Car Chat General discussion about Lexus, other auto manufacturers and automotive news.

2019 Chevy Silverado 2.7L Turbo Prototype Drive

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-18-18, 10:07 AM
  #1  
Hoovey689
Moderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
 
Hoovey689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 42,283
Received 122 Likes on 82 Posts
Default 2019 Chevy Silverado 2.7L Turbo Prototype Drive

Full-size pickup, four-cylinder engine





Every automaker is going great lengths to improve fuel economy, particularly in trucks. Ram has gone with ultra-mild hybrid technology, and Ford has gone with turbocharged V6 engines, a new diesel, and a 10-speed transmission. Until now, it appeared Chevy and GMC were going to focus on improving naturally aspirated V8s and adding a diesel. But it turns out Chevy had one other engine up its sleeve: a turbocharged four-cylinder.

Displacing just 2.7 liters, it is the smallest engine available on the 2019 Silverado — 300 cc less than the turbodiesel engine that's also coming. But don't let the size fool you. This new four-cylinder has specs that outperform the effectively carried-over 4.3-liter naturally aspirated V6. At 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque, the inline-four has a 25 horse and 43 pound-foot advantage over the V6. And while exact fuel economy numbers have yet to be released, Chevy says the turbo engine will be more efficient than the V6. On top of all that, the four-cylinder also boasts a peak torque plateau between 1,500 and 4,000 rpm, while peak power comes at 5,600 rpm.

Chevy put a lot of work and some fascinating technology into this engine to get these numbers. First off, the company claims that this engine is completely new; not a modified version of an existing turbocharged GM four-cylinder. It was built from the ground up as a truck engine. Like some of its larger brethren, it also features cylinder deactivation. It can shut off two of its cylinders, made possible by a nifty variable cam lift feature.

The camshafts themselves can slide in order to select different cam profiles, and all of the cylinders can run in a high-lift setting for maximum power, or they can shift to a low-lift setting for improved fuel economy under reduced load. There's also a third setting that will shut off valves to two cylinders while keeping two others in low-lift mode for maximum fuel economy at cruising speeds.

In addition to the trick camshafts, Chevy did a bit of fiddling with the turbo and the cooling system. Chevy is now among many companies employing exhaust manifolds integrated into the head, which allows Chevy to provide additional cooling to the exhaust close to the turbo. This also helps warm up the engine more quickly at start-up.

Getting back to the turbocharger, it features an evolution of the twin-scroll design, but instead of the exhaust pulses coming to the impeller side-by-side on one end of the impeller, they come in on opposite sides of the impeller wheel, as shown in the diagram above. So instead of one set of pulses hitting the outside of the impeller, and another hitting the inside, both sets are catching the outside of the impeller. Bolted to the turbo is an electric wastegate, which can open at cruising speeds and let exhaust flow more freely, improving cruising fuel economy.

Now that we've made it through all this tech talk, the big question is, is the four-cylinder any good? And we can give you an answer because we were given a chance to drive a prototype back-to-back with a current V6 model for comparison. And in general, it's a big improvement. The low-down torque is very noticeable, helping it take off with more authority than the old V6 model. The turbo spools up very quickly, and there's hardly any lag when hitting the gas. Odds are any delay you might feel is coming from the transmission, which is an eight-speed automatic for reference.

Not everything is perfect with the four-cylinder, though. Our big complaint is that, well, it sounds like a four-cylinder, and it certainly doesn't come close to the hearty burble of the V8s. In fact, when really worked, it starts to get a bit coarse and buzzy. Thankfully, it does deliver good pulling power even as you're working it, so it doesn't feel strained. And it always seems to pull harder and rev more readily than the lazy old V6.

If you want to pick up a four-cylinder for yourself, it's only offered on LT and RST trims as the standard engine, taking the place of the V6. Those trims can also be had with the optional 5.3-liter V8 with Chevy's new cylinder deactivation system that can shut off as many as seven cylinders, or the new 3.0-liter turbodiesel. The LT Trail Boss is only available with the 5.3-liter engine. The entry-level Work Truck and Classic trims still come standard with the 4.3-liter V6, and their optional engine is the 5.3-liter V8 that can only shut off four cylinders. Classic Trail Boss is only available with that V8. The top-end LTZ and High Country come with the fancy 5.3-liter V8 standard with options in the form of the 6.2-liter V8 and turbodiesel. Pricing and fuel economy of all these trucks will be announced later this year, closer to when the trucks go on sale.
Source
Hoovey689 is offline  
Old 05-18-18, 11:07 AM
  #2  
Zmon
Racer
iTrader: (2)
 
Zmon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,511
Received 217 Likes on 182 Posts
Default

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh, this seems like it would be a perfect fit for the Colorado/Canyon. Definitely something different in a large pickup.
Zmon is offline  
Old 05-18-18, 11:37 AM
  #3  
corradoMR2
The pursuit of F
 
corradoMR2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 8,296
Received 288 Likes on 209 Posts
Default

