http://www.motortrend.com/news/2019-chevrolet-silverado-1500-gets-2-7-liter-inline-four-option/
Quite interesting. 310HP & 348lb-ft, twin scroll. This could damn near replace the 5.3L once you factor in weight savings.
Pretty crazy that the bold plays are being made in the full size truck space but that's where the money is. Very interested to see the fuel economy with the 8AT. What a time to be alive
Dumb that gm is only putting the 10spd behind the 6.2L. IIRC all but the base engine in the F150 get the 10spd
Diminishing returns? :huh: I am really scared to see what kind of real world gas mileage this thing gets. 30MPG highway no diesel?
I don't know the 10spd is so much better. They put it behind the engines that need it the least...
When is this engine going into the 'Maro? Its #'s put it prime as a V6 replacement, sadly.
Quote from: Xer0 on May 18, 2018, 08:54:00 AM
When is this engine going into the 'Maro? Its #'s put it prime as a V6 replacement, sadly.
It's a small bore long stroke 4cyl designed only for trucks.
Quote from: 68_427 on May 18, 2018, 08:54:53 AM
It's a small bore long stroke 4cyl designed only for trucks.
Phew. The V6 lives to see another generation.
Quote from: 68_427 on May 18, 2018, 08:54:53 AM
It's a small bore long stroke 4cyl designed only for trucks.
It'd be sweet to swap one into an old '34 pickup or even a 50's truck.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 18, 2018, 08:28:46 AM
Diminishing returns? :huh: I am really scared to see what kind of real world gas mileage this thing gets. 30MPG highway no diesel?
Probably about the same as Ford's similarly powerful 2.7TT in the F150: mid 20s.
I think 1 or 2 mog higher with cylinder deactivation and the variable can profiles etc
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 18, 2018, 08:28:46 AM
Diminishing returns? :huh: I am really scared to see what kind of real world gas mileage this thing gets. 30MPG highway no diesel?
30 mpg not a chance. It'll get a little bit better mpg than the V8, and that is attributable to weight.
Note that no matter engine size trucks get the same mpg it's all about weight and aero; and what little difference there is is attributable to weight or gearing.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 19, 2018, 08:56:09 AM
30 mpg not a chance. It'll get a little bit better mpg than the V8, and that is attributable to weight.
Note that no matter engine size trucks get the same mpg it's all about weight and aero; and what little difference there is is attributable to weight or gearing.
Agreed. I don't see the appeal of a highly stressed boosted 4 banger over a lightly worked V8 in a 5000+ lb pickup truck. I think it's marketing BS.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 19, 2018, 08:56:09 AM
30 mpg not a chance. It'll get a little bit better mpg than the V8, and that is attributable to weight.
Note that no matter engine size trucks get the same mpg it's all about weight and aero; and what little difference there is is attributable to weight or gearing.
For highway mileage, weight isn't even much of a factor. At least not for the couple hundred lbs that this engine might be lighter than the V8.
Quote from: MX793 on May 19, 2018, 09:12:31 AM
For highway mileage, weight isn't even much of a factor. At least not for the couple hundred lbs that this engine might be lighter than the V8.
True, but most people don't drive on the freeway for hours on end.
Quote from: Rockraven on May 19, 2018, 09:07:45 AM
Agreed. I don't see the appeal of a highly stressed boosted 4 banger over a lightly worked V8 in a 5000+ lb pickup truck. I think it's marketing BS.
Maybe, but I'd bet there are material reasons for it. Some of my guesses:
1.) Turbo engines game mpg test procedure
2.) Preparing for the possibility of European-esque engine displacement taxes
3.) Product planning - perhaps this engine will find its way into the Colorado and other small/mid-size SUVs
4.) Less expensive to manufacture - skeptical but there are studies/reports out there that support this
Is there a reason or better what's the reason why they wouldn't also put this in a Tahoe/Suburban? The Volvo XC90 and upcoming Subaru Ascent use turbo 4 cylinder engines.
Quote from: veeman on May 19, 2018, 11:37:50 AM
Is there a reason or better what's the reason why they wouldn't also put this in a Tahoe/Suburban? The Volvo XC90 and upcoming Subaru Ascent use turbo 4 cylinder engines.
