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

8 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

No argument required. You like what you like. Like you said...it's personal.

 

Here's a thought. Know what happens when you squeeze a pimple real hard?

 

POP!!

 

These motors get smaller and smaller and they keep increasing boost levels as they go. I'll by a turbo four when it's made by Offenhauser. :thumbs:  Or the bring back S-10 sized trucks. It really would be a sweet motor in that truck size don't you think? 

Spoken like a True Grumpy bear lol  , but i do like the pimple analogy .  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CombsL83 said:

400 mile average? 25 miles is way to small of a sample for overall mileage. I've managed 28.4 with my 5.3 over 25 miles before. Just curious to see those numbers, no disrespect directed to the turbo guys here.

23.1 this morning when I got to work. Best I have seen over 400 was 23.4 but that was on a road trip with a combination of flat and mountain driving and I was pushing low 70s much of the way. Like any turbo - if you get heavy handed with it, it guzzles gas - but it does seem to be very responsive to a light foot returning good numbers. I tend to be a bit of a hypermiler - coasting down to lights and using the pulse glade technique on flat highways when I am not in cruise.

 

I live in the DC Metro - so my driving consists of a lot of stop and go in heavy traffic, and a lot of rather aggressive highway.

 

My 2.5 liter Colorado with a tune, manual transmission and 4.10 rear struggled to get out of the upper teens overall and regularly would get 12-13 around town, so this is a much more relaxed and welcome improvement.

Edited by MDSilveradoGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, f8l vnm said:

Spoken like a True Grumpy bear lol  , but i do like the pimple analogy .  :)

Only it's not really applicable in this case. People need to know the subject they are discussing.

 

We're not talking a small 2.0L engine being pushed to its limits here (looking at you, Volvo XC90...).

 

It's a large bore, long stroke truck engine that is putting out a relatively low amount of HP for its displacement (in terms of boosted 4 cylinders). It is overbuilt for what it is, and it's set up to work like a diesel - pulling from low revs, and it doesn't need/like to be wound out (it redlines at 5,700 RPM - I've personally never had mine pass 5,000 before shifting).

 

It would be a terrible flop in something like a Camaro or a car based SUV. It's a purpose built truck engine with a character that suits a truck -

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MDSilveradoGuy said:

I'll believe a 4.3 getting 27+ MPG when I see it.

The poster this likely refers to only claims that because he's driving a singlecab base model, never tows, or hauls payload & he never goes over 55mph. I'd ignore his claims as they are apples to oranges & they're simply unrealistic for normal use. I can get those numbers in my '17 5.3 4x4 dbl cab, but I have to drive about 40-50mph steady on flat ground with no headwind. I've done it over a 60 mile average, but again it's not realistic. (it was in a long construction zone on a highway)

I think these new 2.7 liter motors are built pretty stout and will likely handle tuning up over 450hp without a problem, so I'd ignore the naysayers on that as well. Left stock, they aren't going to 'pop' any more than a Honda 4 banger.

Glad to hear your experiences with the new 2.7. I've been thinking about it as a possibility for my next truck. I drive a fair bit & don't do a lot of heavy towing and would like to save a bit on fuel if I could. On paper it looks like it might meet my needs. However, it won't happen for a couple years at least.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MDSilveradoGuy said:

I'll believe a 4.3 getting 27+ MPG when I see it.

If you read his build thread you will understand how he gets 27+ MPG.

 

The truck is lowered, using 0w20 oil instead of 5w30 and never driving over 55mph. It is a regular cab short bed 2 wheel drive.

 

The rest of us 4.3 owners will never see those mpg numbers. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All mpg arguments in forums are complete BS. No one knows what anyone is really getting.

I have a 4 banger turbo in a 328 that completely smokes the venerable inline 6 it replaced at every measure including mpg. But it aint as "smooth."

I can see this 2.7 being a legit replacement for the V6 which surprised me in loaner I had a couple years ago. Fine for light suburban truck work with bass boat or home depot run. Not everyone pulls a 5th wheel with their half ton. I would take a 5.3 for resale though...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AtlasFBG2 said:

If you read his build thread you will understand how he gets 27+ MPG.

 

The truck is lowered, using 0w20 oil instead of 5w30 and never driving over 55mph. It is a regular cab short bed 2 wheel drive.

 

The rest of us 4.3 owners will never see those mpg numbers. 

 

22 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

A motor that should be in an S-10 not a school buss sized pickup. IMHO.

 

 

MDSilveradoguy wrote;  2,800 miles in so far. Averaging 23.1MPG, best of 25.9 over 25 miles. Tows my 4,100lb boat like it isn't back there at all - particularly through the Blue Ridge mountains in Western MD. I couldn't be happier so far.

