The pick up truck wars just heated up a bit today with the announcement that customers will have the option of purchasing a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado with a turbocharged four cylinder. The engine will also have cylinder deactivation technology, which will allow it to run on only two cylinders in low demand situations.
Total displacement of this new engine? 2.7 liters.
That last bit of information is what really piqued my interest, because Ford currently produces the 2.7 liter EcoBoost V6. It’s entirely possible GM did the research and determined that amount of displacement ideal for their purposes, but I’m also betting they decided to use that figure to compare the engine directly against the Ford unit. GM seems to be betting that sometimes there is no replacement for displacement, but cylinders can be eliminated with no issues.
| Engine | Horsepower | Torque |
|---|---|---|
| 4.3L V6 | 285 HP | 305 Ib-ft. |
| 2.7L I-4 | 310 HP | 348 Ib.-ft. |
| 5.3L V8 | 355 HP | 383 Ib.-ft. |
| 6.2L V8 | 420 HP | 460 Ib-ft. |
The new turbo four roughly mirrors it’s 2.7 competitor as it pertains to the contemporary Silverado lineup. Like the EcoBoost, it will have broad availability in less expensive variants of the Silverado, and it also replaces the 4.3 liter V6 in certain trims, which is similar to what Ford did with its 3.3 liter V6. Currently it has not been confirmed for the GMC Sierra, but odds are that its availability will extend to that nameplate as well, as GM is thinking of replacing all of its V6 pick up engines with the four cylinder at some point in the near future.
Automakers have introduced quite a few innovations into the American full size pick up segment over the last ten years. Ford went full throttle towards turbocharged engines and aluminum construction, while FCA opted for a 48 volt mild hybrid system. And there’s also the diesel renaissance as well. GM’s fuel saving technology has been less visible up to this point, but that is about the change with their new turbo four.
Innovation? A V type engine at the front (mostly), a transmission in the middle, full frame and a solid axle on leaf springs, all coming in just shy of three tonnes.
The only thing different from a 1949 Dodge station wagon is the three tonnes.
So how would you suggest a truck be built?
The vast majority of transportation contrivances called “trucks” are really just bloated cars with tiny “cargo” boxes at the back. They rarely carry much more than the owner. If one would need to carry something with one, it has so little payload that a trailer is required.
“Trucks” are built the same way as a 1949 Dodge because it is cheap and easy to change out the bodies for styling updates.
A real truck would have a heavy duty diesel engine, solid front axle, at least a sixteen foot box and GVW starting at 10,000 kg. They have 1,000,000 km warranties, too!
Oh good. Then here’s a truck. It has a 12,000 lb GVW and a Diesel engine.
A Dodge Ram dually went past my place recently best laugh Ive had in ages it was towing a tiny utility trailer half full of rubbish bound for the dump, truck bed was empty.
A base F150 has more payload than my dad’s 69 C10 did. The Ford’s curb weight is about 500 pounds more. With 60s technology, adding air conditioning and the Ford’s power and braking would put the Chevy’s weight over the Ford. ( Actually, the brakes and tires weren’t available at any price in 1969.)
I don’t see OHC, turbo chargers, cyl deactivation, or and 8 or more speed transmission on the 49 Dodge spec or options sheet. I also don’t see things like extensive use of aluminum or composites.
I may be mistaken, but the truck offers a carbon fiber bed, aluminum on the hood, tailgate, roof.
My point, the truck does while the old Dodge didn’t.
It will be interesting to here what the internet public will say about this. Lots of people complained about Ford’s EcoBoost but at least they strapped it to a 6cyl which has a long tradition in full size trucks. Making this the base engine across all the volume models is pretty risky in my opinion. It won’t do much for CAFE if the take rate is low, which I expect.
It’s not going to be the base engine in the two lower trim models, just the RST. The 4.3 V6 continues as the base in the other trims. But GM has suggested it may become the base engine in the future.
It is the base engine in the RST, LT and LT Trail Boss. If you want the 4.3 you have to go with the W/T, Custom and Custom Trail Boss.
Ah yes, I misread that part.