XC90 and Ascent are crossovers, not body-on-frame trucks. XC90's engine is mounted transversely since it's a FWD platform. Hard to package larger engines even if Volvo had one.
This is a replacement for the 4.3L V6, which isn't even offered in the Tahoe/Suburban (more upscale than the lower end pickups that come with the V6 as base). Kind of doubt we'll see this motor in those platforms.
2.7L is pretty effin big for a 4-banger.
Quote from: 68_427 on May 18, 2018, 08:54:53 AM
It's a small bore long stroke 4cyl designed only for trucks.
Celica, 240SX....
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 19, 2018, 01:12:53 PM
Celica, 240SX....
The KA24 wasn't exclusively a truck motor. And the American market was the only market in which is was used in one of the S-chassis cars.
And the 22R Toyota motor actually had a larger bore than stroke.
Quote from: Rockraven on May 19, 2018, 09:07:45 AM
Agreed. I don't see the appeal of a highly stressed boosted 4 banger over a lightly worked V8 in a 5000+ lb pickup truck. I think it's marketing BS.
Then buy the v8 :huh:
Hah. 1961-63 Pontiac Tempest had a bigger inline 4: 3.2L.
They sawed a V8 in half.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Tempest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Tempest)
... or a Fiat S76 28 litres of inline-four goodness.
https://youtu.be/bsdWgmp4TaQ
Quote from: Morris Minor on May 20, 2018, 06:00:21 AM
... or a Fiat S76 28 litres of inline-four goodness.
https://youtu.be/bsdWgmp4TaQ
All that fury delivered through a bicycle chain...
Quote from: GoCougs on May 19, 2018, 08:56:09 AM
30 mpg not a chance. It'll get a little bit better mpg than the V8, and that is attributable to weight.
Note that no matter engine size trucks get the same mpg it's all about weight and aero; and what little difference there is is attributable to weight or gearing.
IDK man, that dieselesque powerband may enable more economical gearing without a (significant) performance penalty. My KIA seems happier around 2K RPM than the G did.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 20, 2018, 04:01:16 PM
IDK man, that dieselesque powerband may enable more economical gearing without a (significant) performance penalty. My KIA seems happier around 2K RPM than the G did.
It's similar to the Ford 2.7TT. That one is rated 26 mg by the EPA in 2WD form.
Also, that low end torque isn't there at partial throttle. You have to be at WOT and have the turbo fully spooled, which basically will never happen in the real world. That's the sort of torque curve that only exists on a brake dyno in a lab.
I'll take a V8..........
Quote from: GoCougs on May 19, 2018, 09:39:57 AM
Maybe, but I'd bet there are material reasons for it. Some of my guesses:
1.) Turbo engines game mpg test procedure
2.) Preparing for the possibility of European-esque engine displacement taxes
3.) Product planning - perhaps this engine will find its way into the Colorado and other small/mid-size SUVs
4.) Less expensive to manufacture - skeptical but there are studies/reports out there that support this
C&D did an article this month on your #1 theory - it's entirely false (with possible exception to Ford's Ecoboost). Overall, real world turbo engines exceed EPA estimates
Quote from: r0tor on May 21, 2018, 05:35:22 AM
C&D did an article this month on your #1 theory - it's entirely false (with possible exception to Ford's Ecoboost). Overall, real world turbo engines exceed EPA estimates
The article, which was a comparison of a turbo vs. non-turbo Civic, proves my point. On the 300-mile mixed loop both cars had a 40 mpg average, despite the turbo version having a higher highway EPA rating (albeit by only 1 mpg), with this asterisk to the test which explains the difference in highway vs. city/mixed mpg advantages (turbo better at the former, N/A better at the latter): But exceed the gentle, twinkle-toe throttle pressure we applied in our steady-speed tests and all efficiency bets are off. As boost rises, more fuel is injected and mileage drops. Precipitously. (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a-tale-of-two-honda-civics-turbo-vs-non-turbo-fuel-economy)
So here, with the turbo, one does get more power/performance, but it costs more, won't be as durable/long lasting, and doesn't get better mileage despite having a better EPA rating.
