What Drove Your Engine Choice?

zzrsouth · August 18, 2019

2.7T for city fuel economy in an LT, would have done the 4.3 but my marriage requires dual zone climate and heated seats

diyer2 · August 18, 2019

Common sense to me.

I tow a boat in the summer. About 4 K pounds.

Heavy tow rarely.

No need to go fast.

5.3 L works for me.

MacLaren · August 18, 2019

Ya know guys, I am seriously impressed with this new 5.3 and 8 speed tranny!

This thing will absolutely run for a truck!!

And, the gas mileage she gets to boot??

This new 5.3 and 8 speed are remarkable imo

batman900 · August 18, 2019

I had an 18 5.3L and could put it in cruise control 75mph with 1000lbs in the bed, AC on and it wouldn't down shift going up the steepest hill on my drive home from our nearest Lowe's in a town 25 miles away. That's plenty good enough for me so a 5.3L it was with the new 19. Made me a little sick that our nearest volume dealer where I shop and purchase was selling the same truck with the 4 cyl turbo for almost 4k less but I couldn't do it. You just stick with what you know sometimes.

Edited August 18, 2019 by batman900

MDSilveradoGuy · August 19, 2019

On 8/17/2019 at 8:25 AM, Thomcat said:

No thinking necessary for choosing the V8 - "You can't drive a nail with a tack hammer"

Thinking like that leads to no forward progress. Improve the hammer.

Thomcat · August 19, 2019

4 hours ago, MDSilveradoGuy said:

Thinking like that leads to no forward progress. Improve the hammer.

So a 2.7T in a full sized truck is someone's idea of progress? That kludged up engine is there primarily to be lightweight and increase fleet mileage, and knock $1400 off the MSRP to make an upscale model more affordable.

The history of the automotive industry has taught us the lesson that while the terms "progress"and "improved versions" are not mutually exclusive; the terms "improved versions and "cost less" are. FG phrased it: "Cheap is as cheap does".

There's a good reason why reviews are never done with a full load of weight. It's bad enough putting the truck on a 400+ lb diet with less weight over the rear axle for traction and to prevent wheel hop, sticking a lighter weight engine over the steering axle is worse.....try steering on a slick road surface or towing something heavy and you'll spend more time looking at trees and airplanes than the road ahead.

GM gave up mid 2nd year in poor sales related to stuffing a 2.5T in favor of the replacement 3.6l V6 in a full sized '19 Traverse model RS claiming it to be a sport model. Wait until resale or trade in time to explain the significance of "progress" when trying to sell a full sized truck with a 4 cyl engine.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Thomcat

Thomcat · August 19, 2019

23 hours ago, batman900 said:

I had an 18 5.3L and could put it in cruise control 75mph with 1000lbs in the bed, AC on and it wouldn't down shift going up the steepest hill on my drive home from our nearest Lowe's in a town 25 miles away. That's plenty good enough for me so a 5.3L it was with the new 19. Made me a little sick that our nearest volume dealer where I shop and purchase was selling the same truck with the 4 cyl turbo for almost 4k less but I couldn't do it. You just stick with what you know sometimes.

There's a good reason why the same truck was $4K less with the I4T even though the V8 adds only $1395 to the sticker. But, better to feel a little sick now that have the "big one" when you find out how much its worth when trying to trade or sell it later.

GM is simply repeating the same mistake Chrysler made when they stuffed a 4 cyl instead of the traditional V6 in a full sized van to offer a price leader and increase fleet mileage.

MDSilveradoGuy · August 20, 2019

13 hours ago, Thomcat said:

So a 2.7T in a full sized truck is someone's idea of progress? That kludged up engine is there primarily to be lightweight and increase fleet mileage, and knock $1400 off the MSRP to make an upscale model more affordable.

The history of the automotive industry has taught us the lesson that while the terms "progress"and "improved versions" are not mutually exclusive; the terms "improved versions and "cost less" are. FG phrased it: "Cheap is as cheap does".

