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. 

Full load 6.2 at4 Rental returned, picked up Custom 2.7, initial impressions.


Recommended Posts

Got a unique and expensive chance to try a couple of these new GM's. My jeep gladiator broke down far from home and while it gets a new motor I rented a gmc full load refresh crew AT4 longer box with the 6.2 to get home and drove it about 1000 miles. Hauls ass sucks gas best describes it. Anyhow a couple days ago picked up a refresh custom 4x4 crew short box with a couple bells and one whistle on it 😉 (2.7t) and have 260 miles so far on break-in tank of gas, dealer was nice to hand it over full of gas. 

 

I weighed both on the scales as I was curious what the difference would be. Same amount of fuel, minus my chubby 200 lbs and it's a 530 lb difference. 5665 lbs for the porky gmc and 5135 lbs for the Chev. I know it's not the best comparison but it's what I had to work with.

 

I literally dropped the 6.2 off and the rental people took me from there to the dealer to pick up the new 2.7. 

 

So driving differences as follows: 

 

The handling of the lower truck on 20's is quick amazing in first round about, the lifted gmc on muds was a weeble wobble by comparison. Also coming off driveway curb you notice the lack of weight up front, less ogo pogo with the 2.7.

 

Next is the relaxed driving dynamic of the turbo, seems to glide, and motivate forward with less foot input whereas the v8 seems like it would rather head back and sit on the couch so you're putting more into it to keep it motivated forward.

 

Quiet...that 6.2 on auto-start can easily be heard firing up in the house on auto-start, don't hear anything with the 4banger in that comparison, I had to get outside and halfway down the outside of garage to hear if the auto-start had worked on the turbo lol so this is both a good and bad thing depending how you look at it lol.

 

Power is pretty wicked with the 6.2, it was broke in, not mine, and so I could goose it and have some fun, and I did. I can't fully comment on that right now with the 2.7 as I'm not doing any full throttle pulls yet but some 1/2 and 3/4 pulls and agressive quick tip ins have occurred. I can say this little motor is easily going to live up to expectation, it's doing so much with so little rpm already easily scooting through traffic. I'm quite pleased and I'd wager a drag race at my elevation may end up very very close...the 6.2 has 62 more hp but 22 ft/lbs less torque and the 2.7 is 530 lbs lighter...so far it feels like that would be a surprising race. I live at 4000'. The hills around here that usually have me instinctively leaning into the gas pedal and I did with the 6.2, this turbo is accelerating up them without downshifting at already low rpm...very surprising to see in action what's on paper, less drama than the 6.2. Love that, it's a very relaxed and calming rig to drive, quiet, and the pull is almost electric. It's getting quicker and even more free revving every trip.

 

Lastly...mileage, I'm at 260 miles on first tank with the 2.7 and varying rpms, changing gears manually, downshifting, to keep various loads and some hearted accelerations to break-in and I'm at 19.6 u.s. mpg and just under half tank (12.0 l/100km and 416 kms). The 6.2 with 90% behaved and 10% sport car pulls 3/4's of a tank hand calculated at 13.2 mpg and the computer said 13.5 mpg. So not really an apples to apples comparison there but it's a staggering difference. I could see that babying the 6.2 around town would only get me to about 14.2 mpg so these two motors are not in the same realm when it comes to economy.

 

That's all I can say for initial impressions. That rental 6.2 pulled my 3000 lb trailer 730 kms home so I have notes on that experience and I'll be taking same trailer next week about 700 kms through mountains for our summer vacay with this new 2.7 so will have a reasonably fresh tow comparison to comment on soon. The 6.2 was a machine, first leg towing did about 68 mph (110 kmh) and got 11.7 mpg (20 l/100km) and second leg was fast leg doing 77-80 mph and got  9.8 mpg (24 l/100km) lol, with power to spare, pass at will like no trailer was there. I won't likely be that aggressive with the 2.7 as still new enough and breaking in but will be able to compare agains the first leg fore sure. Stay tuned. 

