By on November 19, 2018

2019 Chevrolet Silverado

When I was a wee lad, a four-cylinder full-size pickup was an unheard of idea. Truck buyers looked askance at any gas engine that wasn’t a V8. That’s obviously changed in recent years.

While I’ve already had a crack at the redesigned Silverado in Wyoming earlier this year, that drive focused on the V8s. So Chevy brought media to suburban Phoenix for a go-round in the four-banger, with the Chevrolet Colorado Bison also on hand to test (more on that next month when the embargo lifts).

Full disclosure: Chevrolet flew me to Phoenix/Scottsdale and paid for my hotel and meals, and they left lovely snacks in the room.

Before I could even drive the Chevy, a PR person was guiding me to a Ford F-150 Supercrew XLT with two-wheel drive and the 3.3-liter V6. Next to that truck sat a Ram with e-torque and a four-cylinder Silverado. The message was clear: Drive them back to back to back and see which was “best.”

A 10-minute test loop consisting of only right turns and suburban streets can only tell you so much, but it became clear that the Ford was outmatched by the other two. A hesitant throttle marred the driving experience, and down-market materials made the Ford feel like something I’d get for the economy price at a rental lot. While I’ve been impressed with upper-trim F-150s, the XLT doesn’t do value well.

2019 Chevrolet Silverado

The Ram Big Horn with the 3.6-liter was much more pleasant to drive, thanks to a responsive throttle and pleasing exhaust note. The materials also were much nicer — not the full-zoot cabin, of course, but pleasant enough.

My experience with the Chevy was much the same. As I noted earlier, the Ram has a nicer cabin across the board in terms of style, but the materials are almost on par. Like the Ram, the 2.7 has a quick throttle response, and the turbo four-cylinder (310 horsepower, 348 lb-ft of torque) offers plenty of grunt for around-town duty.

Tech-spec obsessives will note that the Ford offers up 290 ponies and 265 lb-ft of torque, while the Ram clocks in at 305/269.

I’d be interested to see how the Ford with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 compares – that truck has 325 horsepower and 400 lb-ft of torque. It feels like Chevy stacked the deck a bit, especially since the XLT can be had with the 2.7 and still remain in the same price range.

2019 Chevrolet Silverado

We eventually left Scottsdale’s strip malls behind for the desert, and the Silverado struggled a bit as we climbed mountain grades, despite the turbo’s help. Keep it close to sea level, and the four-cylinder has more than enough power for around-town duty. Towing capacity is listed at 7,200 pounds. Unlike in Wyoming, no towing demo was available.

On-road ride and handling with the 2.7 was about the same as I experienced in the V8-powered trucks. The ride is generally smooth, at least for a truck with an empty bed, but then again, Arizona’s roads are also generally smooth. Gentle curves pose no challenge, and the steering feel is about on par for the class.

If fuel economy matters to you, the 2.7 achieves up to 20 mpg city/23 mpg highway/21 mpg combined with two-wheel drive and up to 19/22/20 with four-wheel drive.

2019 Chevrolet Silverado

The overall package makes sense – the turbo four offers a fuel-economy boost over the V8-powered trucks, and while the Ford and Ram have better maximum highway MPG numbers with two more cylinders, the 2.7 is on par in terms of power delivery in most settings.

My beef with this truck is two-fold. Complaint number one is that the infotainment system and interior styling remain inferior to the Ram (although my phone had no connection issues this time), even if they’re fine on their own merits. Complaint number two is that the four-cylinder’s availability is limited to specific trims – the LT and RST. While I understand that cost constraints are likely preventing the 2.7 from being available with other trims, it’s still a bummer, because you won’t be able to get this engine without sacrificing some of the upper-trim content.

That’s not to say these trims are bare bones. The LT I drove for half a day had nearly $4,000 in options tacked on to its $40K base price. Those options included dual-zone climate control, heated front seats, heated steering wheel, USB ports in the second row, remote start, trailering package, park assist, lane-change alert, blind-spot alert, and rear cross-traffic alert. That’s on top of standard features such as keyless entry, Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, Bluetooth, and in-car Wi-Fi.

