EPA Ratings Reveal the Rest of the GM 2.7-liter Story
Last month, General Motors released EPA-estimated fuel economy figures for one of the new, turbocharged 2.7-liter inline-four’s applications: the two-wheel drive version of the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups.
Despite boasting 310 horsepower and 348 lb-ft of torque, the engine’s combined estimated fuel economy of 21 miles per gallon left many wanting more. Now that we have EPA figures for the rest of the line, it’s no surprise to see that figure serve as an MPG high water mark.
(Kudos to the eagle-eyed Bozi Tatarevic, who noticed the new figures)
In two-wheel drive applications, the 2.7-liter, which comes standard on LT and RST trims, rates 20 mpg city, 23 mpg highway, and 21 mpg combined. That’s an average of 1 mpg more than the 4.3-liter V6 found in last year’s mainstream, lower-trim pickups, which made do with two fewer forwards gears (six, to the 2.7’s eight). Still, the new mill beats the old one by 25 hp and 43 lb-ft of torque.
Moving up to GM’s 5.3-liter V8, optional on both 2.7L trims, brings additional horsepower and torque, at the expense of two fewer MPGs in combined driving.
Luckily for The General, adding four-wheel drive to the 2.7-liter models doesn’t cause an embarrassing dip below 20 mpg. The EPA rates the 2.7L/4WD models at 20 mpg combined, 19 mpg city, and 22 mpg highway — a combined drop of 1 mpg compared to the 2WD model. Compared to 5.3L/4WD models, the four-cylinder beats it by 2 mpg when equipped with the same eight-speed tranny, or 3 mpg if the V8’s bolted to the low-rent six-speed.
The top-flight 6.2-liter V8, when equipped with four-wheel drive, also sees a 3 mpg difference between it and the 4WD 2.7L.
As we told you before, Ford and Ram’s base V6 engines offer a slight edge in fuel economy, though the 2.7L handily trounces the 3.3-liter Ford V6 in terms of power. The GM’s two main rivals also narrowly edge out the 2.7L’s tow rating of 7,200 pounds. Ford’s 3.3-liter tops out at 7,700 pounds, while the 3.6-liter Ram is rated for up to 7,730 lbs.
[Image: General Motors]
Join the conversation
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- Max So GM will be making TESLAS in the future. YEA They really shouldn’t be taking cues from Elon musk. Tesla is just about to be over.
- Malcolm It's not that commenters attack Tesla, musk has brought it on the company. The delivery of the first semi was half loaded in 70 degree weather hauling potato chips for frito lay. No company underutilizes their loads like this. Musk shouted at the world "look at us". Freightliners e-cascads has been delivering loads for 6-8 months before Tesla delivered one semi. What commenters are asking "What's the actual usable range when in say Leadville when its blowing snow and -20F outside with a full trailer?
- Funky D I despise Google for a whole host of reasons. So why on earth would I willing spend a large amount of $ on a car that will force Google spyware on me.The only connectivity to the world I will put up with is through my phone, which at least gives me the option of turning it off or disconnecting it from the car should I choose to.No CarPlay, no sale.
- William I think it's important to understand the factors that made GM as big as it once was and would like to be today. Let's roll back to 1965, or even before that. GM was the biggest of the Big Three. It's main competition was Ford and Chrysler, as well as it's own 5 brands competing with themselves. The import competition was all but non existent. Volkswagen was the most popular imported cars at the time. So GM had its successful 5 brands, and very little competition compared to today's market. GM was big, huge in fact. It was diversified into many other lines of business, from trains to information data processing (EDS). Again GM was huge. But being huge didn't make it better. There are many examples of GM not building the best cars they could, it's no surprise that they were building cars to maximize their profits, not to be the best built cars on the road, the closest brand to achieve that status was Cadillac. Anyone who owned a Cadillac knew it could have been a much higher level of quality than it was. It had a higher level of engineering and design features compared to it's competition. But as my Godfather used to say "how good is good?" Being as good as your competitors, isn't being as good as you could be. So, today GM does not hold 50% of the automotive market as it once did, and because of a multitude of reasons it never will again. No matter how much it improves it's quality, market value and dealer network, based on competition alone it can't have a 50% market share again. It has only 3 of its original 5 brands, and there are too many strong competitors taking pieces of the market share. So that says it's playing in a different game, therfore there's a whole new normal to use as a baseline than before. GM has to continue downsizing to fit into today's market. It can still be big, but in a different game and scale. The new normal will never be the same scale it once was as compared to the now "worlds" automotive industry. Just like how the US railroad industry had to reinvent its self to meet the changing transportation industry, and IBM has had to reinvent its self to play in the ever changing Information Technology industry it finds it's self in. IBM was once the industry leader, now it has to scale it's self down to remain in the industry it created. GM is in the same place that the railroads, IBM and other big companies like AT&T and Standard Oil have found themselves in. It seems like being the industry leader is always followed by having to reinvent it's self to just remain viable. It's part of the business cycle. GM, it's time you accept your fate, not dead, but not huge either.
- Tassos The Euro spec Taurus is the US spec Ford FUSION.Very few buyers care to see it here. FOrd has stopped making the Fusion long agoWake us when you have some interesting news to report.
I was looking forward to this truck. I figured a 4cylinder is plenty... but this fuel economy is atrocious. Its less than the F150, with 2 less cylinders. Its less than the Ridgeline, with 2 less cylinders. I was thinking more like 24-25 MPG? Than I'd be talking... but I guess thats more about weight and aerodynamics than powertrain.
Not impressed. I'm getting a real average of 20.5 mpg combined (mostly city) from my '18 F150 XLT 4X4 Supercab 2.7L Ecoboost. I'd bet if I had a 2.7L EB F150 4X2 regular cab I'd have no problem surpassing 24 combined.