By on May 18, 2018

Image: GM

Chevrolet’s next-generation 2019 Silverado will be available with a turbocharged gasoline four-cylinder, making it the first full-size pickup truck to “go there.”

Displacing the same volume as Ford’s 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6, Chevrolet’s all-new motor ditches two cylinders, though it ditches even more under light loads, thanks to General Motors’ Active Fuel Management (cylinder deactivation) system.

It’s a good thing GM shaved a good deal of weight off the new truck.

While “four-cylinder” bring to mind the wimpy four-bangers of yesteryear, the automaker claims its newest motor is anything but. Regardless, it went to great pains to avoid any mention of “four-cylinder.” The all-aluminum, long-stroke four generates 310 horsepower — 25 hp more than the base 4.3-liter V6 (which is still available in stripped-down work versions of the 2019 Silverado).

Torque, all 348 lb-ft of it, comes online at 1,500 rpm. That’s 43 more lb-ft than the 4.3-liter. A charge-air cooler helps the Silverado’s low-end grunt by feeding colder, denser air to the combustion chambers.

GM claims a 0-60 time of 7 seconds, with the 2.7 turbo falling in line with the payload and towing specs of the entry-level Ford F-150 and Ram 1500, each of which carries six cylinders under the hood. Ford’s new 3.3-liter V6 generates 290 hp and 265 lb-ft, while the 3.6-liter Pentastar found in the Ram makes 305 hp and 269 lb-ft.

Image: GM

The automaker also claims greater fuel economy than either of its rivals, though it didn’t provide any MPG figures. A 2018 F-150 with the 3.3-liter engine and six-speed automatic returns as much as 25 mpg on the highway and 23 mpg combined. The only transmission available with GM’s 2.7 turbo is an eight-speed automatic.

With direct injection and turbocharging raising pressures, GM outfitted the engine with an offset, forged steel crankshaft and iron piston ring groove inserts for durability. Boosted efficiency comes by way of an electro-mechanical variable camshaft (allowing high- and low-lift valve profiles), a dual-volute turbocharger (two gas inlets, two nozzles), integrated exhaust manifold for faster warm-ups, and a parasitic drag-reducing electric water pump. Engine stop/start and cylinder deactivation completes the package.

Compared to a base 2018 model, GM says the 2019 2.7-liter Silverado comes in 380 pounds lighter.

Buyers of 2019 Silverados in Work Truck (WT), Custom, and Custom Trail Boss trims can still get their hands on the 4.3-liter engine, or choose to swap it for a 5.3-liter V8 with Active Fuel Management. The 2.7-liter appears as the standard offering in high-volume LT and RST trims. While those trims also get an available 5.3-liter, the automaker’s new 3.0-liter inline-six diesel shows up in early 2019 with a 10-speed automatic in tow.

The diesel is also available on high-zoot LTZ and High Country trims.

[Images: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

180 Comments on “Yes, You Can Get a Four-cylinder in the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado...”


  • avatar
    la834

    Didn’t Toyota “go there” first with a four-cylinder T100? Or was that too small to be considered a full-size truck?

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    “Displacing the same volume as Ford’s 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6, Chevrolet’s all-new motor ditches two cylinders, though it ditches even more under light loads, thanks to General Motors’ Active Fuel Management (cylinder deactivation) system.”

    So, to steal the V8-6-4 terminology, it’s a 4-2-0? How well does it run on zero cylinders?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “How well does it run on zero cylinders?”

      Isn’t that called coasting which mean you are broke down or if deliberate is illegal?

      Auto start/stop?

      Sorry, a bit pedantic ;)/sarc LOL

      I doubt GM will steal Ram’s advertising campaign : “That Thing Got a “4 banger”?”

    • 0 avatar
      scarey

      Who says it will be 4-2-0 ? It COULD be a 4-3-2 setup. Or just 4-2. Right ? Personally, I doubt that these will last very long, or sell very well. Just build a SMALL – not mid-size pickup !

    • 0 avatar
      Peter Gazis

      @dukeisduke

      The Chevy Volt can go 53 miles on O cylinders. While still accelerating from 0 to 60 in 7.5 sec.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    More proof that the light-duty pickup truck is losing its ability to be a working vehicle in favor of being a monstrous status symbol. This truck, with this engine, should be no less than 25% smaller and sold as a compact.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Vulpine – Those looking for a status symbol aren’t going to buy a truck with this engine in it.

      I’d say that this is “more proof” that we no longer have “car” manufacturers but now have “truck” manufacturers.

      A “4 banger” just expands the market for full-sized trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Won’t argue that, Lou. But that doesn’t mean I have to like the current size of trucks or that I will ever buy another full-sized truck. I’m still questioning what I WILL buy, assuming I ever trade my little Ranger. I just spent another $300 to change out the crank-driven cooling fan for an electric to better handle both hot and cold weather with that little dual-ignition 2.3 I-4.

        • 0 avatar
          dukeisduke

          How well will that work? I tried an electric fan (Hayden) on a car one time, and it caused the temperature to go up and down all the time. Up when the fan was off, down when the fan came on (195F fan thermostat). And of course it had to be wired into the a/c, so that the fan would run any time the a/c was on.

          After a couple of months, I took the electric fan off, and put the stock fan (plastic-blade flex fan, with no clutch) back on. And then had a custom three-row radiator built, to replace the factory two-row.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Won’t know how well it will work until I run it for a while. My problem is that when the block is at outside air temperature when I start, even at 100°F, the engine runs with every pony pulling. Granted, the AC sucks down a few ponies but it’s still reasonably lively by just shutting off the compressor when I need acceleration (I had a manual compressor switch installed last year.) Problem is, in that hot weather, if I drive more than about 10-15 miles and shut down… let’s say to go shopping… and come back out to return home, the engine is heat-soaked and engine output is significantly down, even with the AC completely shut off. The hope is that the fan will help cool the radiator, which will cause a natural circulation and help cool the block down while I’m out of the truck. After a half hour to an hour, it might make enough difference to improve performance.

            I considered cold air injection but the truck is already rigged to pull air from inside the front wheel well rather than behind the radiator, meaning it’s already pulling relatively cool air. About the only way to improve on that is to build a snorkel and go ‘forced air’ to some extent.

            The only OTHER way is to try to swap in a newer, turbo-charged engine. That starts getting expensive. Other than the three grand spent getting the hydraulic clutch rebuilt and replacing all the rubber when I picked it up, I’ve only spent about a thousand on her in four years, about $400 of which was cosmetic.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “A “4 banger” just expands the market for full-sized trucks.”

        Lou I have to disagree on that one, I hardly see a buyer on the sidelines saying yes I now want that gigantic truck I can’t park in any dense surburban or urban area because by Dog I can get myself the 2.0L of my dreams.

        I’d be far more impressed if say GM offered a true hybrid pickup, or if they had tried to standardize that expensive transmission they ran inn their “hybrid” for the GMT900s. This is just decontenting on steroids. Stagflation in action!

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      300hp, 348lb-ft of torque.

      The 5.4L in my SuperDuty is 300hp, 380lb-ft of torque.

      Please, tell me how this can’t be a working vehicle, especially with the turbocharged torque curve.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        How long do you think that little four will survive under that workload?

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          @Vulpine – Its a 1500 which by definition is light duty. If it’s designed well -a long time. Why wouldn’t it? I believe I saw that peak HP was 4200 rpm so it isn’t rev’d to death to get that performance. Trucks have lots of room for engine and transmission cooling components.

          It’s a 2.7 to get those figures too, a lot of newer engines are pulling similar figures out of a 2.0 so it probably is running at a more modest level of boost.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Perhaps, Mricky, but I wouldn’t be willing to trust that small of an engine to a 5000#+ everyday load, even with boost. Most of those smaller engines are never expected to tow any kind of load outside of the body in which it resides. I have trouble imagining any kind of reliability from a tiny engine expected to power up to 4x that weight.

