2027 Which 2027 engine will you choose?

[Black02Silverado]

On 2/16/2026 at 2:28 PM, C/K Man said:

I would like to see them bring back the E-85 option.

Exactly.  Let us decide what fuel we want to use.  

[Black02Silverado]

On 2/26/2026 at 6:12 PM, s10dragracer888 said:

You know, engine reliability issues can be mitigated with better internals and the removal of AFM/DFM/DOD, but I do understand that not everyone can afford that. You can get it machined to be a much better engine, but the fact that you have to tear it down to bare bones to fix all of GM’s blatant ignorance and catastrophic cost cutting crap is a huge problem.

 

My other concern is what kind of transmission will be behind these engines. The 6L- and 8L- transmissions were both largely unreliable and very problematic, because just like prior transmissions, their design changed from ZF’s reliable design to GM’s cost-saving junk. Paired with the reliability issues of the 10 speed and the debacle of the valve body (thanks, NextGen for a PROPER FIX), I’m very skeptical as to the reliability of the new generation drivetrains, engines AND transmissions. This behavior from GM and lack of action on GM’s part in regard to finding a real remedy has me wondering if going to an older Toyota would be a better investment. I love my Chevrolet trucks, and I always have, but with the bean counters in charge and engineers being ignored, it is disappointing to see that this may continue to be a problem. It seems like GM and their effort to be penny wise and dollar foolish will be their demise. This practice of cost-cutting and cheaping out has steadily kicked them in the can since they changed ZF’s original transmission designs commissioned in the late 80’s for use in the early 90’s mid and full size pickups, sedans, coupes, and fleet vehicles. I truly feel that the fall of GM’s empire is inevitable at this point. It’s only a matter of time. It’s a repeat of history, and we are well on the way.

Exactly, we are now in the throw away society, they don't want you to fix it, they want you to buy a new vehicle. The days of "Like A Rock" are long gone. They can build a solid vehicle, but it doesn't bring in the money. Why build it to last? Everyone would keep what they bought and not buy a new one.  It's my understanding, like the valve body issues on the 10sp, they used the least expensive materials to make it and look how that turned out.

Edited July 22 by Black02Silverado

[KARNUT]

If I decide to go new again (doubtful) I’ll lease first. It may be a little more expensive. But it will be under warranty and I can walk away at the end. If it proves reliable I can purchase it at the end. I’ve migrated towards more reliable vehicles and am diligent with maintenance. So it seems long term is my new normal. I search everyday for a deal, it’s my hobby. So anytime a change could be in order. It’s become too costly with new vehicles. That puts new on the back burner. 

[asilverblazer]

On 2/27/2026 at 11:26 AM, Black02Silverado said:

...they don't want you to fix it, they want you to buy a new vehicle... They can build a solid vehicle, but it doesn't bring in the money. Why build it to last? Everyone would keep what they bought and not buy a new one...

The cynic in me agrees, and there are people who wouldn't buy a new truck so long as the old one still works. 

 

I don't think that is the majority anymore though, most people buy a new truck when they WANT to, not when necessarily when they NEED to. 

 

How does a manufacturer get the NEW buyer though? Some only buy based on the style, the price, the specs, etc. and these buyers might be 'conquest' buyers. In the truck world though it is massively brand loyal, meaning if my first truck is a Chevrolet and I have a good experience with it, I'm likely to buy another. Key point is that my FIRST Chevrolet likely isn't a NEW Chevrolet. Its used with miles on it - THAT is where a manufacturers incentive to make a long-lasting vehicle is. 

 

GM is so focused on selling NEW vehicles they ignore the experience of the people buying their used vehicles. Which is foolish, because these are the people that will either become the next NEW buyer, or swear off GM forever. 

 

There are very few DESIRABLE/ASPIRATIONAL GM vehicles, Corvette, Escalade... nobody stays up at night wishing they had a brand-new Equinox. Why? It excels at nothing mediocre in every respect. So then, who goes and buys a NEW one? The person who had one before and had a good experience with it. 

[Buckwild27]

If the 6.6l rumors are true and not the 6.7l then I would definitely go with the 6.6l 

[Shall36]

If GM thinks I’ll buy a new truck from them after the mess of garbage they’ve been putting out, they are nuts. 