^^^My initial reaction too but when I was a passenger of the 2.7 Ecoboost (albeit V6 with a bit more power than GM's Turbo 4) in the F150, I was pretty impressed at the power and NVH.
corradoMR2 is offline  
Old 05-18-18, 01:08 PM
  #4  
Johnhav430
Lexus Fanatic
 
Johnhav430's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: PA
Posts: 8,491
Received 372 Likes on 346 Posts
Default

The numbers are impressive for a 4 cyl, 310/348. What does such a motor drive like, and how durable is it? Why isn't such a motor in those all-new Buick Enclave/Chevy Traverses, who are still powered by a late 2008 gas guzzling design, and starved for torque?
Johnhav430 is offline  
Old 05-18-18, 01:22 PM
  #5  
Hoovey689
Moderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
 
Hoovey689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 42,283
Received 122 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Johnhav430
The numbers are impressive for a 4 cyl, 310/348.
Yes they are.

Originally Posted by Johnhav430
What does such a motor drive like, and how durable is it?
Well from the review above half your question can be answered:

Now that we've made it through all this tech talk, the big question is, is the four-cylinder any good? And we can give you an answer because we were given a chance to drive a prototype back-to-back with a current V6 model for comparison. And in general, it's a big improvement. The low-down torque is very noticeable, helping it take off with more authority than the old V6 model. The turbo spools up very quickly, and there's hardly any lag when hitting the gas. Odds are any delay you might feel is coming from the transmission, which is an eight-speed automatic for reference.

Not everything is perfect with the four-cylinder, though. Our big complaint is that, well, it sounds like a four-cylinder, and it certainly doesn't come close to the hearty burble of the V8s. In fact, when really worked, it starts to get a bit coarse and buzzy. Thankfully, it does deliver good pulling power even as you're working it, so it doesn't feel strained.
Originally Posted by Johnhav430
Why isn't such a motor in those all-new Buick Enclave/Chevy Traverses, who are still powered by a late 2008 gas guzzling design, and starved for torque?
Because those models debuted before the 2019 Silverado. The powerplant was not ready at that time. Now it is. In due time.
Hoovey689 is offline  
Old 05-18-18, 08:30 PM
  #6  
4TehNguyen
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
4TehNguyen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 26,033
Received 51 Likes on 46 Posts
Default

F150 ecoboost make bad real world mpg. I doubt this will be any different
4TehNguyen is offline  
Old 05-18-18, 10:17 PM
  #7  
Aron9000
Lexus Champion
 
Aron9000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: TN
Posts: 4,592
Received 28 Likes on 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 4TehNguyen
F150 ecoboost make bad real world mpg. I doubt this will be any different
That's the thing with a lot of turbocharged engines, they are designed to trick the EPA test(which is a stupid, outmoded test that doesn't reflect how people really drive/use their cars).

Keep the engine out of boost on the EPA cycle, it gets good MPG. Drive it like most people, its in boost, more air=more fuel=crap mpg.

Plus I'm still of the notion that engines with a turbocharger are going to incur some serious repair bills in that 100k-200k mile range, especially if you neglect stuff like oil changes that might not hurt a naturally aspirated motor too much. Old oil will cook in hot turbocharger bearings.

Still though, those power numbers are impressive, my 2011 4.6 V8 Tundra is making similar horsepower and less torque at a higher rpm. I'm still a bit skeptical though, seems like all the non-V8 engines GM makes, they have impressive power numbers, but in the real world they don't drive like those numbers would indicate and are slower than what those horsepower numbers would suggest. Compare 3.6 V6 Cadillac against a twin turbo BMW inline six, that BMW blows the Cadillac out of the water in terms of drivability and in the numbers department like 0-60, quarter mile times, despite them being somewhat close in peak hp numbers.
Aron9000 is offline  
Old 05-19-18, 11:03 AM
  #8  
Hoovey689
Moderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
 
Hoovey689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 42,283
Received 122 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Aron9000
That's the thing with a lot of turbocharged engines, they are designed to trick the EPA test(which is a stupid, outmoded test that doesn't reflect how people really drive/use their cars).
Maybe instead of EcoBoost they should call it PwrBeast

Originally Posted by Aron9000
Plus I'm still of the notion that engines with a turbocharger are going to incur some serious repair bills in that 100k-200k mile range, especially if you neglect stuff like oil changes that might not hurt a naturally aspirated motor too much. Old oil will cook in hot turbocharger bearings.
Perhaps in most cases. With the Ford 3.5L EcoBoost however which has been in service since about 2010, Ford put these engines through some torture tests to show the durability. The 3.5TT has proved venerable from Trucks, SHO models, and even the 641hp Ford GT both street and Le Mans spec. Took the main bits

