By on August 1, 2018

2019 Chevrolet Silverado

You won’t find three two-barrel carbs atop this Tripower mill. In fact, depending on the engine’s load, you might not even find three cylinders in operation.

General Motors plans to bring back a performance-focused name for its new 2.7-liter turbocharged four, Automotive News reports, giving the automaker a ballsy moniker for the engine it doesn’t want to admit is a four-cylinder.

When GM unveiled the new base engine for non-work trimmed 2019 Chevrolet Silverados and GMC Sierras, care was taken to avoid calling the engine a four-cylinder. Media materials referred to the engine as the “2.7L Turbo” — a placeholder that sounds powerful and refined. Having not driven it yet, the engine could easily be the latter, but its on-paper specs certainly live up to the former: 310 horsepower and 348 lb-ft of torque.

Image: GM

Without an EPA fuel economy rating, we don’t know yet if this engine beats its domestic challengers in the “most fuel-efficient gas full-size pickup” race, but it certainly seems designed to do just that. No other automaker offers a four-banger in a full-sizer. Not only that, but under what we assume are very light loads, the mill drops two cylinders from the equation.

A brawny name steeped in muscle car-era history (namely, late ’50s and ’60s Pontiacs) could help avoid the now outdated stigma surrounding engines of this type.

The Tripower name reveal came Tuesday. Mike Anderson, GM’s executive director of global transmission and electrification hardware engineering, took media types on a wordy spin around the new engine at the CAR Management Briefing Seminars in Traverse City, Michigan. Unlike the original Tripower, which was all about dumping copious amounts of fuel into hungry cylinders, the name this time around implies a trifecta of technologies aimed at increasing fuel economy. It’s 2018, after all.

Those technologies are: the aforementioned cylinder deactivation, active thermal management (to ensure optimum temperatures for efficiency), and intake valve lift control (which tailors the lift profile for maximum thriftiness under varying loads). The latter featured debuted on GM’s 2.5-liter Ecotec motor.

GM’s new four-cylinder Tripower engine awaits its judgement-by-public when the 2019 Silverado and Sierra arrive this fall.

[Images: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

102 Comments on “GM’s Famed ‘Tripower’ Is Back… As a Thrifty Four-cylinder...”


  • avatar
    Sub-600

    I can’t wait for the new 442. Four cylinder, four inch touch screen, dual chrome exhaust tips. Good grief, let these monikers R.I.P. Tripower indeed.

  • avatar
    pdog_phatpat

    “RABBLE RABBLE ECOBOOST RABBLE RABBLE”
    Fugly 4 cylinder(sometimes 2 lmfao) GM Truck. “Intense gut splitting laughter”

  • avatar
    ernest

    GM seems focused of late on ensuring that I will not put one of their products in my driveway.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @ernest: Ford’s not doing any better. They already have a 2.7T in their F-150. And the F-150 is rather squirrelly on the roads when towing, even to needing to let off the gas and let the load settle after certain kinds of bumps like bridge expansion joints.

      • 0 avatar
        ernest

        True. But we don’t tow with a F150 either, and if I did it’d sure as heck have a 5.0L under the hood.

        • 0 avatar
          smartascii

          I tow regularly, and I’ve owned a 2015 F150 with the 5.0 and now a 2018 with the 3.5 EB. Both had the max tow package (3.73 rear on the 5.0, and a 3.55 on the 3.5, though the latter has the 10-speed auto). The 5.0 makes better noises and slightly better off-idle torque. The 3.5 is hands down the better towing engine, though. The 5.0 ran out of breath towing heavy loads (for a half-ton; 7-10k lbs) up long interstate grades. The EcoBoost never seems to run out of power and will always let you accelerate. Both get terrible mileage loaded down, but the 3.5 does 1-2 mpg better unloaded. Oddly, the 2.7 EB that I test-drove *feels* faster than either of the other engines in daily driving, so it’s possible that Chevy can deliver a great experience with this new 4-banger, and people won’t care about the specs.

          • 0 avatar

            My 2018 3.5TT tows my 5,600 lbs trailer/race car combo with 15 mpg over the long haul. The thing is a monster.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            How do you too manage to not kill yourselves and everyone around you as your F-150 goes crazy with instability? I mean, if vulpine said it, its the gospel truth and you can’t prove otherwise (personal experience and undisputed facts are not “proof”, only wild heavily biased conjecture supporting his claims will be accepted).