[Coastie05]

Not in the market since I’m hitting 1 year with my 2025 Turbomax next month. If I was in the market I’d get another Turbomax. It’s everything I need and performs well. I currently have 14,110 trouble free miles on my truck. 

[silveradosid]

i would also go for the turbomax, i don't tow ahything heavy anymore maybe 6k lbs. my 2020 has 120k miles and for the most part has been very reliable

[Jus Cruisin]

A little late to this. I am going to order a 2027 as soon as the order banks open. It'll be a 3.0l again. This time in a Yukon. 

[NavyVette]

59 minutes ago, Jus Cruisin said:

A little late to this. I am going to order a 2027 as soon as the order banks open. It'll be a 3.0l again. This time in a Yukon. 

Don't expect the SUV's to be the new version until 2028 

[2016 Sierra Owner]

I wouldn't want either of the 2 new gas engines until the next model year or 2. 

Edited July 22 by 2016 Sierra Owner
Spelling

[cautious optimist]

On 3/28/2026 at 5:16 PM, Coastie05 said:

Not in the market since I’m hitting 1 year with my 2025 Turbomax next month. If I was in the market I’d get another Turbomax. It’s everything I need and performs well. I currently have 14,110 trouble free miles on my truck. 

 

I'm glad you have 14,000 trouble free miles. Frankly though, that's a really low bar. A bare minimum of 80,000 trouble free miles as the norm (rare exceptions always exist) across the whole model year should be a starting point. Good maintenance habits should push these past the 100,000 mile mark with only the most minor of issues. Let's hope GM truly leveled up the quality game with these new engines and exploding engines under 50,000 miles are gone. 

[Coastie05]

4 hours ago, cautious optimist said:

 

I'm glad you have 14,000 trouble free miles. Frankly though, that's a really low bar. A bare minimum of 80,000 trouble free miles as the norm (rare exceptions always exist) across the whole model year should be a starting point. Good maintenance habits should push these past the 100,000 mile mark with only the most minor of issues. Let's hope GM truly leveled up the quality game with these new engines and exploding engines under 50,000 miles are gone. 

No doubt, I definitely agree with you. However, considering the 6.2 and 3.0 have been catastrophically failing with very little miles, I figured I would put trouble free. I’m at 18,4xx and still not a single issue.  

[MORSNO]

The 2027 orders will be starting up soon, I'm surprised at how quiet these new engine discussions have become.  Maybe it's because the HDs will still have the older 6.6 gasser until 2029 model year.

 

When 2027 GMC Sierra HD Production Is Scheduled To Start

Edited 4 hours ago by MORSNO

[Grumpy Bear]

19 minutes ago, MORSNO said:

The 2027 orders should be starting up soon, I'm surprised at how quiet these new engine discussions have become.

 

All the OEM's have taken so many pickles out of the jar they are selling empty jars and we are still buying them. What's to discuss? 

 

On 7/24/2026 at 12:00 PM, cautious optimist said:

 

I'm glad you have 14,000 trouble free miles. Frankly though, that's a really low bar. A bare minimum of 80,000 trouble free miles as the norm (rare exceptions always exist) across the whole model year should be a starting point. Good maintenance habits should push these past the 100,000 mile mark with only the most minor of issues. Let's hope GM truly leveled up the quality game with these new engines and exploding engines under 50,000 miles are gone. 

 

Your handle and your beliefs seem a mismatch Kidding. 

 

There are many failure modes and a few of them do show up early or not at all. Hardness for example. Others like cyclic stress failures, (valve springs not in coil bind but breaking anyway) are baked into the OEM cake. Those take a preset number of cycles which will be reached by different operators (miles). Load stresses are allot like cyclic stress but in the hands of a guy like me may never be exceeded while a guy who bought to use as advertised may get it to tap out on the first tow or haul or excursion into the offroad. There is a whole universe in between. 

 

Until the death of the Buick 3800 and Ford 300 I-6 I used to believe that if you got it to 10K without a materials or lubrication related failure then how long it lasted was up to you and not the product. Today....not so much. They are building down to an ever reduced expectation driven by building down and there just isn't anything to be excited about.