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

Check the owner's manual because it specifies in there how many miles you should have on it before any towing occurs. I still can't get past the 4 banger in a full size truck. My sales lady said her boyfriend had one and all his friends made fun of him for how it sounded when he got stuck in snow towing a snowmobile trailer. My 6.2 sounds mean with a muffler delete and I like it that way!. Best I've gotten is 20.8 and I average around 15.8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, GETGONE said:

Check the owner's manual because it specifies in there how many miles you should have on it before any towing occurs. I still can't get past the 4 banger in a full size truck. My sales lady said her boyfriend had one and all his friends made fun of him for how it sounded when he got stuck in snow towing a snowmobile trailer. My 6.2 sounds mean with a muffler delete and I like it that way!. Best I've gotten is 20.8 and I average around 15.8.

Ya no towing until 800 kms, I’m at 550 now and will have break-in done by end of weekend then we leave later the next week so no issues. The first towing 800 kms they have some restrictions also. And I’m sure I’ll get the gears for the 4 banger but I get a kick out of that stuff. I like versatile gear with minimal fat. Shoot a pretty modern cartridge and it’s on minimal side of things also and get the gears for that too but the walls and freezers are always full. 

Edited by 4banger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming up on 1500mi in my 2022 LT HO.  Drives just like a diesel, nothing but @ss moving torque from 1500-4500rpm.  I'm more than pleased with mine.  Can't wait to tow with it.  

 

Also OP, sorry for the hijack below lol. 

 

9 hours ago, GETGONE said:

My sales lady said her boyfriend had one and all his friends made fun of him for how it sounded when he got stuck in snow towing a snowmobile trailer. My 6.2 sounds mean with a muffler delete and I like it that way!. 

 

 

Just imagine.  A long, long time ago from 1960-1966, the first generation of the C/K trucks debuted.  Of the 8 engines they used during that run between Chevy and GMC, SIX of those engines were 6 cylinders, one of the 6 was the GMC only 5.0 V6.  When comparing the 292 inline 6, the GMC V6 and the 283 small block they ran, both 6 cylinder engines made the same if not more power than the 283.  3/4 ton trucks used to come standard with an inline 6 then, heck even big class 4 and 5 trucks had gas 6 cylinder powerplants.  4 and 6 cylinder engines were quite normal back then.    

 

The L3B may not "sound" like a V8, but they are every bit if not more powerful.  19-22 LTD engine 310hp, 348tq, that's more than the 4.3 they had at the same time, more than the 5.3's GM ran from 07-13.  The HO version at 310hp but now 430tq, that's 30 less torque than the 3.0 diesel and the 6.2.  Having been pulling some harder runs in mine, this thing feels faster than my 2019 old body 5.3 did.  The power hits in a much smoother way than the 5.3 did as well, and a LOT sooner.  I have performance timer data on that truck, and I plan on doing the same with this truck for comparisons.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love my V8s.  I've had 5 of them.  This is my 3rd 4 cylinder engine, two of them being in trucks.  The other was the 2.8 Duramax in a Colorado, and that was an absolute lovely setup.  So far, I have zero regrets switching to the 2.7 HO. 

 

 

Edited by newdude
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I wish Chevy did differently with the 2.7L HO was pair it to the 10 speed. 

Not sure why they still have the 8 speed transmission around. Ford has the 2.7, 3.5 SO & HO, and 5.0 all hooked up to the 10 speed trans in the F-150's. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, John813 said:

The only thing I wish Chevy did differently with the 2.7L HO was pair it to the 10 speed. 

Not sure why they still have the 8 speed transmission around. Ford has the 2.7, 3.5 SO & HO, and 5.0 all hooked up to the 10 speed trans in the F-150's. 

 

 

 

Fair point.  GM did re-tune the 8 speed and so far on mine, it shifts much better than the earlier 8 speeds.  I haven't had a hard 1-2 first shift after a cold start even.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, John813 said:

The only thing I wish Chevy did differently with the 2.7L HO was pair it to the 10 speed. 

Not sure why they still have the 8 speed transmission around. Ford has the 2.7, 3.5 SO & HO, and 5.0 all hooked up to the 10 speed trans in the F-150's. 

 

I have a transmission wish list also, the only thing I wish they did differently was offer a 6 speed manual with a nice heavy flywheel. That would complete my dream truck desires and to have a modern highboy for all the rednecky stuff we do and still do the minivan dad duties as well.

 

As for the 8 speed...I remember getting a 6 speed was dreamy lol. 8 gears is well matched for all the torque this thing has, I feel like adding 2 more just wouldn't make sense. Keep it lighter and simpler, understand the 10 speed is a heavier transmission as well...doesn't suit this motor set up for both those reasons.

 

And hijack away, that's what these forums are about.

