General Motors is selling a full-sized pickup with a four-cylinder engine under its hood. Active fuel management, continuously variable valve timing, thermal management systems – Chevy’s put a good deal of thought and technology into this quad-pot effort.
Today’s QOTD is simple: would you buy a truck with four pistons?
Before you answer, let’s take a look at its specs. Standard on LT and RST trims, the new engine will make 310 horsepower and 348 lb-ft of torque. That’s not bad at all, especially considering it is a full 22 percent more torque than GM’s own 4.3L V6. Said to be developed specifically for truck applications, the new 2.7L turbo inline-four will deliver its peak torque between 1,500 to 4,000 rpm. Its electric water pump is a first for Chevy trucks.
On paper, that sounds pretty good. Blue Oval pickup truck fans have also been able to select an engine with 2.7L of displacement for a number of years. For 2019, that mill delivers 325 horses and 400 lb⋅ft of twist, with peak torque coming online at 2,750 rpm. Base specs between these two motors are pretty comparable, then.
Consider, too, that the mighty Fox-bodied Mustang of my youth only made 225 hp out of a honkin’ 302 cubic-inch V8. Progress, folks.
Here’s the difference: despite having an identical displacement of 2.7L, Ford’s engine has a cylinder count of six. Four bangers have long been associated with economy cars and small crossovers, not macho full-sized trucks with a grille the size of Texas. If GM’s new engine fails to capture a significant percentage of market share, your humble author believes it will be due to an image problem associated with the number of cylinders, not its capability.
I have not driven a four-banger Silverado yet, but our fancy-pants Managing Editor has, so hit up his review for more details. I do find it disingenuous at best that GM is comparing its 2.7L to Ford’s base 3.3L, since GM’s base mill is the old 4.3L V6. Most customers will – not unreasonably – compare the bowtie and Blue Oval 2.7L engines, whether The General wants them to or not.
How about it? Would you sign on the dotted line for a full-sizer with four-cylinders?
[Image: General Motors]
Sure, for half the V-8 truck’s price.
If its advertising has slow motion video of it towing really heavy stuff through the mud and big manly-man celebrities throwing hay bales and stuff into the bed then sure, who wouldn’t want to buy one?
(I forgot about the voice over narration in a deep, gravely sounding voice in a rural accent, vaguely extolling the virtues of this truck… plus a closeup of that grill, also in slow motion, of course.)
Throw in a Bob Seger soundtrack and they won’t be able to build these things fast enough.
Like a rock…
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo…
LIKE A ROCK!
Pebble
When I bought my F150 in 2015 I was hesitant to even consider the turbo V6 offerings. A 4-cylinder in a truck this size I cannot wrap my mind around, regardless of how far advanced said engines have become.
Neither this nor Healey’s review shows the engine bay. I want to see that.
My first lessons on basic car facts took place with ’50s GM pickups. At 8 years of age, I could’ve jumped in and stood alongside those straight-sixes. Have things come full circle?
autoguide dotcom has pics.
All you see is large plastic parts…induction system and engine cover.
I assume there’s an engine under there somewhere.
Thanks!
Figured as much: tiny steel kernel within shells of plastic.
I’d love to drive one to gauge the experience, but I honestly think you’d have to operate the engine in a rev range that would become annoying (and loud). I’d opt for the 5.3L V8.
Actually, probably not. GM engineered the 2.7 Turbo to stay low in the rev range, with plenty of torque. I think it redlines at around 5,700 RPM.
Outside of something like a Subaru STI, very few current gasoline turbos require revs to make power.
If anything it is the reverse these days, where they make *everything* down low and then fall completely on their face above 4000. It is just like a diesel. This is a big reason why I don’t think these kinds of engines are well-suited for “sporty” applications. Although in a truck this might not matter.
so it’d be like driving my 77 Chevelle and it’s 305 V8 – makes it all down low and is dead an buried powerwise by 4 grand.
This – the last turbocharged car I had – a MINI Countryman – had the power all down low. After 5K-ish, you could feel feel the power starting to slump.
The exact opposite of my wife’s 2003 MINI hardtop, which had very little power low, but would build more and more power as the supercharger started pumping in the air.