2019 Chevrolet Silverado

Like the V8 versions, the four-cylinder Silverado is a pretty solid truck on its own merits. Still, it doesn’t turn heads the way the Ram does, and while it makes the Ford look bad when equipped with the 3.3, it may not fare so well against the 2.7 EcoBoost.

That sums up the 2019 Silverado experience – well-built trucks that are quite pleasant to drive but fall short of the competition in significant ways — styling versus Ram, power (at least on paper) versus the Ford.

Truck buyers being as brand loyal as they are, that may not matter. If you’re a Silverado owner who just gets the new Chevy every few years, you’ll be in good hands should the four-cylinder be your engine of choice. But if you’re a comparison shopper, the choice will be much tougher.

[Images: © 2018 Tim Healey/TTAC]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

78 Comments on “2019 Chevrolet Silverado 2.7-Liter First Drive — Fighting for Value Dollars...”


  • avatar
    afedaken

    Silverado with a (boosted) I4. Never thought I’d see the day. The poorer gas milage is a shame though. Why go with a more complex powertrain if you’re not getting either a fuel economy or power benefit?

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Wait ’til GM announces the all-new Silverado with the bi-turbo 2CV (Deux Chevaux).

      Oh goooooody, goooooody, gooooooody……

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      This powertrain makes no sense, I just took my ’17 5.3 4 door Z71 4×4 on a 800 mile trip, my average fuel economy on the highway (through the Appalachian Mountains) was 24.8MPG with a best fuel economy average of 32.6MPG over 25 miles. To say I’m thoroughly impressed is putting it lightly, why then would I want a 4 cylinder if a V8 can do what I just did?

      • 0 avatar
        SSJeep

        I agree Hummer – If the 4 Cylinder Silverado model isnt turning better fuel economy, why not stick with a 6 or 8?

        Ive noticed a similar phenomenon with turbocharged powerplants. If they are treated gingerly, they tend to turn in somewhat decent fuel economy numbers. but the second one starts accelerating briskly or driving into wind, you might as well just have more cylinders as economy will be the same or worse on the turbo.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          ” If they are treated gingerly, they tend to turn in somewhat decent fuel economy numbers. but the second one starts accelerating briskly or driving into wind, you might as well just have more cylinders as economy will be the same or worse on the turbo.”

          Isn’t that one of the points?

          Most driving, especially in a truck, isn’t “brisk” or “uphill against the wind towing a house”; thus the benefits when cruising boringly on the freeway; I certainly don’t do a whole lot of, er, “spirited” driving in my SuperDuty.

          (The other benefit, in principle, can be torque availability at low RPM, but that can be less competitive depending on the V8 it’s trying to match.)

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Prepare for the triggered responses.

  • avatar
    dividebytube

    I swear that interior looks an awful lot like my dad’s departed 2001 Trailblazer. Or the last time I rode in an early aughts Silverado.

    I come from a GM family – grandfather was an autoworker at one of their local plants and I have fond memories of the family wood hauling ’68 Chevy, but I would get the Ram.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    “It feels like Chevy stacked the deck a bit, especially since the XLT can be had with the 2.7 and still remain in the same price range.”

    Ya think? Duh – the 2.7 Ecoboost will probably be what shoppers make a real world comparison to as well.

    “Not shocking, altitude tends to do that.”

    Ummmmmmmmmmmm yes “shocking”. Boosted engines are ideal for places that have decent altitude changes because of their consistency of power output whether at 1,000 ft in altitude or 6,000 ft of altitude.

    • 0 avatar
      Tim Healey

      You are correct. I had a brainfart and momentarily forgot the engine had a turbo. Fixed, thanks.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus

        You might want to correct this statement, too:

        “I’d be interested to see how the Ford with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost four compares…”

        Ford’s 2.7L is a V-6, not a 4.

        • 0 avatar
          cdrmike

          Maybe just rethink the article, without the pre-conceived blue oval bashing. Then try writing it again, like a grownup would.

          • 0 avatar
            cognoscenti

            Ford man, huh?

          • 0 avatar
            SSJeep

            Blue oval bashing? The F150 interior is cheap and outdated on every F150 trim level (even Platinum), but the XL and XLT trim interiors are just awful. I have driven all of the big three trucks, and the article is spot-on for interior quality and power delivery.

            I wont say the Chevy interior is entirely better – it is higher quality (which is saying something) but the infotainment screen is pathetically small and some elements are not well thought out (vent placement near head unit, etc).

            The RAM interior is downright luxurious by comparison to others, and in higher trims has the best infotainment and controls in the business (not to mention a 12″ screen).

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            Yeah, I mean, I can’t call it “bashing” to admit the XLT is a *work truck* trim that can’t compare for people who are, well, buying their own vehicle and want a nice interior.

            (I own a SuperDuty, and like it well enough.

            But I’ve also had to replace the 5.4L in it since it *blew up*, so I’m not in the tank for Ford, at all.)

          • 0 avatar
            Tim Healey

            Ford bashing? No, the Ford on hand wasn’t as good as the Ram or the Chevy. Now, you can criticize Chevy for stacking the deck, and I did.

            I think the higher-trim F-150s are very good, and I praised the Raptor in this space a year ago.

        • 0 avatar
          Tim Healey

          Thanks. Shit, I needed more coffee when writing this one. I will fix that.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    I can see this being a good deal for small businesses, as fleet vehicles, so long as they don’t haul a lot of weight or pull trailers – like parts delivery vehicles for Chevrolet dealers, pool service companies, etc.

    The fuel economy is kinda disappointing, and only time will tell whether these turn out to be reliable.

    Another disappointing thing is reading how downmarket Ford’s XLT trim has gone. When I bought my ’95 F-150 SuperCab (5.0l/4R70W auto), Ford offered the “Special” (what used to be the Custom), the XL, XLT, and Eddie Bauer. The trim in the XLT was nice, and the Eddie Bauer was just a little nicer.

    Now there’s so many upmarket trims, like the King Ranch and Platinum, that the XLT doesn’t get much love from Ford.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I have a HS friend who runs a pkg delivery business out of Santa Fe Sprgs, CA. and his vehiucle of choice is the lowly Toyota Tacoma, 4-banger automatic 2WD.

      Works great for him. He owns at least 15 of them.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Name (trim) debasement is a decades old thing. There was a time when the Bel-Air was the top trim Chevy and by the 70’s it was the entry level model before it disappeared. The difference of course is that trucks have so many more trim levels now and they actually have names, at least over at Ford.

      My old 82 F350 being an XL was the “nice” truck with fancy interior appointments like carpet on the floor and comfort weave vinyl. It still didn’t come with a radio, though curiously they did order cruise control on it. My current XL on the other hand has vinyl floor and regular vinyl seats but AM/FM and AC were standard.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      Not pull a lot of weight?? This thing has well more than double the power and torque of the diesel Suburbans that my folks used to haul gigantic campers all over the country back in the ’80s. How much power do you need???

      The last pickup truck my folks bought was an early ’90s GM with the 350, and IIRC it had less than 200hp (and got about 12mpg). People are so spoiled today.

      The kids need to stay off my lawn too.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Giant campers are mostly air; they’re not especially heavy – doubly so for the ones of the ’80s, which had to be towed by the vehicles of the ’80s.

        (Remember, power and torque aren’t the only things that make your tow rating – transmission design and rear end ratio matter a lot, as do the presence of appropriate cooling and braking hardware.)

        • 0 avatar
          arach

          The giant camper thing is interesting.

          You can pull a big camper with a small SUV based on weight alone… what matters with a lot of those campers is because of their size, they can cause you a LOT of trouble because of wind and/or other vehicles driving by.

          With our camper, I had a Porsche Cayenne. It had no trouble with the weight, and pulled our 6000 lb open race trailer with ease all over the country… That cayenne struggled a bit with a 5500 l camper though. even though it was lighter, it would “wag” the car with gusts of wind and throw you off balance. this was compounded by the toungue weight.

          Enter a full size truck. Even though the cayenne pulled the race trailer better than the truck, I’d choose the truck every time for pulling the camper because it was heavier and longer.

          Towing the camper is rarely about being able to pull the “weight”, its more a game of mass and wind.

