Jump to content

2.7 turbo

Deweth5
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pintoracer Enthusiast

Pintoracer

Posted
Posted (edited)

I enjoy mine!  It does the job I need it to do and gets decent mpg doing it.

Edited by Pintoracer
  • Like 1
2024Denali Enthusiast

2024Denali

Posted
Posted
On 3/26/2021 at 9:35 PM, Deweth5 said:

Hello all. Looking at a new Silverado's what is everyone's take on the 2.7 turbo? Thanks

Oh lord! Get ready for all the hate! Those of us that actually own one, including me, absolutely love the engine, but there is a crowd here that have never driven it that think it’s the devil. If you’re not towing too much, it’s a fantastic option. It has been rocksolid reliable for me. Just get ready for grumpybears horrible comments.

  • Haha 1
Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted

I'm really happy with it.  I don't tow at all and it's got plenty of "giddy up".  I wish there was a turbo booster and more bolt ons to give it a little more oomph but all in all its impressive.

Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, 2020SilveradoCC said:

Oh lord! Get ready for all the hate! Those of us that actually own one, including me, absolutely love the engine, but there is a crowd here that have never driven it that think it’s the devil. If you’re not towing too much, it’s a fantastic option. It has been rocksolid reliable for me. Just get ready for grumpybears horrible comments.

Which I just don't understand.... I drove the 2.7 and 5.3 back to back and the 2.7 was more fun to drive and felt just as powerful.  The truck felt more nimble with the weight savings too.  The 6.2 is in a whole other league.

  • Like 3
2024Denali Enthusiast

2024Denali

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

Which I just don't understand.... I drove the 2.7 and 5.3 back to back and the 2.7 was more fun to drive and felt just as powerful.  The truck felt more nimble with the weight savings too.  The 6.2 is in a whole other league.

100% agree! My 2.7T is a ton of fun to drive, and I get substantially better MPGs than my old 5.3.

  • Like 2
f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
Posted

The 2.7 is a great little engine.  

On our Farm we have about 30 trucks and so far our two 2.7 have been flawless. We will be getting more as we exchange trucks out every 2 years . 

  • Like 2
Adamace1 Enthusiast

Adamace1

Posted
Posted (edited)

I own 5.3. I test drove a bunch of trucks. I didn't have anything to complain about the 2.7 turbo motor it seemed to do a good job. I just wanted more option. I couldn't get comfortable  with the custom truck, I needed telescoping wheel and power seat couldn't find that in custom, all I found were lt's with 5.3.

Edited by Adamace1
SSTODD Enthusiast

SSTODD

Posted
Posted

One year and 10K miles so far, no issues with mine at all. best 50 mile mpg average on the dash of 32.5 so far. Had two 5.3's before this and no need to go back. GMC Elevation has plenty of options with this motor.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
ericarenee Enthusiast

ericarenee

Posted
Posted
On 4/2/2021 at 5:04 PM, SSTODD said:

One year and 10K miles so far, no issues with mine at all. best 50 mile mpg average on the dash of 32.5 so far. Had two 5.3's before this and no need to go back. GMC Elevation has plenty of options with this motor.

This is going in the right direction. I drove truck with  2.7 4.3 and 5.3 engines. I  Bought one with the 4.3 only because its Better known for LONG Term Reliability..  The 2.7 does run closer in performance to the  5.3 and my opinion is it will last as well as the outers. Turbo engines Just scare me.. I am old  and in the back of my mind they will fail even thou i know its not true .

 

I would say get it  if its the MOST Fun for you to drive...    

Good Luck

Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted

Kind of excited to get my aFe intake today.  I'm not expecting anything crazy but hopefully a little better throttle response and maybe a more aggressive engine sound under load.  I'll post a video, I can't find much real-world info on it.

BossTaco2020 Enthusiast

BossTaco2020

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 3/30/2021 at 12:09 PM, 2020SilveradoCC said:

Oh lord! Get ready for all the hate! Those of us that actually own one, including me, absolutely love the engine, but there is a crowd here that have never driven it that think it’s the devil. If you’re not towing too much, it’s a fantastic option. It has been rocksolid reliable for me. Just get ready for grumpybears horrible comments.

I'll  be the first to admit that I'll never own another turbo engine truck after having a bad experience with my 2012 Ford F150 EcoTurd. Yes, it had the power, but gas mileage still sucked when towing (even a little popup camper) and at around 100K miles, started getting misfires and stuttering when merging on the highway and my gas mileage dropped to ~14mpg under normal driving. Changed the plugs which helped a little, but my mileage didn't improve and I still occasionally had significant loss of power when accelerating to merge into traffic. Scared the crap out of me when I'm running out of merging lane and an 18 wheeler is charging hard with no merging room left and you're sputtering to get up to speed. Now, is that the fault of the turbos? Maybe, maybe not. Is it because it was a crappy Ford? Probably. But I heap the blame on the turbo, just because I've never had a N/A engine do that.

 

Hopefully the Chevy turbo engines fare better over time and mileage. Would love to hear reports from people who've had their turbo 4 bangers over 100K miles.

Edited by BossTaco2020
2024Denali Enthusiast

2024Denali

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, BossTaco2020 said:

I'll  be the first to admit that I'll never own another turbo engine truck after having a bad experience with my 2012 Ford F150 EcoTurd. Yes, it had the power, but gas mileage still sucked when towing (even a little popup camper) and at around 100K miles, started getting misfires and stuttering when merging on the highway and my gas mileage dropped to ~14mpg under normal driving. Changed the plugs which helped a little, but my mileage didn't improve and I still occasionally had significant loss of power when accelerating to merge into traffic. Scared the crap out of me when I'm running out of merging lane and an 18 wheeler is charging hard with no merging room left and you're sputtering to get up to speed. Now, is that the fault of the turbos? Maybe, maybe not. Is it because it was a crappy Ford? Probably. But I heap the blame on the turbo, just because I've never had a N/A engine do that.

 

Hopefully the Chevy turbo engines fare better over time and mileage. Would love to hear reports from people who've had their turbo 4 bangers over 100K miles.

This is pretty common on the turbo Fords. They had/have a defective intercooler. 15+ year models haven’t had the same issues. Either way, this is a totally different engine.

Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted

Installed the AFE INTAKE today. I got it off eBay new with a coupon for about $100 off AFE’s price. Pretty straightforward install. I started and revved it a bit.  No lights (knock on wood). I’ll post a review after I do some driving today. 

88E17815-539B-4B87-A084-C49D480D3828.jpeg

611D7891-AE3F-43F7-B657-C7D87A770E5B.jpeg

6EE77C69-D772-4FBB-8843-A9223DBB57FC.jpeg

  • Like 1
Mike Borowski Enthusiast

Mike Borowski

Posted
Posted

So I put about 20 miles on with the aFe... throttle response is definitely better, no question.  The transmission seems to have smoothed out, I have no idea why.  The engine sounds great!  Seriously when you get on it, the engine roars... but when light on the pedal the sound is exactly the same.  You can hear the intake and turbo more with the windows down but with windows up, not much difference, engine just sounds more aggressive.  There feels like a small gain at the low end and a little more pull at the top.

 

All in all, I think its worth it.  The overall smoother drivetrain, the engine sound and potential slight improvement in MPG are worth it to me!

  • Like 2

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

    • richard wysong
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By richard wysong · Posted

      I had an 88 K1500 with a 5.7 that had those symptoms, I know totally different, it ended up being the ECM. Once you get the fuel system fixed if it still runs lousy you may want to investigate that. it didn't set any codes, stalled ,ran rough at times etc
    • James Beyer
      Trading 7.3 (Godzilla) for G.M.C gas

      By James Beyer · Posted

      Congratulations Isttype, on your gmc. Really like my 2024 2500hd sle doublecab now with 85,500 miles.  I checked the oil today at 4800 miles since last oil change and barely reading on the stick.  I don't care if GM says it's Acceptable adding a quart every 2000 miles because that is 100% BS, It is not a 1966 Harley Shovelhead! Sounds like it's setting up a future failure like I had with my 1500 6.2l. Other than oil consumption problems, I really like the 6.6l gas and 10 speed is really nice.  Towed a light 4000 pound trailer last week and averaged 14 mpg.  I was pretty impressive that a 7300 pound gas truck did 14mpg towing, Later-
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Long Term Cold Cycle Limited Testing   Back to the 1990's and XOM's million mile test. Since then there have been others and there will be more. Schaeffer's, AMSOIL to name two. Of these Schaeffer's is the stand alone which I will explain in a bit later.    http://papers.sae.org/600190/:   http://papers.sae.org/850215/:   Up to 75% of  engine wear occurs on cold starts. These two links (above) provide the technical reasons for engine wear. In a nut shell, and by a large margin, cylinder wear is what takes out most motors and even with a pre-oiling system that part of the engine is dry enough on cold starts and cold warm up to pierce Stribeck.   So when you put a motor, or a car, on a dyno for a million miles stopping only for oil changes, (yes fuel is uninterrupted) or break down maintenance, you are depriving the test of the most important part of it's wear cycle. Yes a million is then a pretty easy walk even for a mineral oil under those conditions.    How about cleanliness during the long test cycles? Same thing. Varnishes that stick rings and insulate parts are laid down by repetitive 'heat cycles'. It's the cool down the precipitates the varnishes. These long runs also hinder acidic attack caused by cold start richness and less than optimal cold start ring sealing. They hinder water formation and enhance breathing of the crankcase; the petri dish of acid formation, the first step in sludge formation, amalgamation and precipitation. These motors are also monitored and controlled for water and oil temperatures to within the "normal operating range".      https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf Note the test sequence in some boutique oils literature for testing, API IIIH, is not the standard used for the ILSAC G7 testing. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No, not as used. As used as a 'visual guide' it makes it's point. The G7 weighted piston deposit minimum is lower.      Back to Schaeffer's. That was a cyclical test of an engine in fleet service and not a dyno mule and if you saw the video it was not mirror clean but wear was low.    There are oils like BioSyn and other 'Renewable" source oils that taught cleanliness and have proven themselves in fleet testing. Havoline an other example.    The newest ILSAC G-7 test prioritize cleanliness, LSPI mitigation and fuel economy OVER WEAR. In comparison Porsche C30 Specification Verses ILSAC G-7 Specification below:      Some will balk that this graph isn't apples to apples and I will challenge that in that this graph represent the SPECIFICATION and not the any One Oil Performance.   It is absolutely possible to minimize wear, maximize cleanliness and mitigate LSPI etc., It just isn't cheap and currently I see none that are not walking toward profit over performance.     
    • asilverblazer
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      I don't think you will need a split, separate product, etc., the OBD port should be able to deliver everything you need. Since your device would be plugged into it all the time, it wouldn't miss anything.    Hardware in this case will be the easiest part of your project - ELM 327 devices will already deliver all the data you need. Reporting/software is where your advantage/marketability is.
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      I do too. I’ll never be stuck again 😂

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...