Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm very interested in hearing reports of how the 2.7 is doing with respect to towing modest loads. There is the 2.7 fan thread which I've read through 100%, but just wondering if owners have any other information they might be willing to share?

 

Given an example travel trailer of roughly 5000 pounds:

 

- Does it bring a load up to speed from 0 mph, without redlining?

- How is the MPG (while towing)?

- When you're towing at (say) 63 mph what gear are you in (or what RPM are you sitting at on a flat road)?

- How much hunting does it do for slight increases of speed, or slight hills in the road?

- Comparison vs the 5.3 or 6.2 if you've experience with either engine?

- etc.

 

I have a very curious interest in this engine, and though I won't be trading my current truck in this year, I do like to have all my research done before I need a truck so that I can make a snap decision if/when it comes time.

  • Like 1
Posted

I have a boat that's maybe 4000lbs fully loaded and I get better mileage towing with my 2.7 than I did with my 2017 5.3.

I love my 2.7, I'll probably never go back to a 5.3. I get better mileage and I like the drive a lot better. All of that low torque just makes scootin around feel pretty effortless.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted

Well, I'm not sure if this is helpful or not but I have the 2020 5.3 10 speed combination. It tows better than my brother's 2017 5.3 Silverado with the 8 speed. It gets up to speed better and when towing there's a 1-2 mpg difference with his 5,000lb loaded car trailer.  

 

I currently use my 2020 5.3 10 speed for towing a Jayco 25RB that's roughly 6800-7000lbs loaded. It got 10-13 MPG in driving conditions varying from mountains to  rolling hills and a little flat. Proper towing gear is always used (weight distribution hitch with sway control). 

 

I believe GM has rated the new 2.7 to be able to tow similar weights as the 5.3 due to engineers saying it's cooling capacity is good enough to do so. You may still consider it as it may get a little better day to day MPG. Over time that will add up. 

Posted



Well, I'm not sure if this is helpful or not but I have the 2020 5.3 10 speed combination. It tows better than my brother's 2017 5.3 Silverado with the 8 speed. It gets up to speed better and when towing there's a 1-2 mpg difference with his 5,000lb loaded car trailer.  


I 100% believe that. I had a 2014 that got better mileage than my 2017. My 2017 was also an LTZ with bigger wheels, which probably had something to do with it. That 8 speed was a clunky turd.

I still love the 2.7 and am getting probably 20% better overall mileage.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

Posted

Just get the 3.0L and you will have much better mileage and tow easily. Comes with the 10 speed to boot.

 

When you say the 2.7 gets good mileage... what numbers are we talking?

  • Like 1
Posted

I'm averaging 19.5 with just about as bad of driving routes as you can imagine.

24 on the highway, 15-16 towing the boat.

The 3.0 is cool and will get definitely get better mileage. But you're also paying 5-8k more out the door and diesel is more expensive. The ROI would be many years out I'm sure. If ever depending on how far you drive annually.

The 2.7 is kind of a gas version of a baby diesel. Peak torque at low RPM, higher torque than hp.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

Posted

Thanks for the reports guys, please keep them coming!

 

With respect to the diesel; no doubt I'd love to drive one, but not sure I want to own one. One diesel related issue outside of warranty and you never get your money back.

 

And the other problem is, they only offer them in expensive trims. GM plays games with their drive trains.

  • Like 1
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
On 1/14/2021 at 10:24 AM, the wanderer said:

I'm very interested in hearing reports of how the 2.7 is doing with respect to towing modest loads. There is the 2.7 fan thread which I've read through 100%, but just wondering if owners have any other information they might be willing to share?

 

Given an example travel trailer of roughly 5000 pounds:

 

- Does it bring a load up to speed from 0 mph, without redlining?

- How is the MPG (while towing)?

- When you're towing at (say) 63 mph what gear are you in (or what RPM are you sitting at on a flat road)?

- How much hunting does it do for slight increases of speed, or slight hills in the road?

- Comparison vs the 5.3 or 6.2 if you've experience with either engine?

- etc.

 

I have a very curious interest in this engine, and though I won't be trading my current truck in this year, I do like to have all my research done before I need a truck so that I can make a snap decision if/when it comes time.

Here is TFL doing a towing test:

 

https://youtu.be/cSxBKR___Sg

Posted
5 hours ago, Justin Holland said:

Here is TFL doing a towing test:

 

https://youtu.be/cSxBKR___Sg

I was searching for that video as I was scrolling through reading this thread so I could post it here. That's an excellent video on the 2.7.

 

On 1/14/2021 at 10:24 PM, the wanderer said:

Thanks for the reports guys, please keep them coming!

 

With respect to the diesel; no doubt I'd love to drive one, but not sure I want to own one. One diesel related issue outside of warranty and you never get your money back.

 

And the other problem is, they only offer them in expensive trims. GM plays games with their drive trains.

The diesel comes with a 5 year 100,000 mile warranty. More than likely you'll have a new truck before the engine warranty runs out.

 

The lowest trim you can get the diesel in is the LT. Not much difference in the cost of the Custom and LT. The diesel is only a $950 upcharge in the 2021 models. 

Posted
7 hours ago, Justin Holland said:

Here is TFL doing a towing test:

 

https://youtu.be/cSxBKR___Sg

 

That was surprising and somewhat impressive. For someone who never, or rarely, tows heavy loads this could be a good choice.

 

It's rumored this 2.7l turbo is the engine going into the next gen Colorado to replace the current NA 4 cyl and the 3.6l V6 (sadly maybe the 2.8 diesel also).

 

JMHO

No expertise implied or expressed

Posted
 
That was surprising and somewhat impressive. For someone who never, or rarely, tows heavy loads this could be a good choice.
 
It's rumored this 2.7l turbo is the engine going into the next gen Colorado to replace the current NA 4 cyl and the 3.6l V6 (sadly maybe the 2.8 diesel also).
 
JMHO
No expertise implied or expressed
Even if you do tow moderately heavy loads fairly often I still think it's a good option. Anything over 8 or 9k lbs in a half ton is a little iffy imho.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

Posted

I wish they would come out with a regular cab short bed I would consider this engine for my daily driver for work .my 17 year old Duramax is beating me to death. best vehicle I’ve ever owned!

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, John Sarappa said:

I wish they would come out with a regular cab short bed I would consider this engine for my daily driver for work .my 17 year old Duramax is beating me to death. best vehicle I’ve ever owned!

I have an ‘05 Durango with 240k city miles on it. It’s been a great truck and virtually problem free. I’m in your camp too, I wish they’d make a single cab short bed or at least standard bed. 

Edited by Descartian
  • 3 months later...
Posted

I'd love to read more everyday towing reviews as well...however, at this point it would be pointless. Took possession of a 2.7l today to experience it myself! I'm coming out of a 2020 Ranger, pulling a 6000lb TT. With that under my belt, I have no reason to believe the 2.7 wont be up to the task. And..back into a full size, wife just never got comfy in the midsize pulln a 28' TT. (Even as always a passenger) I'll also add, when this motor goes into the Chevy midsizes....those are gonna be fun!

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined
  • Who's Online   5 Members, 1 Anonymous, 1,838 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
    • Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...