Edited by 4banger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, GETGONE said:

 I still can't get past the 4 banger in a full size truck. My sales lady said her boyfriend had one and all his friends made fun of him for how it sounded when he got stuck in snow towing a snowmobile trailer. My 6.2 sounds mean with a muffler delete and I like it that way!.

And this is just a subjective category, for some I guess it's a very important thing. Much like looks, 95% of vehicles are sold based on appearance. I only buy on the objective info now, it could look like a warthog and sound like one too as long as it has the right stuff where it counts. 😉  That heavy 6.2 would still be stuck in the snow bank if the situation were reversed but it sure would sound great, until it ran out of gas, which wouldn't be long haha.

 

One needs to not look at this 4 banger as some non-turbo civic engine that they grabbed from the cavalier line up and threw a turbo on and put in a truck. No, this is a big block inline long stroke turbo truck motor through and through. Largest displacement inline 4 currently available in automobiles. Little tractor engine. That's how this one should be viewed because that's what it is. 

Edited by 4banger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 4banger said:

I have a transmission wish list also, the only thing I wish they did differently was offer a 6 speed manual with a nice heavy flywheel. That would complete my dream truck desires and to have a modern highboy for all the rednecky stuff we do and still do the minivan dad duties as well.

 

As for the 8 speed...I remember getting a 6 speed was dreamy lol. 8 gears is well matched for all the torque this thing has, I feel like adding 2 more just wouldn't make sense. Keep it lighter and simpler, understand the 10 speed is a heavier transmission as well...doesn't suit this motor set up for both those reasons.

 

And hijack away, that's what these forums are about.

My last stick truck was a 99 Ford XLT sport 4.6 5 speed. It was color match from the factory. It was extended cab. I put a vortec SC on it. It was a blast. At that time we had put up the Impala ss the wife drove a Z-28. My toys were a 85 GT mustang and a 65 retro GMC step side truck. I got the 80K mile mustang from the insurance company the just handed my nephew a check. Totaled hail damage. I couldn’t believe it they wrote him a check I asked the guy if I could buy it. 2500$. The trunk, top, hood was dimpled. I was hoping my son would be interested in drag racing, no dice, it just sat there. It was the slowest of the bunch. After all this rambling I originally was going to reply. If GM offered a 2 door work truck with a 6 speed  stick I’d be tempted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, 4banger said:

Got a unique and expensive chance to try a couple of these new GM's. My jeep gladiator broke down far from home and while it gets a new motor I rented a gmc full load refresh crew AT4 longer box with the 6.2 to get home and drove it about 1000 miles. Hauls ass sucks gas best describes it. Anyhow a couple days ago picked up a refresh custom 4x4 crew short box with a couple bells and one whistle on it 😉 (2.7t) and have 260 miles so far on break-in tank of gas, dealer was nice to hand it over full of gas. 

 

I weighed both on the scales as I was curious what the difference would be. Same amount of fuel, minus my chubby 200 lbs and it's a 530 lb difference. 5665 lbs for the porky gmc and 5135 lbs for the Chev. I know it's not the best comparison but it's what I had to work with.

 

I literally dropped the 6.2 off and the rental people took me from there to the dealer to pick up the new 2.7. 

 

So driving differences as follows: 

 

The handling of the lower truck on 20's is quick amazing in first round about, the lifted gmc on muds was a weeble wobble by comparison. Also coming off driveway curb you notice the lack of weight up front, less ogo pogo with the 2.7.

 

Next is the relaxed driving dynamic of the turbo, seems to glide, and motivate forward with less foot input whereas the v8 seems like it would rather head back and sit on the couch so you're putting more into it to keep it motivated forward.

 

Quiet...that 6.2 on auto-start can easily be heard firing up in the house on auto-start, don't hear anything with the 4banger in that comparison, I had to get outside and halfway down the outside of garage to hear if the auto-start had worked on the turbo lol so this is both a good and bad thing depending how you look at it lol.

