2.7 Turbo 4 Fan Club

[Gagliano7]

That engine looks pretty good but there are a lot of electrical parts on the cooling side that will go wrong especially in the areas with a lot of snow and salt. 

[the wanderer]

37 minutes ago, Gagliano7 said:

there are a lot of electrical parts on the cooling side that will go wrong especially in the areas with a lot of snow and salt. 

 

Why? Every car and truck out there has tons of electrical components. I'm happy to hear well reasoned arguments, but just throwing that out there like you did without any proof or elaboration is not helpful.

[Donstar]

On ‎2019‎-‎04‎-‎07 at 3:45 PM, OnTheReel said:

I didn’t think anyone bothered to ask that question anymore since it seems like 90% of Silverados in the past 20 years have had the 5.3.

 

I would actually be excited if someone asked and I had the 4 cylinder. At least it’s something different, and it seems to be doing quite well. Most people are at least curious about the engine.

Shortly after I purchased my '15, I put a V6 badge on the tailgate.  It provoked nothing but positive discussions.  You are correct that the assumption is there will be 5.3 V8 powering your GM 1500.  

[KARNUT]

I quit worrying about what engine was under the hood when I quit putting loud exhaust on and my wife’s V-6 Genesis out ran my brother wife’s Hemi Challanger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MaverickZ71]

Doesn't matter what the fuel economy reading is in the Driver Info Center display.  (Especially the instant reading--oh look, we're getting 99mpg coasting down this steep hill!)  Most of the time the average fuel economy reading is factory set to be overoptimistic, making the driver think they are getting better mpg than they really are.  And/or it is calibrated for the 2WD, high fuel economy model with a high rear gear and hard highway tires.  So like they say, your mileage may vary, especially if you're driving the off-road 4WD model with all-terrain tires and lower trailer-towing rear gear.  Only way to know for sure is to use a calculator to divide the miles driven by the gallons used after you refuel.   

Edited April 10, 2019 by MaverickZ71

[ShamrockShooter]

400 miles in a week and the average DIC was 22.2 mpg for mixed driving including some city and highway rush hour stop and go. I didn't have it long enough to do a full tank hand calc with an entire tank, but I do know I brought it back with a little less than a quarter tank gone and I had already gone over 200 miles. My v8 5.3 barely gets to 200 miles on a half tank if I am lucky.

TFL got 24.# something in their hand calc 100 mile loop with 2.7.

I am sure as more members get 2.7s there will be more data to support initial numbers. My gut says I could get 22 to 23 mpg all day long in this truck if you drive it right. My lifetime average in my 16 with a 5.3 was 17.2 mpg and I drive very conservative (same way I drove the 2.7)

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[OnTheReel]

The DIC on these are actually really quite accurate. Mine has been within a few percent every time I hand-calculated. Sometimes over, sometimes under.

[MDSilveradoGuy]

5 hours ago, MaverickZ71 said:

Doesn't matter what the fuel economy reading is in the Driver Info Center display.  (Especially the instant reading--oh look, we're getting 99mpg coasting down this steep hill!)  Most of the time the average fuel economy reading is factory set to be overoptimistic, making the driver think they are getting better mpg than they really are.  And/or it is calibrated for the 2WD, high fuel economy model with a high rear gear and hard highway tires.  So like they say, your mileage may vary, especially if you're driving the off-road 4WD model with all-terrain tires and lower trailer-towing rear gear.  Only way to know for sure is to use a calculator to divide the miles driven by the gallons used after you refuel.   

Every test has shown these trucks to be within 1/2 MPG of what is shown on the DIC.

 

It's worth noting that the truck that TFL used is a 4x4 LT that has been all over youtube (same mfr. plate and loaded LT configuration), went up against the Rebel with, and is the same one that they pulled the Gauntlet with fully loaded as well as has been in several comparo tests. At least in the case of this one, it has proven to be very consistent.

 

My Cruze is within 1% based on hand calculations, and my Colorado with the same DIC as the Cruze is also within 1% (which is sad because my Colorado rarely gets over 14 city thanks to a 4.10 rear end and stump puller gearing... tows like a champ though). GM has these things dialed in quite well, regardless of carline.

Edited April 10, 2019 by MDSilveradoGuy

[MaverickZ71]

27 minutes ago, MDSilveradoGuy said:

Every test has shown these trucks to be within 1/2 MPG of what is shown on the DIC.

 

It's worth noting that the truck that TFL used is a 4x4 LT that has been all over youtube (same mfr. plate and loaded LT configuration), went up against the Rebel with, and is the same one that they pulled the Gauntlet with fully loaded as well as has been in several comparo tests. At least in the case of this one, it has proven to be very consistent.

 

My Cruze is within 1% based on hand calculations, and my Colorado with the same DIC as the Cruze is also within 1% (which is sad because my Colorado rarely gets over 14 city thanks to a 4.10 rear end and stump puller gearing... tows like a champ though). GM has these things dialed in quite well, regardless of carline.

So the truck that has been all over YouTube is a specially-prepared manufacturer's ringer then?  Not one that TFL selected from a Chevy dealer in Denver?  Even more interesting.  

 

It's worth noting that Car and Driver magazine tested a 2.7L 4-banger Silverado and got worse gas mileage then their 5.3L, and pointed asked what's the point of a $45K+ truck that can't tow or haul as much as a V8, but gets worse fuel economy?   