          I would thing these big 4 cyl trucks are probably perfect for pulling things like campers. They bring the weight and size to the table you need, with the technical torque you want.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    The 2.7 four should slot into a Colorado and make it a very competitive choice over the 2.3 Ranger.

    The 2.7 Silverado would be much cheaper to manufacture than the Ford or the Ram. I think the engine would be more than enough for 75% of potential pickup buyers.

    Another thing Tim, you stated altitude had a noticable effect on engine performance. With a turbo engine this should of made little difference, the Ram and Ford would of been impacted much more severely. So, what was the performance drop on the Ford and Ram in the mountains?

    • 0 avatar
      mittencuh

      The article stated the comparison drives were short drives around the neighborhood basically. Only the Silverado was taken into the mountains.

    • 0 avatar
      Tim Healey

      I made a boo-boo on the turbo thing and fixed it. Also, we didn’t drive the Ford and Ram in the mountains, just the Chevy.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      My experience with turbos at my altitude 9000ft up to 14,000ft is that the turbo needs to spin much higher RPM to push an equal volume of air into the motor. Net result: lots of turbo lag while it spools up, and high motor RPM are needed to initiate the positive feedback loop of more exhaust causes more forced induction. However once on boost at altitude, no complaints.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        The F150 Ecobust once owned by my friend and former associate Nugyen was often used to haul a trailer loaded to the gills with building supplies and materials up US 82 to the 9300ft level at Cloudcroft. NM.

        And to tow such an enormous load he would always drop the tranny one or two gears before starting the climb.

        Yes, there was lag at first, but once spun up and kept spinning in a lower gear, no complaints for capability, but mpgs dropped as if pouring gasoline into that engine through a funnel.

        • 0 avatar
          bunkie

          In the aviation world, a number of piston engines are turbo-compensated meaning that the turbo doesn’t increase power, but functions to maintain manifold pressure as density altitude decreases. Just the thing for operation in hot and high environments.

          Of course, turbo lag isn’t an issue with aircraft engines as prop speed (and engine speed as the prop is directly connected to the crank) is, for the most part, kept constant and prop pitch and manifold pressure determine power.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          Well, yeah, ain’t no way to climb a mountain while towing without sucking down gas like it’s 1970…

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            And he did acknowledge the error of his ways when he traded that F150 for a new F250 TurboDiesel.

            Lord have mercy! What a difference in power band, torque curve and better mpgs.

  • avatar
    FWD Donuts

    A neighbor just bought a new full size Chevy truck. It. Is. Hideous. They can put a 16 banger under the hood and it wouldn’t matter to me.

  • avatar
    jack4x

    “It’s still a bummer, because you won’t be able to get this engine without sacrificing some of the upper-trim content.”

    Is there really that much of a demand for high trim trucks with smaller engines though? The 5.3L I believe is a $1400 option over the 4 cyl and will return similar real world fuel economy, with better towing and performance. I just don’t see there being a lot of buyers willing to step up to an LTZ and not wanting to pay 3% more for the V8. I’d be curious to see what percentage of Lariat and above comes with the 2.7TT and what percentage of Laramie and above comes with the Pentastar. My suspicion is that it won’t be particularly high.

    • 0 avatar
      Tim Healey

      There probably isn’t demand for high-content trucks with smaller engines, but I’d be curious if there would be if that mix was available. I mean, the four-banger is pretty good — imagine if you could get it with LTZ content.

      • 0 avatar
        jack4x

        I was curious so I actually went and looked it up: Ford will let you have a 2.7 in a Lariat (subject to some weird wheelbase restrictions) but King Ranch and above is 5.0 or 3.5 only. Ram keeps the Pentastar available all the way up to Limited, so I guess Chevy is the outlier here.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      In cars, I’ve been frustrated as heck that I have to buy higher trim engines for higher trims in the cars.

      I could say the same thing about trucks. I’d rather have $1400 in options inside the cab than a V8. Give me the smallest, leanest, cheapest engine you can in the thing, but give me a king ranch level of luxury on the inside.