Yes, (to Scoutdudes point) they’ll need to market it very hard to overcome prejudice. I’d suggest a huge program of genuinely obligation-free test drives, overnighters perhaps. Because it’s only when you drive these modern engines that you realise that anything you thought you knew, you don’t. They play tricks with your brain.
In the cliched blindfold, you’re hard-pressed to tell a) that they’re turboed b) the size c) the cylinder count and even d) the fuel. Such have been my recent experiences, in supposedly ordinary vehicles (Mazda diesels, Hyundai diesels, Ford turbo 4).
Before I saw this article I had just watched TFLT’s video done at the GM proving grounds where they withheld the info on the engine until after the test drive and Andre did say that he couldn’t tell it only had 4cyls. It does best the HP and TQ ratings of Ford and Ram’s base engine. However I think unless you can get a person behind the wheel w/o knowing it is a 4cyl you’ll be hard pressed to get many people to even give it a try. Especially those GM fanatics that have been busy deriding Ford’s EcoBoost engines.
You know, I’m almost certain there is a “real people” ad currently in circulation where after touting their JD power participation trophies, the bearded guy takes a dig at Ford for using a turbo V6 instead of a V8 like the Chevy’. Can’t wait for the latest round of those to see how they spin it.
I just went to the official site for Chevy’s trucks and guess what ad they included on it? The extremely deceptive pick up bed test that was widely ridiculed when it first premiered.
With that tech-laden of an engine, you bet your ass I wouldn’t be a first year customer!
Is GM doing aluminum yet?
Some type of pharmaceutical would be my guess. 😉
Sounds like a recipe for warranty claims galore.
I’d be afraid of warrany claims when people start towing large trailers with this combo. I’m reminded of the old days, when people bought half ton pickups and then put the largest cab over camper in them.
Nah, you’d be surprised to see how many small cars with four cylinder motors can tow caravans in Europe. Just ask the Dutch people who have a strong craving for towing their homes across Europe during the summer holidays.
Sure, in Europe. In the US people expect to tow without slowing down or otherwise driving differently. It needs to be able to maintain 80mph uphill with the AC on, thus the conservative tow ratings our vehicles get.
I’d expect a low tow rating with this powertrain.
Ford’s 2.7 EB V6 has a tow rating of 8500 lbs. Why would the rating on this be any lower? What’s the difference, except two fewer cylinders, which actually means the engine intrinsically makes more torque at lower rpm than a 6 of the same displacement, although that’s mostly irrelevant due to the turbocharging.
This is a very intriguing development and I’d like to try one out upon arrival. Having driven a few 2.7 liter Ecoboost Fords, this engine will likely have a deceptively high amount of oomph.
The next few years will be a rich time for pickup refinement and innovation.
Looks like a capable engine. Might not get a lot of takers initially, but with the coming CAFE and GHG regulations, I expect large turbo 4 cylinder engines to eventually become the norm for full size 1/2 ton trucks.
Doesn’t the Tacoma also have a 2.7 liter 4 cylinder engine or has that been “shelved” along with manual transmissions?
I figured Ford was going to be the 1st with a turbo 4 cylinder engine in the F series (the Ranger will only have a turbo 4 cylinder engine), and GM(C) wouldn’t have a turbo 6….much less a 4 without a serious downsizing first.
What’s to downsize? If you want a small pickup, the Colorado is available.
These are exciting times for pickup buyers. Choice, capability, and refinement has never been better.
What’s the big difference between a four and V6 of the same displacement (GM – Ford’s EcoBoost 2.7)? None, really.
Yet another way that IH was way ahead of its time. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake-196-international-c-900-the-smallest-american-pickup-beforel-the-ranger-and-s-10/ with a large 4cyl in a “full size” pickup. They even had a turbo set up for it but it was only available on the 152 (2.5) in the Scout. Unfortunately the had abandoned the short short bed 1/2 crew cab by this time or all the factory pieces would be there to bolt together a “modern” 1960’s pickup. Less of course the 27 air bags, umpteen speed transmission, disc brakes…….
