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. 

2.7 Turbo 4 Fan Club


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mike Borowski said:

I’m not sure it’s JUST software. But it’s business. It’s been that way for years. They have tamed down the LS LT motors for years so it doesn’t look better than the corvette in other cars. There’s “tiers” to the Colorado for a reason. They put an amazing engine in it and people will still complain lol. 

 

I'm kind'a with the wanderer on this one. I'm a work truck guy and a truck that WORKS needs to have a motor than can. Putting the stump pulls in a Lincoln want to be doesn't make sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

I'm kind'a with the wanderer on this one. I'm a work truck guy and a truck that WORKS needs to have a motor than can. Putting the stump pulls in a Lincoln want to be doesn't make sense. 

Colorado’s aren’t exactly “stump pulling” trucks. Unless I misunderstood. I have no idea what the Lincoln reference is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

Colorado’s aren’t exactly “stump pulling” trucks. Unless I misunderstood. I have no idea what the Lincoln reference is. 

 

As mentioned earlier the Colorado is now the size of a GMT800. It's midsized in name only. Yea, not a stump puller but could be IF they put the top tune in it. Not many years ago the 5.7 wasn't making the power of this four pot.

 

The Lincoln reference is putting the highest output motors in trucks in the highest trim levels only. Town Cars with CUMMINS motors. About the same sense to me. 

 

Hey it's just a opinion and one is as good as another, right? 😉 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

As mentioned earlier the Colorado is now the size of a GMT800. It's midsized in name only. Yea, not a stump puller but could be IF they put the top tune in it. Not many years ago the 5.7 wasn't making the power of this four pot.

 

The Lincoln reference is putting the highest output motors in trucks in the highest trim levels only. Town Cars with CUMMINS motors. About the same sense to me. 

 

Hey it's just a opinion and one is as good as another, right? 😉 

They don’t want to step on the toes of the Silverado. The Colorado is a lite-lite duty truck. Not a stump puller. More of an off-roader or grocery getter. I think the 2.7 is a perfect option and I don’t mind the tiered approach. Watch for the 2.7 in the traverse and acadia next. 

Edited by Mike Borowski
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2022 at 6:30 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

 

I'm kind'a with the wanderer on this one. I'm a work truck guy and a truck that WORKS needs to have a motor than can. Putting the stump pulls in a Lincoln want to be doesn't make sense. 

 

it's a good thing we drive Silverado's😉, I hear the argument on the low power in the work truck colorado's, I've also see the fleet, parts, run around truck argument as well where they mostly get sold to do and good to keep it from being a hotrod...likely that low tune is going to get economy similar to the 3.0 diesels while still having respectable power, 237 hp & 259 ft/lbs at any elevation is pretty sweet, example; city I live in is 4000' and my Jeep Gladiator rated at 285 hp & 269 ft/lbs but has 252 hp and 238 ft/lbs here, so the jeep would have about 15 more hp but 21 ft/lbs less torque, basically a wash, and something tells me the longevity of that base tune motor will also be next level, I'd guess they aren't giving it the full 22 psi, so maybe it's more like 12-14 psi (ford ecoboosts around 18 from recollection) and maybe the 390 ft/lb tune is getting 18-20 psi? just gotta step up to a z71 to get the 390 ft/lbs tune which should fit a lot of needs and not be too Lincoln, I'm sure that will feel every bit as strong as the 430 ft/lbs in the Silverado, heck that's within 10-20 ft/lbs of the gen 1 cummins torque with nearly double the hp, I think it's great to see those options, also I think if getting the kids a base first truck the low tune makes lots of sense for economy and keeping it from being too fast

 

for a light duty daily where economy and longevity are top priorities I'd be looking awful hard at that low tune model, it could be a total cost of ownership king, not just in truck land but auto land period, a retired guy's wet dream perhaps?, especially appealing if one didn't have a trailering need preferring naturally aspirated v8 power levels

Edited by 4banger
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2022 at 7:03 PM, Mike Borowski said:

They don’t want to step on the toes of the Silverado. The Colorado is a lite-lite duty truck. Not a stump puller. More of an off-roader or grocery getter. I think the 2.7 is a perfect option and I don’t mind the tiered approach. Watch for the 2.7 in the traverse and acadia next. 

 

well it's not a small motor as a 2.7 four banger may sound, it will be interesting to see what they can stuff it in, they got it into a caddy so could make it's way around wherever the v6's fit, now the Colorado's too replacing the v6 there, I'm sure that was part of the overall plan, it weighs about the same as the 3.5 v6's out there ~375 lbs and seems to fit in those same engine bays as well, gm has a winner on their hands with this motor, could see it like the Chrysler pentastar...stuffed in everything lol

Edited by 4banger
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 4banger said:

 

likely that low tune is going to get economy similar to the 3.0 diesels while still having respectable power, 237 hp & 259 ft/lbs at any elevation is pretty sweet, example; city I live in is 4000' and my Jeep Gladiator rated at 285 hp & 269 ft/lbs but has 252 hp and 238 ft/lbs here, so the jeep would have about 15 more hp but 21 ft/lbs less torque, basically a wash, and something tells me the longevity of that base tune motor will also be next level

 

We already know what a N/A 4 banger in a colorado style truck gets for MPG as that's been an option in the current gen for years, you can check fuelly but it's nothing special at all and its far far less than the 3.0 diesel. Now making the 4 banger turbo charged will only give you worse MPG. You can't force more air through a bigger engine without also increasing fuel consumption, the old n/a 4 cylinder was even smaller in terms of displacement than the new 2.7 is.

