As mentioned I'm going to run my Silverado a bit longer but I see that GM is tossing the above engine into a couple trucks.
Silverado m, now the new Colorado. I'm curious as to how it's holding up, fuel mileage, performance, problems?
Are all the owners happy? I feel like it's the emperor with no clothes on - is everyone just cool with these?
I would not have much faith in such an over stressed engine. Call me old fashioned etc but expecting a motor to work at nearly full capacity all the time vs 20% for a bigger engine just loafing along doesn't sound like a formula for 200k trouble free miles.
I don't know about the GM turbos but the Ford Ecoboost trucks have a ton of fans. People seem to really like them.
dculberson said:I don't know about the GM turbos but the Ford Ecoboost trucks have a ton of fans. People seem to really like them.
My buddies a gear head and has a nice, built Chevrolet Chevelle along with a newer Harley. He has a Ford pickup w/V6 twin turbo and loves it. I give him a hard time too - ya a Ford or a Chevy guy?
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:I would not have much faith in such an over stressed engine. Call me old fashioned etc but expecting a motor to work at nearly full capacity all the time vs 20% for a bigger engine just loafing along doesn't sound like a formula for 200k trouble free miles.
How do you define overstressed?
If by 'capacity' you mean power, than this engine is very understressed compared to huge swath of engines ever offered in the Silverado.
I own a 2.7T F150 and anybody who would claim it's "over stressed", needs to "work at nearly full capacity all the time", or that larger engines under the same conditions do any more "loafing along" obviously has little to no first hand knowledge or experience with them. From what I can see, the GM 2.7T shouldn't be appreciably different in this regard.
The GM 2.7T does have some minor shortcomings (IMHO) vs the Ford 2.7T, but overall I haven't heard much actually bad about them either. The common problems and complaints don't look to be any worse than other modern truck engines, turbo or otherwise. The carbon buildup from not having a dual fuel system and injector/HPFP longevity seem to be somewhat legitimate concerns. The purported fuel economy benefits may be somewhat debatable. And the AFM lifter concerns seem to be more internet hype than anything, as it appears primarily rooted in the pushrod engine problems using the same named system rather than actual DOHC 2.7T occurrences.
ProDarwin said:Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:I would not have much faith in such an over stressed engine. Call me old fashioned etc but expecting a motor to work at nearly full capacity all the time vs 20% for a bigger engine just loafing along doesn't sound like a formula for 200k trouble free miles.
How do you define overstressed?
If by 'capacity' you mean power, than this engine is very understressed compared to huge swath of engines ever offered in the Silverado.
I think because it's a 4-cylinder the perception is that it's somehow not up to the task. The "little" Ford EcoBoost V6 is 2.7 liters and nobody bats an eye about it. It's not 1982 anymore. I think the power numbers are oddly similiar to that 4 cylinder with the LS head that Blueprint engines displayed at SEMA. And 400-500 horse turbo fours have been a thing for awhile now. (ask Mercedes Benz about it.)
Another 2.7T F150 owner here. The engine is smooth, quiet and barely notices the weight of a 5000lb travel trailer behind it.
I'm at 70,000 miles and no-hiccups on my 2018.
Turbo's make boost at near idle. My "small turbo" truck pulls weight off line easier than it's 5.0 counterpart.
Isnt the GM 2.7 a 4cyl?
In reply to yupididit :
Yep
Take-outs are showing up in the salvage yards now. This would be a heck of a repower option for a 90's S10 or even a 00's Colorado or Canyon.
For anyone concerned about the engines being overstressed, the cheap trims of the colorado are detuned by ~70hp and >100tq. At that power level those engines should run literally forever.
My question would be, has GM ever figured out how to make a 4 cylinder timing chain out of something other than spaghettios?
That's not accurate, because spaghettios don't rattle all the time.
Is there any concern about mimicking displacement with low-RPM boost in terms of bearing loads at speeds that have less oil wedge effect?
Relatively wide bearings? That would run counter to the MPG savings of minimizing them. Clever oil pressure manipulation?
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:I would not have much faith in such an over stressed engine. Call me old fashioned etc but expecting a motor to work at nearly full capacity all the time vs 20% for a bigger engine just loafing along doesn't sound like a formula for 200k trouble free miles.
We're talking about Chevy trucks IE "race engine donors".
From an engineering perspective, if the engines wildly outlast the trucks, the engines are engineered wrong.
Driven5 said:
The GM 2.7T does have some minor shortcomings (IMHO) vs the Ford 2.7T, but overall I haven't heard much actually bad about them either. The common problems and complaints don't look to be any worse than other modern truck engines, turbo or otherwise. The carbon buildup from not having a dual fuel system and injector/HPFP longevity seem to be somewhat legitimate concerns.
