought this was a joke. Can't believe how much they've improved this engine and I'm super jealous. However, my 2021 2.7L is good enough for my needs (especially given how hard it is to find a new truck). I hit the 5k mark and did my first oil change. 2.7L feels even smoother / slightly more powerful. Nice to see this type of innovation from GM. Will put pressure on all other manufacturers to step it up.

  • Like 4
  • 3 weeks later...
Jaolered Enthusiast

Jaolered

Posted
Posted
On 9/9/2021 at 9:12 AM, Acpantera said:

New 2022 2.7ho will have 420 lbft of torque,  72lbft bump! 

 

I thought about trading it in, but honestly I love my column shifter, the power is plenty, and I don't really want to lose money on the trade (or get yelled at by my wife), so I'm going to stick with my 2021.

 

Also, I'm probably one of the highest-mileage 2.7 owners out there at 17k miles, with a lifetime average of 22.5 mpg. I'm pretty freaking happy with that. I'm about to throw on a straight-through magnaflow muffler and a cold air intake so hopefully I squeeze out a little more mpgs or HP/torque.

  • Like 2
Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Jonathan Akers said:

 

I thought about trading it in, but honestly I love my column shifter, the power is plenty, and I don't really want to lose money on the trade (or get yelled at by my wife), so I'm going to stick with my 2021.

 

Also, I'm probably one of the highest-mileage 2.7 owners out there at 17k miles, with a lifetime average of 22.5 mpg. I'm pretty freaking happy with that. I'm about to throw on a straight-through magnaflow muffler and a cold air intake so hopefully I squeeze out a little more mpgs or HP/torque.

I have the Afe CIA it’s pretty awesome. I wouldn’t do a muffler… try the CAI alone first it makes the engine sound pretty badass and the turbo louder. 

cadi daddi New Member

cadi daddi

Posted
Posted

I love my 2.7 turbo. It moves when i stomp on it. No problem passing and at an average of 70-75mph I'm getting 21-22mpg. Remarkably nimble for a full size truck. Can't wait to tune her and get a cold air intake.

  • Like 1
  • 3 weeks later...
customboss Senior Enthusiast

customboss

Posted
Posted

Can anyone source the L3B part # and then the new L3B HO part #?  I have a 2022 LTD Custom Trail Boss on the way and dealer has no clue which I am going to see.  RPO is same but part #'s are different. 

Jc112 Enthusiast

Jc112

Posted
Posted
On 9/27/2021 at 9:29 PM, Jonathan Akers said:

 

I thought about trading it in, but honestly I love my column shifter, the power is plenty, and I don't really want to lose money on the trade (or get yelled at by my wife), so I'm going to stick with my 2021.

 

Also, I'm probably one of the highest-mileage 2.7 owners out there at 17k miles, with a lifetime average of 22.5 mpg. I'm pretty freaking happy with that. I'm about to throw on a straight-through magnaflow muffler and a cold air intake so hopefully I squeeze out a little more mpgs or HP/torque.

27,000 and 23.9 mpg

  • Like 1
F-150stxguy Enthusiast

F-150stxguy

Posted
Posted

This thread was a good read. It seems most people are satisfied with this motor. While it’s not a horsepower monster, it seems to have good torque and will only get better starting next year. I really want them to drop the HO 2.7 in the next generation Colorado. If they do, I’ll likely buy that. 
 

 

  • Like 1
F-150stxguy Enthusiast

F-150stxguy

Posted
Posted

I  will say I wish I drove an Ecoboost before pulling the trigger on the Silverado, but I was just worried about reliability (Found On Road Dead). How do the F150 2.7 and 3.5 compare to the GM 2.7? Can't really find much on youtube about how they drive. —- Jonathan Akers

 

 

—————————————————————-

 

 

I just came from a 2.7 ecoboost. The engine was the best part of the whole truck. It’s also Ford’s most reliable engine most likely. It’s incredibly stout. There’s documentation on a Ford forum of a man who travels emergency delivery across the eastern half of the United States who has driven an early 2015 2.7 ecoboost to around 450,000 miles with oil changed and filter changed. And a sensor I believe. Stock turbo. Sometime did happen mechanically at the end and he did trade the truck in for a newer one, but I don’t think it was turbo related. It’s also Ford’s most sold engine in the F150 line up and I’ve seen far far fewer problems as compared to the 5.0 and 3.5 on any type of community board. 
 

 

It’s proof that If the block and internals are built right from the ground up to be forced induction, it can have the same longevity as an 8 cylinder, non forced induction. 

Thermal cycles and friction  are what do internal combustion engines in, and Ford has skimped in that area with their 3.5 ecoboost. Look at the Tundra’s 3.5 twin turbo…….if everything is engineered and up to par, I’d bet on average that engine will last even longer than Ford’s 3.5 ecoboost. They DIDNT skimp on the engine cooling. 
 

This is what interests me about the GM 2.7. Inline engine with only one turbo. And forged internals with a stout block and iron liners. The cooling and thermal system seems to be there to make this a long lasting engine. 

 

  • Like 2

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

  • 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   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,284 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      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  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      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.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      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. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...