 

 

I get better mileage with a Ecotec3 4.3 and by a ton. 27 + life time average over 89,500 miles.  

It's not really fair for Grumpy Bear to give much credit to the fact that he has a 4.3L in his truck... He could drop a 5.3 in there and get 1-2mpg different... Credit is to him for the mods and driving style for the MPG's he gets... I had a 4.3 for a couple of years, I got 1 mpg different vs the 5.3 I have now... I drive 65-75 mph, there are lots of hills here and so on... I can't hardly get 27 mpg out of my 2018 Equinox 2.0T AWD life time... We don't have the luxury of driving that slow around here if we need to get on the highway you'll get run over and most of our highways here around the major cities... I used to brag about the MPG I got with my V6 when I had one so I understand the urge but, there are so many factors that go into fuel economy and quite frankly I find it funny, just like I do when people brag about how fast their Honda Civic's are.... Trucks are made for haulin' stuff and the odd obsession American consumers, government officials and manufacturers have with MPG in trucks is just making them a worse and worse product for what is it made for.... I guess it's nice that GM is offering options for different tastes but, I don't quite get the general though process. I mean sure if we could get 30 MPG EPA ratings out of a truck that'd be great but, I get 18-20 MPG in mine regardless of city or hwy and looking back at trucks from the 90's I think that they were getting 16-18 MPG... Not a big improvement for the trade off IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

People make a big deal out of my speeds but fail to note that Peppers life time speed average, total miles / total hours is faster by 4 mph (42 mph) that the national average. (Ford Fleet Services  says the average is 38 mph).  That national speed average gets but 17 mpg and small change for this same set up. Am I actually that much slower? 

 

They also fail to note that my highway mileage is at the EPA test cycle speed and exceeds it by over 22%. My life time average which would be the same as the EPA combine average is 5 mpg higher. That extra 5 mpg has nothing to do with my speed. 

 

I haven't done anything GM could not have done nor anything anyone else could not do. The difference between Pepper and the remainder is commitment to a plan and following what the generated data the truck produces says to do. 

 

My sister-in-law and I drive the same trip to my fathers. Just short of 200 miles. Takes me 30 extra minutes to get there. She uses nearly 40% more fuel. Bad trade IMHO. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

My sister-in-law and I drive the same trip to my fathers. Just short of 200 miles. Takes me 30 extra minutes to get there. She uses nearly 40% more fuel. Bad trade IMHO. 

You can always buy more gas, but you can’t buy more time. If he were still around, I’d take the 30 extra minutes with my dad over a couple MPGs any day. 

 

Squeezing the best mileage out of a pickup in general makes little sense to me...but save for the Duramax, the 2.7 seems to be the only engine in this lineup than can get good economy in city driving.

 

I’d really like to get one as a loaner next time I need service, as I’m sure the difference is tremendous compared to the 6.2. This engine really intrigues me and I would certainly consider down the road, especially if it becomes tunable and would gain the 10 speed.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignorance discounts what it doesn’t understand.

 

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=112611

 

Best article I could find on BSFC. Here’s what it doesn’t say. While high revs and low load make BSFC worse they are worse on a much smaller power number. Odd for an article about fuel economy. Still it gives some great insight. Pay attention to the part throttle information.

 

Marry the two, low BSFC and low power requirement and add low pumping losses from low engine revs and high throttle angles then further reduce fuel requirements by doing what you can to lower parasitic losses and you get a recipe for Pepper. It isn’t all about being slow down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, OnTheReel said:

You can always buy more gas, but you can’t buy more time. If he were still around, I’d take the 30 extra minutes with my dad over a couple MPGs any day. 

When I was four we farmed and I was with my father constantly I mean constantly. On the fender of the tractor when in the field. One the bank when we fished. The dog when we hunted. In the dirt in the garden. I was in heaven but things changed. 

 

In an attempt to give his children a better life he found work in town in a factory and life got much faster and busier. In a hurry to go everywhere. Oh we had more STUFF but  the only part of dad I saw was the bottoms of his boots under some guys car, a few minutes off the night shift where he made more money or on vacation once a year for ten days or so. I wouldn't actually see him to know him again until after my children were grown and had kids of their own. 40 years of speeding toward nothing. 

 

When the cost of speed matters little and we make stupid statements like "I'll take 30 minute over a few mpg",  the cost of speed becomes great. Every device that was to save time...washer, drier, faster car, bigger payload....cost more money that caused more hours to be worked that caused LESS TIME to be spent with the ones you were in such a hurry to see and give that better life. 

 

I followed in suit and missed most of my children's lives working over time to pay for that extra gas and that extra car and that clarinet she hated playing but her mother wanted her to play. Know what she remembers? What I didn't do. Where I wasn't. Like be with her on important days. 