      Now the fact that the 4cyl doesn’t turn out impressive fuel economy… thats the real problem.

      from my opinion though, I want a fully size truck but I don’t want to have to pay for all that power and torque I’ll lever use, especially at the cost of fuel economy. I think 250 HP is plenty.

  • avatar
    gearhead77

    I’d probably do a Dodge,er, uh Ram if I had to get a truck. I had a Ram 4×4 crew cab as a rental a few weeks ago ( old truck, not the new one). I was pleased with it and it was SXT or whatever the trim above the base was. Just enough features to satisfy without overload and I generally like my vehicles loaded.

    I am not a truck person for a daily. I hated it in one of the tight parking lots nearby and just the overall bulk was annoying to this Golf owner who also owns a Sienna SE. My kids loved it, they were sorry to see it go.

    I filled it up with E85 for my trip back to DC from Pittsburgh. While the mileage suffered, the engine was much more responsive. I’m not a fan of “growing our fuel” ( not from corn, ethanol can be made other ways) but the truck ran much better on E85. The mileage suffered, so from a cost aspect, probably a wash.

    But the cost of trucks, I just don’t get it. Yes, with a crew cab as well as how refined trucks are now, you can largely replace a minivan, crossover or sedan, while still having a bed to put stuff in, off-road or tow with. So, if you look at it from the “2 for 1” angle, I guess it’s not bad.

    But the Ram I rented was around 36k. I’d be closer to 40k the way I wanted it. I know you don’t pay that, but 36k is still a lot of money for a vehicle I’d largely by hauling air with 90% of the time, suffering with its bulk and low fuel mileage.

    BTW, I’d love to see a fuel mileage comparison with these boosted motors compared to an NA V-6 where I live. Lots of hills and odd traffic patterns around me, can’t see the turbo saving a great deal of fuel always having to use it.

  • avatar
    2drsedanman

    While I am a fan of rounded wheel arches making a return, the front fender to bumper transition just looks off for some reason.

    In my opinion, GM/Chevy truck design hit the apex with the GMT 400 line (1988-1998 full size trucks). I would go to my local GM dealer today to buy one of these older designs if it was still offered. The strong resale value of these GMT 400 trucks suggests others feel the same way.

    • 0 avatar
      jack4x

      +1

    • 0 avatar
      4drSedan

      Brother?

    • 0 avatar
      gtem

      Amen. Helped a friend get a dormant ’98 K1500 revived last spring (alternator, battery, power steering line), and I’ve wanted one of my own since. It’s just the perfect truck in my mind. Design, features, repairability, etc. Modern enough to easily daily drive, and boy are they lookers.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      GMT900 FTW, IMHO!

      My boss has a like-new 2007 Avalanche 1500 LTZ with all boxes checked, and his boss has a 2011 Silverado 2500 with the 6.0 and the “work truck @ interior. Both are great examples of “peak GM truck.” (Only bad thing is that the Silvy just started showing rust on one of the rear fenders.)

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        Nah GMT900 is cost-cut trash. The basic bones are sound, but they had the highest Hencho en Mexico and Chinesium content to date and were made during bankruptcy years. Throw in some AFM issues and mediocre rust proofing, I’m not a fan. I think they look decent at least. GMT800 was the last of any GM trucks that were worthwhile IMO, but even that was a step down in quality from the GMT400.

  • avatar
    RedRocket

    Pictures #2 and #3 showing the truck in profile (mostly) show how oversized and out of proportion these things now are. The box looks like an afterthought compared to the massive front half. This is not a problem unique to GM either. All these trucks are just too damn big.

    I agree with @2drsedanman that the GMT 400 trucks were the nicest design in recent memory on the outside, though their dash and seats were victims of the GM cost-cutting mentality of the day.

    I wonder what GM was thinking with this most recent generation, making an “all-new” truck that looks an awful lot like the outgoing one, inside and out. Maybe the same product planners responsible for the Camaro did this one.

    • 0 avatar
      55_wrench

      What RedRocket said.

      Get the hood level with the lower edge of the door glass, and drop the bed height on the 1/2 ton so the average human can get its arms into the box.