 

If GM has the DIC gas mileage dialed in, they must've just now figured out how to do it.  Maybe EPA is finally breathing down their neck.  Over the last 10+ years, many of us have noticed a 10-20 percent discrepancy, always overly-optimistic.  My GM dealer agreed with my findings and said that was not unusual, and GM corporate classified it as 'normal operation' and the dealer could not recalibrate it nor would GM corporate let them replace it under warranty.

 

Just this afternoon on this website there are new posts about new AT4 6.2L's not getting as good as fuel economy as advertised, and a mpg drop after a dealer reprogramming.  So I'll stand by the old sayings of buyer beware, and your mileage may vary.  

Edited April 10, 2019 by MaverickZ71

[MDSilveradoGuy]

12 minutes ago, MaverickZ71 said:

So the truck that has been all over YouTube is a specially-prepared manufacturer's ringer then?  Not one that TFL selected from a Chevy dealer in Denver?  Even more interesting.  

 

It's worth noting that Car and Driver magazine tested a 2.7L 4-banger Silverado and got worse gas mileage then their 5.3L, and pointed asked what's the point of a $45K+ truck that can't tow or haul as much as a V8, but gets worse fuel economy?   

 

If GM has the DIC gas mileage dialed in, they must've just now figured out how to do it.  Maybe EPA is finally breathing down their neck.  Over the last 10+ years, many of us have noticed a 10-20 percent discrepancy, always overly-optimistic.  My GM dealer agreed with my findings and said that was not unusual, and GM corporate classified it as 'normal operation' and the dealer could not recalibrate it nor would GM corporate let them replace it under warranty.

 

As they say, buyer beware, and your mileage may vary.  

Manufacturers provide vehicles to the media from a media pool. It's not as if Car and Driver went and bought theirs at Bob Jones Chevrolet/Buick in Scranton PA, beat the snot out of it, and then sold it to Carmax.

 

I love C&D for their witty banter, and have subscribed to them for the better part of my 36 years on this earth. I would trust them to do a fuel economy comparison about as much as I would trust the National Enquirer to give me stock advice, though.

Edited April 10, 2019 by MDSilveradoGuy

[OnTheReel]

Sorry, but one fuel economy test at 75 mph...from C&D no less...does not make the 2.7 pointless. Too many other variables, and other types of driving that the 2.7 has already proven to excel at over the 5.3 and the old 4.3. There is no way I could beat Shamrock’s mixed driving numbers with any full size truck I’ve owned, that’s for sure.

 

I get that some people don’t want to like the 2.7, but to write it off only a few months after it hit dealer lots is stupid. For my purposes, it’s a little light on towing capacity but I can see it being perfect for the majority of truck buyers who never hitch up anything, and use it as a grocery getter. Gas prices are climbing again...

[ShamrockShooter]

I have taken the 2.7 loaner back. It was a fun fling, but I'm glad to be back in a 5.3.

I did notice the Autostop on the 2.7 seemed much more harsh than the 5.3.

I babied my trail boss on the way to work and back and barely cracked 18 mpg over 25 miles. Same route I was driving 2.7.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[L86 All Terrain]

I figured that these engines would perform very poorly for mileage when it comes to highway cruising on your US interstates with 75mph speed limits. I figured the engine would lack the necessary power to easily overcome the wind resistance at those speeds. I travel around 67mph on our Canadian highways with my 6.2L on 33's and I am lucky to get 16us mpg on a long drive. But when I am on the secondary highways or in town 35-50mph, I can get it up around 19mpg. The truck was really great on gas until I added circumference and about 25lbs to each wheel. 

 

Will be interesting in coming years to see what these can do with an upgraded turbo and a stall converter. I bet you can make these faster than a 5.3L at the strip for minimal dollars. Look at what tuners can do with Ford's egoboost trucks, simply by pushing more boost electronically. 

[Daverado]

18 hours ago, MaverickZ71 said:

If GM has the DIC gas mileage dialed in, they must've just now figured out how to do it.  Maybe EPA is finally breathing down their neck.  Over the last 10+ years, many of us have noticed a 10-20 percent discrepancy, always overly-optimistic.  My GM dealer agreed with my findings and said that was not unusual, and GM corporate classified it as 'normal operation' and the dealer could not recalibrate it nor would GM corporate let them replace it under warranty.

 

Just this afternoon on this website there are new posts about new AT4 6.2L's not getting as good as fuel economy as advertised, and a mpg drop after a dealer reprogramming.  So I'll stand by the old sayings of buyer beware, and your mileage may vary.  

I think it's not that complicated really.  The computer knows how much fuel it's using, and the car generally knows how many miles it has traveled with some margin of error (turns and tire size/inflation introduce variance there).  With more sophisticated fuel-injection systems comes tighter control over fuel and the ability to count it.  So the car is just as capable of doing the miles/gallon math as you are.

 

Whether the car achieves the advertised mileage according to the sticker is another issue entirely from whether the number the DIC gives you is real-world-accurate.

 

 

[ShamrockShooter]

So I have had a loaner 19 base LT crew cab with the 5.3 L and 17 inch Bridgestone dueller light off road tires for about 3 days now. After a couple trips to work and a back country road trip last night I'm at about 19.2 mpg on the DIC. And that is driving about as conservative as I possibly could. So small sample size but same driver, same trips to work in the 2.7 was a solid 3 mpg better, for me anyway. Your results may vary.

Most of my driving was in the 45 to 60 mph range. I bet if it was 72 on the highway the 2.7 would come back to the pack a little more.

Also the 2.7 was a double cab with highway tires so that alone is gives it a slight advantage over the 5.3 I am comparing it to.

Hope some more members with the 2.7 can share their results.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk