EPA Ratings Reveal the Rest of the GM 2.7-liter Story

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

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]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 50 comments
  • Arach Arach on Nov 07, 2018

    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.

  • Road_pizza Road_pizza on Nov 14, 2018

    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.

  • Theflyersfan I guess I should have kept my first ever car which was also a 1987 Nissan. Probably could have sold it for $50,000 by now if I was living in this fantasy world where used up 37 year old Nissans sell for the same price as a new Versa. I wish a link was here so all of us can check out this treasure among junk 200SX. The only way this car is even remotely worth that kind of money is if there are illicit substances hidden somewhere in the frame that, as part of the sale, you have to drive across the border and "make a delivery." Otherwise, get that thing off of my lawn.
  • Sobro Needs moar Roots.
  • ToolGuy BIDEN LINKS
  • RHD Questions? None, no, not really. Interested in some random Hyundai? No, not at all. Yawn.
  • Formula m Alfa-Romeo had the great idea to unveil my all time favourite car at the world expo in Montreal. Never built or Sold in North America. The called it the Alfa Romeo Montreal. Never even sold in North America.
Next