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        ” They already have a 2.7T in their F-150. And the F-150 is rather squirrelly on the roads when towing, even to needing to let off the gas and let the load settle after certain kinds of bumps like bridge expansion joints.”

        Seriously where do you come with this stuff???? Have you ever towed with a F150 with an ecoboost engine? I have, close to 3 tons. Pulled like a freight train, steady as a rock. Your full of $hit……go away!

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “Seriously where do you come with this stuff????”
          — PUTC

          “Have you ever towed with a F150 with an ecoboost engine?”
          — Nope… not that it matters. The Ecoboost engine has no effect on the suspension while towing.
          — Oh, and I towed 3-ton loads with a 1973 Ford Gran Torino… It was called a camping trailer.

          “I have, close to 3 tons.”
          — Awww… poor boy. All of three tons!

          “Pulled like a freight train, steady as a rock.”
          — You will forgive me if I don’t believe you. And if you don’t, who cares?

          Ok, so an F-350 is not an F-150, it’s still built to tow. I suggest reading the Pickup Trucks dot com article about the one-ton shootout and read which truck was the most UN-stable under load and which was most stable. I’ll even give you a hint: the “slowest” one, with 80 fewer horses, ‘felt’ in full control of the load 100% of the time.

          • 0 avatar
            Malforus

            Isn’t that comparing apples to oranges though? Tow rating and stability should be based on uniform speeds so that trailer instabilities (all trailers have a max speed and get squirrelely no matter what’s pulling them at certain load levels.

            You have to make sure your tongue weight is right… its more than just “GUT FEELING” its actually important to compare actual same parameters.

            Or are you saying the truck with less horsepower at the same speeds and tongueweighting was most in control?

            Its almost like a link could help clarify all this.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Malforus: Read the article. The PUTC made the tests as fair as possible between all three trucks and all three were well within their max tow limits.

            Oh, and I did NOT say, “gut feeling.” Again, read the articles. They describe every test and how the trucks performed. The Ford lost to the Chevy specifically BECAUSE of the instability I mentioned The Ram lost simply because it was slower.

            Oh, and I gave you the link. You just need to key it in with the proper symbols and spacing.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Vulpine – the topic was 1/2 ton trucks not HD’s. I’m surprised that you would cherry pick to prove your point.

    • 0 avatar
      thegamper

      I don’t understand why people are so against this powerful 4 cyl. It won’t be the only engine on offer. It’s made for folks who need light duty, probably nothing more strenuous than commuting and occasional bulky item. For all practical purposes it is basically the same output as the Ford, has same displacement, and you know they probably worked hard to make it drive nicely knowing full well it would be a tough pill to swallow for the truck faithful. I am pretty certain a similar tone followed Ford’s unveiling if it’s 2.7, yet it sells well and is more than adequate for commuters and very light duty customers which are so numerous these days.

      I think after the reviews are in, people will change their tone. Sure, lots of truck buyers wouldn’t consider anything other than a V8. But the explosion in truck sales over the last decade or two has brought in so many buyers that only need the capability of a Corolla for all practical purposes So long as it’s massive and sits you 10 feet off the ground. It makes perfect sense to offer this engine.

      • 0 avatar
        Hydromatic

        They’re not happy unless there’s an 8.2-liter V8 under the hood, just like in their 1960s fever dreams.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “I don’t understand why people are so against this powerful 4 cyl. It won’t be the only engine on offer.”
        — I’m not against the power; I’m concerned that as the truck ages, the engine simply won’t be able to hold up to progressively heavier use by subsequent owners who need a truck to be a truck, not a Road Whale™ of a family car. I’ve owned a car that was one-owner all its life, used to tow a moderately-large travel trailer that would today, using modern materials, weigh only 3500# but weighed almost double that in the ’70s. At 80,000 miles, that engine had no guts. It needed expensive repairs that ultimately forced me to replace it with a similar engine (lucked up and got the next larger displacement in the same Windsor block.) The Windsors, btw, were supposedly noted for torque over horses.

        Yes, my complaint is exactly the same for the EcoBoost version in the F-150. Would work much better and more economically in the smaller Ranger and even smaller Courier (though the Courier wouldn’t need all those horses OR all that torque… 200 horses would be more than enough.)

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus

          Are you complaining about the 2.3L EcoBoost in the F-150? Because that hasn’t happened, with no indication that it will happen. I only suggested it elsewhere as a theoretical answer to this GM engine if it proves to be popular and beneficial.

