Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

We sold a 2019 Silverado Crew cab with the New 2.7L 4Cyl Engine.  Customer has had problems since day one.  Cel light coming on, then Running rough, something with the TCM and Engine Harness as the issue.  Anybody else having  a problem with the 4 cyl engine. 

Posted

Wouldn't own a 4 cyl. in a full-size truck unless no there were absolutely no more V8's available.  In my wife's Encore yes.  Full-size truck?  Hell no... No place.  Couldn't get used to the Mini Cooper bumble bee buzz sound. 

 

Image result for i could've had a v8

  • Like 2
Posted

I may be doing my research with blinders on but I believe this engine is generally receiving good reports.  I hope it succeeds and any bugs are gone when it comes time for me to buy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted

Yes, someone here had those issues and it ended up being the wiring harness was too short and rubbed thorough. He was fighting to have a new harness installed vs extending the existing one.

Posted (edited)

It may well be a great engine.

But, I gotta have a V8 for a pickup. 

I'll ride a dang bicycle before I get a full size pickup with a 4 banger.

Nothin at all against 4 cylinder owners. 

Just how I personally feel about it.

Very happy Chevy is staying with the 5.3 V8

Actually, I really wish they would bring back the the 5.7 as an option too. That ole 350 was a runnin sonofagun

I can see it now new 5.7 9 speed lol

Edited by MacLaren
  • Like 1
Posted
16 hours ago, MacLaren said:

It may well be a great engine.

But, I gotta have a V8 for a pickup. 

I'll ride a dang bicycle before I get a full size pickup with a 4 banger.

Nothin at all against 4 cylinder owners. 

Just how I personally feel about it.

Very happy Chevy is staying with the 5.3 V8

Actually, I really wish they would bring back the the 5.7 as an option too. That ole 350 was a runnin sonofagun

I can see it now new 5.7 9 speed local dealers don't even carry them

The V8 was worth the extra bucks if only for the extra hp and trade in value, most dealers have to drop the price more on the fours. And dealer's around here don't have any in the lot......had to go out of State to get one to play with.  I'm not adverse to all 4 cyl designs but am to the tiny I4s which are inherently unbalanced and better designs requiring  kludges like counter balanced cranks in to remove wicked harmonics. Now if Chevy were to drop a 400+ hp range 5.3T pancake dual turbo 4cyl (like their smaller aspirated cousins in the old Corvair) priced lower than the V8, it might just get my interest.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thomcat said:

The V8 was worth the extra bucks if only for the extra hp and trade in value, most dealers have to drop the price more on the fours. And dealer's around here don't have any in the lot......had to go out of State to get one to play with.  I'm not adverse to all 4 cyl designs but am to the tiny I4s which are inherently unbalanced and better designs requiring  kludges like counter balanced cranks in to remove wicked harmonics. Now if Chevy were to drop a 400+ hp range 5.3T pancake dual turbo 4cyl (like their smaller aspirated cousins in the old Corvair) priced lower than the V8, it might just get my interest.

I'm just one of those ignorant people that just inherently like a V8 :)

you know? ?

I may not see all the angles with the 4 banger, and dont really care to be honest. 

I'll just stay with this V8 now...and in the future

dont get me wrong, if I need a car I'll gladly buy a 4 cylinder. But, for a full size truck, I prefer a V8

But....you know what they say???

Ignorance is BLISS.

Edited by MacLaren
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MacLaren said:

I'm just one of those ignorant people that just inherently like a V8 :)

you know? ?

I may not see all the angles with the 4 banger, but somehow Ive yet to have to sue anyone....

I'll just stay with this V8 now...and in the future

dont get me wrong, if I need a car I'll gladly buy a 4 cylinder. But, for a full size truck, I prefer a V8

But....you know what they say???

Ignorance is BLISS.

You are absolutely correct in your defence of the V8.  I have understandings in my life that I choose to maintain even though I suspect that more knowledge may shake up such  beliefs.   IMO, our love for the V8 was entrenched in our minds at a time when automotive engines were much less efficient and  gas was less than a dollar a gallon.   My current V6 has double the horsepower and probably burns about 40% less fuel than the V8's of the 70's -90's.  The current V8's far exceed the power needed to safely operate these trucks but appeal to the fun aspect of  driving and to our egos. "Bigger is better".  Personally, I am excited about the prospect of buying a truck with the 2.7.  It has more power and is cheaper on gas than my current 4.3 that already meets or exceeds my needs!  I am finding that I enjoy more and more to challenge my old ways and beliefs and I encourage you and others to do the same.  Change is often good! 