Both are completely opposite of what I expected, since in the “old days” superchargers gave you all the “down low” power while turbochargers were peaky things that had a lot of lag.
One reason I love my V6 Mustang – that 3.7L engine loves to rev. A different experience than the meaty V8 torque but more of a “sports car” feel.
Never.
+1
Any truck I’d buy right now would be a “lifestyle vehicle” and the only engines I’m interested in within the GM line are the 4.3L and 6.2L. Although it is much more likely I’d get a Ranger or 5.0L F-150.
My biggest issue with the GM 2.7L is less “lulz, 4-cylinder” (although that isn’t 0% if I’m honest). However I have extreme doubts that it’s going to be a reliable engine. I don’t think they’ll Maserati-out and die at 20K, but I’m interested to see how they hold up between 80k-120k.
Maseratis die at 20K? All of them?
I don’t know about you guys but mine does 185.
Mine too, but I lost my license, now I don’t drive.
I’m so 29, I get that reference.
Just leave a message, maybe I’ll call…
It’s these little chuckles that keeps me peeking. That and Jack B.
Not when it doesn’t get appreciably-better fuel economy than the other engines, and not when there’s a small price differential between it and the V8. I looked, and a Crew Cab, Short Bed 4WD LT Silverado costs $44,095 with the 2.7L Turbo, versus $45,490 for the V8 in the same configuration.
It is, however, a worthy upgrade if your only other option is the 4.3L (boat anchor) V6. It also makes sense in a big work fleet–especially in companies that use it primarily for transport—where the nominal fuel savings could add up to tens of thousands of dollars across a large number of units.
I just wanted to chime in and say that you always make some excellent, well thought out comments and they add value to all these discussions. I usually look for yours, DeadWeight’s, and 28-Cars-Later specifically.
DW hasnt been heard from in – what – 2-3 weeks?
Is he in jail?
Yeah, I’m wondering where DeadWeight went, too.
Maybe he made the mistake of entering a Cadillac dealer and never came back out.
I’m flattered.
Well, thank you!
I think 4.3 is a decent engine. Had one as a rental knocked down 21-22 mpg and had enough power at least unloaded.
Fair enough. The 4.3-liter V6 is a workhorse. It’s certainly better than Ford’s base 3.3-liter N/A V6 in the F-150, whose sole raison d’être is to get you to upgrade to the much-nicer 2.7-liter twin-turbo V6.
We have a fleet of 2018 Crew cabs with the 4.3 V6. They are fine with 1-2 people on board. Throw 4 guys and their gear inside and it is painful obvious that the engine is struggling, although the transmission isn’t helping either. It it always caught on the wrong foot somehow. Also, the V6 Crew cab can’t tow more than 4500 which is pitiful. A Ridgeline can tow 5000 lbs!
I was just sitting here thinking that they missed a bet by not throwing a turbo and some of that high tech at the 4.3. I owned one of the old type in an S-10 backed up by a 700r4. Perfect for the small truck and used in the bigger ones as well.
I know it isn’t the same engine but why is it a boat anchor now?
I don’t think that I will be an early adopter, not to say I would never. My biggest concern with this engine, and all boosted engines for that matter, is can it deliver the same problem free mileage that a conventional 5.3 does?
This seems to be a fairly complex engine. Complexity can sometimes lead to complication. I don’t like complication…
If it proves, to other people, to deliver 200k of reasonably problem free driving then yes I would buy one.
They’re squeezing roughly the same power from half the displacement.
So if you actually use the power, it seems rational that life is reduced.
Now if you’re driving around the city delivering auto parts or whatever, maybe not.
“They’re squeezing roughly the same power from half the displacement.”
Don’t get too hung up on *just* the displacement without having the other engineering details (how thick are the cylinder walls, what’s the width and diameter of the main bearings and big-end bearings, what about the rest of the crankshaft, how well does the block and head dissipate heat, and so on). So where do you find those details? Well… easier said than done.
I get it though, I get why you’re suspicious. It’s a straightforward thing to engineer a small displacement turbo engine to put out a lot of power and still last a very long time (the Swedes figured that out in the early eighties). It’s quite another thing for to get it past the bean counters- and Chevrolet bean counters have demonstrated time and time again that they’re the “best” in the business! Oops- “Chevy.” They even figured out how to save pennies on the badges on the tailgate.