Regarding the displacement choice I’m sure a little bit of it was because they were trying to hit a HP/TQ/MPG point, but I wouldn’t surprise me if it was a little bit to ensure that people didn’t have more ammo, ie “that’s to small of an engine for a full size truck” much like many did with Ford’s 2.7/ At least they can say it is the same size as Ford’s smallest current offering.
Wasn’t that four cylinder engine in the Scout a diesel sourced from Nissan/Datsun?
The Scout gasoline four was an IH V8 minus a bank of cylinders, like the Pontiac Tempest four.
Someone explain to me the point behind those massive front ends which limit your view forward. If I wanted to run over something small these trucks would be the thing to do it in. Getting even worse there is some guy around my office who drives a massive raised F-650 around the small town on errands and drop daughter off at the dance studio.
Can’t get me into one of these trucks, ever.
Probably there will be a range of opinions on this sorta like thus:
1. I hate pickups! Why are people allowed to own them?! Stupid things…ought to ban them.
B. Ain’t got a V-8 ain’t worth sheet… (spits)
4. Huh? What?
Now I’d consider one. My present pickup, single cab Ram Tradesman, has the 3.6 Pentastar with the 8 speed auto and 3.21 gears. I can easily land 25 mpg at 70 sustained and empty. Pulling the small trailers that I do still nets high teens to very low 20s with ample power.
It’s also easily one of the best powerplants I’ve ever experienced in a pickup. That includes flathead Fords, everyone’s old straight six, the legion of SBCs, and the newer Ford ecos. (Laggy and thirsty when worked I thought)
I kinda thought the industry might try to go with small inline sixes instead of fours. Try to gain acceptance with them based on history, pickup owners can be, uh, traditional, and the old sixes are venerated objects. (I suspect time and distance have inflated the reputation of those sixes a fair amount)
Pickup owners have embraced Ford’s V-6 turbo future, I wonder if they’ll buy into Chebbys blown straight four?
Why not? Same displacement, and fours tend to run at lower rpm. After a while, folks will get over the mind-blowing idea, which actually makes perfect sense.
In 5 years, this will probably be all that’s available, with the future increases in the CAFE numbers. Once people drive one of these, they’ll forget what’s under the hood. It’s just another quite powerful engine with better torque than a naturally aspirated V6 or smaller V8.
Impressive horsepower and torque figures from a 2.7L 4-cylinder engine.
But at what rpm? Do you have to rev that thing up to 6000 rpm to get those figures? And at that rpm, is it sustainable, especially when hauling or towing?
Can’t understand why anyone would put high-revving, high-stressed engines in a truck.
I’m not sure that number is out yet. But it will undoubtedly be lower than the Chevy 4.3 V6, which makes its hp @5300 rpm.
As a comparison, the 2.7 Ford EcoBoost V6 makes 325hp @ 5000 rpm, and 400 lb.ft. @2750 rpm. So the Chevy 2.7 should be somewhat similar, probably at a bit lower rpm.
The Ford 3.3 V6 makes peak power @6500 rpm, and its torque peak @4000. And the Ford 5.0 V8 makes its power peak @395 hp, and torque @4500.
Turbo engines inherently make their power and torque peaks well below that for non-turbo engines. I don’t know why folks keep thinking otherwise. This is not a high-revving, high-stressed engine; no more than Ford’s 2.7 ecoBoost.
The TFLT video with the GM engineer says its torque peak is at 1500rpm.
Update: I just found the specs. flat torque peak from 1500 to 4000 rpm. That’s superb. The new electro-mechanical valve train makes it possible, by substantially altering valve timing. No naturally aspirated engine can do that trick (flat torque peak over such a wide rpm range).
Full specs here:http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/l3b/
I like the idea, and if they ever decide to install it in the Canyon/Colorado I’d like it even more. My 2016 Canyon uses the very nice, but very un-trucklike, 3.6 V-6. It gets decent mileage empty, and it’ll move right along if you don’t mind winding it up, but put it to work and it empties that gas tank surprisingly quickly. Something like this might be the ideal powerplant for what I need.