 

Power is pretty wicked with the 6.2, it was broke in, not mine, and so I could goose it and have some fun, and I did. I can't fully comment on that right now with the 2.7 as I'm not doing any full throttle pulls yet but some 1/2 and 3/4 pulls and agressive quick tip ins have occurred. I can say this little motor is easily going to live up to expectation, it's doing so much with so little rpm already easily scooting through traffic. I'm quite pleased and I'd wager a drag race at my elevation may end up very very close...the 6.2 has 62 more hp but 22 ft/lbs less torque and the 2.7 is 530 lbs lighter...so far it feels like that would be a surprising race. I live at 4000'. The hills around here that usually have me instinctively leaning into the gas pedal and I did with the 6.2, this turbo is accelerating up them without downshifting at already low rpm...very surprising to see in action what's on paper, less drama than the 6.2. Love that, it's a very relaxed and calming rig to drive, quiet, and the pull is almost electric. It's getting quicker and even more free revving every trip.

 

Lastly...mileage, I'm at 260 miles on first tank with the 2.7 and varying rpms, changing gears manually, downshifting, to keep various loads and some hearted accelerations to break-in and I'm at 19.6 u.s. mpg and just under half tank (12.0 l/100km and 416 kms). The 6.2 with 90% behaved and 10% sport car pulls 3/4's of a tank hand calculated at 13.2 mpg and the computer said 13.5 mpg. So not really an apples to apples comparison there but it's a staggering difference. I could see that babying the 6.2 around town would only get me to about 14.2 mpg so these two motors are not in the same realm when it comes to economy.

 

That's all I can say for initial impressions. That rental 6.2 pulled my 3000 lb trailer 730 kms home so I have notes on that experience and I'll be taking same trailer next week about 700 kms through mountains for our summer vacay with this new 2.7 so will have a reasonably fresh tow comparison to comment on soon. The 6.2 was a machine, first leg towing did about 68 mph (110 kmh) and got 11.7 mpg (20 l/100km) and second leg was fast leg doing 77-80 mph and got  9.8 mpg (24 l/100km) lol, with power to spare, pass at will like no trailer was there. I won't likely be that aggressive with the 2.7 as still new enough and breaking in but will be able to compare agains the first leg fore sure. Stay tuned. 

First off….,lifting a truck kills performance and MPGs….hence why I can’t stand lifted trucks! 

Second a 6.2L has 110 more HP and 30 more Ft Lbs of TQ………….idk where u got 62 and 22 ft lbs less?? 
Third the new T1s are so damn huge in the front end that MPGs on the 6.2Ls really hinder it. My K2 6.2L and even the 2 5.3Ls all got above 23 mpgs going 70 mph.  My new high country has to stay in the 66-67 mph to even compete.  Even at 80 mph running up interstate. My K2s would achieve 20 mpg.  If I go above 70 mph in my T1. I wont achieve 20 mpg.   That’s my really only complaint from the new body style. 

Hopefully you have great luck with your 2.7L HO.  From what I have read and heard.  They are a nice little motor. Especially if u do live in higher elevations. 

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

4 hours ago, John813 said:

The only thing I wish Chevy did differently with the 2.7L HO was pair it to the 10 speed. 

Not sure why they still have the 8 speed transmission around. Ford has the 2.7, 3.5 SO & HO, and 5.0 all hooked up to the 10 speed trans in the F-150's. 

 

100% agree .. And i love the 8 Speed too , nothing against it.  

Ford gives the 10A to even in their base 3.3 Xl trucks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but your comparison and evaluation is skewed distinctly in your personal vehicle's favor, in a specific environment, under specific conditions that favor it.  Down closer to sea level, there is an extremely distinct advantage in performance with the 6.2 powertrain.  A basic look at quarter mile times, and 0-60 times between the two available power trains are clearly shown and captured in quantitative and repeatable data sets that favor the 6.2 in the extreme.  Yes, in higher altitudes in conditions that neuter any and all NA engines, a turbo or supercharged engine does not diminish in performance but most trucks will never operate in those conditions unless owned by an individual who lives in those conditions(VERY small populace).  

 

Its reminds me of all of the import guys in the late 90's and early 2000's talking about their turbo imports and how much more efficient they were with their HP/liter numbers, how much more agile they were because of their lightness, etc.  Put them on the track and they got their a$$'s busted by Z28's, Mustangs and Corvette's all day.  Where the turbo civics more efficient and agile, YES by FAR, but they still lost because it just wasn't enough to win. 

 

That's where this 2.7 is at right now.  It's an engineering feat that is amazing and will produce off shoots that will most likely create amazing waves in the world of ICE's.  Add another liter to the motor, or at least make the bore closer to the stroke and I would take it over the 5.3 and 6.2 ANY day of the week.  I assume GM will be doing just that with the next gen Silverado and I'll probably be first in line to purchase it if that comes to fruition.  Right now though, its simply too small to compete as the top dog in the lineup.