            I had a 5.0 V8 meant for good torque (though admittedly not high horsepower) and that engine almost literally had its guts pulled out of it by regularly hauling not only a 4000# car but also a 5000# travel trailer around the Appalachian mountain range over the course of ten years. By the time I got my hands on it, it was cheaper to drop a 5.7 under the hood than try to fix the worn-out 5.0.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            I’m guessing it’s going to be rated at a GCWR of around 14-15k based on where they’re segmenting it. Most light duties give their tow rating as “for occasional towing” up to their limits then they cut that in half for towing every day.

            So- the standard is 10 years in the relatively modest inclines of appalachia with a 5000lb trailer hooked up on occasion? Ya, no problem. If it can’t do that, it’s because of some other flaw, not simply because it’s a 4cylinder turbo.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Yeah, but like I said, that was a V8 that died so quickly, simply because it wasn’t built for that kind of use. I really can’t imagine a four being able to do better, even if it is a much more modern engine. The transmission never needed work but that engine was pure shot.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            I think part of the point was that it was built for this. I was really skeptical of the Ecoboost too (I still am in a way- but that’s in a moment) and I thought they’d be crap.

            I believe my misgivings 5 years ago or whatever were proven wrong. They had some missteps but they got those fixed. The 2.7 ecoboost is now one of my favorite true light duty truck engines and shockingly- no one is buying it.

            In theory- a 4 of the same displacement built to similar standard should be as or more reliable (fewer moving parts).

            Here’s my ecoboost rant now- the 2.7 is the only one that lives up to both the eco and the boost side of the equation IMHO. The 3.5 has got serious power but I can’t find anyone who can drive the 3.5 gently enough to keep up with mpg ratings. It’s proven it can tow and it’s durable enough though.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            “Simply because [that V-8] isn’t built for that kind of use”

            But this was designed (many decades later) AS A TRUCK ENGINE. Do you not think they did durability testing? You act as though they swapped in some little-engine-that-barely-could from an Equinox or Cruze into a 3500 HD and called it good. Contrary to Lord DeadBrain’s opinions, GM is neither incompetent nor stupid, especially when it comes to trucks. This is not 1979 with some thrown-together hodgepodge of under-developed technology. Que someone who’ll zero in with an example of GM’s incompetence using DTRL bulb failures of GM trucks from 18 years ago.

            The only thing this is proof of is that no matter what they do to a full size truck (unless release it as the size of a Chevy LUV), it’s an excuse for you to rant and stomp your feet about these GIANT trucks that are like 8 inches bigger than 15 years ago but get far better mileage, pull/haul more and drive so, so much better. I’d hate to see this comment thread if it was about Ford doing this, God knows how unbiased you are about them. Maybe RAM could get away with it.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Contrary to Lord DeadBrain’s opinions, GM is neither incompetent nor stupid, especially when it comes to trucks.”
            — I would say they’re both. The Canyonado did everything wrong, inside and out.

            “This is not 1979 with some thrown-together hodgepodge of under-developed technology.
            — No, it’s 2019 (nearly) with a thrown-together hodgepodge of over-engineered technology that is making something that should be simple, grossly complex.

            “Que someone who’ll zero in with an example of GM’s incompetence using DTRL bulb failures of GM trucks from 18 years ago.”
            — Have no idea what you’re talking about. GM’s incompetencies made themselves obvious with their truck designs back in the 90s, making them bigger and more blocky while trying to stuff smaller engines into them to meet CAFE. Instead of trying to bypass CAFE, they should have been following CAFE and making them truly more efficient. By the time you got into the ’00s, most notably around ’04, they were making every mistake in the book, resulting in nearly every product being over-priced, over-sized and ‘cheap.’ It cost them three brands and a ultimate bankruptcy.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “The only thing this is proof of is that no matter what they do to a full size truck (unless release it as the size of a Chevy LUV), it’s an excuse for you to rant and stomp your feet about these GIANT trucks that are like 8 inches bigger than 15 years ago but get far better mileage,…”
            — Try over 25 years ago and still managing to pull off 20mpg while empty…

            “…pull/haul more and drive so, so much better.”
            — Pull/haul more, yes… because they’re so much bigger and heavier…

            “I’d hate to see this comment thread if it was about Ford doing this, God knows how unbiased you are about them. Maybe RAM could get away with it.
            — I agreed with all the anti-Ford commentary when the eco-boost engines came out. And the engines tended to prove that commentary. And yes, by ’04 they’d grown too big and are still growing. There is literally no reason for a half-ton truck to have the tow/haul ratings they do, no matter the brand. The so-called HD and SD (Super-Duty) models verge on Class IV capabilities, as do the 2500/3500 models, which already should be Class IV, though have managed, barely, to avoid cracking that class barrier, sometimes by overtly cheating during testing. (Bumpers, seats, other, “non-necessary components” removed to stay under Class IV weight.)

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “No, it’s 2019 (nearly) with a thrown-together hodgepodge of over-engineered technology that is making something that should be simple, grossly complex.”

            Preach it, Mr. Fox.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Back in 1965 the USAF had GM 5-ton Dumptrucks that used a single-carburetor inline 6 and a 4-speed manual, where the first gear was a granny.

          But loaded, or unloaded, top speed for that Dumptruck was governored to ~45mph.

          I spent about 90 days, without days off, hauling gravel, sand, and water to job sites while working with the Civil Engineers on base. For hauling water. we placed a giant locally-made metal tank in the bed.

          The key to all that power from such a small powertrain was the final drive or differential. The ratio must have been like 20-1, but I’m guessing here.

          • 0 avatar
            Lawyer Applegate

            That sounds like an M-39 truck with a Continental R6602 engine – 602 cu in of straight-6 fury making 224 hp and 420 lb/ft of torque through either a 6.44:1 or 10.26:1 final drive ratio.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        The Quadrifoglio makes 505hp and 443lb-ft @2500 RPM. Not sure if I’d want that engine in a Ram 2500 though.

        I’d be happier if this GM engine used a CGI block like the Ford.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      This engine would be perfect in a mid sizer. As is this little thing is MORE powerful then the 4.7l V8 in my ’02 Dakota! I can’t even get my head around that… it is CRAZY. My current V8 is 235 hp / 295 lbs and gets a painful 12 mph towing. I can manage about 17 highway / 14 city with no load. I think I saw 19 on the highway once.

      I don’t want a full size, I need a truck that fits in my garage and has a normal bed height. As is my Dakota is already about 4 inches taller then necessary I think.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        Every time I am in a parking garage, I am grateful I am not trying to wedge a ginormous pickup truck into a spot, or even fit it within access lane to allow for two way traffic.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Vulpine,
      The number of cylinders is not as significant as you are suggesting. The hp and torque figures add up. I would assume this engine should more than suffice in this vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Maybe, Big Al, but I’m not ready to trust a tiny, turbocharged engine to haul 5000# of truck and potentially another 7500# of trailer around for any length of time. Running light, as in unloaded, it may be fine but when you start loading it down, I expect that engine will run very, very hot and I’m already aware of what a heat-soaked engine will do. I’ve had both a four and a six demonstrate it for me. About the only fix for which I might be aware outside of a completely different engine would be ram-air (as compared to ‘cold air’) injection and the air box on my Ranger isn’t exactly rigged for that.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    “…and a parasitic drag-reducing electric water pump”. I guess that’s it, mounted low on the passenger side of the front? Looks like it’s made out of plastic. That ought to be interesting.

    In other news, the 2019 Silverado is still ugly.

  • avatar
    ajla

    My WAG:

    This is actually a plan to replace the 5.3L in the trucks & SUVs. ~23MPG with undefeatable stop/start will be CAFE 2025 compliant.

    This will also replace the 3.6L in the Canyon/Colorado to better compete with the Ranger.

    So the 4.3L soldiers on for years to come as a fleet engine, 5.3L gets replaced by this 2.7T, and the 6.2L survives for some time as the premium offering for $70k+ Escalade/Denali/RST things. Between 2020 and 2025 the 6.2L dies and is replaced by the Son of Northstar in all applications.

