When Chevrolet announced that the latest generation Silverado would appear with a 2.7L turbocharged four-cylinder engine, there was a lot of skepticism over whether or not the thought process behind the engine choice was sound. Sure, on paper, a turbo-four that bettered the 4.3L V6 in power and torque seemed like a potential good idea, especially for fleet sales and for those who couldn’t live without a fullsize pickup but were complaining about their fuel mileages. On-paper doesn’t always translate into the real world, unfortunately. When you ask a turbo-four to move a truck with the frontal area of a barn door and a curb weight that starts at over two tons, that request becomes a burden. And in early testing, it seems that the turbo-four is on a losing streak.
In a comparison test between a 2.7L four-powered truck and a 5.3L V8 powered example, Car and Driver found that there was a sizeable discrepancy between the expected and the reality. In the EPA’s test cycle, the engines are rated equally, at 22 MPG. By the manufacturer’s rating, the 2.7L claims 20 MPG, the 5.3L 18 MPG. The test results? The 2.7L came in at 18 MPG over a 200-mile test, while the 5.3L managed 21 MPG. And, as they noted, the 5.3L truck “was a full 314 pounds heavier (than the 2.7L truck).”
In fact, a GMC Sierra 1500 Denali with a 6.2 tied the 2.7L’s MPG numbers. So what does that say for the idea of a gasoline four in a fullsize truck? From where we sit, we hope that the rumored 3.0L inline-six diesel can improve on that figure without throwing GM into the fire over diesel emissions and we hope that the 2.7L program is given consideration and potentially, a review.
I think they should give the trailblazers 4.2 a go in it .
That would have been a better choice for sure if it was an option for them. Great little motor.
Modern full size trucks are just too big. If they section about 12 inches through the middle and cut at least a half a ton of wasted weight and trucks would get real fuel economy.
Correct.
Modern trucks have gotten stupid big recently. I can kind of get behind the more square styling (remember the 97 Fords that looked like melted jellybeans?)
Eventually the pendulum will swing back, and we’ll be able to get work trucks that can handle 95% of the loads that we actually use (say, under half a ton in the bed). Sadly, that’s not going to happen anytime soon. Your options today are a mom-truck–a four-door station wagon with an open bed that can carry less than an old Roadmaster wagon, or a giant brodozer. Nothing in the middle.
and yet if you buy a mid-sized truck, the knuckle draggers gleefully point out that for the money you could get a full sized…. of course, they shut down pretty quickly when it’s pointed out the mid-sized has a greater towing capacity because there’s not bloat….
Then get a horse.
It’s ugly too
Absolutely 100% true. Buy a 4cyl Silverado and you’ll have no power, crappy mpg, and the ugliest truck on the block. I’ll stick to my 72′
310 hp and 345 tq is hardly underpowered. They make torque down low too, so it doesn’t have to rev like a Ford N/A v6. I hate the styling too, and obviously the mileage isn’t great, but they do make decent power.
May be a hot ticket in a Chevette swap, but in a heavy truck it has to rev too much to be in that power band. I haven’t driven one, but that’s my perception.
First its aluminum bodies.Now lets boost the dickens out of a 4 banger to make it act like a v-8. How long will a 4 cyl. engine last boosted a bunch ,all day long? THey all just need to spend some time to figure out emissions for diesels. And I agree ,Patrick.All these new trucks are ugly as sin.
Bailout Government Motors attempting the same failed crap over and over again, and as KCR said – ugly assed designs. A reminder for your union controlled design by committee company…. do not EVER ask again to be saved from your own mistakes !
The only place this thing might get better mileage is slow speed around town driving in flat areas. I’d be interested to see the commanded AFR of this test on the highway. Bet it’s pretty rich and in boost at the speed they tested at.
I remember the older 4.3 work trucks getting similar mileage as the v8s as well (90s). I always wondered what was the point.
Future ad :
Really ugly and a 4 cylinder that gets bad gas mileage all for “only” $50K!
There will be some big rebates offered on these turds to try and sell them.
Ford has similar problems. My 5.4 F 150 averages 17 MPG and my sons Eco boost V 6 does 14 on a good day.
andyb, that’s the best description I’ve seen of current pickup selections, particularly 1/2 ton models. I have no need for a truck anymore but if I did, it’d still be a van or station wagon. In my life; 4 1/2 ton vans, 4 Malibu wagons, 3 El Caminos, a 3/4 ton p/u (my firewood truck, 69 GMC that I hot rodded with a 400 sb out of a 74 Caprice wagon with headers and a granny gear 4 speed) and a 1/2 ton 69 F-100 that I junked when the cab started shifting on the frame due to rotted cab mounts. My Dad borrowed it one Saturday and drove it into the yard of a corner house down the street. Dad, “Why didn’t you tell me the steering could lock up?!!” Me, “didn’t seem worth mentioning, it’s only happened once before” I drove it to the boneyard the next Saturday. Anyways, maybe if I DID have a truck I’d have something better to do than tell meandering stories on the internet. Nah!
A four or five cylinder diesel might do very well in a reasonably sized half ton. Good torque, good economy. They can be made to burn fairly clean can’t they? We just need to be realistic about the performance and pollution expectations.
A lot of commenters seem to think its ugly. I don’t see that.
I like diesels. I’ve been a truck mechanic all my life. The new ones run so clean you can eat out of the tailpipe. But the exhaust system alone in $9,000 and its about the only thing I work on.
4Bt can fix that Rich, ( well at least in the South, you know where are kinda still free ) yeah I know it is loud, and it works