JimC2…I think you have nailed it for me.
I own 4 GM vehicles, and like them, so it is not that I am a GM hater by any stretch. I tend to trust them with their tried and true technology; I.E. 3 of my 4 have LS engines or will have shortly. The other is a 3.3 V6 in the Buick.
I am skeptical of the bean counters at GM as you mention. GM, like all manufacturers, gets cheap somewhere and it is my general rule of thumb to let other people find that cheapness and correct it before I get involved.
I gotta admit, in defense of GM and every other car company out there, it’s a tough job to stay competitive, keep your costs down, and our products good. You gotta develop new tech (tech that your research tells you will make the market buy your brand instead of your competitors’) while still maxing out your return on investment from your old tech.
I respectfully acknowledge that all that is much harder work than throwing darts from the cheap seats. I’ll still keep throwing my darts though ;)
“They even figured out how to save pennies on the badges on the tailgate.”
Hilarious.
Absolutely. Especially if it can post better fuel numbers than other motors.
The General didn’t put a whole lot of effort into this particular truck though.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: Hell no.
Longer answer: Hell to the no. Enough with the moaning, grainy, CAFE-gaming turbo fours already.
+1
In a full-size pickup? No. In a midsize? Yes, if it had a turbo, or was a turbo diesel.
Same here. A midsize is fine. The Ranger’s Ecoboost has more HP and TQ then my current Dakota’s 4.7l V8 and gets better mileage. I drove a turbo VW Passat to over 100K so I’m not worried about long term reliably on a boosted engine. I love the low end TQ of boosted power plants, seems like a natural fit for a truck.
Nope. Not in a full size truck. I did make the switch to the 3.5L ecoboost in my F150, however that’s as far as I’m willing to go. I know my 3.5L has plenty of power to tow my trailers, but I still can’t get the idea out of my mind that the engine is working hard. No way I could wrap my mind around a 4 cylinder doing that.
Also, as Kyree has said, there’s no upside to getting the 4 cylinder. The price is too high and the fuel mileage is too low.
Trucks and muscle cars are basically the only remaining ways to get 8 cylinders for under $100k. No way would I give that chance up for a couple thousand bucks on the sticker and 1 mpg.
It would be a lease, if at all. So no.
GM’s new engine track record is dismal. Why would anybody become a voluntary beta tester?
No way. If history has ever told us is that with any all new GM anything the poor SOB’s that buy it will actually be the ones who put it through it’s paces. It’s still a for cyl. and that is a lot of mass to move.
All vehicles are great when new and those who bought it will speak it’s praise with only 10,000 miles or less. (Que Bob Seger and throwing of hay bales) I want to see 80-125K of real world then Toyota miles 250K
What’s more likely to happen is this new gem will be a recall nightmare and be on the list of used vehicles to avoid in very short order. In a few years GM will quietly discontinue it.
Being a guinea pig can be fun… its called being an early adopter.
While there are drawbacks… reliability, recalls, etc. there are also huge benefits- discovering something new, being one of the first to experience it, sharing with others the good and bad, being an adviser to others.
I like being an early adopter, and even though it means I overpay + get stuck with a lot of tech that breaks, I really enjoy being one of the first to know, and first to experience…
I bought my first MP3 Player in 1998, and my first smartwatch in early 2000s (Timex Datalink!) before buying a Sony smartwatch in 2012, and a pebble in 2013, and a moto 360 in 2014… Totally worth all of those. I also bought a 2010 camaro in 2009 so I could be one of the first to have one… Totally worth every premium penny I paid.
So it depends on what motivates you, but some people like DISCOVERING issues and wonderful things, and sharing them with others, and those people are the early adopters.
Now with that being said, I have no interest in being an early adopter on an I4 GM Full Size Truck…. but I get the appeal ;)
YES!!!!
I hate how just to have a big truck I have to have a big engine. Seriously, I tow a 1500 lb boat and a 2200 lb camper ten times a year. I don’t need a big engine to do it. The rest of the time I drive to and from work and to walmart. I don’t need a big engine for that either.
