Jump to content

2.7l Engine Mods, Please help.

teej750
 Share

Recommended Posts

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

People seem really hung up on numbers. Without realizing more gears in the transmission is the same as more HP. I remember not to long ago 300-350 HP was the end all and that was with a 4 speed overdrive. The biggest problem with the feels like is the nannies. The nannies are there for longevity. I’ve been at the top of the HP mountain. At 70MPH it all feels the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

garagerog
garagerog

Just an old man's opinion, but if it was me I would hold off on any exhaust modifications on that 2.7 turbo 4 unless you want your truck sounding like a fart can ricer.

KARNUT
KARNUT

People seem really hung up on numbers. Without realizing more gears in the transmission is the same as more HP. I remember not to long ago 300-350 HP was the end all and that was with a 4 speed overdr

Grandpa1
Grandpa1

Some of us old guys are happy with the little four banger just the way it is. If I want more power I'll just get in my 03 Corvette.

Posted Images

Grandpa1 Enthusiast

Grandpa1

Posted
Posted

Some of us old guys are happy with the little four banger just the way it is.

If I want more power I'll just get in my 03 Corvette.

  • Like 3
TXGREEK Senior Enthusiast

TXGREEK

Posted
Posted
Some of us old guys are happy with the little four banger just the way it is.
If I want more power I'll just get in my 03 Corvette.


That’s the key, to be happy with whatcha got. Unfortunately, the newer vehicles, no matter what size engines just DO NOT have the capability to be modified.


Sent from Above
  • Like 2
Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted
On 2/20/2020 at 9:37 AM, teej750 said:

I am just wondering has anyone done ANYTHING to their 4 cylinder, turbo (l3b) engine.  

I am sure you were happy with the powertrain when new. Now that you've become comfortable with the truck, you want more.  If you purchased the 5.3, you would now be wishing the 6.2. ? This is normal.  I do this with motorcycles, but not cars or trucks.   What is your 2.7 not able to do for you?  This is a light, highly efficient work horse.   I appreciate that bragging rights (by mouth or exhaust)  varies in importance from circle to circle.  Personally, I would find a more captive audience wanting to hear about my new state of the art engine than the standard issue 5.3.   Enjoy your truck!.  Your 2.7 will do all of the tasks your truck is specified to do and can earn you all of the speeding tickets you want.  If you need to haul heavier than specified or now planning to race, then you need to upgrade your truck!

  • Like 3
Silverado4x4 Senior Enthusiast

Silverado4x4

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is what gets me people buy the 4 cylinder then want more performance out of it, really. Why didn't they just buy the 5.3 or the 6.2 if you wanted more performance?

 

A friend of mine works at our local dealership and when those 4 cylinders first came out they had 1 truck on the lot and it sat on there lot for months before someone bought it. A few weeks ago I ask him about sales on the 4 cylinder and he said they are slow movers people just don't want a 4 cylinder in a full size truck no matter what power it has, I see GM not making these motors long before they stop putting that motor in a truck. I see resale value being rock bottom on full size 4 cylinder trucks years down the road.

Edited by Silverado4x4
Colossus Senior Enthusiast

Colossus

Posted
Posted

To get the emissions needed, I see more smaller displacement turbocharged engines vs less.  If anything we'll see the 6.2L and 5.3L eventually eliminated. 

Bryant_Olson Enthusiast

Bryant_Olson

Posted
Posted
This is what gets me people buy the 4 cylinder then want more performance out of it, really. Why didn't they just buy the 5.3 or the 6.2 if you wanted more performance?
 
A friend of mine works at our local dealership and when those 4 cylinders first came out they had 1 truck on the lot and it sat on there lot for months before someone bought it. A few weeks ago I ask him about sales on the 4 cylinder and he said they are slow movers people just don't want a 4 cylinder in a full size truck no matter what power it has, I see GM not making these motors long before they stop putting that motor in a truck. I see resale value being rock bottom on full size 4 cylinder trucks years down the road.
I used to only have a land line too. Now I have a cell phone. People are slow to adopt new technology, mostly because change is uncomfortable.

I have the 2.7 and love it, leased it a week ago so idgaf about resale. Does everything I want and frankly it's easier driving and more snappy than my 2017 LTZ 5.3.

All the gripes about it not being THAT much better on efficiency are pretty misinformed. At first glance it's going to be 20-25% more efficient than my last truck and that's probably pretty conservative. I averaged about 16.5mpg lifetime on that with mixed city/highway. This thing is averaging 19.5 with a fair bit of spirited driving.

I'm not towing a skidsteer to the job site everyday so for a the bulk of pickup drivers that are weekend warriors and DIY aficionados these things are perfect.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Goobax Enthusiast

Goobax

Posted
Posted
On 2/28/2020 at 4:34 PM, Silverado4x4 said:

This is what gets me people buy the 4 cylinder then want more performance out of it, really. Why didn't they just buy the 5.3 or the 6.2 if you wanted more performance?