    Not sure what is going to happen with the old LS-based 6.0L in the HD trucks though.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Mixed feels on a complex 4 banger replacing a meat and potatoes salt of the earth V8. But that’s the world we are in I guess.

      I wish manufacturers would kind of split the difference with hot V SOHC V6s. OK, 2 more pistons and heads, but if they want, less valves than a 16V 4 banger, and less turbos than a TT V6. Only issue is managing that heat, which BMW seems to have problems with.

    • 0 avatar
      jack4x

      Would not be surprised within the next couple years to see this replace the V6 in the Camaro as well a la Mustang.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @ajla – rather prophetic. I do believe you will be proven correct. Ford has the 5.0 in its lineup to keep the V8 fans and the “loud pines annoy lives” crowd happy and GM will keep the 6.2 around for that reason too.

  • avatar
    ernest

    When the domestic manufacturers moved to smaller engines in passenger cars, their customers moved to pickups and SUV’s. Be interesting to see how… and if… this powerteam choice goes over.

    • 0 avatar
      scott25

      Most people won’t notice the difference. If you can get elderly Trump voters in Chinese and Korean Buicks, you can get anyone in a 4 cylinder Silverado

      • 0 avatar
        I_like_stuff

        Took less than 20 comments for the first Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer to show up.

        • 0 avatar
          scott25

          AKA a Canadian

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          I know that’s meant as an insult to people who don’t like the President, but it sounds like you are calling the President deranged when you use it. Given his colorful personality and social media presence, his supporters may want to come up with a less ironic term.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “I know that’s meant as an insult to people who don’t like the President, but it sounds like you are calling the President deranged when you use it. Given his colorful personality and social media presence, his supporters may want to come up with a less ironic term.”

            — Yeah. There are those who are absolutely certain that Trump is deranged.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            30-mile fetch,
            I thought he’s deranged? That seems to be the footage we get here in Australia on TV.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        There is the saying, “you can sell a young man’s car to an old man but you can’t sell an old man’s car to a young man.” (Hipsters being the exception)

        …………and then the Post-Trump Derangement Syndrome Syndrome kicks in! ;)

      • 0 avatar
        scarey

        @ scott25–More like Obama or Hillary/Sanders voters- you know, Anti-American, soft-on-communist China, virtue-signalling globalist Social Justice Warriors who worship Al Gore. Oh- wait !They ride Ubers, or iIf they ever get a job, they all buy a Prius, and borrow their neighbor’s truck when picking up appliances or moving.Never mind !

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      ernest, customers will then move up to the 3/4-ton and 1-ton pickup trucks, and others will move even higher like to an F450 or F550.

      I know a couple of people already have. One guy with a “Dollar Store” franchise in my area recently stepped up from a 3/4-ton F250 to an Extreme Duty F450.

      Same four-door Cab, just bigger engine.

      For discerning pickup truck buyers in search of the ideal 1/2-ton today the message is clear: buy a 1/2-ton Tundra with that magnificent all-aluminum, 32-valve, DOHC, 5.7L V8.

      And hold on to it; drive it until the wheels fall off.

      • 0 avatar
        Fordson

        Have you actually trademarked that phrase, “magnificent all-aluminum, 32-valve, DOHC, 5.7L V8”?

        You have used it like a hundred times.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          And I intend to continue to use it.

          BTW, I have/had three of them. Yes, they’re THAT good!

          But you have to actually live with one to gain the full appreciation of just how good an engine it is.

          There was a time when only Ferrari and exotics had such engines.

          And no other truck maker selling in the US offers anything like it.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Fordson,
          With your name I’d assume anything Ford, especially old Ford you like.

          I believe the 5.7 Hemi is the best of US V8s.

      • 0 avatar
        ernest

        Nah- the Tundra isn’t a real competitor in this segment. Neither is the Titan for that matter.

        Dodge Ram came within spitting distance of Silverado sales the past couple of years. It would seem GM’s giving them a path to slide into #2 spot. Two things really strike me about this market segment:

        1. Pickup buyers are amongst the most conservative on earth.
        2. If there is a realignment of buyers expectations, it’ll be Ford, not GM, that brings it forwards,

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          ernest, of all the pickup buyers residing in the Blue states, I doubt the majority of them are conservative. And that includes MY Blue state, NM.

          But I agree with your second premise. Ford is the ONLY American car/pickup truck maker left in America, and it will be Ford that will be the most innovative in the future.

          And rightly so.

          BTW, the reason that RAM “came within spitting distance of Silverado sales the past couple of years” is because RAM is the better product than the Silverado, and RAM’s 5.7L engine is better than GM’s 5.3L.

          • 0 avatar
            ernest

            highdesertcat- I was thinking “conservative” in the sense of resistant to new technology, not in political terms. Given that a new pickup is sold every 30 seconds, 24/7, in the US, I’m sure buyers cover a wide spectrum of demographics and politics.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            ernest, I stand corrected. I was misled by the long history of political biases recited by members of ttac’s B&B. Many of those same political biases often directly influence the choice made when buying a new vehicle.

            And I’m afraid that in the sense of “resistant to new technology” I am among the most “conservative” because I owned GM, Ford and RAM over decades past and suffered less-than-stellar ownership experiences with them.

            So it is no wonder then that I will stick with the old, tried and true, long-in-the-tooth tech of the 5.7L Tundra pickup truck, if and when I buy another one.

      • 0 avatar
        Lawyer Applegate

        The F450 and F250 diesels are the exact same motor…

  • avatar
    thegamper

    BLASHPEMY!!! A 4 cylinder full sized pickup!!! Sounds like the Bolsheviks have finally taken over at GM!!

    Just kidding. This engine sounds pretty incredible really. Should be good for all the people who use pickups for commuting exclusively and those comfortable enough with their sexuality to forgo a V8 and the accompanying masculine exhaust note. I would love to see what it could do in a midsized crossover or even….gasp….a sedan.

    Can we still type the S word in public forums and or say it out loud?

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I don’t anticipate seeing this on anything without a frame. Partly because NVH on a “long-stroke” 2.7L 4-cylinder will be tricky and partly because GM will want to market this as a “truck engine”.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Fantastic. The ability to get decent MPG in a rig that in the real world people want. I love it. What will be even better for GM is when the same motor makes its way into the Tahoe & Suburban which is where realistically the take rate for the 4 mil should be the highest. Typically these buyers are not towing or carrying heavy loads that would put a strain on a turbo’d four like the half ton pick up buyer would.

    Love or hate the CC pick up, which a fair amount on this site seem to dislike they are very practical all around **household** vehicle in real day to day use.

    **household defined as the mid America working stiff with a wife and a couple of school aged kids and is a homeowner running around all weekend dropping kids off at friends houses with their bikes, Home Depot runs and soccer/football/lacrosse/ whatever games complete with lawn chairs and gear.
    I totally get that if you live in an urban environment and are single a CC pick up is not your deal. Just be patient, you may come around.

    • 0 avatar
      thegamper

      Unfortunately, this is the attitude that sells so many pickup trucks. “I really need a pickup to haul that 2×4 or transport a bicycle from my garage to outside the garage or because my arse is just too darn big for small vehicles like full sized sedans or because it is just too darn difficult to stand up from a fully seated position closer ground in a sedan”. Practical sure does have an evolving definition. Somehow, generations of motorists have managed to survive, accomplish all manner of transporting, enter, exit, stand and sit from much more “practical” vehicles. Not sure when having farm grade transportation became necessary to get by, but seems its here to stay. The automakers and UAW thank you for switching your buying preferences from vehicles with a 5% profit margin to ones with a 25% profit margin. The power of advertising and convincing people to buy things they didn’t know they needed is truly astounding.

      • 0 avatar
        Frylock350

        @thegamper,

        A full-size sedan? Where? Last time GM made one of those was 1996. Modern cars are too damn narrow to be fullsize.

        Perhaps people don’t like driving a vehicle with a super high beltline, super low roofline, and generic wedge of cheese styling? Perhaps they don’t like FWD and don’t want to buy a luxury sedan? Perhaps they like the ride quality of BOF? Perhaps they like to see the hood while driving? Perhaps they want a tire with some sidewall?