      I understand the 3/4 ton and heavier trucks need the suspension travel for heavier loads and 5th wheels, but this Tonka styling can’t get any worse.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        The Colorado suffers from the too high hood and lifted bed problem as well. You don’t need a 4 banger to get better mileage, they just need to do some areo work here to reduce the frontal area. I think the up turn in the new (again) mid-size market is that people are finally realizing trucks have gotten too big. Several people I work with have full size trucks as daily drivers and thus our parking lot looks like a construction zone with these massive rigs sitting there. The only thing missing are the orange vests and hard hats.

  • avatar
    R Henry

    I am trying to understand this 4 cylinder engine–Why does it exist…?

    Why did GM spend countless millions to develop a turbo 4 cylinder for light truck duty? Was the design goal improved fuel economy? If the prototypes performed as these productions units, meaning little to no added fuel efficiency compared to rivals, why did it continue into production?

    Was the goal lower cost of manufacturing, compared to a V6? Perhaps…can any readers here, with background in such manufacturing, elucidate us on this?

    • 0 avatar
      dividebytube

      A V6 would have 2x the head, exhaust manifold and a more complicated intake. But I’m not sure if the a 4-pot with a turbo is any cheaper to make. And agree – would expect a bump up in mileage but I would bet real world may be even worse than the quoted numbers. That was my experience with turbocharged engines, it’s hard to keep out of the boost when accelerating.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “I am trying to understand this 4 cylinder engine–Why does it exist…?”

        Pressure from the lefty libby eco freaks to increase mpg and reduce emissions in pickup trucks.

        And GM is trying to reach a new market; the people who want a full-size 4-door pickup truck with the engine and performance of a Geo Metro.

        That said, there will always be buyers. What to watch is how quickly these will end up on the used-car lot, and how much of their value they’ll retain after 1-yr, 2-yrs, and so on.

        • 0 avatar
          bunkie

          I’m you can blame this on the hippies. I would say it’s more a function of aligning engine families on a global basis. After all, if you forget the “it’s only got four cylinders” thing, it has respectable power and torque numbers. The limiting fact in fuel mileage in full size pickups of a given power level would seem to have more to do with weight, size and drag than number of cylinders.

      • 0 avatar
        RHD

        I’m wondering how these engines will hold up in the long run. Part of the high HP and torque numbers comes from the computer controls, and part from the turbocharger.
        Will a 4-banger last as long as a straight 6, given the occasional (or frequent) additional workloads, such as carrying a bed full of firewood or pulling a trailer? Or will they require earlier rebuilds or head gaskets due to overheating?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Prior to my 1988 Silverado, ALL of my trucks were I-6 powered and they did just fine.

          Some even had a granny-gear and all of them had at least a 4:10 differential or numerically higher.

          Smooth running, long-stroke engines built for stump-pulling torque. And I pulled a lot of stumps, too.

          Imagine putting twin turbos or a supercharger on those engines today.

          • 0 avatar
            Tele Vision

            Effing this. Growing up in the foothills of Alberta I was surrounded by ranchers and farmers in their Chevy I6 trucks. Most were manual transmission, too. They went anywhere in any weather. There was the usual smattering of Chev/Ford/Dodge V8 trucks around for hauling the stock trailers but they didn’t use those rigs to go get the mail. It was I6 Chevrolet everywhere back then. A modern interpretation of that smooth and bullet-proof engine would be fantastic, blown or not. It would likely return lower HP/TQ numbers than a blown four but with much greater driveability and simplicity – and longevity.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Obviously, I can’t be 100% certain but I do believe a 4.3L/10A combination would have been cheaper to build, saved development dollars, received the same (or maybe better) fuel economy ratings, and would have given competitive performance against the Ford 3.3L/Ram 3.6L.

      My WAG though is that GM has bigger plans for the Tri-Power than to just be a base engine on mid-level 1/2-ton trims. I think this’ll end up in the BOF vans and mid-size trucks. I also think it will eventually replace the 5.3L altogether, probably with the addition of some mild electric assist.

  • avatar
    SixspeedSi

    I just don’t know about it. I’m sure it will be fine for budget-conscious buyers that don’t really care about power or V8’s, but it just seems hard to justify this motor. I can’t really see fleet managers selecting this over the V6 (if the 4.3 is still available) as it’s an unproven powertrain.