I also don’t feel the need to compensate for anything. The 4 cylinders of today put out more power than the v8s did in the 70s. So why have a giant motor when its unnecessary!
Here’s my beef though- They just aren’t doing it. The beauty of a 4 cylinder is simplicity, cost savings, and fuel economy. In practice however, they are more complex with their turbo designs, cost only a few hundred dollars less, and don’t get any better fuel economy.
So while I’m 100% jazzed up and ready to buy a 4 cylinder full size truck, the existing offering by GM just doesn’t offer any of the “Benefits” of a 4 cylinder full size truck.
Even though I wouldn’t be opposed to it if the price was right… I just don’t think the benefits were substantial enough to justify it on the GM.
In fact I actually think GMs was TOO powerful. 310 HP and 348 lb-ft torque? I think 250/280 would be plenty, and might eek out a bit better fuel economy.
I know GM says it gets better economy than the EPA testing… so I await the news with bated breath. If owners are really seeing 28 MPG out of the thing, sign me up!
Looking at the power and TQ numbers, sure why not, if it is a smooth and pleasant engine – I have not driven one. The big downside will be sound quality, I like a loud rumbly truck and both our F250 and Tahoe (with Magnaflow) qualify. This turbo four is probably quicker than either of our current trucks.
As for the comments referring to the “old” 4.3L V6, many people are not aware this was an all-new mill in recent years, with a lot more power. It only shares the displacement with the 4.3L that traces back to the 80’s.
I would have considered it, until I saw the mileage. Not enough improvement in mileage to justify. I just don’t get the ‘has to have a v8’ thing though in a truck. I guess I think about diesels where you see i4’s and 6s alot.
I was expecting a couple mpg more than what the i4 silverado was rated at.
Yes, it’s not the *idea* of a 4 cylinder in a half ton that turns me off, it’s the lack of any real benefit from having it in there that makes me think “WTF?”.
In a word No. 1999 shopping for a truck I wanted a nice interior in a small truck but that meant I had to get the V6. I looked at the Chevy, nice interior and V8 for a couple thousand more and only a 1 mpg penalty. Sold. Too bad it was very reliable. I might of been better off long term with the Frontier.
I go with a no mostly because I don’t think the future resale market will be strong with a big truck with a 4. There’s no real money to be saved by owning this.
The 4.3 V6 will last a long time.
The new 4-cylinder is an unknown. Turbos add more expense and complexity than two extra cylinders.
Most everyone here is saying the same thing.
It’s a gimmick.
If GM wanted to sell more of these, they would offer the 4.3 as a base, AND make the 4-cylinder turbo a $300 CREDIT option.
There. “If you want 1-2 more mpg, we’ll make it easy for you by giving it to you for less”.
Yes, it would mean less revenue–initially. But it would help the 4-cylinder catch on, and might even steal some F-150 / Ram buyers.
However, all GM is doing is trying to game the EPA system with a gimmicky, complex motor, IMO. Oh, and they are inadvertently validating the “wisdom” of Ford’s ecoboot. “Me too!” Which hurts GM brands.
Heck, if GM is using Turbos, maybe Ford did have the right idea! (I don’t think so though).
But no. GM will charge MORE for a FOUR–and then they compare it to a Ford SIX.
If I needed a pick-up, I’d buy a Chevy. Even this new one. (But definitely NOT a turbo four. Never). NOT because it looks good (I think they are all uglier than they were 10 years ago, the Chevy may be the ugliest), and certainly NOT because of it’s interior, but because it’s suppose to haul one’s crap, and GM’s chassis and drivetrain and body will probably hold up better than Ford (turbos are complicated) and Ram (they tend to rust and be weaker mechanically than the other two).
I guess GM is counting on people like me, since the 2.7 strikes me as a poorly marketed idea, regardless of it’s technical merits (TBD, BTW). Hopefully their revised V8, with it’s sophisticated displacement on demand, has been well-vetted and won’t be troublesome or annoying.
It’s interesting that even though the trucks lost weight, their EPA ratings are worse. Are they that less aerodynamic, or were the previous EPA ratings a little too high? (The Feds use manufacturer-provided ratings, and only spot-check a few each year).
