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. 

2021 Silverado 2.7 WT


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Art Gregory said:

Just picked up my new 2021 regular cab 4x2  2.7  WT Just 4520  pounds  its a blast !

This sounds like a perfect truck, imo.  At one time a 4X2 regular cab with the base engine was the most common pickup configuration. Now they're very special and rare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Art Gregory said:

Payload 2280 Truck weight 4520  GVWR 6800  Every 2 door WT for 22 will be 2.7 or optional 5.3 no 4.3

Solid numbers! Also hoping they give the 10 speed option on the 2.7 . IMO it would become even more potent 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI

 

I have a  2020 4.3v6 Long bed Well equipped WT Truck. I am not sure why they call these trucks grocery getters or OK if you do not really need a truck. The trucks are Lighter then the 4 door  SUV With a open trunk (5 foot bed LOL ) .  Very capable of pulling trailer and hauling about anything the average person would want. They load mine with a fork lift at the lumber ,I Tile and  other materials suppliers. Pulls my Dual axle loaded dump trailer well . it will not match the towing capability of my  3500HD.  But it also makes much less stops at the Gas station. 

OHH  I am not sold on 4 cylinder gas turbo on this truck. I think it will be spooled up wide open when loaded or pulling anything. and i  believe they will not hold up in the long run using them . My opinion.  the 4.3 is a solid engine . 

I think the high end trim package trucks are pushing the prices thru the roof  for people who actually  still use a truck for what it was meant for.   

 

GRRRRRRR   

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth is this midget motor makes more torque AND horsepower than a 5.3 everywhere below 3,000 rpm. Where you drive 95% of the time.

 

That's the good news. Bad news is, it is a 165 cubic inch motor with a 4.1" stroke doing the work of a motor twice it's size when it's actually asked to work. That is a 7 liter crank throw in a motor 39% of it's size. BMEP works out to be 319 psi from 1500 to 4000 rpm. That's nuts. Just plane nuts. Over 200% higher than an NA motor. 

 

Next thing you know the Kenworth will be powered by a 30 cubic inch quad turbo diesel.

 

 :crackup:

 

Question. How long do you think the rings will last in that motor if asked to work like a truck?

Unless they gave it cylinder liners as hard as a Cummings...not long.

And OMG on 20W oil?

 

I'll keep my 4.3 K2 which is the SAME weight as the T1 with the 2.7

That weight savings the brag up is only in a T1 of same build. 

 

 

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

8 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Truth is this midget motor makes more torque AND horsepower than a 5.3 everywhere below 3,000 rpm. Where you drive 95% of the time.

 

That's the good news. Bad news is, it is a 165 cubic inch motor with a 4.1" stroke doing the work of a motor twice it's size when it's actually asked to work. That is a 7 liter crank throw in a motor 39% of it's size. BMEP works out to be 319 psi from 1500 to 4000 rpm. That's nuts. Just plane nuts. Over 200% higher than an NA motor. 

 

Next thing you know the Kenworth will be powered by a 30 cubic inch quad turbo diesel.

 

 :crackup:

 

Question. How long do you think the rings will last in that motor if asked to work like a truck?

Unless they gave it cylinder liners as hard as a Cummings...not long.

And OMG on 20W oil?

 

I'll keep my 4.3 K2 which is the SAME weight as the T1 with the 2.7

That weight savings the brag up is only in a T1 of same build. 

 

 

 

You do realize the same mistrust and derision were lobbed at v6's 20 - 30 - 40 years ago? "Real men drive v8's."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

 

You do realize the same mistrust and derision were lobbed at v6's 20 - 30 - 40 years ago? "Real men drive v8's."

Actually I don't. I'm old my friend. First truck motors of my experience were all Straight sixes with a smattering of flat head Fords. Fact is the countries infrastructure and commercial trucking were built with the straight six and flat four.

 

Real men don't use a chainsaw to cut down a tree. They chew it off at the root. 

 

On a more serious note, the fact it is a four means nothing. The fact that the BMEP needed to make those numbers on 93 octane fuels puts them a few misfires from the scrap heap. 210 BMEP is Formula 1 territory and that on race gas. The blown hair driers are 50% over that. If they put the much effort into the 4.3...oh man.....and the mileage it would get. Lord....

 

But hey, people are in a hurry so sure lets do this....I'll wait and see 😉 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Truth is this midget motor makes more torque AND horsepower than a 5.3 everywhere below 3,000 rpm. Where you drive 95% of the time.

 

That's the good news. Bad news is, it is a 165 cubic inch motor with a 4.1" stroke doing the work of a motor twice it's size when it's actually asked to work. That is a 7 liter crank throw in a motor 39% of it's size. BMEP works out to be 319 psi from 1500 to 4000 rpm. That's nuts. Just plane nuts. Over 200% higher than an NA motor. 

 

Next thing you know the Kenworth will be powered by a 30 cubic inch quad turbo diesel.

 

 :crackup:

 

Question. How long do you think the rings will last in that motor if asked to work like a truck?

Unless they gave it cylinder liners as hard as a Cummings...not long.

And OMG on 20W oil?

 

I'll keep my 4.3 K2 which is the SAME weight as the T1 with the 2.7

That weight savings the brag up is only in a T1 of same build. 

 

 

So that's where this little engine gets it's torque, from the incredibility long stroke given it's displacement size, not just the turbo boost. I'm old school and certainly not an ICE expert, but it's always been my belief that a long stroke equates with low end torque, e.g. diesels and in the gas world the old straight 6 chevy 292 and ford 300.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Actually I don't. I'm old my friend. First truck motors of my experience were all Straight sixes with a smattering of flat head Fords. Fact is the countries infrastructure and commercial trucking were built with the straight six and flat four.

 

Real men don't use a chainsaw to cut down a tree. They chew it off at the root. 

 

On a more serious note, the fact it is a four means nothing. The fact that the BMEP needed to make those numbers on 93 octane fuels puts them a few misfires from the scrap heap. 210 BMEP is Formula 1 territory and that on race gas. The blown hair driers are 50% over that. If they put the much effort into the 4.3...oh man.....and the mileage it would get. Lord....

 

But hey, people are in a hurry so sure lets do this....I'll wait and see 😉 

 

ok, you personally don't realize it, but everybody else over 40 certainly does. V6's STILL do not have the same trust by many people as a v8 does. You're simply continuing the tradition of hating on something you haven't purchased, and probably haven't driven.

 

The 4.3 was too old, it reached EOL. They probably could not make it work with emissions. It had a really good run, just like the 3800 I loved so much in one of my previous cars.

 

The bottom line is; the 2.7 decimates the 4.3 in every metric; except perhaps longevity which is still an unknown. Don't be so hard on it, Grumpy, I for one would purchase it before the 5.3.

  • Like 1
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    239.5k
    Total Topics
    1.4m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    291,426
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Rallen1500
    Newest Member
    Rallen1500
    Joined
  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 629 Guests (See full list)




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.