 

I'd would have preferred to go slower, need less, work less and spend more time with Dad. With my children. To late now, eh? 

 

How many extra hours must I work in a lifetime to disregard 5 mpg at 20K miles a year for a lifetime. Short sighted people are people in a hurry to discount what matters most for an illusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was four we farmed and I was with my father constantly I mean constantly. On the fender of the tractor when in the field. One the bank when we fished. The dog when we hunted. In the dirt in the garden. I was in heaven but things changed. 
 
In an attempt to give his children a better life he found work in town in a factory and life got much faster and busier. In a hurry to go everywhere. Oh we had more STUFF but  the only part of dad I saw was the bottoms of his boots under some guys car, a few minutes off the night shift where he made more money or on vacation once a year for ten days or so. I wouldn't actually see him to know him again until after my children were grown and had kids of their own. 40 years of speeding toward nothing. 
 
When the cost of speed matters little and we make stupid statements like "I'll take 30 minute over a few mpg",  the cost of speed becomes great. Every device that was to save time...washer, drier, faster car, bigger payload....cost more money that caused more hours to be worked that caused LESS TIME to be spent with the ones you were in such a hurry to see and give that better life. 
 
I followed in suit and missed most of my children's lives working over time to pay for that extra gas and that extra car and that clarinet she hated playing but her mother wanted her to play. Know what she remembers? What I didn't do. Where I wasn't. Like be with her on important days. 
 
I'd would have preferred to go slower, need less, work less and spend more time with Dad. With my children. To late now, eh? 
 
How many extra hours must I work in a lifetime to disregard 5 mpg at 20K miles a year for a lifetime. Short sighted people are people in a hurry to discount what matters most for an illusion. 


This is all getting quite off topic. If bustling around caused all life to be missed, the proper application of expedience was simply missed. There are places to gain time and places to lose time. Driving below speed limit is your prerogative. Likewise, I don’t do 90 in a 70. But 70 in a 70 gets me there fine and saves a couple of hours over a 900 mile trip in one day.

Your life advice is nice, but is not applicable to all situations. Chase objects and your life will be hollow, chase memories instead. Moving quickly to gain the experience and knowledge required to earn the time to make those memories? Aye there’s the balance beam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s also horribly unrealistic advice. 

 

Driving like that where I live will incite rage at best and get you run off the road at worst. My time is worth more than money. 

 

The funny thing is that fuel economy was about #5 in my reasons for ordering the 2.7... not really a consideration, more of a fringe

benefit. 

Edited by MDSilveradoGuy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

People make a big deal out of my speeds but fail to note that Peppers life time speed average, total miles / total hours is faster by 4 mph (42 mph) that the national average. (Ford Fleet Services  says the average is 38 mph).  That national speed average gets but 17 mpg and small change for this same set up. Am I actually that much slower? 

 

They also fail to note that my highway mileage is at the EPA test cycle speed and exceeds it by over 22%. My life time average which would be the same as the EPA combine average is 5 mpg higher. That extra 5 mpg has nothing to do with my speed. 

 

I haven't done anything GM could not have done nor anything anyone else could not do. The difference between Pepper and the remainder is commitment to a plan and following what the generated data the truck produces says to do. 

 

My sister-in-law and I drive the same trip to my fathers. Just short of 200 miles. Takes me 30 extra minutes to get there. She uses nearly 40% more fuel. Bad trade IMHO. 

 

 

Your comparison to national averages means nothing, as personal averages are a local thing. If you lived in the LA area where traffic is always heavy, you'd be quite a bit below the averages, no matter what you do. Same as in the GTA.

It's all fine and dandy to put all the effort into doing what you do, but I can guarantee that you are 'that guy' pissing everyone else off on the roads on a daily basis. You really belong in a Prius, not a pickup truck. At least it would be honest then.

Now, since you admittedly don't like the new 2.7 & given that this topic is 2.7 turbo fan club, perhaps your energy would be better spent elsewhere........Jus sayin'

Edited by Nanotech Environmental
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Nanotech Environmental said:

Your comparison to national averages means nothing, as personal averages are a local thing. If you lived in the LA areal where traffic is always heavy, you'd be quite a bit below the averages, no matter what you do. Same as in the GTA.

It's all fine and dandy to put all the effort into doing what you do, but I can guarantee that you are 'that guy' pissing everyone else off on the roads on a daily basis. You really belong in a Prius, not a pickup truck. At least it would be honest then.

Now, since you admittedly don't like the new 2.7 & given that this topic is 2.7 turbo fan club, perhaps your energy would be better spent elsewhere........Jus sayin'

Praise Jesus... someone else saying it besides me. 

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.