 

 

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

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, TNTSilverado said:

First off….,lifting a truck kills performance and MPGs….hence why I can’t stand lifted trucks! 

Second a 6.2L has 110 more HP and 30 more Ft Lbs of TQ………….idk where u got 62 and 22 ft lbs less?? 
Third the new T1s are so damn huge in the front end that MPGs on the 6.2Ls really hinder it. My K2 6.2L and even the 2 5.3Ls all got above 23 mpgs going 70 mph.  My new high country has to stay in the 66-67 mph to even compete.  Even at 80 mph running up interstate. My K2s would achieve 20 mpg.  If I go above 70 mph in my T1. I wont achieve 20 mpg.   That’s my really only complaint from the new body style. 

Hopefully you have great luck with your 2.7L HO.  From what I have read and heard.  They are a nice little motor. Especially if u do live in higher elevations. 

40% of USA population lives in the strip of coastal, 60% outside of that. Would wager more than 60% live 2500' or above. At 2500' the 6.2 and 2.7 (h.o.) have exact same torque. At 4000' where I live (and that's not really that high) the 6.2 has 371 hp and 407 ft/lbs torque (62 hp advantage and 22 ft/lbs deficit) to the 2.7 309/429. So that's where I get the 62 and 22 less. As one guy replied to another post on this that TFL did 0-60 run turbo vs 6.2 at elevation and 0.36 seconds difference. 

 

Agree they could focus more on the aero, a bud has both an ecodiesel and new 3.0 diesel gmc from gm and the long highway runs for his business the ram is getting noticeably better mileage than the gm and he's figuring it's in the aero advantage. They run long miles to compare.

 

As for the lift...the gm's have always been too low for me, trail boss is ideal for getting through ditches, snow filled/crusted ditches, onto ice for ice fishing, recovering down game during hunting season etc. Their front ends on the ground no better clearance than a car. So lift is mandatory for most outdoorsman imo. But it doesn't need to be 6" that's fore sure. I'm not going to change tire height with mine, I'll go same height but even skinnier tire to keep economy but I'm going to add some much needed clearance to the body. Will see how that affects mileage soon enough, I'll have a good baseline by the time lift comes in.

 

Just did 1st fill up on break-in miles on the turbo, 1/8th tank left, 391.5 miles (630 kms) and 12.0 l/100km or 19.6 u.s. mpg or 23.5 uk mpg. Expect straight highway runs will be in the 10.0 l/100 km range at 70 mpg or same 23.5 u.s. mpg you see out of 5.3 and unsure what your elevation range is but at my elevation (4000') the 2.7 will do that with only 5 less hp than the 5.3 but 90 ft/lbs more torque. The turbos make all a ton of sense as soon as you get above a couple thousand feet. With the 5.3 having 45 hp advantage at sea level it has a 47 ft/lbs torque disadvantage....so essentially same overall power output...but that's the only place they are equal, the majority of North America the new 2.7t walks on the 5.3, the interesting comparison is against the 6.2.

 

It is a nice little motor, I had a good idea what to expect and it's proving to be better than I had hoped for in a few areas.

Edited by 4banger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Ghostbone311 said:

How comfortable were the seats in each and did the new interior feel like high quality?

the gmc had leather seats and so felt a little firm, held your height better, but similar seats as gms for long time, base a little short on the thighs, the custom seats sink into them a bit further as your ass warm up the foam, I find I'm not as comfortable in the custom as the gmc yet, the gmc had leather dash that rental company wiped down with something way too shiny, bad reflection off windshield, hit that with a warm cloth only keep that glare down be my suggestion, but yes the new interior and screens for days, pretty luxurious, sunroof etc., softer materials everywhere, door, steering wheel, very nice truck, luxury truck guys will be happy, I'm quite happy with the chev so far, I love that basic utilitarian interior, we're tough on stuff so ideal for us, can come back from hunting and fishing and not feel as though we need to clean it anywhere lol, the custom is as comfortable as my 2013 suburban ltz was and it was leather loaded, still not as comfortable as my basic jeep gladiator seat though and the gmc is a little better I think due to firmer seat foam and or leather making it seem firmer?

Edited by 4banger
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.