Jump to content

2.7 Turbo 4 Fan Club

ShamrockShooter
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

customboss Senior Enthusiast

customboss

Posted
Posted

I raced a GM/Oldsmobile road racing Quad 4  GM factory built race car in 1998 and that was the beginning of this redneck seeing what straight 4's and 6's are capable of if built right and tuned perfectly. The 2.7L is so interesting to me and shows a lot of what we essentially tested from 80's to late 90's to make less cylinders do more. This engine was built around that turbo for sure.  

  • Like 2
Diamondd817 Enthusiast

Diamondd817

Posted
Posted

Bumping the TQ to 420 is really impressive. But I still won't buy one until they start putting the 10spd behind it. Why would they keep the 8spd for this engine and put the 10spd behind evey other engine option? Do they just have a bunch of 8spd tranny's that they need to get rid of?

  • Like 1
DRWTEXAS New Member

DRWTEXAS

Posted
Posted

I have 51K Miles on my 2020 1500 LT Crew Cab 2.7L, 8 Speed Trans and I could not be happier with the truck. I have gotten as much as 30 mpg and more on the highway, typically I get 27 to 28 mpg and 22 to 24 mpg with mixed driving. I pulled a trailer with a Golf Cart from Dallas to Atlanta and averaged 20 MPG driving 70 + mph most of the time. I have had zero problems with this truck, I keep up with the maintenance accordingly, including the tramission flush at 45K. My son bought the Custom 2.7L and he does not get the same mpg that I do, he gets 22 to 24 mpg no matter how he drives it. He has 20" wheels, mine are 17". Also on my truck I have the options to choose Tow Mode, Sport Mode and Snow. Sport Mode keeps it fun. I'm seeing comments about how it sounds, I put a resonator on mine and when I get on it, it sounds fine. I'm also seeing comments about the spool up of the turbo, when I punch it, there is a nano second before it goes and not an issue for me. I was always 5.3 owner and if I needed to tow a heavy boat or trailer I would go back to the 5.3, but for now I am very happy with my 4 banger. The photo is from a video I sent my son taunting him about my gas mileage.

IMG_0813.PNG

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
SilveradoRST Enthusiast

SilveradoRST

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, DRWTEXAS said:

I have 51K Miles on my 2020 1500 LT Crew Cab 2.7L, 8 Speed Trans and I could not be happier with the truck. I have gotten as much as 30 mpg and more on the highway, typically I get 27 to 28 mpg and 22 to 24 mpg with mixed driving. I pulled a trailer with a Golf Cart from Dallas to Atlanta and averaged 20 MPG driving 70 + mph most of the time. I have had zero problems with this truck, I keep up with the maintenance accordingly, including the tramission flush at 45K. My son bought the Custom 2.7L and he does not get the same mpg that I do, he gets 22 to 24 mpg no matter how he drives it. He has 20" wheels, mine are 17". Also on my truck I have the options to choose Tow Mode, Sport Mode and Snow. Sport Mode keeps it fun. I'm seeing comments about how it sounds, I put a resonator on mine and when I get on it, it sounds fine. I'm also seeing comments about the spool up of the turbo, when I punch it, there is a nano second before it goes and not an issue for me. I was always 5.3 owner and if I needed to tow a heavy boat or trailer I would go back to the 5.3, but for now I am very happy with my 4 banger. The photo is from a video I sent my son taunting him about my gas mileage.

IMG_0813.PNG


Any issue with the 8 speed?
 

Gagliano7 Enthusiast

Gagliano7

Posted
Posted
On 10/31/2021 at 1:03 PM, SilveradoRST said:


Any issue with the 8 speed?
 

I have a 2018 sierra 6.2 8 speed and my tranny is flawless.

red70judge Enthusiast

red70judge

Posted
Posted

Newbie to this sub forum.  Ordered a '22 Custom on Aug.31 and received it on Nov. 2nd.

Still have an '18 HC 6.2, also had a '15 and '12 6.2 so this 4-banger will be interesting.

  • Like 1
Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted
On 11/3/2021 at 3:42 PM, F-150stxguy said:

That is incredible mileage. I imagine range would be great too. Do you run 91 octane or 87? 

Drove 300 miles up north this weekend, averaged 29.2 on 87 octane. 

489001BA-B5AF-4F4E-9552-2A216BA63DBC.jpeg

  • Like 1
lwmajor New Member

lwmajor

Posted
Posted

Although i havent driven the 2.7 it is interesting to me , my question is if I ordered a ‘21 WT with the 2.7 would i get the “improved” engine or get the original 2.7 ? I was wanting to get a 4x4 and level with biggest tires i could get under it . Is there anyone with this combo and still getting decent MPG ?

  • Like 1
f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, lwmajor said:

Although i havent driven the 2.7 it is interesting to me , my question is if I ordered a ‘21 WT with the 2.7 would i get the “improved” engine or get the original 2.7 ? I was wanting to get a 4x4 and level with biggest tires i could get under it . Is there anyone with this combo and still getting decent MPG ?

The higher output 2.7 is new to the 22 model. So you will still get the 310/348 rating which is still very stout. We started changing out our 4.3s in our farm for 2.7s this year to go along with our 5.3s. 

We load them , we tow with them , beat them up on our roads, and the 2.7 just keeps on kicking.  I honestly think the best thing GM did in last 5 years. Other GM has been pretty stagnant with their motors. 

  • Like 2
kc classic Enthusiast

kc classic

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Mike Borowski said:

Drove 300 miles up north this weekend, averaged 29.2 on 87 octane. 

489001BA-B5AF-4F4E-9552-2A216BA63DBC.jpeg

Your best mileage in the past 50 miles was 29.2, you averaged 20.8 in the last 50 miles.

  • Like 1
Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, kc classic said:

Your best mileage in the past 50 miles was 29.2, you averaged 20.8 in the last 50 miles.

So what's your point?

 

When I took the pic I was driving more aggressively and faster.  But on the way up north I was averaging 29.2

the wanderer Enthusiast

the wanderer

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Mike Borowski said:

So what's your point?

 

When I took the pic I was driving more aggressively and faster.  But on the way up north I was averaging 29.2

 

That's not how averages work. Your best was 29.2, your average can't also be 29.2. You average is far lower, and your worst must be quite low to get an average of 20.

 

I have averaged 23 to 25 in my hemi v8 and guys on this forum are doing better than that even with the 5.3. So that screenshot there is very unimpressive. Not saying you can't do far better with the turbo than you can in a v8, but that screenshot you posted is not showing you what you think it is, that's all we're saying. In fact its showing you that you got pretty miserable mileage all things considered.

Edited by the wanderer

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      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...