Again, I recognize these are big, heavy vehicles, and I marvel that my 2007 Silverado burned as much gas as my mother’s Nova 30 years earlier, so the EPA ratings won’t sway me much. I’d still get a Chevy.
“Hopefully their revised V8, with it’s sophisticated displacement on demand, has been well-vetted and won’t be troublesome or annoying.”
Hopefully their revised V8, with it’s sophisticated displacement on demand, has been well-vetted and won’t be troublesome or annoying *anymore*.
There, fixed it for you. GM has had issues since the 2014 redesign. I talked to GM techs that swear that if anyone wants a GM truck, they need to buy an older one. My dad’s 2013 F-150 3.5L EcoBoost has only required tires and brakes since new (my cousin bought it new), which is in stark contrast to my other cousin’s 2014 Silverado with over 20K less miles that has seen significantly less towing and 0 off-road use (the Ford is a 4×4, and yes it’s been used, and not for snow as we dont live in the snow belt). The 5.3L in the Silverado is noisy (lots of clatter), and the truck has had quite a few recalls and unscheduled repairs. On another note, the F-150 currently averages over 19 MPG, the Silverado barely breaks 17 after extended highway driving, usually its much less.
I like how things can be “sophisticated” in a GM and that’s a positive thing, but turbocharged engines in a Ford (which have been out for eight years running with no major issues) is a negative thing. Besides, it’s not like you can’t find non-turbo engines in the Ford (6 or 8 cylinders). Why not just say you’d buy the Chevy because it’s a Chevy?
Well, I am planning on going with a turbocharged four cylinder in my 1969 F-100 half ton, of the Cummins diesel variety. I believe I will see a significant improvement in fuel mileage over it’s current 1977 m/y 5.8L/351 c.i. V-8. Adding two more gears will help as well.
But this new Chevy? Why? As Kyree and others mentioned, there are no real benefits in fuel efficiency nor purchase price. Add to that, the truck itself is ugly and rather lackluster, so, no.
I’m convinced that this engine was intended for the Colorado and ended up on the wrong person’s desk by mistake. By the time it was noticed, too much money had been spent on engineering the Silverado for it. Either that, or someone at GM learned that Ford was planning to use the 2.3L EcoBoost in a truck, assumed it was the F-150, and persuaded management to get ahead of Ford for a change.
Joking aside, I’m much more interested in the I-6 TurboDiesel that is supposedly coming.
FYI for JohnTaurus. We did a Cummins 4BT conversion into our ’72 F250 Camper Special. It is a really nice combo. Results included great noises, great torque, fun to drive, and awesome fuel economy. However, the vibration of the 4BT would cause us to go the 6BT route if we were doing it over again.
I have heard that the 4BT is a rough runner, but I have a 2004 Sonoma crew cab 4×4 that will be used more often, so it probably wont bother me for occasional use.
I really appreciate the comment, though.
How is the towing? Although I’m doing a disk brake conversion, this is still a very old half-ton truck, so I wont be trying to tow a Tahoe with it. But, I was thinking of using it to go fetch cars in need of repair that I like to tinker with in my spare time.
John your in FL right? I new a guy in st Augustine who had a 2wd OBS f150 ext cab with a 4bt. He used to get insane MPG like 26&28 mpg. I hear he sold it to get a 2nd gen lightning got annoyed with the diesel rumble on his short commute. I have considered one for my 88ramcharger, but have been leaning gas after some cold mornings gave some friends with 12v Cummins starting issues.
No, I lived in Flordia for a short time a few years ago with my boyfriend, but I left and only went back to work nine weeks at a power plant in Pensacola last spring. There is another scheduled maintenance shutdown scheduled for later this year or early next, but I work for a different company now that pays me more with better benefits.
I have watched YouTube videos of them in F-150s and Tahoes, etc, and I’m convinced I’m going in the right direction with the swap. It will by no means be a daily driver, so the NVH shouldn’t bother me too much.
We don’t tow heavy…probably never more than 3K. My brother had the bed loaded to the gills with cherry wood. It ran like a champ and the turbo whistling like a Nor’Easter.
Excellent, good to hear.