Edited by Donstar
  • Thanks 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Donstar said:

You are absolutely correct in your defence of the V8.  I have understandings in my life that I choose to maintain even though I suspect that more knowledge may shake up such a belief.  IMO, our love for the V8 was entrenched in our minds at a time when automotive engines were much less efficient and  gas was less than a dollar a gallon.   My current V6 has double the horsepower and probably burns about 40% less fuel than the V8's of the 70's -90's.  The current V8's far exceed the power needed to safely operate these trucks but appeal to the fun aspect of  driving and to our egos. "Bigger is better".  Personally, I am excited about the prospect of buying a truck with the 2.7.  It has more power and is cheaper on gas than my current 4.3 that already meets or exceeds my needs!  I am finding that I enjoy more and more to challenge my old ways and beliefs and I encourage you and others to do the same.  Change is often good! 

Lol, I hear ya. And, thank you.

I do think however, a lot of this is want vs need

However, if I were in business and needed a full size pickup to make a living, would I go with a 4 cylinder turbo over a tried and true V8?

I dont think so. One thing that does strike me though, is that imo, Toyota is a master of the the 4 cylinder engine. Yet, what do they put in the Tundra? And Toyoat takes a lot of pride in that big IForce V8.

But, I digress. I dont really know enough about it to go further. I just sees what I sees and knows what I knows :)

 

  • Like 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Donstar said:

You are absolutely correct in your defence of the V8.  I have understandings in my life that I choose to maintain even though I suspect that more knowledge may shake up such  beliefs.   IMO, our love for the V8 was entrenched in our minds at a time when automotive engines were much less efficient and  gas was less than a dollar a gallon.   My current V6 has double the horsepower and probably burns about 40% less fuel than the V8's of the 70's -90's.  The current V8's far exceed the power needed to safely operate these trucks but appeal to the fun aspect of  driving and to our egos. "Bigger is better".  Personally, I am excited about the prospect of buying a truck with the 2.7.  It has more power and is cheaper on gas than my current 4.3 that already meets or exceeds my needs!  I am finding that I enjoy more and more to challenge my old ways and beliefs and I encourage you and others to do the same.  Change is often good! 

 

17 minutes ago, MacLaren said:

Lol, I hear ya. And, thank you.

I do think however, a lot of this is want vs need

However, if I were in business and needed a full size pickup to make a living, would I go with a 4 cylinder turbo over a tried and true V8?

I dont think so. One thing that does strike me though, is that imo, Toyota is a master of the the 4 cylinder engine. Yet, what do they put in the Tundra? And Toyoat takes a lot of pride in that big IForce V8.

But, I digress. I dont really know enough about it to go further. I just sees what I sees and knows what I knows :)

 

If I were going to buy a 2.7T, I would give them a couple years to work out the growing pains of a brand new engine. 

  • Like 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, Cpl_Punishment said:

 

If I were going to buy a 2.7T, I would give them a couple years to work out the growing pains of a brand new engine. 

There ya go.

If enough time and enough rave reviews come out, then who knows? Many may consider a 4 cylinder. 

Posted

I'm the one with the PIT5677 harness issue.

 

I deposited my settlement check from GM into the bank Monday from my out of court settlement over their refusal to replace the harness, only repair it. They are losing a lifelong GM customer over this - but I digress.

 

The engine harness pulls too tight over the cam cover, and there is a boss where one of the cam cover bolts goes which will rub through the harness and short it out. In the case of mine, it shorted out hard enough to blow the 400A fuse the first time - but not before backfeeding current through the TCM apparently. When it wasn't fixed right the first time by their TSB, it blew the fuse again and took out the ECM, starter motor, and something else. GM brought an engineer in who pointed out a second area, apparently not covered in the TSB, where mine had rubbed through. Instead of replacing the harness, the harness was spliced more and wrapped in more tape.