There's a good reason why reviews are never done with a full load of weight. It's bad enough putting the truck on a 400+ lb diet with less weight over the rear axle for traction and to prevent wheel hop, sticking a lighter weight engine over the steering axle is worse.....try steering on a slick road surface or towing something heavy and you'll spend more time looking at trees and airplanes than the road ahead.

GM gave up mid 2nd year in poor sales related to stuffing a 2.5T in favor of the replacement 3.6l V6 in a full sized '19 Traverse model RS claiming it to be a sport model. Wait until resale or trade in time to explain the significance of "progress" when trying to sell a full sized truck with a 4 cyl engine.

Alright buddy, no one is going to change your opinion - have fun with that. What do I know, I only own one and tow with it every weekend.

Pulling the 2.0T (not 2.5T, but again, what do I know) out as an example is apples to oranges, considering the 2.7T is a purpose built engine rather than a mediocre, car based platform whore from the start.

Again, I’ve only got 10,000 miles behind the wheel of one so my knowledge of it is inferior to some armchair reviewer on a forum.

MDSilveradoGuy · August 20, 2019

13 hours ago, Thomcat said:

There's a good reason why the same truck was $4K less with the I4T even though the V8 adds only $1395 to the sticker. But, better to feel a little sick now that have the "big one" when you find out how much its worth when trying to trade or sell it later.

GM is simply repeating the same mistake Chrysler made when they stuffed a 4 cyl instead of the traditional V6 in a full sized van to offer a price leader and increase fleet mileage.

Ignorant people who only pay attention to the number of cylinders will walk away. People who actually look at numbers and pay attention to things such as torque curves, horsepower numbers and realize that it makes more HP and Torque than the vast majority of 5.3s out on the road (up until the current generation), with a flatter torque curve will understand.

That said, you don’t seem to understand progress and keep throwing red herrings out there of places where an underpowered 4 cylinder is put in place of a more powerful engine as a volume tool, which this isn’t. Again, arm chair versus steering wheel.

BlackRST · August 20, 2019

32 minutes ago, MDSilveradoGuy said:

Ignorant people who only pay attention to the number of cylinders will walk away. People who actually look at numbers and pay attention to things such as torque curves, horsepower numbers and realize that it makes more HP and Torque than the vast majority of 5.3s out on the road (up until the current generation), with a flatter torque curve will understand.

That said, you don’t seem to understand progress and keep throwing red herrings out there of places where an underpowered 4 cylinder is put in place of a more powerful engine as a volume tool, which this isn’t. Again, arm chair versus steering wheel.

My one concern with the 2.7T in a full size truck towing, or not would be longevity of the motor....more so the turbo. As with all turbo motors, even the diesels they can wear down quickly depending on its use, driver, etc. To each their own on choice of motors, I think it has its benefits within daily commutes and for a neat nitch. Now past that I don't know I haven't driven it. I think you'll definitely see a growth within the modified truck scene with this motor, at least i'd hope. Heck I'd hope to see some shops start cranking out 500+ HP builds!

MDSilveradoGuy · August 20, 2019

49 minutes ago, BlackRST said:

My one concern with the 2.7T in a full size truck towing, or not would be longevity of the motor....more so the turbo. As with all turbo motors, even the diesels they can wear down quickly depending on its use, driver, etc. To each their own on choice of motors, I think it has its benefits within daily commutes and for a neat nitch. Now past that I don't know I haven't driven it. I think you'll definitely see a growth within the modified truck scene with this motor, at least i'd hope. Heck I'd hope to see some shops start cranking out 500+ HP builds!

That’s definitely my only concern with it. I’ve owned turbos for years, and regardless of improvements in tech I always idle down for a couple of minutes and keep frequent oil changes and have yet to have an issue.

I don’t think this will take to a lack of maintenance as kindly as a simpler engine, though. That said, I don’t think the issue with durability will be with the 2.7, but rather Satan’s own transmission that GM stuck to the back of it.