Dual injection isn't for carbon reduction but NOx reduction.
That said, GM direct injection engines don't really have any carbon issues. Part of that may be GM's strategy of injecting a little blorf of fuel just before the intake valve opens so some fuel blows up the intake port during the overlap/reversion period
As a GM tech, we haven't actually seen any major issues on the 2.7Ts (not like the V8s, which have had the heads off before the first oil change, 9 times out of 10) Only common issue we've really seen is Evap. Purge Pumps, which aren't a major issue and have already had a special coverage released on them. The rest of the truck is ehh though. Lot of transmission issues still, particularly torque converters, and these trucks chew through brakes pretty quick (like every 25k) and they're expensive. Like $600 an axle in parts. And you can't really turn the rotors because discard thickness is only 1mm less than new.
Streetwiseguy said:My question would be, has GM ever figured out how to make a 4 cylinder timing chain out of something other than spaghettios?
That's not accurate, because spaghettios don't rattle all the time.
OHC engines seem to suffer from timing chain stretch regardless of manufacturer. If every link stretches the same amount over time, the longer the chain the quicker the effect. The repair bill always seem staggering to repair this unneeded complexity....
Manufacturers trying to squeeze 10K miles out of an oil change helps no one either.
I had a rental Silverado with a 2.7 one a recent business trip. It dosent lakc for power in boost but it also doesn't sip fuel in boost either.
310 hp/430lb of torque out of a 2.7 gas 4cly sounds great in a lab, but in the real world I guess time will tell.
I just imagine very high cyl pressure compared to a standard motor putting excess stress on rings and gaskets. Heat soak from long grades or long idle times. Has anyone seen the cooling system on these? Multiple valves controlled by the ECM to cool different things at different rates. Just sounds like more failure points.
The HWY fuel rating is only 1 mpg more for the 2wd 4cly 8 speed vs the 5.3 10 speed (8 speed is the same)
Lots of LS engines out there with 200K+ miles and very little repairs. Other simple designs have done it too.
Who has a 200k mile gasoline turbo engine on its OE head gasket? OE turbo? OE timing chain?
Jesse Ransom said:Is there any concern about mimicking displacement with low-RPM boost in terms of bearing loads at speeds that have less oil wedge effect?
Relatively wide bearings? That would run counter to the MPG savings of minimizing them. Clever oil pressure manipulation?
You might be surprised what you find on an oil pressure gauge or data recording of a modern vehicle... Speed, Load, Temperature, all play into how oil pressure is controlled with various solenoids. Many engines have variable pumps too.
I was shocked to find the 2.7L Chevy is now rated to tow 9400lbs and I believe the latest Ford 2.7L can be optioned to 10,000lbs. I'd like to find someone who has feedback on how they do when pushed hard.
The GM engine in the Colorado also comes in two significantly different flavors, the lower power engine has hardware changes that make just putting a tune on the base engine a less than reliable option. I'm fine with the smaller turbo engines for this application, where torque comes in sooner and makes for strong pulling power over an N/A V8 that needs more rpm.
2021 Silverado 2.7T Custom Crew Cab 2wd owner here.
Simple facts:
39k miles
22.9 mpg average over those miles including no less than 4000 miles towing a 22ft open hauler with at least 4k lbs aboard.
1 issue with PCM at 300 miles.
I have not replaced anything beside oil, filters and wiper blades on it.
I added a pair of 10" subwoofers in an under seat pre fab box as well as a 1000 watt amp. It sounds amazing.
It's big. It's actually fast. It's really comfortable. It's quiet. It's been cheap. It's a simply amazing traveling companion. I give it a 9 out if 10 for my experience.
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:The HWY fuel rating is only 1 mpg more for the 2wd 4cly 8 speed vs the 5.3 10 speed (8 speed is the same)
Every 2019-22 5.3 owner I know are averaging about 15mpg real world driving, you know between valve train repairs, my best tank is 27 my average is nearly 23. I am certain the PUBLISHED 5.3 number is inflated and the 2.7 number is close to actual.
In reply to Nitroracer (Forum Supporter) :
My truck accelerates like an early 2000s 6.0 from the line with the Datsun on the trailer. I say that because I've towed the same car on the same trailer on the same day with two different trucks and both felt like they had 400ft lbs. The difference? The 6.0 in question gets maybe 12mpg.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
While I'm not yet ready to buy-in on dual injection doing nothing to prevent carbon buildup, regardless of its primary purpose, looking a little deeper I am inclined (and pleased) to agree that carbon buildup does not appear to be a significant issue on the 2.7T's so far. Basically all of the "common GM 2.7T problems" lists appear to be based more on generalized assumptions than real world results.
You'll need to log in to post.