I think I’d wait a year or two until the all too common GM practice of using initial customers as the final step in product testing flushes through though.
I was thinking the same thing. It seems perfect for the Colorado as a rival to the upcoming Ranger Ecoboost.
Is this fake news? President Trump just tweeted all 2019 American pickups would have huge sized V8’s. I know what he means though – I prefer low sodium tomato juice myself.
Despite my jest above, I am very impressed with the latest generation of turbocharged direct injected engines that are on the market. This will most likely be a fine engine. It sounds like a real stump puller for its displacement and is probably a simpler engine than the excellent Ford 2.7L Ecoboost. Henry would probably like this better too . . .
Despite claims of “all new”, I wonder if this engine traces its lineage to the GM Atlas of the 2000’s, a line of aluminum DOHC inline engines including a 2.8liter 4. All had a 102mm stroke, same as the new 2.7.
The Atlas 6 was possibly the best part of the GMT360 (TrailBlazer, Envoy, Bravada, H3) platform, wonder what the chances are the new line would expand to include a 5 and 6.
Interesting point, about its stroke and being a development of the Atlas. It makes sense. A turbo 5 I could readily see, but not likely the inline 6, as it’s really no better than the current V6.
This engine has an offset crank, I don’t think the Atlas engine family had that.
The video I saw does show a cutaway version of the engine and trans and the bellhousing is the old Chevy “house” pattern.
Someone above mentioned that Europe has several hi output turbo fours that can haul reasonable loads. I’m sure that is the case but my question is how it will last mileage wise?
Europeans do not rack up the miles like we do in North America and also the average European driver has at least a basic understanding of vehicle maintenance. Here, if it starts it must be fine. I have had people laugh at me because I drive “beaters” as a rule but still am pretty strict on regular and preventative maintenance. Then they curse the dealer because their new car requires expensive maintenance a few years after the warranty expires because they haven’t had it into a garage SINCE the warranty expires!
Show me some Ecoboost motors or the like when they are at 150-200,000 miles of average joe maintenance and then we’ll talk. Til then I will take the old can’t kill it with a hammer v-6 or v-8.
How are Ford’s 2.7 EcoBoost engines holding up? They’re tow rated for 8500 lbs. There’s zero reason to think a 2.7 four would somehow be less durable than a 2.7 V6. I’m sure they’re vast numbers of 2.7 Ford EB engines that have done 150-200k. They’ve been out for a few years now, and hardly uncommon. Have you heard about any significant issues with them? I haven’t.
And what is this “maintenance” you speak of? Change the oil when it ells you to, probably at 10k miles? Are you still living in the 1970s? 🙂
“And what is this “maintenance” you speak of? Change the oil when it ells you to, probably at 10k miles? Are you still living in the 1970s? ”
Thanks Paul.
The problem I have been seeing is that the dealers continue to “recommend” work that is not called for in order to boost lagging revenues in the service department. So, a make may get a reputation for expensive maintenance when following only the manufacturer’s schedule is actually inexpensive, even at dealer prices.
Modern small turbo engines are so good, I doubt many owners would care how many cylinders there are. You really have to experience how the torque comes on in these small turbo engines-wham! Right now! It also holds right to the torque peak.
The ICE is on borrowed time, but its future is turbocharging.
I’m voting no with extreme scepticism, for a few reasons.
1. It’s GM. They have a long history of botching technically complex complex solutions. I’ll be very curious to see how that electronic sliding cam works out over 200K miles. Or whether that variable displacement can destroy an engine like it has on some 5.3’s.
2. It’s being marketed to pickup owners. These folks are some of the most conservative buyers on earth, and to say they aren’t generally first adopters is a gross understatement.
3. Ford and (Dodge) Ram are going to have a field day with advertising when that motor comes out.
1. Did they botch the Volt, one of the most technically complex solutions of the modern era? Or the Bolt? What have they botched in the modern era? I don’t follow the exact issues of their cars and trucks, but I have not been aware of any issues rising above the overall average in the industry. I think it’s time to stop holding the Vega and HT4100 over their heads. I just don’t see a pattern of significant issues in the current era.