Ford plucked a random EcoBoost V6 off the assembly line. It was sent to their Cleveland engine plant and run for 300 hours to replicate 150,000 customer miles. Then it was shipped to Kansis City truck plant and installed in a F-150 and put to work as a log skidder in Oregon dragging a total of 110,000 pounds. It was then drive across the country to Miami Speedway. Hooked up to a trailer carrying two of Richard Petty's Ford Fusion racecars, a load of 11,300lbs and run continuallsy around the track for 24hours averaging 82mph and covered 1,607 miles. Then it was taken to Davis Dam and won an uphill towing contest aginast a Silverado and Ram pulling 9,000lbs. Finally the engine was shipped to Arizona and installed in a 7,100lb racetruck that practiced locally for 1,200 miles before being raced in the SCORE Baja 1000 (toughest off-road race in North America - Lexus LX has won this event 3 times). Finishing first overall in the new Stock engine class after 1,062 race miles. After Baja it was sent to Ford HQ in Dearborn and dyno tested having 1 less hp and the same 420lbft as when it began it's journy. It was inspected in front of a live audience. You can read the rest here: http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01...ooks-like.html
Originally Posted by Aron9000
Compare 3.6 V6 Cadillac against a twin turbo BMW inline six, that BMW blows the Cadillac out of the water in terms of drivability and in the numbers department like 0-60, quarter mile times, despite them being somewhat close in peak hp numbers.
No offense but duh. Cadillac NA V6 will be a rev'er sans the low end torque compared to the low end power produced by a forced induction motor despite similar hp numbers.
Hoovey689 is offline  
Old 05-19-18, 12:52 PM
  #9  
bitkahuna
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
 
bitkahuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Present
Posts: 73,681
Received 2,096 Likes on 1,359 Posts
Default

^^ wow, that ecoboost torture test and result is AMAZING.
bitkahuna is offline  
Old 05-19-18, 04:23 PM
  #10  
FrankReynoldsCPA
Lexus Test Driver
 
FrankReynoldsCPA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 6,455
Received 59 Likes on 40 Posts
Default

Yeah the Ecoboost hasn't really been great on fuel, except for the 2.6 v6. Heard a lot of good things about that one from owners
FrankReynoldsCPA is offline  
Old 05-19-18, 04:50 PM
  #11  
Hoovey689
Moderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
 
Hoovey689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 42,283
Received 122 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

^^ 2.7*. Yeah Ford is doing a good job of the 'EcoBoost' family so to speak. Let's see they have 2.0T (4), 2.3T (4), 2.7TT (6), 3.0TT (6), 3.5TT. Hope I'm not missing one. Still hoping one day for an EcoBoost V8 but I fear I can't hold my breath.

Props to Chevy, replacing the 4.3L NA V6. Ford will likely replace that new 3.3L NA V6 in the near future with the 2.3T that is in the upcoming Ranger for a base engine on the F-150 I'd wager.
Hoovey689 is offline  
Old 05-19-18, 07:32 PM
  #12  
4TehNguyen
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
4TehNguyen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 26,033
Received 51 Likes on 46 Posts
Default

even a 3.5 V6TT ecoboost in the Ford GT makes worse (1mpg) than an Viper with a 8.4 liter OHV V10
4TehNguyen is offline  
Old 05-19-18, 08:02 PM
  #13  
Hoovey689
Moderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
 
Hoovey689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 42,283
Received 122 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 4TehNguyen
even a 3.5 V6TT ecoboost in the Ford GT makes worse (1mpg) than an Viper with a 8.4 liter OHV V10
One reason for the V6 switch from a V8 in the Ford GT was weight. Viper weighs 3,200 to 3,400bls, GT comes in at 3,054lbs.
Hoovey689 is offline  
Old 05-19-18, 08:24 PM
  #14  
Aron9000
Lexus Champion
 
Aron9000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: TN
Posts: 4,592
Received 28 Likes on 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hoovey2411
One reason for the V6 switch from a V8 in the Ford GT was weight. Viper weighs 3,200 to 3,400bls, GT comes in at 3,054lbs.
I heard the reason the GT went with the Ecoboost V6 was for racing purposes. They figured out the V6 eeked out better fuel economy vs the V8 at LeMans. Over a 24 hour endurance race, one or two less stops for fuel could be the difference between winning.

Also the Ecoboost truck motors aren't bullet proof, they do have their issues. Certain earlier years have a problem where water accumulates in the bottom of the intercooler, due to condensation and bad design on the intercooler. When you floor it, the engine sucks in the water and hydrolocks the motor, throwing rods through the block and all kinds of other fun things. I'm sure the Ecoboost motors are fine if you trade your truck in every 4 or 5 years, but after 10, 15, 20 years, I kind of have my doubts that there will be any on the road, the cost to repair them is going to be sky high compared to an older Ford truck with a 302 V8 or 4.6 modular V8.
Aron9000 is offline  
Old 05-20-18, 04:52 PM
  #15  
4TehNguyen
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
4TehNguyen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 26,033
Received 51 Likes on 46 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hoovey2411
One reason for the V6 switch from a V8 in the Ford GT was weight. Viper weighs 3,200 to 3,400bls, GT comes in at 3,054lbs.
thats the dry weight. MT tested it at 3354#. GT is actually a foot longer in length than the viper and has a lot more complexity: active aero, the track mode suspension, etc.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/gt/2017/2017-ford-gt-first-test-review/

Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 05-20-18 at 04:56 PM.
4TehNguyen is offline  


Quick Reply: 2019 Chevy Silverado 2.7L Turbo Prototype Drive



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:26 AM.