 

I highly suspect the opposite: like we see in the silverado, the diesel options are still king for MPG by a huge margin (at least 5 mpg).

 

Dropping the 2.8 diesel from the colorado is a big mistake. GM should have further developed the diesel. And the 4 banger turbo as impressive for power as it is from only 4 cylinders, will still get stomped by the v6 turbo in the ranger.

 

So the new colorado neither wins any awards for fuel savings, nor for best performance. I smell a dud.

 

GM tries to spin bad decisions into good outcomes but it's all BS. The 8 speed is not good enough when the ranger has 10 gears and even more power. Dropping the diesel option is about cost cutting, not because the new turbo is able to compete with it in MPG and towing at the same time.

 

I'm not impressed in the slightest. Guess I'll have to keep looking for my next truck, hopefully I get a few years yet out of my current one.

Edited by the wanderer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

 

We already know what a N/A 4 banger in a colorado style truck gets for MPG as that's been an option in the current gen for years, you can check fuelly but it's nothing special at all and its far far less than the 3.0 diesel. Now making the 4 banger turbo charged will only give you worse MPG. You can't force more air through a bigger engine without also increasing fuel consumption, the old n/a 4 cylinder was even smaller in terms of displacement than the new 2.7 is.

 

I highly suspect the opposite: like we see in the silverado, the diesel options are still king for MPG by a huge margin (at least 5 mpg).

 

Dropping the 2.8 diesel from the colorado is a big mistake. GM should have further developed the diesel. And the 4 banger turbo as impressive for power as it is from only 4 cylinders, will still get stomped by the v6 turbo in the ranger.

 

So the new colorado neither wins any awards for fuel savings, nor for best performance. I smell a dud.

 

GM tries to spin bad decisions into good outcomes but it's all BS. The 8 speed is not good enough when the ranger has 10 gears and even more power. Dropping the diesel option is about cost cutting, not because the new turbo is able to compete with it in MPG and towing at the same time.

 

I'm not impressed in the slightest. Guess I'll have to keep looking for my next truck, hopefully I get a few years yet out of my current one.

Ummm the current 4cyl is rated at 19/25. I average 22-23 mixed a little more city than highway with the 2.7T in a SILVERADO. And you get a TON more power with the 2.7. Try again. 

Edited by Mike Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

Ummm the current 4cyl is rated at 19/25. I average 22-23 mixed a little more city than highway. And you get a TON more power with the 2.7. Try again. 

 

Nobody cares about ratings or what you're getting individually, that's meaningless. What are the averages in the real world?

 

The current 2.5L 4 cylinder in the colorado gets on average about 21 to 22 mpg:
https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=53&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Throwing on a turbo, and increasing the displacement to 2.7L is not going to make your MPG better; both those actions reduce MPG as soon as you start using the truck beyond sunday-strolling through town.

 

The current 2.8 diesel is about 24 to 25:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Diesel gets you much better MPG while also giving you very high tow ratings (important to many truck owners).

 

Now for the silverado. The silverado with the 2.7, on average, gets about 19 to 20 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

With the 3.0 diesel it gets about 26 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500?engineconfig_id=148&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

 

Edited by the wanderer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

 

Nobody cares about ratings or what you're getting individually, that's meaningless. What are the averages in the real world?

 

The current 2.5L 4 cylinder in the colorado gets on average about 21 to 22 mpg:
https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=53&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Throwing on a turbo, and increasing the displacement to 2.7L is not going to make your MPG better; both those actions reduce MPG as soon as you start using the truck beyond sunday-strolling through town.

 

The current 2.8 diesel is about 24 to 25:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Diesel gets you much better MPG while also giving you very high tow ratings (important to many truck owners).

 

Now for the silverado. The silverado with the 2.7, on average, gets about 19 to 20 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

With the 3.0 diesel it gets about 26 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500?engineconfig_id=148&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

 

“Nobody cares about your individual ratings”. THAT IS REAL WORLD!  Jesus.  It has an 8 speed now too. So yes it can be better or as good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

 

Nobody cares about ratings or what you're getting individually, that's meaningless. What are the averages in the real world?

 

The current 2.5L 4 cylinder in the colorado gets on average about 21 to 22 mpg:
https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=53&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Throwing on a turbo, and increasing the displacement to 2.7L is not going to make your MPG better; both those actions reduce MPG as soon as you start using the truck beyond sunday-strolling through town.

 

The current 2.8 diesel is about 24 to 25:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

Diesel gets you much better MPG while also giving you very high tow ratings (important to many truck owners).

 

Now for the silverado. The silverado with the 2.7, on average, gets about 19 to 20 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/colorado?engineconfig_id=229&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

With the 3.0 diesel it gets about 26 mpg:

https://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/silverado_1500?engineconfig_id=148&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

 

The current 4cyl will reduce when you use it beyond Sunday strolling too. Quit complaining just to complain you sound like an idiot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

“Nobody cares about your individual ratings”. THAT IS REAL WORLD!  Jesus.  It has an 8 speed now too. So yes it can be better or as good. 

 

Well my hemi got 27 MPG the other day on a 3 hour trip, somehow I suspect you won't be as excited to use individual user reports for that  my guess is you'll just prefer the fuelly.com rating which is well below 20, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

The current 4cyl will reduce when you use it beyond Sunday strolling too. Quit complaining just to complain you sound like an idiot. 

 

That's your only play, making everything personal and start calling names. Well done!

Link to comment
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.