The line 6 engine that has been pushed back 6 months back in October? Pardon me while I laugh. A service nightmare, and the esteemed brain trust at Customer Cares and Aftersales will run out of parts as soon as vehicle one is offloaded from the transport.
I got the impression that after Ram and then Ford brought half-ton diesels to market, GM made a very premature announcement and it would be a long time before we saw one in the flesh.
I just wish Ford would offer theirs in the lesser models outside of fleet sales
At first blush, I’d say “sure, why not,” but then again, I’ve never bought a truck. This engine is probably designed for people who could care less about trucks.
Given that, maybe this makes sense. The “truck guys” out there would never buy one, but the “car guys” might.
People swore “truck guys” wouldn’t choose a turbo 6 over a V-8, too.
That’s ’cause there ain’t all that many hardcore ‘truck guys’ out there, when you get right down to it.
When buying vehicles, I tend to think like a commercial fleet manager. I define the application, develop a set of specs that achieve the needs of the application, compare the competing manufacturer offerings, seek best quality/reliability, secure most comprehensive warranty, seek maximum value for dollar, adjusted for variances in projected resale value.
Given these criteria, the GM 2.7L four cylinder light duty pickup likely lags in three categories: Value for dollar, no reliability record, and poor projected resale value.
I think GM is going out on a limb with its polarizing styling and controversial engine choices. I’ll be curious to see how it pans out. Personally I’m not buying an I4 in a giant pickup, but would go I4 in something smaller not intended to actual truck duty. I don’t consider it a serious engine option for regular truck work.
It also probably matters what a “work truck” is to you.
For example:
-A work truck could be a truck that carries orange cones in front of a line-painting truck. Its load is never over a few hundred pounds
-A work truck could be carrying spare bikes for a bike racer, never over a few hundred pounds
-A work truck could be carrying an air compressor that weighs about 500 lbs
There are a lot of “Work truck” duties that don’t require exceptionally grueling tasks where a powerful motor has value.
Agreed.
Yep- and a bro truck might pull a heavy boat up a boat ramp (lots of load but really only for a few seconds, so insignificant on the life of the vehicle) but then tool along through a flatland suburbia to bring the thing home (very light load). Or it might be a seriously hilly suburbia, using lots of grunt just to go a few miles. Like you said, it all matters what a “work truck” means to each person.
No…
Would I buy a twin turbo 6 Ecoboost, yes but mostly because the reviews I’ve watched the reviewers can’t stop laughing when the punch the throttle.
I still can’t get over the 3.5TT that Ford put in the Raptor which is why I haven’t replaced my aging ’12 with a new one. Yes, the new engine goes like stink, but I likes me a V8 in my trucks. So a four banger may make all the sense in the world on paper, but I just couldn’t do it.
If it can haul a Harley Super Glide in the bed, or a Honda Gold Wing on a trailer behind, sure. That’s what I need a truck for – not posing with rednecks.
I have no opinion on the matter at hand, but can we please stop classifying trucks by “ton”? The “half ton” bears absolutely no relation to any actual measurement for a truck’s capabilities, and this has been true for literally decades.
It makes about as much sense as saying that the truck in question has a 12-cyl. engine, because it develops as much power as an engine of that size from 1950. (Note: I just made that up; I have no idea how much power a 1950 V12 made.)
Well, not 1950, but here is info on the 1960-ish GMC V12 truck engine:
http://6066gmcguy.com/TwinSix.html
My great uncle has a 1947 Lincoln with a 120 hp V12, that is probably about the closest you will find.
Beautiful cars, but I’ve heard the engine was not their strongest point.
They should make it a 6L I4 configuration. It will have such a distinctive sound – people will want one. They should try to get 300 lb-ft of torque at idle.
Yes, I loved the John Deere two-cylinder engine sound.
“Would you buy a truck with four pistons?” …. No
and I have an XC90 with Polestar (330HP/325TQ)and love it.
I just think you use trucks in a different way that can drift past the level of ruggedness that a 4 cylinder turbo is capable of for the long term. I also do not have faith that GM would build that required level of ruggedness into their product. This thing would be in the shop all the time or have a ridiculously expensive preventative maintenance schedule. Ford… maybe…… GM or FCA No.
