2021 Silverado 2.7 WT

Art Gregory · March 25, 2021

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

f8l vnm · March 25, 2021

Yeah I bet that thing moves out pretty well! Love the 2.7 . If you don't need to tow or haul a lot , its the perfect engine.

Descartian · March 25, 2021

I have the Sierra 4x4 5.3 WT. great little grocery getter. It’ll be more fun after we finish chopping the frame down and put a 5’9” bed on it.

Art Gregory · March 25, 2021

For 2021 my 2.7 work truck reg.cab is rated to tow 9600 with 2280 payload I've seen 25 on the road and 18 city 200 miles.

f8l vnm · March 25, 2021

7 hours ago, Art Gregory said:

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

Curious what is the GVWR and payload ?

Donstar · March 25, 2021

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!

Art Gregory · March 25, 2021

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

f8l vnm · March 25, 2021

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

ericarenee · March 25, 2021

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

Grumpy Bear · March 26, 2021

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 March 26, 2021 by Grumpy Bear

the wanderer · March 26, 2021

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.

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."

Grumpy Bear · March 26, 2021

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

garagerog · March 26, 2021

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.

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.

the wanderer · March 26, 2021

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.