 

The 2.7 is a phenomenal engine, and quite frankly all of this "I have to have a V8 in a truck" is nothing but nonsense. It has more horsepower and torque than a previous generation 5.3. Those who refer to it as "kludgey" have no common sense about modern engine design, particularly when bringing up balance shafts as a demerit, and then go on to refer to one of the largest 4 cylinders on the market as a "small 4 cylinder".

 

The engine is not the letdown. The transmission mated to it is the work of Satan, and the lack of support from the manufacturer is disgusting.

 

 

 

 

Posted
23 minutes ago, MDSilveradoGuy said:

I'm the one with the PIT5677 harness issue.

 

I deposited my settlement check from GM into the bank Monday from my out of court settlement over their refusal to replace the harness, only repair it. They are losing a lifelong GM customer over this - but I digress.

 

The engine harness pulls too tight over the cam cover, and there is a boss where one of the cam cover bolts goes which will rub through the harness and short it out. In the case of mine, it shorted out hard enough to blow the 400A fuse the first time - but not before backfeeding current through the TCM apparently. When it wasn't fixed right the first time by their TSB, it blew the fuse again and took out the ECM, starter motor, and something else. GM brought an engineer in who pointed out a second area, apparently not covered in the TSB, where mine had rubbed through. Instead of replacing the harness, the harness was spliced more and wrapped in more tape.

 

The 2.7 is a phenomenal engine, and quite frankly all of this "I have to have a V8 in a truck" is nothing but nonsense. It has more horsepower and torque than a previous generation 5.3. Those who refer to it as "kludgey" have no common sense about modern engine design, particularly when bringing up balance shafts as a demerit, and then go on to refer to one of the largest 4 cylinders on the market as a "small 4 cylinder".

 

The engine is not the letdown. The transmission mated to it is the work of Satan, and the lack of support from the manufacturer is disgusting.

 

 

 

 

That engine with the 10 speed would be a sweet pairing I think. 

 

However call me old school, but I am in the same boat as many. No way i'd get a V4 in a truck.

 

I don't even like the fact that the V8 has AFM/DFM. Just give me a damn normal V8. 

Posted

You can have your 4 cylinders. I dont care how much power it makes... or feels like a V8. The sound of 4 cylinder is is terrible IMO. I hear ecoboost V6 trucks running around with aftermarket exhausts and they even sound out of place. 4 cylinder.... nope. ?? Every time I have driven a 4 cylinder car with a few thousand miles on it.. they rattle and vibrate and sound like heck.

 

Nope. Hahah.

  • Like 1

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I have a `25, 1500 that auto sets on incline. Never knew that at first. I have the electronic shifter. Just think if it didn`t do that? Unlike a mechanical shift that you can muscle out of park, how would you get this thing out? That would be a problem.   What I found out later is, I don`t have to push the button to release. Just put it in gear.   Setting parameters? Don`t know if it`s possible.
    • 2023 GMC 3500 HD, SLE, 6.6L Gas, 4x4, 6 Spd Options:  SLE Convenience Package; Driver Alert Package 1; Spray on Bedliner; X31 Off Road Package; TRAILERING MIRRORS, HEATED POWER -ADJUSTABLE, AUTO DIMMING, WITH TURN INDICATORS WHEELHOUSE LINERS, REAR INC. REAR AXLE - 3.73 RATIO INC. GVWR, 11,350 LBS. (5148 KG) INC. FRONT AND REAR PARK ASSIST, INC. ULTRASONIC     I have been launching my new boat and noticed some things related to the parking brake.. I usually set the parking brake (habit) when on flat ground for typical driving.    When backed down on the launch ramp to launch the boat and I place gear selector into Park, the parking brake activates automatically. My second nature is to set parking brake manually and noticed I was turing the parking brake off.  The parking brake appears to be setting itself automatically.   I looked all over my owner's manual and only found references to being on an incline and manually setting parking brake, or at times parking brake will be auto engaged, but nothing specific to my situation.    When is the parking brake automatically engaged?  Under what specific circumstances?  Can the auto set parameters be changed?     I like the auto set feature.  It would be nice if always engaged when shifted into Park and released when shifted out of Park (like my wifes 2025 RAV4).   Thanks!    
    • www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...