Lets see, a Hecho en Mexico Chevrolet Silverado from a company that is shuttering its American and Canadian plants to save money on production, equipped with the smallest engine in its class? Oh boy, sign me up! Ugh… Maybe if it was at least made in the USA or Canada. GM is really burning their bridges lately though.
Regular or extended cap 4wd and stick shift then I am a “Maybe”. Only because at 6ft tall I would fit in it better than a Colorado??
You have a point. At 6.6 my next sedan will be a truck. Have my 2500 WT HD for work and very comfortable
No effin way! That applies to V6’s too. One of the selling points of a full-size truck is that you can get a V8. Leave the rinky dink small engines to the plebs in the sedans and CUVs.
Rube Goldberging to save the Deplorables 1 MPG and $millions in CAFE fines.
Is GM paying you for this article?
JohnTaurus,
I’m not a fan of ‘sophisticated’ for trucks, in general. This includes GM’s “variable-displacement”. That’s why I wrote “I hope it’s been vetted well”.
If it hasn’t and word gets out, GM will be in a world of hurt.
Yes, I prefer Chevy. But that’s not an absolute. GM should recognize that even those of us who have sentimental attachments to GM, and/or nasty experiences with Ford/Chrysler/Toyota, we should not be taken for granted.
The new truck seems to take us for granted, according to what I read. It’s not really a standout, and the fancy tailgate is not making waves. The big V8 gets a lotta of love, the rest, not so much….
It’s academic, since I’m not, and don’t anticipate being in, the market for a truck.
But when I had a truck, I will say, I really liked the 2007 Silverado. The variable displacement wasn’t bothersome (it only came on under light load 50-65 mph freeway driving), I got 16-17 mpg, plenty of power (from the ‘older’ less hp 5.3), and I liked the extended cab. I’d pick a new 2007 over any of the current big 3 offerings. Better looking, and more practical (I liked the suicide doors on the extended cab. I think Ford, alone, still makes them. Smart).
But I’m a little eccentric. Obviously the buying public and Detroit 3 and Toyota/Nissan don’t see things my way….
Short answer: LMFAO
Long answer: AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
This is all an evil marketing plot by GM. Unlabeled semis will be backing up to the Ft. Wayne plant in the dead of the night. These semis will be filled with brand badges under a GM “Export Only Premium Program”. Four cylinder, Z71 stripe package, BUICK trucks for the Chinese market. Johann and Melody left some PowerPoint slides behind.
I’d have to tow with it first. See how it handles 2-3 tons and what type of fuel economy it would return compared to a V8. Don’t care about daily driving fuel economy because that’s what my car is for. Keep that expensive 4WD truck parked & in the garage unless there’s a job to do. My experience is that once you start working a small engine the fuel economy goes out the window. But then I’ve never owned a tow vehicle with a turbo-charged engine.
I would not, but then I use a truck for towing, specifically my 29′ RV. I certainly don’t trust the turbo 4 to hold up long term to heavy towing.
No. A truck needs a lot of torque, and wind resistance is very high. Pulling a trailer over the rockies or any steady load will mean running under boost most of the time. I’d rather a relaxed six or eight (in truck, eight) than a stressed four. With the demise of diesel in the US market, this is all the OE have left, so we are stuck with it…..
A blown four is great if your car is a Golf sized thing with a 30k price point.
A blown four is a ripoff if your car/truck is a 50k luxury buy or Heavy or works for a living. I see expensive Audis, Cadillac, etc all day with a blown four….
I had a lot of fun with a rental ecotech 4, in a Mustang. The somewhat peaky engine was well suited to a sporty car. The Four Harsh was also acceptable in an inexpensive sport car. I know that these engines are CAFE specials, and that in Europe, a 2.0 turbo is the BIG motor, but I don’t pay $10 per gallon of gas or have the highways and mass transit systems to show for it….The Ecotech was amazing, peaking 21 Lbs of boost. It wasn’t SO amazing that I would prefer it over a NA V8 or 6
Silk purse, sow’s ear. A CVT is a “no buy”, and a blown four in a pickup-equal nope.
If people are buying the 5.3L, they will buy the 4 banger. The close pricing is genius, folks won’t really notice they are buying the turbo 4.