        • 0 avatar
          thegamper

          “Pickup prices range from around $25,000 to as much as $100,000. Industry analysts estimate gross margins for some top-of-the-line trucks can exceed $50,000.”

          https://www.reuters.com/article/gm-pickuptrucks/gm-rivals-chase-luxury-pickups-fat-margins-as-u-s-market-dips-idUSL2N1QH2F2

          Sounds like we got a ringer from an OEM or related industry. This (above) is why pickup trucks are foisted upon us. Absolutely brilliant marketing! You NEED it, for that stump you will never pull out of the ground, for that boat you could pull with a minivan, for that 2×4 from Home Depot…so you can be a man, save the day, eat freedom fries, own guns, etc. Marketing is working absolute wonders. Whatever they pay their ad agencies, its not enough. Somehow they were able to convince the American Public that this is a must have to be American and that Pickups equate to everything good.

          Like them all you want. The automakers are laughing all the way to the bank as more and more Americans pay $20k to $50k more than they need to for basic transportation for what is essentially 500 dollars worth of mass comprised of steel, plastic and rubber.

          Sorry, I just cant get behind trucks as a viable mode of transportaion for those who dont need the capability. There are far too many negative effects that pickups have on our roadways, driving habits, drvinging manners, parking spaces, fuel supply, etc, etc. Not to mention they are taking the consumer for a ride….figuratively

          • 0 avatar
            brawnychicken333

            @thegamper: You come off as incredibly judgmental and whiny. No one cares what you think of their truck, car, clothing, house, boat, kids, etc.

            Let others do as they wish, and you do as you wish.

          • 0 avatar
            DC Bruce

            After you’ve finished exercising your prejudices and virtue-signaling, you might take a look at who owns these things, and why. The first group are folks who actually use their trucks for work. You can identify them by the built-in tool boxes that occupy the front portion of the bed. The second group are those who use trucks to tow a travel trailer and/or a boat. The third group may be folks who occasionally go light off roading and are not impressed with CUVs. I really don’t see many pickups in the suburbs (other than driven by tradesmen). They seem to be confined to semi-rural and small town areas where their size is not inconvenient.

            Say what you will about their “obscene” profitability, today’s pickup is a truly impressive vehicle — as a number of my urban friends have found when they ride with me. They are shocked at how quiet it is inside, and how comfortable it is. These are people who own and drive Volvos.

          • 0 avatar
            Lawyer Applegate

            I pulled a bunch of old fence-posts out of the ground with my wife’s 2005 CR-V because my F-350 wouldn’t fit in that part of the yard.

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          “Generic cheese wedge” rather than a generic cheese brick??

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        I find the indignation towards recreational truck buyers amazing.

        How many owners of a sports car actually drive it to their limits?

        There isn’t a vehicle out there as versatile as a crewcab 4×4 pickup.

        Pickups have evolved well beyond the point of “farm grade transportation” and besides, what works well for a farmer, works well for the rest of the country!

        Comments like this reek of self proclaimed urban superiority over rural folk!

        • 0 avatar
          I_like_stuff

          Don’t forget the Subaru drivers. You know the ones….they live in a loft downtown, and see the commercials showing grandpa and son surfing and think, hey I may one day surf with my grandpa, so I must have this car!! Never mind the fact that I live 1000 miles from an ocean and am scared of sharks. But one day I might possibly kinda need an AWD CUV to get to a remote surfing area, so Subaru it is!!!

          And then as they’re stuck in bumper to bumper traffic, commuting to their office park job – 1000 miles from an ocean – they see a pickup truck and sneer at the driver for buying something he doesn’t need.

          • 0 avatar
            ttacgreg

            Marketing.
            A short search will get you to writes up about the revolution in marketing that were the “come to Marlboro country ads. It is rather eye opening.

          • 0 avatar
            sjd

            GM is pretty smart. They know that a lot truck owners don’t really need them and bail at the first sign of high gas prices. It’s happened before.

            http://www.autonews.com/article/20091130/RETAIL03/311309959/need-a-pickup-truck?-nah-not-really

          • 0 avatar
            scarey

            @ I_like_stuff- Don’t dis the Subaru owners, friend. At least they don’t ask to borrow your truck when they buy something from IKEA, and they don’t ask anyone to dig them out of a snowdrift in the winter.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “I find the indignation towards recreational truck buyers amazing.”
          — Truck buyers didn’t used to be ‘recreational.’

          “How many owners of a sports car actually drive it to their limits?”
          — Absolute limits? Very few. But most DO drive them more… enthusiastically… than a more ordinary one.

          “There isn’t a vehicle out there as versatile as a crewcab 4×4 pickup.”
          — I fully disagree, especially if you limit that to today’s mid- and full-sized trucks.

          “Pickups have evolved well beyond the point of “farm grade transportation” and besides, what works well for a farmer, works for the rest of the country!”
          — True… But works well for the farmer tends to be overkill for the rest of the country. Remember, a large fraction–potentially 50% or more–never operate to their capacity already so are really unnecessary for the average driver.

          “Comments like this reek of self proclaimed urban superiority over rural folk!”
          — Comments like this reek of self-proclaimed rural superiority over suburban and urban folk. It is those rural types who put our current Administration into office… here in the US.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Truck buyer’s have been recreational since the 60’s and the slide in camper fad that took the country by storm and then the recreational side got an even bigger boost with the minitruck fad of the 70’s and early 80’s. We are closing in on 50 year of the recreational truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            If you say so, Scout. I at least USED my “minitruck” to carry things–and not campers or tents.

          • 0 avatar
            I_like_stuff

            A second Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer spotted.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @ILS: Ummm… Nope. A compact version of this truck–at least 25% smaller– would be FAR more versatile because it can go places the bigger one can’t. There is almost no place the bigger one can go that the smaller one couldn’t.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            ““There isn’t a vehicle out there as versatile as a crewcab 4×4 pickup.”
            — I fully disagree, especially if you limit that to today’s mid- and full-sized trucks.”

            To paraphrase Grand Moff Tarkin:
            “You’d prefer another vehicle, a more versatile vehicle? Then name the model.”

            Because I have no idea what you think is more *versatile* than a crewcab 4×4 pickup.

            (More *efficient* for many purposes? Sure, a minivan.

            But that’s a different word than *versatile*.)

          • 0 avatar
            I_like_stuff

            “potentially 50% or more–never operate to their capacity already so are really unnecessary for the average driver.”

            Potentially 50% or more (and actually more like 99.5% or more) never go 175 MPH with their Porsches or Corvettes and so all that power is unnecessary. Potentially, 95% or more minivan buyers do NOT have 6 kids and hence never use the 8-seating capacity and so all those seats are unnecessary. And I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that potentially 95% of Subaru drivers will never do any of the things people in Subaru commercials do and so all those Subaru drivers really should be in a Prius as the AWD and cargo capacity of the Outback is unnecessary.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Potentially 50% or more (and actually more like 99.5% or more) never go 175 MPH with their Porsches or Corvettes.”
            — I wouldn’t bet on that.

            “Potentially, 95% or more minivan buyers do NOT have 6 kids and hence never use the 8-seating capacity.”
            — Maybe not, but I’ll bet they still use that hauling capacity by volume.

            “And I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that potentially 95% of Subaru drivers will never do any of the things people in Subaru commercials do.”
            — Or they do. Those Subaru commercials never show the cars being used to any extreme.

            Those pickups? There was a chart published a couple years ago that demonstrated that only about 25% of pickups ever carried or towed a load that came close to capacity on any kind of regular basis. Another 25% were bought for the specific purpose of towing a boat or camping trailer. The rest never carried any load at all.

          • 0 avatar
            I_like_stuff

            So because not everyone uses 100% of what’s available on a truck, it shouldn’t be available to anyone. That makes sense I guess. So unless you tow 10K lbs every day no truck for you. And conversely unless you drive 175 every day, no Porsche for you either. Sounds fair.

            As far as ‘barus go…I take my truck to places that are in Subaru commercials. And you know who else is there? Other truck owners and Jeeps. Subarus are found in Starbucks and Whole Foods parking lots, not in remote off road areas.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “So because not everyone uses 100% of what’s available on a truck, it shouldn’t be available to anyone.”
            — I didn’t say that. I said that they didn’t need a giant Road Whale of a truck. A compact with that engine makes much, MUCH more sense.

            “As far as ‘barus go…I take my truck to places that are in Subaru commercials. And you know who else is there? Other truck owners. Subarus are found in Starbucks and Whole Foods parking lots, not in remote off road areas.”
            — And I’ve taken my little Jeep Renegade there, and my little one-wheel-drive Ford Ranger there…
            What’s your point?

          • 0 avatar
            civicjohn

            Vulpine,

            Nice usage of subtle TDS re: “rural types putting the current administration into office”.

            I didn’t know there were so many “rural types” that could put anyone into office, but kudos for the clarification. Care to share where you sourced that 50% of truck owners never operate them to their capacity?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Already done, though I admit I can no longer find that chart because I don’t remember what website it was on.

          • 0 avatar
            sjd

            Most people don’t need trucks and gas prices have proven that in the past. I posted this above but meant to post it here.

            http://www.autonews.com/article/20091130/RETAIL03/311309959/need-a-pickup-truck?-nah-not-really

    • 0 avatar
      I_like_stuff

      You do realize people tow things with their trucks right? And haul things as well? It’s always funny to read how every non-truck owner proclaims to know what every truck owner does with his/her truck. As strange as it may sound to you, not everyone lives exactly the same way you do.

      I have truck and bought it with a V8 because I tow heavy things. My wife’s car is a 4 cylinder turbo. She doesn’t tow anything, hence no need for a V8 truck. Different vehicles, for different needs. Weird how that works huh?

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “I have truck and bought it with a V8 because I tow heavy things. My wife’s car is a 4 cylinder turbo. She doesn’t tow anything, hence no need for a V8 truck. Different vehicles, for different needs. Weird how that works huh?”

        — So why are you so opposed to my opposition to small engines in big trucks. Obviously that doesn’t make sense based on your own ownership.

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          It doesn’t really feel like you have an opposition to small engines in big trucks- it feels more like you have an objection to big trucks period unless you can prove that you tow and haul at all times.

          You prefer small trucks and it’s under your skin that america doesn’t think like you (based on what they actually buy at least).

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            They buy the trucks they buy because smaller isn’t available. Why do you think compact and smaller SUV/CUVs are so popular. They certainly outnumber the larger versions, after all.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            “They buy the trucks they buy because smaller isn’t available. Why do you think compact and smaller SUV/CUVs are so popular. They certainly outnumber the larger versions, after all.”

            I completely disagree with this premise- people bought the smaller trucks in lower and lower percentages compared to the larger trucks. People didn’t buy the smaller trucks because they preferred larger trucks. They even wanted they’re smaller trucks to be larger (hence midsize). And midsize don’t sell nearly as well as large. And larger larges sell better than smaller larges (crew vs xtra, xtra vs regular).

            Compact SUVs are popular because they have replace compact cars… It’s not because people said they’d like something more compact than their Canyonero so they bought a Renegade. Instead it’s more that they wanted a CRV than a Corolla. These are by and large car buyers buying a larger car.

            And of course the less expensive (smaller) CUVs outnumber the more expensive (larger) CUVs…or was your response just tongue-in-cheek?

            Assuming you meant what you said- this is all basically just you man. At least right now.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Smaller trucks got to the point where they wouldn’t even see updates for 8 to 10 years at a time, AFTER all the so-called minitrucks were driven out of the market.

            Oh, and I bought a Renegade rather than a Canyonero.
            I’m still considering the Santa Cruz, but the delays are driving me NUTZ!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Roadwhale – You won’t “find” the chart ’cause it was just more of BAFO’s fake info tsunami that got in your head.

            It would be impossible to conclusively determine who uses pickups for what. Keep in mind around 40% of 1/2 tons are Fleet Sales.

            It doesn’t matter to me anyhow since we know most pickups, even work trucks, wear many hats, and even those pickups that are used the hardest for heavy work, are going to pass by you empty and unloaded most of the time.

            And it’s a good rule of thumb to stay well below their GVWR/GCWR for your max loads.

            But for us “casual” pickup users, it’s partly the fault of 1/2 tons for giving us such great value, almost infinite ways to order/configure them, and unbeatable seating options.

            My extra cab 1/2 ton has the legroom of a crew cab midsize, but with added elbow and knee room, so the ability to move around, spread out, and shift from one cheek to the other, helps tremendously with 4 occupants including driver, eating on the go, misc laptops, packs, pillows and other gear handy, and yes sleeping sometimes, on 1,000+ mile roadtrips, nonstop.

            Plus the bonus feature, 1/2 ton pickups (and up to class 4 HDs) are about impossible to get in some parts of the world, and or treasured possessions when they can.

            Did I mention the available V8?

            In many ways, we have the duty/responsibility to enjoy our 1/2, tons, for them. They’d do it for us! Just sit back and watch…

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “It would be impossible to conclusively determine who uses pickups for what. Keep in mind around 40% of 1/2 tons are Fleet Sales.”
            — And almost none of those are used for heavy loads. They’re typically either renters, consumer services (plumbing, pest control, etc.) and construction utility.

            “It doesn’t matter to me anyhow since we know most pickups, even work trucks, wear many hats, and even those pickups that are used the hardest for heavy work, are going to pass by you empty and unloaded most of the time.”
            — But they’re going to show the wear of their work within their first year.

            “And it’s a good rule of thumb to stay well below their GVWR/GCWR for your max loads.”
            — The first real truth you’ve offered in a long time.

            “But for us “casual” pickup users, it’s partly the fault of 1/2 tons for giving us such great value, almost infinite ways to order/configure them, and unbeatable seating options.”
            — Yeah. Big, Clumsy and Cheap.

            “My extra cab 1/2 ton has the legroom of a crew cab midsize, but with added elbow and knee room, so the ability to move around, spread out, and shift from one cheek to the other, helps tremendously with 4 occupants including driver, eating on the go, misc laptops, packs, pillows and other gear handy, and yes sleeping sometimes, on 1,000+ mile roadtrips, nonstop.”
            — But it’s the rare “extra cab” that carries more than two people and a clean floor is far more usable than a semi-permanent plastic base filled with holes designed to support the seats first and offer “storage” fourth. A more compact model than even a mid-sizer is far more convenient.

            “Plus the bonus feature, 1/2 ton pickups are about impossible to get in some parts of the world, and or treasured possessions when they can.”
            — Bonus feature: A ¼-ton pickup IS impossible to get in some parts of the world–like right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A.

            “Did I mention the available V8?”
            — No, and I wish you hadn’t. I haven’t owned a V8 since that 1990 XLT Lariat F-150. I don’t miss it, either.

            “In many ways, we have the duty/responsibility to enjoy our 1/2 tons, for them. They’d do it for us! Just sit back and watch…”
            — If you enjoy it… then go for it. I want what I want and I happen to know that there are a lot of people who want smaller. Since no smaller trucks are available, they’re making 20+ year-old versions last as long as they can.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “Big”? Small enough for the 2 million buyers a year.

            “Clumsy”? No more than any pickup whatsoever this side of VW Rabbit based.

            “Cheap”? As in chintzy? What were you expecting? Maybach pinache?

            Fullsize pickups aren’t for everyone, but you make zero sense since you’re barely even considering a “midsize” pickup. It’s tough to comprehend why you snivel so much about fullsize pickup *specs*.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Big”? Small enough for the 2 million buyers a year.
            — 2 million buyers who have almost no choice in size any more…

            “Clumsy”? No more than any pickup whatsoever this side of VW Rabbit based.
            — Tell that to my 21-year-old Ranger that can turn inside of almost every modern pickup in the world EXCEPT the Strada, Tornado and Montana…

            “Cheap”? As in chintzy? What were you expecting? Maybach pinache?
            — Cheap as in up to $10k off the sticker
            — Cheap as in effectively destroyed in the first collision
            — Cheap as in taking major body damage when hit by a shopping cart
            — Cheap as in over-engineered, overpriced JUNK.
            Yes, they do serve their purpose for as long as they last but to be quite blunt the new trucks just don’t seem to last as long as the older ones. I see pre-2005 trucks all over the roads around here but the new ones seem to vanish after only a couple years.