2. Well that’s why they still offer the V8s. But what’s the take rate of the EcoBoost V6s on the F150? I imagine it’s rising. And there’s nothing inherently different from this and the EB 2.7? In fact, this four has a significantly flatter torque curve. Like all conservatives, they’ll eventually get used to the new tech. Remember gay marriage, and women’s vote, and…
3. I don’t now why, when Ford has an identical displacement turbo that they’ve been pushing for years. What’s Ford going to say about a turbo 2.7? I don’t expect Ram to say much either, because it’s probably just matter of time before they do one too. Even with some delay and loosening, the EPA mileage targets are still going to get tougher. This is the obvious solution.
1. Did they botch the Volt, one of the most technically complex solutions of the modern era? Or the Bolt? What have they botched in the modern era? I don’t follow the exact issues of their cars and trucks, but I have not been aware of any issues rising above the overall average in the industry. I think it’s time to stop holding the Vega and HT4100 over their heads. I just don’t see a pattern of significant issues in the current era.
re: Volt and Bolt. Other than missing the sales projections by the proverbial country mile, no issue with those that I’ve heard of. The Volt’s never seen 25,000 deliveries in a year, and the Bolt finally cracked 1400 units in a month. Ford sells twice as many pickups as that in a day OK, now lets talk about something relevant- like pickups.
1. Numerous software/hardware glitches with the GM 4WD systems.
2. Oil consumption issues with variable displacement 5.3’s, along with occasional premature engine failure.
And yes- GM lags behind Ford and Ram in powertrain reliability. That’s in 1/2T gas. not HD diesel. The Duramax is golden.
http://www.jdpower.com/cars/study/2017-Vehicle-Dependability-Study/1882ENG/Large-Light-Duty-Pickup/1124
2. Well that’s why they still offer the V8s. But what’s the take rate of the EcoBoost V6s on the F150? I imagine it’s rising. And there’s nothing inherently different from this and the EB 2.7? In fact, this four has a significantly flatter torque curve. Like all conservatives, they’ll eventually get used to the new tech. Remember gay marriage, and women’s vote, and…
Remember- PICKUP buyers, not Prius buyers. They may get used to it, but I question whether you or I will live long enough to see it.
3. I don’t now why, when Ford has an identical displacement turbo that they’ve been pushing for years. What’s Ford going to say about a turbo 2.7? I don’t expect Ram to say much either, because it’s probably just matter of time before they do one too. Even with some delay and loosening, the EPA mileage targets are still going to get tougher. This is the obvious solution.
By Ford own numbers:
54% Are Lariat Trim or Higher.
88% are Supercrews
60% equipped with the 3.5L Ecoboost.
https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2017/09/01/aug-17-sales.pdf
As importantly, Ford’s Powerstroke take rate in the Super Duty line is currently 71%. A new Powerstroke will also be offered in the F150’s shortly- that should also be interesting.
Which loops us back around to the 4cyl turbo question. Will it be reliable, and, more importantly, will full-size pickup customers care?
Regarding Ford’s numbers, (and I’m not saying you aren’t aware of this, just that they can easily be misread), they say that:
54% are Lariat trim or higher and OF THOSE, 88% are Supercrews (makes sense, the regular cab isn’t even offered in some high trims, not sure about extended cab), and OF THOSE Supercrew upper trims) 60% are EcoBoost.
So, reading it VERY conservatively, of those particular configurations, 54% x 88% x 60% = 28.5% are 3.5TT. The rest are either the 2.7TT or V8.
They are not saying that 88% of all F150’s are SuperCrews or that 60% of all F150’s are 3.5TT.s
My parsing of the numbers does not include what engines and cabs are chosen in the lower trims (XL, XLT) which are a very large subsection of overall sales. Surprisingly (to me), the XL can easily and not that expensively be optioned to be and look just as nice as an XLT. I used to think that an XL limited one to Vinyl seats and rubber mats and manual windows, not so at all anymore. The 2.7TT is very widespread and popular these days.