I drive a gas guzzling Titan. I love it, I don’t have to drive it daily, so it’s not a big deal. Throttle response is crisp. It feels seriously overpowered, like for a minor problem, you can just apply throttle to get yourself out of it (or into it, as the case may be). I pay for that with 14mpg mileage, but since I don’t drive to work, it’s not that big of a deal. That kind of power and throttle response are very useful when towing a trailer or offloading, the throttle is linear and immediate.
The 5.3L in the GMC/Chevy trucks have a programmed throttle response that makes them feel dead, till the pedal is attempting to mate with the floor of the vehicle. Then things get brisk as they should. Ie., these trucks already do not feel like v8s, and I would guess that 5.3L engines are the best selling engine option in their lineups. With some trickery, turbo lag should still feel quicker than the 5.3L (unless you live with your foot on the floor, that is).
There’s no replacement for displacement.
Overgross by a ton pulling ten-k rolling 60 at 1750 rpms. No four pot with gibbily gadgets gonna hold together for 200K miles.
Yes, you are correct. If you can get 114+ hp/L, you could have 620+hp with the 5.3L :)
However, I will bet the engine internals are not the problem on this 4-cyl motor at high miles. I read a lot of car info on the internet, so I am a all knowing oracle about this.
Blow off valves and other cheap plumbing will be the nightmare with these turbo motors.
The guts will be around like the pyramids. Plumbing for boost, not so much. Don’t plan on towing a loaded peanut trailer with a 4-cyl Chevy full-size pickup after about 150Kmiles :) Your 4 banger will only be producing about 90hp at the wheels at that point, unless you have upgraded all the plumbing.
Diesels don’t have some of the airflow control gadgetry that the gasoline motors do, and they don’t suffer these sorts of quick mileage based HP degradation, as relates to turbochargers and plumbing.
Only if I wasnt planning on keeping the truck for more then three years. If I was going to keep it longer hell no. It may be up to the task new, but at 100K miles who knows.
If there was an appropriate value proposition, I might. But the Silverado with the 4 banger doesn’t offer any significant advantage in cost or fuel economy, so why bother?
A good value proposition that I did drive recently was the 2019 Ram 1500 V6 eTorq. Averaged 20mpg in mixed driving (where the same truck with V8 I get 16-17), had good power and was very smooth and quiet. Especially the dreaded stop/start.
I hooked my 7500lb 24′ enclosed car hauler to it and it pulled just fine. Definitely didn’t accelerate with the authority of the V8, but totally acceptable. Felt like towing the same load with my old ’03 F150 with the 5.4L
The number of cylinders isn’t really relevant either. Remember, the smaller turbo V6 in the F150 offers the same displacement as the 4 banger in the Silverado.
Yeah, but that smaller V6 still carries less stress per cylinder than the same-sized I-4.
“QOTD: Would You Buy a Four-cylinder Half-ton Pickup?”
— In a word: No.
Oh, I understand the little turbo four puts out a fair amount of horsepower. But if you’re going for that four at all, then you’re looking at a truck that’s actually too big to take advantage of the engine’s efficiency. This is almost identical to what was happening in the ’70s, ’80s and even ’90s where they put the smallest engine into a vehicle possible and had to gear it (or turbo it) to such an extent that the efficiency is nearly impossible to achieve. This little four could easily replace the V6 in a mid-sized truck and realize even more fuel savings than the non-turbo model already residing in that mid-sizer.
Essentially, the more torque available at low RPMs, the less the engine has to work when unloaded. Ford did well with putting a turbocharged, small, V6 in the F-150 but we can already see that the turbo four is averaging worse than the turbo six when empty and much, MUCH worse when loaded.
No, and I wouldn’t buy any turbo’ed V6 either. I know one of these days, probably not too long from now, there will be very few, if any NA engines, but until then, I will pass on the turbos and be very happy. Right now, if I was looking for a half ton pickup, it would be a Ram with a Hemi. I like the looks, both inside and out(But not as much as the last gen’s exterior), and everyone I know that has had a Ram since the hemi was introduced has loved theirs. I still miss my ’03 1500 Quad Cab 4×4 this time of year.