          Are you instead complaining about the EcoBoost 6 cylinders in the F-150? Because, so far, they’ve proven reliable and durable.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “I’m concerned that as the truck ages”

          I find it odd that you are concerned about longevity on a vehicle that you have stated multiple times that you’d never own regardless of engine configuration.

          Why would a turbo inline four be less durable than any other engine?

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    if memory serves, these output numbers beat the Ford Ecoboost V6 of the same displacement. Somehow, I suspect that this big, boosted to hell, 4 will also beat the Ford V-6 in NVH, as in “more of it,”

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      It wouldn’t take much to modify the 2.3L EcoBoost for the F-150 if need be, I mean its already going into the Ranger. I don’t think this’ll be the case, but its possible.

      Speaking if midsize trucks, this engine seems a natural for the Colorado/Canyon. Perhaps they’ll do it just to compete with the Ranger.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “Speaking if midsize trucks, this engine seems a natural for the Colorado/Canyon. Perhaps they’ll do it just to compete with the Ranger.”

        — Same thing I said below (and later) JT.

    • 0 avatar
      whynot

      The 2.7L Ecoboost makes 325 hp and 400 lb-ft of torque (pre-2018 models had 375 lb-ft).

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      Nope, kinda close on HP (325 on Ecoboost), but far off on ft-lbs, which is 400 ft-lbs on the Ford 2.7L.

      • 0 avatar
        TwoBelugas

        this would mean the GM 2.7 is less stressed than the Ford 2.7. Nothing wrong with 348 lb-ft for a base engine.

        • 0 avatar
          SD 328I

          I wouldn’t call it less stressed with it’s 4-cylinders making that hp/torque.

          I highly suspect this 2.7L 4 cylinder is more stressed than the 2.7L V6 in this case.

          • 0 avatar
            toplessFC3Sman

            Not sure why you’d say that, since the displacement is the same. Therefore, the theoretical amount of air & fuel that it could swallow with 100% volumetric efficiency is the same, and the power output potential would also be the same. Typically, with a naturally aspirated engine, 6 cylinders would allow for more valve area than 4 cylinders and would get closer to that ideal 100% VE number, but with a turbocharger and all the various tuning knobs that you get with that, the 4 vs 6 cyl debate becomes one of efficiency and maximum torque pulsations.

            A 4 cyl with the same displacement will have a lower surface-to-volume ratio, which means less surface area for a given volume to lose heat through. Less heat loss means higher energy in the gas, which means better efficiency and better turbo performance to negate a possibly lower volumetric efficiency from lower valve area.

            However, since a 4 cyl fires once every 180 degrees, vs every 120 degrees with a 6 cyl, you get more torque pulsations throughout each revolution, which can be harder to manage at high torque. This means either a more expensive dual-mass flywheel, pulsation dampener, or some torque-limiting for the 4-cyl to avoid causing NVH issues and in extreme examples even damaging the transmission with the torque pulsations.

            Therefore, the 4-cyl will be less stressed since it has a lower peak torque, but will likely be more efficient because of the lower surface-to-volume ratio for heat losses, plus the lower friction with fewer reciprocating & rotating components. However, the peak torque will be a little bit lower to mitigate the torque pulsations.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus

          How would you draw that conclusion? I’m generally curious how a engine with two less cylinders making similar power is “less stressed”.

    • 0 avatar
      James2

      The 2.7 EcoBoost is rated at 325 hp and 400 lb-ft.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Sad!

    • 0 avatar
      TwoBelugas

      then tell California to knock it off with the CARB grandstanding crap so truck makers don’t have to pull out all the stops to comply with CAFE2025.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        California isn’t forcing GM to call this “Tripower”. That’s purely GM marketing rubbing its balls on our face.

        • 0 avatar
          whynot

          California also isn’t the one that pushed “it isn’t a real truck unless it has a V8” narrative common with pickup trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            “California also isn’t the one that pushed “it isn’t a real truck unless it has a V8” narrative common with pickup trucks.”

            Neither is the company making the best selling truck, or the customers who overwhelmingly choose less than 8 cylinders in that truck.

            But, stick with your outdated assumptions and prejudice, if that’s easier.

