QOTD: Are You Four or Against?

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

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]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 154 comments
  • Frantz Frantz on May 23, 2018

    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.....

    • See 3 previous
    • Vulpine Vulpine on May 23, 2018

      "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?" --- And I haven't bought a Ford EcoBoost yet, despite buying or acquiring four different vehicles in that nine-year period and not a one of them has been an EcoBoost, despite two of them being Fords.

  • TW5 TW5 on May 23, 2018

    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.

  • Dwford Ford's management change their plans like they change their underwear. Where were all the prototypes of the larger EVs that were supposed to come out next year? Or for the next gen EV truck? Nowhere to be seen. Now those vaporware models are on the back burner to pursue cheaper models. Yeah, ok.
  • Wjtinfwb My comment about "missing the mark" was directed at, of the mentioned cars, none created huge demand or excitement once they were introduced. All three had some cool aspects; Thunderbird was pretty good exterior, let down by the Lincoln LS dash and the fairly weak 3.9L V8 at launch. The Prowler was super cool and unique, only the little nerf bumpers spoiled the exterior and of course the V6 was a huge letdown. SSR had the beans, but in my opinion was spoiled by the tonneau cover over the bed. Remove the cover, finish the bed with some teak or walnut and I think it could have been more appealing. All three were targeting a very small market (expensive 2-seaters without a prestige badge) which probably contributed. The PT Cruiser succeeded in this space by being both more practical and cheap. Of the three, I'd still like to have a Thunderbird in my garage in a classic color like the silver/green metallic offered in the later years.
  • D Screw Tesla. There are millions of affordable EVs already in use and widely available. Commonly seen in Peachtree City, GA, and The Villages, FL, they are cheap, convenient, and fun. We just need more municipalities to accept them. If they'll allow AVs on the road, why not golf cars?
  • ChristianWimmer Best-looking current BMW in my opinion.
  • Analoggrotto Looks like a cheap Hyundai.
Next