            Fullsize pickups aren’t for everyone, but you make zero sense since you’re barely even considering a “midsize” pickup, so it’s tough to comprehend why you’re sniveling about fullsize pickup *specs*.
            — Barely considering it because it’s too big for what I want and need. But if I have no choice on the size, i’ll end up taking whatever best fits my needs and so far NONE of the current mid-sizers can even do THAT much! — Without modification, that is. The Chevy comes closest but even that one needs something other than that big, plastic, plinth as a seat support. The cab floor in back is completely useless with that thing installed.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Really?! You’re sniveling about how “Cheap” they are after darn $10K in rebates?? Feel free to pay full price, Cowboy..

            Rebates are up to 25% in some cases, just to further infuriate.

            Or “Cheap” as in “over-engineered, overpriced JUNK”. You just said they were underpriced.. Or are you talking Mercedes/BMW now??

            You’re completely off your rocker if you think they “take major damage from shopping carts” Not even if you’re talking Tundras, known to scratch and dent the easiest.

            “…effectively destroyed in the first collision..”

            First, don’t be crashing, but if they buckle, that’s called crumple zones, and that’s what insurances is for. Just thank god you walked away.

            If you’re not seeing many newer fullsize pickups, get your vision checked. And that’s just your trailer park anyway.

            After 10 years they’re eligible for Mexico export, btw.

            “…I have no choice in size…”

            You can get smaller that fullsize, they’re called “midsize”. That’s where you’re totally off the rails. That’s like me going on semi truck forums and complaining 18 wheelers are too big for me…

            Yeah stupid is right.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Really?! You’re sniveling about how “Cheap” they are after darn $10K in rebates?? Feel free to pay full price, Cowboy.. Rebates are up to 25% in some cases, just to further infuriate.”

            — You just hit the nail on the head, little boy. If the trucks weren’t cheap, how can the truck companies be making record profits when they’re offering up to 25% off the hood on these things? They’re sure not making that kind of profit on their cars!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Your perception of “Cheap” is based on how low they sell for and profits they clear despite this?

            The Tundra is just as “Cheap” of a product physically (probably more so), never mind how outdated/ancient, but if it could match the volume of Silverado or Ram pickups, the Tundra could be discounted the same with similar profits after the dust settles.

            That’s if you were into things such as facts.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “That’s if you were into things such as facts.”

            — You mean outside of pure imagination, like yours?
            The Tundra is a full-sized truck too; so my opinion of it is the same as all the others; simply bigger than it needs to be and grossly overpriced. I don’t care what YOU like; go get that class 8 tractor pickup if you want. I’ll laugh all the way to the bank. I laugh at all the show-offs as they blow their too-low wages and salaries out their tailpipes trying to make like they’re really something. The people who really use their trucks aren’t such blow-hards as I’ve read here and PUTC.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Vulpine,
            From Wikipedia;
            “less than 15% of owners reported use in work as the pickup truck’s primary purpose.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickup_truck

            I have read 25% of pickups are work trucks and the rest are daily drivers/pose wagons/because I can vehicles.

            I’m finding it really hard to believe 40% of pickups are fleet…..Just sayin’.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            15% of the population of users is a statistically significant figure. You’re talking about millions of owners which means at a minimum (assuming just one million) that would be 150,000 users. That would offer enough data to represent the whole of the pickup truck buying population.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Wikipedia got it wrong as normal. But it’s too easy to confuse “Light Duty Trucks” (LDT) with “pickups”.

            I’m familiar with the stat, “76% of light duty trucks are primarily used for personal transportation. That’s easily misinterpreted by many as “76% of pickups are primarily used for personal transportation”.

            Thing is LDTs include SUVs, vans, CUV and minivans, as well as pickups.
            Here’s a link to that study:

            ce.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/LDTpaper_to_Transp.pdf

            So now it’s up to 85% of “pickups” alone? Something’s way off.

            The addition of new CUV models as “Trucks” in the LDT segment would explain the current increase by 10%.

            Here’s a similar stat: “…Today most light trucks are used as basic transportation…found that only 15 percent of all sport-utility vehicles are ever used for towing…”

            skeptically.org/oil/id15.html

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Here’s a similar stat: “…Today most light trucks are used as basic transportation…found that only 15 percent of all sport-utility vehicles are ever used for towing…””

            — Your data source alone invalidates your argument, DM… yet again.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – F-150 sales are 35% Fleet usually, while F-Series are 65% Fleet combined. Of course you have provide documentation you’re a business with 10 or more operating vehicles, or motorized equipment, skip loaders, bobcats, etc. Or buy 10 or more vehicles at a time.

            borgmanfordmazda.com/ford-work-solutions.htm

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      87 Morgan,
      I believe you are correct. The numbers add up for this engine.

      Believe it or not the new Ford 2 litre diesel (220hp/370ftlb) in the Ranger Raptor will move a F-150 successfully and even tow 8 000lbs.

      With the mindset by some who comment on TTAC they wouldn’t believe it.

  • avatar
    Fred

    I bought my 99 V8 Silverado because it was only a couple thousand more than a Frontier V6 which I had to get to get the nicer interior which I wanted. Rated about 1mpg less. Now you offer me this? I gave up on trucks a few years ago and this won’t do anything to get me back.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Fred – In 2010 I looked at all the crewcab pickups out there. My final choices were the Tacoma double cab with 6 ft box or the F150 supercrew with 6.5 box.

      The F150 was around 5k cheaper after factory discounts. It can seat 6 and still have room for 2 dogs on the floor. It can tow or haul more and mpg was only 2-3 mpg better.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Fred,
      Sounds to me there isn’t enough competition in the pickup market if a fullsize is only a couple grand more than a midsize.

  • avatar
    MR2turbo4evr

    Cylinder deactivation killed my buddy’s 2009 Silverado 5.3L V8. Engine was completely worn out at 190,000km (~116,500mi). He bought a new long-block from the local GM dealer. I helped him and his friend to swap the motor. If I didn’t know it then (I did), I know it now: I will never, ever, ever consider buying a GM vehicle, ever. Every component, switch, pipe, coupler, etc. in the engine compartment is made from the cheapest plastic imaginable, never mind the interior. It seemed like they went with the lowest bidder on virtually every single component (probably did). The box was already starting to rust over the rear wheel wells. No thank you.

    • 0 avatar
      gtem

      Sounds about right. Conversely I love wrenching on my buddy’s ’98 stepside K1500 extended cab (305, auto, floor shift t-case). Rust is starting to creep in on the cab, but it’s a sturdy old beast and with 209k miles on the clock is finally showing signs of slipping in 4th gear. That and an alternator and a weeping water pump are the only repairs I’m aware of it needing. Perfect old rig to cruise around the heartland in style.

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      Yep, that was the era when GM was driving its suppliers into bankruptcy.

    • 0 avatar
      tomLU86

      Everyone puts cheap parts where they think they can’t be seen.

      • 0 avatar

        LOL.

        At 30k miles per year, no truer words were ever spoken. Alternators-window regulators-various HVAC parts-under rated sway bar bushings and end links.

        Across most all brands….furrin and domestic.

        Why I won’t buy an Audi…all the ‘beneath’ parts are the same as my kid’s Ace of Base Jetta.

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      The 07-09′ 5.3 had oil blow by issues. This has been resolved.

      Unfortunately you have to be a gear head to own one (07-09 5.3). Once the issue was known, a $300 tuner and you turn the DOD off and voila your 5.3 will go 250k.

      115k and I don’t use a drop of oil. DOD was turned off a long time ago.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        It is still necessary to turn off DOD for durability, no matter who the automaker is. Just drop by a Honda dealer’s shop to see what I mean. If you want a glimpse of the future, go look at a Tahoe Hybrid. You’ll find them in the junkyard, many looking like they just rolled off the showroom floor.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    The next big thing!

    A one-cylinder, 2-liter, turbocharged, direct injection engine with start/stop technology, an electric water pump, 12V air conditioner and 15-speed transmission. Good for 3-second 0-60 times and lotsa MPGs!

  • avatar
    Hydromatic

    I wonder how many people are gonna complain about the “high-strung squirrel motor” and wax bitter about how it actually guzzles more fuel than a torquey, unstressed V8 when you put your foot into it and keep the turbo spooled up (which will be all the time if you’re laden with a decent load).

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      LOL!

    • 0 avatar
      thegamper

      This is GM recognizing that the vast majority of buyers will never be laden with anything…ever. For those people, they get the giant land crushing commuter vehicle they want, a slight discount on the sticker and at the pump. GM sells more trucks to more people at huge profit margin. They have a Truck that can game the EPA test cycle for a nice combined fuel economy figure. Everyone is happy. No different than driving a boosted V6 of same displacement from Ford in my opinion. The die hards and people who need for towing will still have their V8. Good move by GM I think. As bold as Ford going aluminum. Times are a changin.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      Three passengers and a cheese sandwich in the bed, foot on the floor north of Denver, barely able to sustain 45mph, no doubt!

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        Then west of Denver will be real problem!

        • 0 avatar
          bumpy ii

          The turbo 4 will handle elevation better than a normally-aspirated 8.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Someone needs to do the Pike’s Peak test in this 2019 Silverado Turbo 4.

            I nominate the Baruth Brothers.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            While it may be true that you’re going to get somewhat better performance at altitude, the fact remains that you’re still going to have a tiny engine pulling something which would only acquit itself well with a V8 back in the day!

            I thought that a TT V6 was going to be somewhat of a compromise, but dropping two more cylinders to move the same weight isn’t going to do any favors for durability! You aren’t going to run up 300,000+ miles on one of these! (Although, with rust seemingly a problem earlier in the life of one of these versus cars, the body may be toast by the time this powertrain blows its top.)

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Hydromatic,
      It might not be high strung. I mean why is it high strung?

      The engine from the outset would be engineered for the power and torque. So, it shouldn’t be any less reliable than a V6 or V8.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    I’m sure this motor will do just fine on both power and durability.
    Manufacturers have had good luck with slow-turning long-stroke fours in general. But it’s hard for me to imagine signing up for a four-cylinder sound when the 5.3 is such a small upcharge.

    I wonder how the fuel economy comparison would be between this and a mild-hybridized 5.3 or 4.3. Of course this is way cheaper to build than any mild hybrid.

  • avatar
    I_like_stuff

    As I often tell my kids….just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you HAVE TO do that something.

  • avatar
    Carfan94

    When I read the title of this thread I screamed NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! Seriously this trend of downsizing to wimpy and poor sounding turbocharged 4 cylinder engines is getting out of control. This part really made me throw up, “Engine stop/start and cylinder deactivation completes the package.” Completes the package alright! How low can it go down to 1 cylinder?!

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      With a mild-hybrid setup, maybe!!

      But while walking next to traffic and hearing the starter crank on a Malibu as its driver moves their foot to throttle from brake, one cannot help but think that the outcome will likely be negative!

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Three words: P. O. S.

  • avatar
    dwford

    Since the base 4.3 is still available, wouldn’t a better comparison be to Ford’s 2.7 Ecoboost?

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      But the 4.3 is only available in the W/T and Custom trim levels. This is the base engine on the volume model the LT and the RST that they hope starts producing significant volume.

  • avatar
    RSF

    Ford advertising should have a field day with this, LOL. I currently drive a 2016 3.5L ecoboost F150. It has very good power and feel, but there’s still something missing that only comes with the V8 engines. No way would I go to a 4 cylinder in my full size truck.

  • avatar
    Feds

    So, based on the manufacturer provided specs, I’m just going to put out there that this truck will be quicker 0-60 than both the 454SS and the o.g. Lightning.

    You kids these days don’t know nothing about trucks with no power.

  • avatar
    gearhead77

    Obviously we won’t know the durability of our new turbocharged world for some time. This four produces the same horsepower rating as V8’s from not even a decade ago! How TF is that “wimpy”?

    For the naysayers, have you driven anything recent tuned for low end power with a turbo? My 180hp/190 ft lb torque Golf 1.8 feels much stronger, especially in the city than our 296 hp V6 Sienna because the VW torque peak is around 2000 rpm, versus 4000 for the Toyota. If you’ll recall, Toyota sold Sienna for a few years with the 150hp 2.7 four. That had to be miserable, but the same thing now with a turbo tuned for low end power might be interesting. And get better mileage than the V6 with nearly the same power.

    My 16 Cruze felt stronger around town than its 135hp/135 torque rating suggested. It was kind of breathless above 80 on the highway, but most people won’t notice that.

    I live with a lot of hills, which makes the off the line torque appreciated. What is an unknown is the effect on mileage( economy and longevity) from the turbo being used more.

    C&D did a nice write-up in their latest issue on our turbo world and summed it up beautifully: You mileage may vary. But since most folks tend to drive with their phone in one hand and treat the pedals as on/off switches, I don’t know. I do know that power is nice, no matter its form.

    • 0 avatar
      ktm

      The basics of making power have not changed. Ford, GM, Honda, et. al. have not changed the world of thermodynamics.

      In a nutshell, Power = Air + Fuel (yes, let’s not get pedantic and start talking about AFRs or timing).

      To get more power, you need more air to which you add more fuel. To get this much power of of a 2.7L you need to be basically cramming the equivalent of yester-years (2000s) 5.3/5.7L engines amount worth of air into the cylinders. They do this by turbo-charging.

      This thing has got to be running some serious boost along with a very efficient intake system and air-charge cooling system.

      I built and tuned my own nasty turbo motor before going LS1 in my project car. It was a 2.8L making around 400 hp and lb-ft of torque to the wheels. Given the less than efficient head, intake manifold, and exhaust manifold design, I was running north of 22 psi of boost. Granted, that is nothing compared to diesels, but in detonation sensitive gasoline engines that produce A LOT of heat (1400+ in the exhaust manifold) that was a lot of boost.

      I say all of this as I would be worried about long-term durability. This engine may operate optimally for 3 to 5 years (YMMV) before we start seeing some issues.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        22 pounds of boost in an engine designed from the ground up to handle that much is very different from 22 pounds of boost in an engine designed for natural aspiration. There are plenty of factory turbo engines out there (including, in the pickup class, Ford’s 3.5) with excellent longevity.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Thanks, KTM!

        I have another intelligent person here to converse with.

        Someone who not only understands such matters, but speaks from personal experiences and observations….

  • avatar
    James2

    I’m trying to imagine the next “Real People. No Actors.” commercial touting a four-cylinder-powered Silverado.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      We have devolved into a parody of ourselves, now with 4-cyl 1/2-ton pickup trucks on the marketing horizon.

      Based on the anticipated average longevity of 1/2-ton pickup trucks across the board over the past 60 years, and with MTBF factored in, 2019 and 2020 would be the ideal time to buy a 1/2-ton pickup truck for most people planning to buy a pickup truck, BEFORE these silly 4-banger poseurs come to market, and drive that 2019/2020 pickup until the wheels fall off.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        “silly 4-banger poseurs”

        Ever heard of a Detroit Diesel series 50?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          “Ever heard of a Detroit Diesel series 50?”

          Dal, are you equating this new GM turbo-charged gas four-banger with a Detroit Diesel product!?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Fortunately for the Chevy four, no. The DD50 was a dog because of its vibration issues. But it proved that you can move very heavy stuff just fine with four cylinders.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Yeah, I remember. Back then truck engines were long-stroke, heavy-flywheel power plants with tons of torque, but often had vibration issues between 800 and 1200 rpm.

  • avatar
    ThomasSchiffer

    I suspect these motors may appeal to fleet buyers who want to keep running and fuel costs as low as possible. GM is not stupid and they must certainly have engineered this engine to provide sufficient power and valuable fuel economy.

    Four-cylindered engines in large vehicles is nothing new. In Europe and in Asia you can purchase an Audi A8 and BMW 7er with turbocharged 4-cylinder petrol engines. The Mercedes S-Klasse is available with a 4-cylinder diesel mild hybrid setup. They are sold in markets where fuel is expensive or where road taxes based on engine capacity exist. They are also popular with luxury hotels as fleet cars. With the amazing refinement that premium 4-cylinders enjoy today, passengers will be hard pressed to determine what type of engine is under the bonnet. The punchy and refined 4-cylinders of today are not the same as the rough and sluggish 4-cylinders from the past.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Fleets focus on “running costs” it’s true, as long as what they’re running is reliable, especially long term.

      We still don’t know the actual fuel savings of this vs V8s or even competitor’s V6s, turbos or not.

      Salaried drivers tend to leave every stop with the hammer to the floor, which leads us back to the reliability thing, and if they’re on commission, it’s even worse.

      When driven hard, turbo cars/trucks get very thirsty, and often get worse MPG than their V8 counterparts, which turn far less RPM to accomplish the same.

      There’s no FREE Lunch, from what I can tell, and it’s the way things are heading thanks to CAFE (gaming) and European influence.

      • 0 avatar
        ThomasSchiffer

        What makes you believe that these 4-cylinder motors won’t be as reliable as the V8?

        The last high mileage I owned was a 650,000+ km 2007 Audi A4 2.0 TDI which was punished daily on the Autobahns. I never had a major problem with the engine which was being driven at speeds above 200 km/h and high engine revolutions for most of its working life. Most Mercedes taxis in my country are 4-cylinders and they rack up very high mileages without major complications.

        Correct me if I am wrong, but the so-called ‘Iron Duke’ offered horrible NVH, but from what I understand it was a tough engine block and reliable and even popular with tuners. Correct? If yes, then GM certainly knows how to build durable engines.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “What makes you believe that these 4-cylinder motors won’t be as reliable as the V8?”

          Because it is GM. They literally do 2 things well:

          1. 2v pushrod engines.
          2. There is no second thing.

          The “Iron Duke” you brought up was an iron head, iron block naturally-aspirated pushrod 4-cylinder. That is in GM’s wheelhouse. This is some all-aluminum (at least Ford is smart enough to use CGI on their 2.7T) deal with mad turbo powAH, direct injection, and a bunch of failure-ready fuel saving acronyms programed into it.

    • 0 avatar
      ernest

      “I suspect these motors may appeal to fleet buyers who want to keep running and fuel costs as low as possible. GM is not stupid and they must certainly have engineered this engine to provide sufficient power and valuable fuel economy.”

      Flip side of that, there’s a lot of expensive technology there when it fails. (And it’s GM- it will). As far as GM not being stupid- consider that statement for a moment or two. As dealers, we used to joke “Take whatever Chevrolet tells you you should do, do the exact opposite, and you’ll NEVER be wrong.” In the 30+ years I was in the biz, I never saw that theory fail.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        38 years of total Chevy/General motors and now Guangzhou Motors complete SH!T, rolling dumpster fires.

        Only true tards don’t/can’t/won’t realize/admit this basic fact.

        Now we have GM (Guangzhou Motors) with their “Hey suppliers, bid on each component of our latest vehicle! You just have to match or prefersbly the lowest possible price we could get from a dirty alley Chinese, Indian, Thai or Myanmar Supplier! We’re not too concerned with the quality or durability so don’t sweat the testing protocol. Cheap as F**k is what we’re looking for.”

      • 0 avatar
        ThomasSchiffer

        I am not that familiar with GM and their products because they have never been popular in my country.

        You could say the closest I’ve ever come to GM are the handful of Opels my father owned in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But then again Opel was pretty much independent from GM when it came to their strategic and tactical operating procedures in the European/global market, from what I understand.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Thomas,
      Thoughtful comment and I must agree with you.

      I’m a fan of boosted engines. The downfall with gasoline is the large amounts of fuel they are capable of consuming. Driven with a light foot they can be economical.

      Diesel are more forgiving with a heavier foot and are great for low down torque. I have discussions with some of the B&B on sites regarding how great Ford’s EcoThirst petrol engines are in the torque department, but they can’t beat a diesel for torque produce vs FE. That’s why diesels are great.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    Smart move. Most buyers never even look under the hood. The days of cylinder count fetishes are over. Capability and fuel economy are the things that matter. Cylinder counts don’t.

    Deal with it.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Respectfully, you’re completely wrong. Ford went turbo but had to convince a number of people the 3.5 was capable for their needs. Most of those I have encountered thought it did a great job at occasional towing and non-work daily driving, but noted it used a lot of fuel vs the steady 5.0 when towing (or simply gunning it).

      There are a number of other people who thought Ford’s EcoBoost was not so great and opted for the GM V8, FCA V8, and Toyota V8 in their truck purchases. The OEMs may have been playing games in order to get them in a mid-level package as opposed to el cheapo V6, but the mid level extended or crew cab is the most common new truck on the road today. If you really think these repeat truck buyers are going to drive those gigantic things with a 2.0L smog strangled DI gas motor, you’ve got another think coming.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        I think you might be underestimating the gullibility of a large percentage of the population of the most propagandized people on earth, that of the USA.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          If anyone is a propaganda victim, it is you. Do you know anything about what Egyptians believe? Turks? Palestinians? Belgians? Mexicans? Something like 20% of Americans have a clue what is going on. That puts us pretty far ahead of the average nation.

    • 0 avatar
      Sub-600

      Most buyers on this site probably look under the hood.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “Deal with it.”

      No.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “With direct injection and turbocharging raising pressures, GM outfitted the engine with an offset, forged steel crankshaft and iron piston ring groove inserts for durability. Boosted efficiency comes by way of an electro-mechanical variable camshaft (allowing high- and low-lift valve profiles), a dual-volute turbocharger (two gas inlets, two nozzles), integrated exhaust manifold for faster warm-ups, and a parasitic drag-reducing electric water pump. Engine stop/start and cylinder deactivation completes the package.”

    Sure we had to do all of these hacks to get this POS to work properly before certification.

    BASE CURB WEIGHT

    Reg cab LB/KG
    4696 / 2130 (2WD)
    4948 / 2244 (4WD)

    Ext Cab LB/KG
    4982 / 2259 (2WD)
    5232 / 2373 (4WD)

    Crew cab LB/KG
    5036 / 2284 (2WD)
    5300 / 2404 (4WD)

    http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/silverado/2018.tab1.html

    Still 5,000+ lbs in 4WD. but sure, that Daewoo I4 is going to move it and tow just fine /s.

    This is just GM trying out stupid shit to test the waters, and it will fail.

    Give me a half-assed Hilux GM (because we all know you couldn’t build a real Hilux if Earth depended on it) and we can talk I4s.

  • avatar
    pdog_phatpat

    Came in to watch the usual Ford bashing crowd make excuses for THIS(LMFAO). Wasn’t disappointed. Thanks hypocrites!

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    The Silverado can now hold two full size spares…under the hood where the engine used to be.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    159 comments? What?!?

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I think this is a great idea by GM. If the in line diesel is good I would love to see this in the Ram along with the inline diesel. Then you might have a decent pickup.

    Ford’s Rubbermaid quality F150s might be struggling soon.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Fordson: Some makes just should never produce SUVs…this is one of them. Look at the Maserati car in the group...
  • FreedMike: Toyota. Why do you think they haven’t invested in EVs?
  • redapple: Who will buy Tesla? GGM?
  • forward_look: Once I bought a ’74 (?) Colt/Mitsubishi for $100 that had the strut towers rusted out. I welded...
  • thelaine: Tick tock

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States