        • 0 avatar
          TwoBelugas

          GM must be doing pretty good if its critics only have the name to gripe about the new product.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            What do you expect us to comment about? The article is about the engine’s name (which sucks). It isn’t a general “complain about GM” thread.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @ajla – LOL. I agree 100%.
          Why is GM loath to call the 2.7 a 4 banger?

    • 0 avatar
      TwoBelugas

      the article is an informative piece that explains what the details behind the name are.

      If your only take away from this story is “Sad Name!”, well, the world needs ditch diggers and motel maids too.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “Turbo-Thrift 165” would be a more proper designation.

    Maybe “Turbo-Rocket 165” if the word ‘thrift’ makes you feel icky.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Tripower? Did it lose a cylinder? :D

  • avatar
    geozinger

    310 HP and 345 ft./lbs. These are serious numbers for four banger with a warranty.

    It wasn’t all that long ago I would have killed (or more likely paid serious money) for a 5.7L V8 to make these numbers.

    I wonder if they’re going to offer these as crate motors. I could see a few good applications for these things in hot rods. Too bad they don’t have the Solstice/Sky Kappa kruisers anymore. They would REALLY scream with this motor in them.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      Agreed my ’02 Dakota’s 4.7l V8 only makes 235 HP and 295 TQ.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Not uncommon to see 400+ lb-ft of torque from a ecu modified 2.0T Ecotec on 92-93 octane.

    • 0 avatar
      SSJeep

      This is the smartest comment on the thread. 15 years ago these numbers would have been a dream out of a V8 motor, much less a 4 cylinder mill. The GM 4-cylinder, while terribly named, is a sign of progress. For the average Joe towing the boat occasionally and otherwise leaving the bed and hitch empty, it might be a nice fit. Time will tell on reliability and performance. I wouldnt buy one during the first year of production.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Yes.
        Other than the stupid name, there is nothing to froth at the mouth about. there is plenty of power to do the job. You aren’t going to tow 10k with this and 1,200 lb of cargo isn’t a big deal since that is a fraction of the weight of the truck.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    It will be comical to lift the hood on something as big as a locomotive and see that tiny 4-cyl in there. A technician should be able to climb in there, close the hood and work in private. I just don’t see these tiny boost-fed engines being able to go many hundreds of thousands of miles, the pressure will eat them up. It could be that they are giving everyone lots of boosted torque now in anticipation of the en-mass switch to electric. By then no one will care these are all burnt out on their last legs.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      Actually, I’m thinking if the 351 in my F-100 ever bites the dust, I may go with a turbo 4 cylinder…of the diesel variety. Specifically, a Cummins BT4.

      There have been guys who have put them in F-150s, Tahoes, etc. But, I actually first got the idea from Brazil, where the generation of my truck was produced into the early 1990s as the F-1000 with 4 cylinder diesels. Later, turbocharging became popular. Can you imagine a non-turbo 4 cylinder diesel in a full-size truck? Haha.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      If the engine was designed with 25 (or whatever) psi of boost in mind, and not cost-cut to the point of self-defeat (which is the questionable part with GM), it will do fine with that much boost. There is plenty of equipment in the world that faces far more than 39 psi of pressure and works fine day in and day out.

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      Ever seen the ’60s GM trucks with a stovebolt I6 in them? Engine literally comes halfway up the firewall. Even the V8s have lots of extra room.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Saab 2.3T pulled around 3,900 lbs 9-5 wagons that were rated to pull 3,500 lbs without a trailer brake. That was without DI and VVT along with 5-speed automatic.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “It will be comical to lift the hood on something as big as a locomotive and see that tiny 4-cyl in there.”

      apparently you’ve never raised the hood of a Ram with the Pentastar. A V6 in an engine bay big enough to accommodate the 6.7 liter Cummins I6. IIRC you could literally climb in and stand in between the engine and radiator.

    • 0 avatar
      toplessFC3Sman

      GM certainly seems to know how to make a boosted 4-cyl durable – look at all the LNF 2.0L engines that were making around 275 hp with a factor-approved and warrantied reflash. My Saab 9-3 2.0T which has a port-fuel-injected variant of the ecotec 4-cyl engine has gone just shy of 220,000 miles without a hiccup, while running an aftermarket tune that bumps the stock turbo up to around 21 psi. As another commentor has said, if the engine is designed for it, there’s no reason it can’t last.

  • avatar
    cognoscenti

    sacrilege
    sac·ri·lege
    ˈsakrəlij
    noun
    Violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred.

