2019 Silverado gets 2.7T.... 4 cylinder

[12,000 RPM]

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

[68_427]

Dumb that gm is only putting the 10spd behind the 6.2L.  IIRC all but the base engine in the F150 get the 10spd

[12,000 RPM]

Diminishing returns? I am really scared to see what kind of real world gas mileage this thing gets. 30MPG highway no diesel?

[68_427]

I don't know the 10spd is so much better.  They put it behind the engines that need it the least...

[Xer0]

When is this engine going into the 'Maro?  Its #'s put it prime as a V6 replacement, sadly.

[68_427]

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.

[Xer0]

It's a small bore long stroke 4cyl designed only for trucks.

Phew.  The V6 lives to see another generation.

[CaminoRacer]

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.

[MX793]

Diminishing returns? 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.

[68_427]

I think 1 or 2 mog higher with cylinder deactivation and the variable can profiles etc

[GoCougs]

Diminishing returns? 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.

[Payman]

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.

[MX793]

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.

[GoCougs]

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.

[GoCougs]

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

[veeman]

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. 

[MX793]

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.

[Morris Minor]

2.7L is pretty effin big for a 4-banger.

[12,000 RPM]

It's a small bore long stroke 4cyl designed only for trucks.

Celica, 240SX....

[MX793]

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.

[68_427]

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

[CaminoRacer]

Then buy the v8

no u

[Morris Minor]

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

[Morris Minor]

... or a Fiat S76 28 litres of inline-four goodness.

https://youtu.be/bsdWgmp4TaQ

[MX793]

... or a Fiat S76 28 litres of inline-four goodness.

https://youtu.be/bsdWgmp4TaQ

All that fury delivered through a bicycle chain...

[12,000 RPM]

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.

[MX793]

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.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

I'll take a V8..........

[r0tor]

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

[GoCougs]

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.

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.