I will say, if anyone is going to do turbos correctly, it's the Japanese. But they're not there yet, and I'm suspect that they (or anyone else) will ever be. There is nothing inherently more efficient about how a turbo engine works, save for that it enables a smaller engine (= lower pumping losses) but that advantage is minor, and easily lost against the backdrop of intramodel variation found on most makes - tire/wheel size, gearing/tranny type, # of doors, etc. - plus of course the A/F ratio shenanigans during acceleration to prevent detonation.
The Japanese (and others) have been doing turbos just fine in the diesel realm.......
Plus when turbos fail they generally fail over time and don't take the engine out with them. They are basically a maintenance item at this point.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 21, 2018, 09:58:01 AM
]But exceed the gentle, twinkle-toe throttle pressure we applied in our steady-speed tests and all efficiency bets are off. As boost rises, more fuel is injected and mileage drops. Precipitousl.
That's exactly what the C&D article documents as being complete nonsense. They tabulated their own testing results of hundreds of cars and combined the results with a third party testing organization and concluded turbos fair actually better then NA engines in real world mpg compared to EPA estimates.
I'm with Cougs on this. Turbos take some of the energy that would otherwise be flushed down the exhaust, and use it to get a bigger and better burn inside the combustion chamber. So you can subtract a chunk of the hardware & mass that would otherwise have been needed to support the same yield from a naturally aspirated engine. But the advantages are marginalized by real-world implementations; yes you get a smaller engine under the hood, but it's still clothed in a big body, weighed down with fancy wheels, and dozens of servos for the goodies in the passenger compartment.
The tradeoff is big: you give up the creamy-smooth NA six for dieselesque noise from direct injection... plus a four-banger's inherent harshness. Nightmares for the engineers removing NVH. In the CR-V they counteract it with noise-cancellation fed through the audio system. I suppose they could also have got around it by supplying Bose aviation headsets.
Quote from: r0tor on May 21, 2018, 10:18:07 AM
That's exactly what the C&D article documents as being complete nonsense. They tabulated their own testing results of hundreds of cars and combined the results with a third party testing organization and concluded turbos fair actually better then NA engines in real world mpg compared to EPA estimates.
That's a direct quote from the same C&D article; last paragraph, last two sentences; which is found here: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a-tale-of-two-honda-civics-turbo-vs-non-turbo-fuel-economy
The Civic turbo is also faster than the 2.0.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 21, 2018, 01:30:14 PM
That's a direct quote from the same C&D article; last paragraph, last two sentences; which is found here: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a-tale-of-two-honda-civics-turbo-vs-non-turbo-fuel-economy
Of course, the turbo is also more powerful and therefore significantly quicker when under hard throttle than the 2.0L NA. Worse fuel economy is to be expected WOT vs WOT. What's noteworthy is how much more Jekyll and Hyde the turbo is. More frugal when driven with restraint, but more powerful when commanded to be so.
I feel like manufacturers have got the turbo thing wrong. I get the feeling big understressed motors with a focus on staying out of vacuum rather than in boost. But that's a pretty complicated system to that end.
The real biggie to overall efficiency is energy recovery, be it from the exhaust or the brakes. F1 has it right
Quote from: GoCougs on May 21, 2018, 01:30:14 PM
That's a direct quote from the same C&D article; last paragraph, last two sentences; which is found here: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a-tale-of-two-honda-civics-turbo-vs-non-turbo-fuel-economy
Just give up
(http://i63.tinypic.com/10o2vyt.jpg)
o shit he got the print edition
Yea I do too
Not sure what Cougs is on about, on average turbo cars do better than N/A ones. Not enough to warrant the cost/complexity IMO though... KIA gets just above the city rating on a 50/50 commute with a mostly relaxed right foot
Turbos are pretty much a no brainer here at altitude for almost any application other than purist-herd-on throttle response sports cars.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 21, 2018, 08:29:58 PM
Turbos are pretty much a no brainer here at altitude for almost any application other than purist-herd-on throttle response sports cars.
Yeah, at altitude, it's a no brainer. Down here at 800 ft above sea level, I'll take N/A though if given the choice.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 21, 2018, 08:29:58 PM
Turbos are pretty much a no brainer here at altitude for almost any application other than purist-herd-on throttle response sports cars.
A GT-R or 911 Turbo would be my car of choice if I lived in Denver.