    I honestly don’t mind that they are attempting to sell four-cylinder engines in full-size trucks. What I take issue with is the use of the word “Tripower” for the opposite of its glorious original meaning. May my high school friend’s 1965 GTO 389 Tri-Power burn two long positraction rubber marks all over that crappy idea.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    This engine would perform much better in the ’19 Colorado with the 8- or 10-speed automatic. It’s really not enough engine for a three-ton truck before any load is added.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      It’s more power and torque than any Chevy half-ton gasser until the GMT800s.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        … In a truck that weighs roughly double the GMT800s.

        Ok, maybe not double… but the old trucks were mostly hollow while the new ones are so loaded down with safety equipment, features and simple overall bulk that they’re still notably heavier than those older ones.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus

          2005 Silverado 1500HD crew cab: 5,527 to 5,834 lbs

          2019 Silverado 1500 crew cab: 4,693 to 4,965 lbs

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            The 1500HD was a 2500 in every way except the badge and was only called a 1500 so that Chevy could advertise “up to 9000* tons of towing” in their half ton literature. The standard 1500 was much lighter.

            A GMT800, 4WD, 5300, crew cab came in around 5250. That’s not as much lighter than its successors as it seems at face value, because there were no prestitute trims back then and the magazines now are weighing the panoramic sunroofs, motorized side steps, factory linex, dubs, etc.

            But apples to apples a base-ish GMT900 was about 5350 and the K2xx is about 5500.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            Its still heavier than the new truck at 5,xxxlbs vs 4,xxxxlbs, which was my point. I included the HD because I was trying to compare crew cab to crew cab. The point still stands, the new truck is lighter than the old truck, despite his claim to the contrary.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “It’s really not enough engine for a three-ton truck before any load is added.”

      WTF?

      310 HP and 345 ft./lbs.

      My 1990 F250 had 195 hp.
      I had friends with Chevy and Ford 3/4 ton trucks with inline 6’s i.e. 250 Chevy, 300 Ford.
      here are the specs on Ford’s inline 6:
      Power output 114 hp (85 kW) – 150 hp (112 kW)
      Torque output 260 lb⋅ft (353 N⋅m)

      Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • avatar
    rpol35

    Tripower!? More like one third power, sheesh!

  • avatar
    TW5

    On the one hand, I’m happy GM is bringing back marketing names for components. Tripower is a good one. Now make sure the transmissions have interesting names. I’m also satisfied that GM chose to make their 2.7L an inline four-cylinder, which is simpler and should have better long-term reliability, lower upfront cost, and lower operating costs, assuming they don’t source junk engine components and auxiliaries.

    On the other hand, I still wish the truck manufacturers would build inline engines for trucks. They aren’t useful for the CUV fleet, and that’s probably why no one has moved in that direction, but they are simple and easier to turbocharge, which is considerable value to truck owners.

    Whatever, the 2.7L four banger is a smart play. I’d seriously look into one if the fuel economy is solid. Resale will probably be nil so if you buy one, you’ve bought it for the long haul.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “Simpler?”

      I’d think the need for counterbalancing (a necessity on such a large I4) would basically offset the “complexity” of a V6’s extra two cylinders.

      • 0 avatar
        bumpy ii

        Naah, the offset crank takes up most of the balance issues.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “Naah, the offset crank takes up most of the balance issues.”

          no it does NOT. the 2nd harmonic vibration is an inherent characteristic of the inline 4. like all engines, the motion of the pistons is not sinusoidal (thus the generation of harmonics) but because in a four stroke I4 the pistons all come to a rest and change direction simultaneously, that 2nd harmonic shaking force sums together causing the characteristic 4-cylinder buzziness. This engine indeed has twin balance shafts. It would be unbearable without them.

          the offset crank centerline helps with friction reduction between the pistons and cylinder walls.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        @ JimZ

        It’s not just two extra cylinder-piston assemblies. It’s an entire extra bank of cylinders, which complicates the valvetrain, timing, turbocharging, engine cooling, and just about everything. The trade off is fewer balancing issues.

        If the argument is about balancing, they should be building inline-6 turbos.

  • avatar
    jack4x

    Honestly, after selling 6 cylinder W bodies as Impala SSs, Cavalier lookalikes as GTOs, and FWD based crossovers as Blazers I’m finding it hard to muster up another round of outrage over GM p!ssing all over one more name from their glorious past.

