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

13 hours ago, the wanderer said:

 

 

There are certain FACTS about the 2.7 and 4.3;

 

Here are some of them not that you will actually read any of it. 

 

2021 WT1 RCLB T1 (RCSB is not available) 

2.7T operates at 1.5 bar boost (22 psig). VVT. VVL. AFM (complexity galore) 

310 hp / 348 lb/ft torque

EPA 22 highway 19 city 20 combine

WT1 curb weight 4520 lbs.

 

2015 WT1 RCSB K2

4.3 VVT AFM N/A Flex fuel

305 hp / 330 lb/ft torque E85

EPA 18 city 24 highway 22 combine 87 regular. 

WT1 curb weight  4500 lbs. 

 

The 2015 base AVAILABLW 4.3 is 20 lbs lighter with the SAME tow/haul as the BASE AVAILABLE 2.7T

The 4.3 gets 2 mpg better mileage city 1 less city 2 mpg more combine.

 

5 hp (1.6%) and 18 lb/ft (5.5%) is not earth shattering given the complexity spent on the 2.7. Heck not even if it were not complex. 

 

0-60....I don't care. It isn't a Corvette but that said the difference is minimal. 

 

Here's the thing with GM Marketing and ya' all love your Kool-Aid: 

 

They boasted the improvements based on? The lowest state of 4.3 tune available to the OWNER without modification not the highest (E-85). Like 22% more torque when it is really 5% and only 1.6% more power. The new T1 truck not only weighs 20 pounds more BUT has a MUCH LARGER frontal area and thus lied flat out about fuel efficiency. Original EPA numbers for the 2.7T were abysmal 22/19 and GM literature instructed the owner to disregard the EPA numbers. FuelEconomy.gov however says is actually worse. Love this one. The weight GM saved in the new design they gave right back by removing the RCSB version from the lineup. 

 

GM could have made this a killer set up by KEEPING the RCSB configuration and smaller envelope for the WT1 for the 2.7. Used the newer lighter weight materials. But that is what you guys call "better" Add more power, gain more weight. Add more torque, add more frontal area. Add more complexity, loose reliability. Then lie from the heart by stating facts out of context. 

 

1.5 bar of boost? Can operate on 2 cylinders? Upped the secondary pump pressures 1,000 lbs? Yea...I'll pass.

 

Even the 3.6 N/A Dodge gets better mileage and within 1.6% power normally asperated.

 

Ford 2.7 325 hp / 400 lb/ft torque. 26/24 mileage. WHAT???? 

 

Point is GM is a day late and a dollar short ONCE AGIAN. Oh and you get to pay an upcharge of a thousand dollars over the 4.3 for nothing special. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Is the 4.3 the best motor ever built? Not even close but the 2.7 is not an 'upgrade'. It's a lateral move with some iffy unknowns yet to be discovered. A base aftermarket tune puts the 4.3 ahead on every metric. Wait....what if we install a turbo on a 4.3? 2.7 in Caddy tune is ready to tap out.

 

 

 

 :crackup:There's a sub 6 0-60 Bolt ons.  

 

Now I'm done. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Grumpy Bear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Engine battles are rarely won. Usually longevity tilts the advantage ifs there’s a winner. Usually a little tuning for the horsepower junkies equals the playing field for those who cared. I usually would pick the biggest engine unless the upgrade added lots more cost then tuning the smaller engine. Which is usually the case with GM. My interest with anything boosted would be tuning. Ifs it’s possible these days. A 2 door GM pickup with the 2.7 and a tune with 400HP? That would be fun. Longevity for me was 150K miles. My mods never hinder that goal. Attainable with the 2.7? Someone will try I’m sure. The cheap fun days with GM are nearing the end I’m afraid. My memories of my uncles showing up with GM base models with big performance engines. Are a faded memory. There’s always Ram. And even Ford.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some seriously good news for the 2.7 T crowd.

It will be available in Colorado/Canyon in 2023!! 

Ya know, those mini trucks that have pigged out to the size of the GMT800.

If they don't screw this up you just might be looking at a 310 hp. 30 mpg ++ vehicle

If they do it right that I would buy.

😉 

Edited by Grumpy Bear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Here are some of them not that you will actually read any of it. 

 

2021 WT1 RCLB T1 (RCSB is not available) 

2.7T operates at 1.5 bar boost (22 psig). VVT. VVL. AFM (complexity galore) 

310 hp / 348 lb/ft torque

EPA 22 highway 19 city 20 combine

WT1 curb weight 4520 lbs.

 

2015 WT1 RCSB K2

4.3 VVT AFM N/A Flex fuel

305 hp / 330 lb/ft torque E85

EPA 18 city 24 highway 22 combine 87 regular. 

WT1 curb weight  4500 lbs. 

 

The 2015 base AVAILABLW 4.3 is 20 lbs lighter with the SAME tow/haul as the BASE AVAILABLE 2.7T

The 4.3 gets 2 mpg better mileage city 1 less city 2 mpg more combine.

 

5 hp (1.6%) and 18 lb/ft (5.5%) is not earth shattering given the complexity spent on the 2.7. Heck not even if it were not complex. 

 

0-60....I don't care. It isn't a Corvette but that said the difference is minimal. 

 

 

You didn't watch the video I posted. That's ok, I didn't expect you too. But why are you comparing the 2 engines in two different trucks, that is completely illogical.

 

The 2.7 is 380 pounds lighter than the 4.3 according to GM. It makes more power, more torque, and it does it at a far lower RPM (which means the effect of feeling that power is even stronger - do torque curves mean anything to you at all?) All while getting much better MPG. The difference is quite large.

Edited by the wanderer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we are quoting the 4.3’s HP & TQ numbers on E85, but then it’s fuel economy numbers on regular gas? Someone’s operating the cherry-picker again. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, OnTheReel said:

So we are quoting the 4.3’s HP & TQ numbers on E85, but then it’s fuel economy numbers on regular gas? Someone’s operating the cherry-picker again. 

lol, that's exactly what I was thinking.  Straight gave us E85 numbers , what a joke. 

Yeah because a E85 Tune on the 2.7 wouldn't easily net 50+ HP easily. 

He will argue with anyone , about anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, f8l vnm said:

lol, that's exactly what I was thinking.  Straight gave us E85 numbers , what a joke. 

Yeah because a E85 Tune on the 2.7 wouldn't easily net 50+ HP easily. 

He will argue with anyone , about anything. 

Agreed!  And someone please tell me again why the so called “gentlemen” is on the T1 thread forum when he owns a K2??  🤔🤔🤔. Unreal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some seriously good news for the 2.7 T crowd.

It will be available in Colorado/Canyon in 2023!! 

Ya know, those mini trucks that have pigged out to the size of the GMT800.

If they don't screw this up you just might be looking at a 310 hp. 30 mpg ++ vehicle

If they do it right that I would buy.

[emoji6] 

Does that mean you'll post in another part of the forum and leave the good people here alone? I thought you were done. That's what your last post said.

I know you won't see this because you blocked me. I take that as a badge of honor. It shares others are heading in that direction. Maybe one day the moderators will block you.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 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




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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