 

A friend of mine works at our local dealership and when those 4 cylinders first came out they had 1 truck on the lot and it sat on there lot for months before someone bought it. A few weeks ago I ask him about sales on the 4 cylinder and he said they are slow movers people just don't want a 4 cylinder in a full size truck no matter what power it has, I see GM not making these motors long before they stop putting that motor in a truck. I see resale value being rock bottom on full size 4 cylinder trucks years down the road.

I think there is a disconnect in wanting some more performance and wanting something unrealistic out of a motor that just isn't possible. I am not sure what bucket the OP falls into but I can say that the statement that why didn't they just buy a larger motor just is a bit silly if you think about it. Do you same the same for EVERY 5.3L that buys an exhaust, intake, tune, etc? I think you are mistaken if you think more vehicles will start switching to lower cylinder forced induction motors given emissions and regulations but time will tell I guess.

  • Like 1
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
I think there is a disconnect in wanting some more performance and wanting something unrealistic out of a motor that just isn't possible. I am not sure what bucket the OP falls into but I can say that the statement that why didn't they just buy a larger motor just is a bit silly if you think about it. Do you same the same for EVERY 5.3L that buys an exhaust, intake, tune, etc? I think you are mistaken if you think more vehicles will start switching to lower cylinder forced induction motors given emissions and regulations but time will tell I guess.

The fast and furious kids are growing up and getting kids. The trend is to go from Honda Civic type cars to pickups versus larger cars. Like when people like my generation wanted to tune V8s, the newer generations are going want to tune turbo 4s and 6s. I messed with every pickup I owned from the 70s on. One of the reasons this old guy buys older trucks. Like a dog pissing on a tree, I made my truck my own. Tuning isn’t always for speed. I mostly hated the way the transmission shifted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
  • 4 months later...
Burcham7 Enthusiast

Burcham7

Posted
Posted

I have a 2.7 Sierra and I feel your pain. I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to get the most of a truck regardless of engine size, I feel like a lot of people on here are just bias against the new 4 cylinders because it’s not a huge v8. I love mine! I put a borla atak exhaust on it and deleted the resonator and I like the sound and I’m about to lift and re gear it. If you want performance I know afe just released the scorcher blue for it. You plug it up and can increase boost with it. I think this truck is incredible for just being a turbo 4. I also have a pedal commander on it to change throttle response. Barely touch the pedal and it takes of quick.

Burcham7 Enthusiast

Burcham7

Posted
Posted

I actually get quite a bit of compliments on the sound of it too. It almost sounds like a smaller Diesel engine. Love listening to the turbo whistle

Colossus Senior Enthusiast

Colossus

Posted
Posted

Well more power to ya and the little engine club. 

  • Like 1
RaisedByWolves Enthusiast

RaisedByWolves

Posted
Posted
On 7/24/2020 at 2:13 AM, Burcham7 said:

I have a 2.7 Sierra and I feel your pain. I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to get the most of a truck regardless of engine size, I feel like a lot of people on here are just bias against the new 4 cylinders because it’s not a huge v8. I love mine! I put a borla atak exhaust on it and deleted the resonator and I like the sound and I’m about to lift and re gear it. If you want performance I know afe just released the scorcher blue for it. You plug it up and can increase boost with it. I think this truck is incredible for just being a turbo 4. I also have a pedal commander on it to change throttle response. Barely touch the pedal and it takes of quick.

Raising boost will be the easiest way to gain HP in this motor.

 

To get any real gains you better learn one of the tuning programs and start swapping turbos.

  • Like 1
Burcham7 Enthusiast

Burcham7

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/27/2020 at 7:54 PM, RaisedByWolves said:

Raising boost will be the easiest way to gain HP in this motor.

 

To get any real gains you better learn one of the tuning programs and start swapping turbos.

 

Yup I agree! I plan I’m getting the scorcher blue For it to adjust the boost in the turbo, and also afe’s cold air intake. Should be plenty of power to make me happy! I don’t need anything crazy. If I can get 40-50hp out of the combo of the two, I consider that a win and would definitely suffice for me. I just got it lifted today, still waiting to put my 35’s on. Looks good so far though!

487D8039-E383-48E0-AC37-C7C8C500B872.jpeg

Edited by Burcham7
  • Like 1
Burcham7 Enthusiast

Burcham7

Posted
Posted
On 7/24/2020 at 1:56 AM, Colossus said:

Well more power to ya and the little engine club. 

I don’t need a huge motor, I hardly tow, I just have the truck for the times I need a truck. I haul a few round bails for my step dad here and there, but that’s about it. Always comes in handy having one.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...