I see what you’re saying- but consider this. A Supercab is only available up to Lariat Trim (and of course, the Raptor), nothing higher. And a regular cab can only be had as a XL or XLT. Knowing that, I’m thinking they meant the Supercrew was 88% of all orders. Otherwise we’d interpret those numbers to imply that only 47% of F150 orders are Supercrews. Supercabs are extremely rare in these parts, and a regular cab is the proverbial unicorn.
The average transaction price of a F150 was $45,600, a Super Duty $55,000. That would indicate the lower trim levels are represented at much lower numbers than you are thinking. Anecdotally, Supercabs are extremely rare in these parts, and a regular cab is the proverbial unicorn.
I also looked at the inventory of our largest Ford truck dealer locally (Northside Ford). They have 38 F150’s in stock, 8 of those are XL or XLT’s, and a whopping two of them do not the 3.5 ecoboost. So I suspect that 60% figure Ford gave covers the entire Ford order bank, not the 88% of the 54%.
If you re-read that release, it doesn’t really say that F150 averaged $45,600 – it says F-series. Which could include the SuperDutys just like when they count them in the monthly totals. Yes I see on the right side where it specifically says SD was over $55k but it isn’t that clear on the left side, there could easily be some smoke and mirror action.
You could well be correct though, it’d probably make sense to look at this deeper and not just use August 2017 numbers especially as it was toward the end of the generation with the revised 18’s coming out – that SuperCrew percentage breakdown specifically referred to the “order banks” for the 2018 and not any particular month’s deliveries.
re: $55000 SD transaction price. Under “key vehicles,” RHS center of page. F150 average transaction price listed in paragraph breaking down F150 sales. It’s a confusing layout- I had to look a few times myself.
Several good points here. The small displacement turbo engines are probably sufficient for most half-ton applications. And for those who don’t keep their vehicles forever, or just use them around town.
However, for those of us who tow heavy loads often, change our fluids regularly, and keep our trucks for 15-20 years plus, there will probably always be a large, understressed drive train available.
I will be keeping my 2005 Dodge 2500 Cummins 5.9TD until I am no longer able to drive a motor vehicle. I know it will outlast me, and still handle anything you can throw at it. Not so sure the V8-6-4, I mean I4-2 would ever have such long time durability, no matter how it is driven.
Just my two cents.
I wasn’t expecting the GM 4 to be any less reliable than the Ford Ecoboost Paul I just had questioned the whole concept.
My limited personal experience with this type of small turbo engine hasn’t shown me any with high mileage.
And you may be right in the 70’s remark. I do remember when the turbo motors came out then and it seemed they weren’t known for hi mileage runners.
As far as the “maintenance” I speak of, we all have known people who have a dash light come on or a weird noise start and put it off til it breaks into a very expensive repair bill. I was taught when something starts check it out before it ends in a very expensive bang.
One of the reasons I come here is to learn. At this point yes I’m questioning the big boost small motor for lasting. If people are showing me they are standing up to the miles I am more than happy to change my opinion.
I am excited about this engine. Like the Ford Eco-boost, I am sure it will be a good engine.
This is a great time for the automobile with new technologies coming out. Thanks to advances in technology, we can have a 300hp-400hp car with great gas mileage.
I think the trucks with this engine in will do fine. I think a lot of them will make it to fleets first and then regular customers will accept them.
I seem to remember that when extended cab and crew cab trucks arrived in great quantities, that folks were saying they would never sell. But sell they did and it is the regular cab truck that is dying out.
It is great that GM is still using displacement on demand systems. The V8-6-4 engine was not a bad engine per se, it was just an engine that was about 10 years too early. If you disconnect a wire from the 3rd gear switch, the engine stayed in V8 mode and gave reliable service. It was the computers that were dodgy due being too primitive. Today a DoD system works great.
I really don’t see the V8 hanging around as an option or standard engine in passenger cars and light trucks in the next 20 years. With smaller engines getting more powerful, there is no need for them. Ford offered a V6 that got 300+ HP up until 2017 and now the base engine is a 2.3l Eco-boost engine with over 300HP also.