Truth be told, I’m not going to give this the test of time. I’m (im)patiently waiting for the supposed re-release of the EcoDiesel in the 2020 Grand Cherokee and going and ordering myself a new Summit. Between the harness issues and resulting blowing of every computer, transmission shudder, and GM’s total lack of support I am done with this truck. My settlement check from my lawsuit came last night and is being deposited today - so as soon as Chrysler drops the order sheets I am washing my hands of it.

I never thought GM would drive me to an Italian engined Chrysler in search of reliability but they have. I spent a month in GCs as my loaners while they screwed with this and it sold me on them.

BlackRST · August 20, 2019

That’s definitely my only concern with it. I’ve owned turbos for years, and regardless of improvements in tech I always idle down for a couple of minutes and keep frequent oil changes and have yet to have an issue.

I don’t think this will take to a lack of maintenance as kindly as a simpler engine, though. That said, I don’t think the issue with durability will be with the 2.7, but rather Satan’s own transmission that GM stuck to the back of it.

Truth be told, I’m not going to give this the test of time. I’m (im)patiently waiting for the supposed re-release of the EcoDiesel in the 2020 Grand Cherokee and going and ordering myself a new Summit. Between the harness issues and resulting blowing of every computer, transmission shudder, and GM’s total lack of support I am done with this truck. My settlement check from my lawsuit came last night and is being deposited today - so as soon as Chrysler drops the order sheets I am washing my hands of it.

I never thought GM would drive me to an Italian engined Chrysler in search of reliability but they have. I spent a month in GCs as my loaners while they screwed with this and it sold me on them.

Wow!! That is absolutely nuts! I had no idea you had such issues. I vaguely remember talk of it on the forum but didn’t put your handle and the discussions together in my head. I’m sorry to hear that.

Also, it really seems to be something that dealers should work better with the customer on when it comes to issues. That seems to be a trend.... my brother bought an rst same day I bought mine, had very minor issues with the trim and such and they ordered new pieces and replaced accordingly without issue. Same with my bumper/hitch being dinged up. Again, my place is a monopoly on the region for Chevy sales. Granted these also weren’t serious engine issues like you’ve had.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thomcat · August 20, 2019

1 hour ago, MDSilveradoGuy said:

Ignorant people who only pay attention to the number of cylinders will walk away. People who actually look at numbers and pay attention to things such as torque curves, horsepower numbers and realize that it makes more HP and Torque than the vast majority of 5.3s out on the road (up until the current generation), with a flatter torque curve will understand.

That said, you don’t seem to understand progress and keep throwing red herrings out there of places where an underpowered 4 cylinder is put in place of a more powerful engine as a volume tool, which this isn’t. Again, arm chair versus steering wheel.

I have nothing against 4 cyls.....owned many vehicles with them.........but not this kludged up 4 cyl. They're OK in eggshell body Malibus never called to do any real work like my '16 or current '18 Malibu where you carry 4 passengers and a suitcase but not in a truck called to do work. Torque curves looks great on a dynamometer but when loaded up and called to do work your a$$ is a better gauge of the suitability of a more powerful V8 than an engine with a hamster in a wheel smoking a crack pipe. Better put plenty of miles and years on this one because you're in the small group of people willing to buy a truck with one. Dealer's in my area don't even carry them.....and the out of State ones that do give greater discounts on the 4s....I could have saved over $4K settling for a 2.7T, but you get what you pay for........so better enjoy it because some day you'll have to market your truck to ignorant people who, not you, will determine its worth and you'll soon find you're stuck with it.