  • avatar
    SaulTigh

    I think those are impressive numbers, and if you should be more than adequate in a regular cab, 2WD. I could see myself buying one if in the market for a truck. If you live where there is no snow (many of us) and don’t regularly tow a barn, it could be a fun little truck. My local GMC dealer still carries a handful of these most of the time and I call them “stubbies.”

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Guangzhou-Guadalajara Motors (GM) leads the way in downsizing 1/2 ton pickup truck motors now, and will soon be exporting made in China and Mexico of Chinese parts Silverados and Sierras with Chinese domestic mandated 1.5 liter or smaller 4 (and maybe 3) cylinder engines.

    Buy American (unlike Jack Baruth with his Trump/Pence bumper sticker-wearing Chevy Mexirado):

    Buy a Ford F Series or RAM!

  • avatar
    carguy67

    “active thermal management (to ensure optimum temperatures for efficiency)”

    It has a thermostat?

  • avatar
    RSF

    I think the Tripower name would have made much more sense in something with some sort of hybrid powertrain than it does here.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Agreed. They’re really reaching to make the name stick to this thing.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    I understand why GM started with the Silverado and Sierra as they sell so many of them etc. With that said, i think the take rate for the Tahoe/Yukon would exponentially increase with this engine. Granted it is not like they sit on dealers lots all that long now, but you get my point. The Tahoe buyer IMHO will be less concerned with towing and HP figures than the typical pickup buyer. This drivetrain in a tahoe most likely will return better mpg figures than the smaller Traverse current set up

    • 0 avatar
      ernest

      Seriously? Just as a background, you can’t get more than a few blocks up here without encountering a (Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon/Escalade). This is a LUXURY SUV market, and as such, the Tahoe gets kicked because of the lack of a 6.2 option. I have yet to actually see a new Traverse (or the previous bodystyle) in this area. This is not a “need” market- it’s 100% “I made it, I can afford it, and that’s what my wife will drive so I can buy the Ferrari I really want.” No exaggeration.

  • avatar
    Fordson

    The Ford 2.7T is the largest-selling engine in the largest-selling vehicle in the country. There are no known outstanding issues with it.

    God knows how many billion total road miles these engines have on them – but the B&B members are just sure there is something out there that is going to kill them before their time.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Considering the 2.7T has only been in the F-150 for about 2 years, it simply doesn’t have enough hard-working miles on it to draw any definitive conclusions as yet.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “Considering the 2.7T has only been in the F-150 for about 2 years,”

      uh, what? it’ll be FOUR years come November.

      is this “Make S*** Up on the Internet” Day?

      • 0 avatar
        Fordson

        Yeah, four years and it’s gone into a bazillion vehicles by now.

        They sell almost a million F-series a year – probably 300,000 a year have the 2.7T. That’s probably over a million of them on the road by now in trucks, plus they put them into SUVs – Edge Sport, Fusion Sport, etc.

        The other thing I’m seeing here is people making longevity/reliability comparisons between it and the Chevy 2.7T four-banger, which has not been driven Mile 1 by any owner yet.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus

          Guys, its a Ford, it can run 800,000 flawless miles and still be “unproven”.

          Yet the same guy owns a Fiat 500 and Jeep Renegade, each for about a year, and runs around correcting every one about their assertions of long-term Fiat quality and reliability.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “is this “Make S*** Up on the Internet” Day?”

        Nope, that is a 24/7 thing.

  • avatar

    Simply stated a V8 motor is loafing 90% of the time. As a result it’s not unusual to go 175, 200, 225,000 miles without a rebuild. Even if you occasionally pull heavy loads.

    Make similar amounts of power with a 4 or a 6 and the engine wears out sooner.

    It’s the same reason guys who tow BIG STUFF want diesel motors, not gassers.

    And one other thing. The resale on an Ecoboost or “TriPower” is gonna be substantially lower than a V8 engined truck. Far more than the difference in purchase price.

    For me that’s the end of the discussion.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      That explains why the 6 cylinder Cummins is so poorly regarded and considered very unreliable.