I think that this has been a long time coming. Technology has made a 4 cyl engine into a different animal than it once was. It’s as radical as the switch from black powder to modern smokeless cartridges. Huge caliber bores were replaced by more powerful, more accurate, smaller calibers. Once people discovered the benefits, there was no going back.
That 4 cyl turbo will get a lot better mileage in a truck with the weight and aerodynamics of a ’96 C1500 than with the gigantic monstrosities of today. Which one looks better? Which one doesn’t need a stepladder to grab something out of the bed or to get into the cab?
If you doubt the reliability of new technology, just call for a cab. No more panthers now, 300k mike Prius (s), and Ford Escape hybrids abs eco boost. I recently rode in a nearly 400k mile escape eco boost taxi; owner operator was very pleased with it. My employer has switched our 30 truck fleet exclusively to ford eco boosts and they get no love, we run them till rust mills the box, then install aftermarket flat beds. Many are well over 100k already. I would buy this new turbo truck without hesitation. Assume it is a similar engine to the Cadillac ATS and Camaro turbo 4.
I don’t have much to add, I don’t care about new technology, the current state of the auto industry, or even most pickup trucks for that matter, but I will say this… I don’t think an inline four is a bad direction for a truck. It’s less moving parts despite the turbo, it is inherently easier to work on if necessary and with the broad torque curve with the turbo, all of the above exactly what so many insist was superior about the various I6s that were phased out and replaced by V6s in the 90s.
The V6 has been a placeholder of the I6 in modern trucks, many saw the switch to them as an easy means to increase production efficiency since that family of engines can be shared with passenger cars with transverse layouts. The notion I’ve seen floated that traditional and conservative buyers will reject 4s seems really silly when V6s sound just as wimpy as fours through the exhaust pipe, which is going to be the only place you can tell the difference these days. Those kinds of buyers will keep V8s around for a while, but the rest who want trucks for truck stuff(whatever that is) will adapt, just as they have in the recent past.
when V6s sound just as wimpy as fours through the exhaust pipe
I would argue that the GM 3.6 V6 (used in everything from the midsize Colorado/Canyon to the Impala to the Traverse etc) actually has a pretty nice growl. Although the GM pushrod 60 degree V6s of the 80s/90s could also be made to make a pretty nice noise too, but they were almost designed like cut down V8s.
The thing that currently chafes me is that for most modern engines the best way to get a nice FAT torque curve with torque down low just off idle is to have a turbo. The n/a engines don’t make their full torque until some silly high RPM that doesn’t help you getting away from a stoplight.
I’ll pass. I’m no power-head (I drive a ‘16 Cruze Premier), but in a GM truck? Give me the 5.3 or 6.2.
Aw nuts. You can build you own. Buy a 1990’s Silverado and drop an Iron Duke in it! That way you can have moaning under the hood and in the cabin…
I have a question. I’ve always kind of liked 4 cyl cars, and wondered why they didn’t increase the displacement much above 2 liters. I was told that the 4 cyl is unbalanced and above 2 liter they were too rough. Is that not a problem today, or was it never a problem or do they have a way to solve that problem today?
Balance shafts have been common in GM fours since the 90s.
Vehicles that need 3 liters or more for sufficient power generally have wanted the prestige, smoothness, and sound of multiple cylinders. Presumably GM thinks that the smoothness and sound of the four can be made acceptable, and that there’s no significant image penalty to the four. The product line has plenty of other engine options if someone simply won’t take the turbo four.
Another factor to consider is that US half ton trucks already are astoundingly smooth and quiet. They won’t magnify the engine’s roughness, and it’s probably easy to tune out unpleasant sound and vibration.
Fleet buyers won’t much care about image, sound and smoothness, as long as it doesn’t break. As Paul points out, there’s no inherent frailty to a four cylinder; the vulnerability is in all the technology layered onto it, like the 2.7 Ecoboost, to make the needed power from a small displacement.
Anybody have an idea what mpg this engine is expected to have and what gas octane is required? Noticed the compression ratio is 10:1. Also curious what turbo boost psi is to get that hp and torque?