The I4 is an inherently unbalanced engine with wicked harmonics kicking in at lower rpms. Needs kludges liker counterbalanced cranks so it doesn't rattle your teeth.....more crap, more complications......no way Silvy's with these will every wear a historic plate. GM overly complicated their 4cyl was designed to get a price leader and CAFE friendly pavement princess for those willing or having to go cheap, whereas they simplified the DFM V8s by getting rid of the LOMA valley manifolds in their AFM's in favor of mounting the oil control valves directly in the block, they overly complicated their I4s... counterbalanced cranks, multilift sliding camshafts, the 2.7T is complicated, light and cheap and will make GM a fortune as soon as the warranty is up. Last "innovative" aluminum 4cyl engine they designed was in their oil burning Vegas now they have a new generation of guinea pigs to test their new innovative design. If GM was serious they'd start with an inherently balanced 5.3T pancake 4 with dual turbos similar to the one on their Corvair....wioth more torque and hp than their V8.......that might get my interest.

Chevy math................. 2 small + 2 kludged + 2 cheap + 2 last = 4 cyl/2 lifespan

MDSilveradoGuy · August 20, 2019

11 minutes ago, Thomcat said:

I have nothing against 4 cyls.....owned many vehicles with them.........but not this kludged up 4 cyl. They're OK in eggshell body Malibus never called to do any real work like my '16 or current '18 Malibu where you carry 4 passengers and a suitcase but not in a truck called to do work. Torque curves looks great on a dynamometer but when loaded up and called to do work your a$$ is a better gauge of the suitability of a more powerful V8 than an engine with a hamster in a wheel smoking a crack pipe. Better put plenty of miles and years on this one because you're in the small group of people willing to buy a truck with one. Dealer's in my area don't even carry them.....and the out of State ones that do give greater discounts on the 4s....I could have saved over $4K settling for a 2.7T, but you get what you pay for........so better enjoy it because some day you'll have to market your truck to ignorant people who, not you, will determine its worth and you'll soon find you're stuck with it.

The I4 is an inherently unbalanced engine with wicked harmonics kicking in at lower rpms. Needs kludges liker counterbalanced cranks so it doesn't rattle your teeth.....more crap, more complications......no way Silvy's with these will every wear a historic plate. GM overly complicated their 4cyl was designed to get a price leader and CAFE friendly pavement princess for those willing or having to go cheap, whereas they simplified the DFM V8s by getting rid of the LOMA valley manifolds in their AFM's in favor of mounting the oil control valves directly in the block, they overly complicated their I4s... counterbalanced cranks, multilift sliding camshafts, the 2.7T is complicated, light and cheap and will make GM a fortune as soon as the warranty is up. Last "innovative" aluminum 4cyl engine they designed was in their oil burning Vegas now they have a new generation of guinea pigs to test their new innovative design. If GM was serious they'd start with an inherently balanced 5.3T pancake 4 with dual turbos similar to the one on their Corvair....wioth more torque and hp than their V8.......that might get my interest.

Chevy math................. 2 small + 2 kludged + 2 cheap + 2 last = 4 cyl/2 lifespan

You’re really triggered by the 2.7 - it’s quite entertaining. Forced induction and downsizing are the direction things are moving, better get on board.

It’s funny you mention how it feels loaded up. What experiences have you had with a 2.7 towing? I’m curious to compare... wait, I think I’m the one who has actually driven and towed with one.

Again, more armchair theatrics from someone with an apparent chip on their shoulder and access to a Wikipedia page versus someone with an automotive engineering background who drives one daily

BlackRST · August 20, 2019

34 minutes ago, MDSilveradoGuy said:

You’re really triggered by the 2.7 - it’s quite entertaining. Forced induction and downsizing are the direction things are moving, better get on board.

It’s funny you mention how it feels loaded up. What experiences have you had with a 2.7 towing? I’m curious to compare... wait, I think I’m the one who has actually driven and towed with one.

Again, more armchair theatrics from someone with an apparent chip on their shoulder and access to a Wikipedia page versus someone with an automotive engineering background who drives one daily

Ya, i have to second that...downsizing is the way of the future sadly. Now I dont think every truck will rock a 4cyl with a snail....But I think youll see more and more v6 with turbos, smaller liter displacement with forced air. Perfect example are the eco diesels and the 3.0 models. They have unreal power for their size and will suffice perfectly fine for the average joe towing or what not.