      Oh, wait…

    • 0 avatar
      gregsfc

      A small turbo charged gas-powered pickup that’s turning as few or fewer RPM than a mid-sized V8, especially under load, assuming equal quality build of all components used, would not necessarily wear out sooner; may last longer, and is not working harder than a mid-sized V8. This has already been proven all over the world over billions of miles with turbo charged diesels in all sorts of applications. Turbo’s help engines turn slower and last a long time. A naturally aspired tractor trailer would likely be a 15 liter engine, but if someone were crazy enough to build such an engine, it would not necessarily last longer than a smaller engine with turbo charging. You can argue about whether or not turbos may or may not last and the expense of replacing them, but we have tons of evidence of turbos lasting the life of engines. If they can in a diesel, they can in a gas-powered engine. Same manufacturers build both. Without turbo charging, then your statement has merit, because it will need more RPM to do the same work because torque is lost via smaller displacement, but your logic of added wear due to working harder does not apply to boosted I4 and 6 cylinder engines versus NA V8s is not there.

  • avatar
    cRacK hEaD aLLeY

    You guys are funny. What about integrating some discussion about 9mm vs .40 vs 45acp effects on watermelon and gelatin while at it?

    You don’t like it? Don’t buy it. Get the V6 or one of the other two V8’s available: menu is as large as the waistline of some potential owners.

    Seriously, go watch some video footage rural Central America, South America or Africa to see how 4-cylinder trucks perform harder work than most of you will ever do towing toys on a freeway…

  • avatar
    gregsfc

    Now that the EPA estimates are in for the 2.7L Tripower at 20/23/21, it sort of supports the theory I have that GM has developed a truck body that gets worse mpg than the previous truck when an equal power train is used and is worse than Ram’s new body and the 2015-developed F150. The first thing that backs this theory up is the carryover 5.3L V8 engine with AFM and six speed with the same peak performance numbers as before; it’s basically the same power train, but mounted in the new truck available in the three lowest trim levels. It gets 15 city instead of the previous 16. It gets 21 on the highway, instead of the previous 23; and it gets 17 mixed rather than the previous 19. That means that the carry over V8 with the same gearing; exactly the same power train set up gets 2 less than the previous truck. The second set of data that backs up my theory is the 6.2L V8 that is now mated to a 10-speed and has Dynamic Fuel Management in the new truck. It tops out on the mpg estimate at one better in the city but 1 worse on the highway. The newer 5.3L mated to the 10 speed is the only one that has improved; and it improved only with respect to raising the city rating by one to catch Ford and their V8. So how is it with respect to the 6.2L that a new version of an engine with a more efficient cylinder deactivation system and two more gears applied but that it gets one worse on the highway? It’s a truck that pushes more air; that’s how! Now we come to the 2.7L Tripower 4 cylinder. Good performance numbers; good engineering work from everything we can tell. It should be the gas powered champ of all full size pickups right? Wrong. It’s beat by three engines; two Ford and one Ram, and the top mpg of the class; Ford’s 2.7L Ecoboost beats it in hp, peak torque, and payload and beats it on the highway by 3 points, and with respect to just the highway estimate of the new Tripower, it’s beat by Ford’s top performing engine (3.5L Ecoboost as high as 25 hwy), and only matches Ford’s top performing engine for mixed driving, both at 21; and even their own 5.3L V8 with DFM mated to an 8-speed matches the highway estimate of their own tiny turbo.

    So overall, this truck is an embarrassment for GM. This is not the fault of power train development. They have great power train advancements that they’ve put in to this truck except for their low end customers, which get none of this new stuff (also an embarrassment); but the DFM, and the new 8-speed, and the new ten speed; the new diesel coming; and even this great little 2.7L Tripower; this is all good work and will likely be good products but in a gas-guzzling body. It’s pushing too much air or has too much roll resistance, or something is going on, because, even though it has a claimed reduction in drag, this truck should have caught up with Ford with respect to mpg considering all the power train work, but the truck itself is killing the highway mpg potential. Rumor is that the new Duramax will get 28 on the highway, and that seems about as it should be considering all the other disappointing news with respect to their new truck and mpg. If there were something gained for this mpg loss it would be one thing, but in every case, performance is about the same as before, and so it is just a huge blunder to build a truck that goes backward with respect to fuel efficiency.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Pig_Iron: Yeah nĕp′ə-tĭz″əm :-/
  • 3SpeedAutomatic: May I add to the above request: -traditional shift lever instead of a radio dial arrangement. I...
  • redapple: >>>>3 speed I agree. 1 addition- No start stop. If not – start /stop defeat button....
  • craiger: Makes the Volvo 740 look like Joi Lansing.
  • SavageATL: I have never tried it for cleaning wheels, but that mother’s power cone thing is the best thing ever...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber