QOTD: Are You Four or Against?


It’s only natural to root for the underdog. Ford Motor Company consumes so much oxygen in the truck space, what with its best-selling full-size status and its unceasing pursuit of ever-greater horsepower, torque, and fuel economy figures, that it’s nice to see another automaker challenge the Blue Oval’s technological crown.
The unveiling of a new turbocharged four-cylinder for the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado last Friday surely dropped a few jaws in the American heartland. After all, memories of the base-model Chevy S-10 and GMC Sonoma’s dump truck-like acceleration lingers, despite two decades of progress. And yet, here’s a 2.7-liter four-pot under the hood of a brawny full-sizer, generating class-leading entry level horsepower and torque. And it’s standard on the bottom two “regular” trims.
Is there a four in your future?
I broke the news to my father, a man who still fondly remembers his mid-Seventies F-150 Supercab with bulletproof 300 cubic-inch six and three-on-the-tree. He guessed the displacement of General Motors’ new motor right off the bat. He also seemed skeptical.
As oil and gas prices rise, fuel economy understandably grows in importance. But it’s clear most North Americans are ready and willing to rationalize the continued ownership of big trucks and SUVs, and it’s doubtful even $4/gallon gas would sway many drivers from their high-riding steed. If necessary, they’ll make sacrifices elsewhere to keep it on the road. Or, just maybe, they’ll be tempted into a vehicle that’s just as big, but beats the competition by 1 or 2 mpg. Whatever helps them sleep at night.
While there’s no fuel economy estimates for this unit just yet, we’re assuming it beats Ford’s base 3.3-liter V6 in stinginess at the pumps. Running on two cylinders on rare occasions, this four is clearly a shot across Ford’s bow — and a way of greenwashing GM’s truck fleet. Have your cake and drive it too, would be the message.
Ford popularized downsized engines and forced induction in modern pickups, making GM’s advancement a natural extension of its rival’s work. Sure, its 310 hp and 348 lb-ft doesn’t beat the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6’s specs, but it isn’t supposed to. That’s an upgrade engine and this isn’t. Anyone looking for additional power (and the comfort of tradition) can toss a few more bills at GM for a 5.3-liter on LT and RST trims. Eventually, you can hand over a stack of bills for the 3.0-liter inline-six diesel.
No one’s being forced to drive a pickup with this engine. Fleet buyers and stripper aficionados can still have the old 4.3-liter V6 in Work Truck and other spartan, lower-volume trims. The question today is: would you drive one?
Do you like what you see on paper, but remain unconvinced? And what fuel economy figure would you need to see before signing for a turbo four Silverado?
[Image: General Motors]

More by Steph Willems
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Art_Vandelay It's not like everyone is topping their ICE vehicles off and coasting into the gas station having used every last drop of fuel either though. Most people start looking to fill up at around a 1/4 of a tank. If you constantly run the thing out of gas your fuel pump would probably be unhappy. If you running your EV to zero daily you probably bought the wrong vehicle
- ToolGuy Imagine how exciting the automotive landscape will be once other manufacturers catch up with Subaru's horizontally-opposed engine technology.
- FreedMike Oh, and this..."While London likes to praise its own congestion charging for reducing traffic and increasing annual revenues, tourism has declined..."The reason London's tourism numbers are down is that the city has resumed its' "tourist tax." And why did the tourist tax get reimposed? Brexit. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tourist-tax-cost-millions-myth-hmrc-survey-foreign-visitors-spending-uk-b1082327.html
- Dukeisduke Eh, still a Nissan. Nope.
- Kosmo "And, indeed, there remains a big screen atop the dash in the 2023 Nissan Z"Not the best look, but far safer while driving, when compared to lower in-dash units.Nissan blew it on so many levels with this, but I'd still enjoy one (though I'd certainly buy the Mustang instead).
Comments
Join the conversation
Remember 9 years ago when Ford was stupid and told us they were going to make the 3.5EB, and they were placing it above in the lineup from the V8? Remember how it was going to cause them to lose their title as sales leader? Remember how there is no way the 3.5EB would be a good towing motor and all the smart money was on buying a 5.0? Here we are almost a decade later and GM is still the "underdog" in this article. Sure I love the way a v8 sounds, but the technology has proven powerful and reliable. Would I rather have a large bore inline 6 in everything I own? Sure, but I don't buy enough new vehicles and the EPA wouldn't like that so they don't make them special for me. It'll sell just fine so long as they did their real world engineering right, and it'll do the job most people need it too. But being the class leader of the base engines isn't gonna win you the crown either.....
It's all relative: Do you want a small-block GM V8 or an GM Ecotec turbo four-banger? How many people do you think will flunk this test? 10,000 a year maybe. People who live at altitude might have a legitimate reason to buy a gasoline turbo. Do you want a 2.7L V6 Ecoboost or a 2.7L I4 Ecotec? This question seems to favor the inline-4, which is less complicated, less expensive to make, and should be more reliable in the long run. Overall, the 2.7L turbo I4 is just a compliance engine. By giving it 348lb/ft at 1,500rpm, GM is giving drivers the ability to blow their engines. The figure looks nice on paper and it feels nice to drive (usually), but it's not going to last if you keep your foot in it. If you drive it delicately in cool weather climates, you'll probably be okay. I doubt it's ability to handle the punishment dished out by the Southwest, but who knows. I'm 80%-90% pessimistic, the 10% optimism is reserved for GM diehards who live at altitude.