    When I sold Ram’s, I think I had maybe one customer actually ask me what fuel economy it got. Most truck buyers don’t seem to care. This just seems like an odd in-between motor where at least the Ford and Ram are honest, base V6’s.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      ” budget-conscious buyers”

      I cannot imagine that a Silverado, so equipped, will cost much less than a conventional 1500 with a 4.3L or 5.3L.

      The object of the game is to make as much money as they can selling trucks, any which way they can. Trucks are the auto industry’s cash cow.

      Milk it for all it’s worth.

      Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Yeah you won’t see these in fleets because it isn’t even available in the fleet trim or even one up from base, it is only available in the middle 2 out of 6 trim levels.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    OK Chevy, you’ve got a big HP four cylinder, now do the right thing and put it in an AWD Malibu, and in the Cruz hatchback.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I think you highlighted the issue. The Ford 2.7-liter twin-turbo V6 is a downright-affordable option, and I’m sure it handily outclasses the GM I4. Meanwhile, the Ram just has an overall better design and materials suite, across all trims.

    Also, I think the access-cab versions of the Ram 1500 and Silverado/Sierra look dorky with their conventionally-hinged half doors. The Ram started doing it way back in 2002, GM joined them in 2014 with the previous generation.

    I think the traditional reverse-hinged/handle-less arrangement (still used by the F-150) looks a lot better.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Also, I think the access-cab versions of the Ram 1500 and Silverado/Sierra look dorky with their conventionally-hinged half doors.

      Yes this enrages me far more than it should.

      The “clam-shell” arrangement makes far more sense to me for actually getting things in and out of the back – whether it is people or cargo.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      While the Ford Supercab does look better than the GM and Ram’s front hinged extended cab trucks the rear hinged set up is no where near as useful for actually putting things and people in the cab and then getting it back out. I’ve got a 150 SC and a 250 CC and neither is used as a daily driver. I use them primarily as work vehicles but their 6 passenger capability and the fact that they are 4wd means that they do sometimes get put into passenger use.

      In the standard parking lot having to open the front door part way try to weasel your stuff far enough forward to be able to open the door far enough sucks if it bigger than a grocery bag.

      Filling it up with people is a royal PITA and slow as you have to open the front door, open the rear and one person gets in, the rear gets closed at least partially, let the next person by, open the rear door again, then let the front seat passengers in, again 1 by 1 if you are using the full 6 passengers.

      When I’m using them for work it is a real pain to have to open the front door before the rear to get to the tools or supplies that are in the back.

      So while it may look dorky the GM and Ram are the more practical set up and I’m a Ford guy.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Super cab clamshell doors are extremely ideal and I wouldn’t trade them for front hinging doors that block direct access to the rear cargo/passenger seat area, and don’t go 90 degrees for loading large parcels or small furniture, and I don’t have to leave the driver’s seat to flip it open for dogs to load up, or passengers with arms full of groceries.

        I don’t understand your difficulty in parking lot situations. The front door has to crack open minimally for the clamshell to fully swing open. So what? At that point it works like a normal door, except with 90 degree capability, while short enough swing fully open and not strike the car next to you.

        For work situations, you jump out, swing the clamshell open, and grab your tools, all in one motion.

        But the added bonus of clamshells is the privacy you get to do a quick change of clothes in parking lot situations, trail head, etc. Or if your like me and drink a lot of coffee, pop, etc, on road trips, same with passengers, you can pull over at any point, and do a quick 10-100 in heavy traffic or urban areas and no one notices.

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      I had a love-hate relationship withe the clamshell doors on my Tacoma. I loved the idea that the door opening was huge. But that was all it was, in my experience as I never needed to stuff anything that bin in the cab. The hate part came from every time I wanted to move the groceries from the shopping cart into the cab while parked at the supermarket, something I did regularly. Leave the cart by the bed and the rear door blocks it. For some damned reason I couldn’t train myself to remember to leave the cart adjacent to the front wheel so that I could open the drivers door, then open the rear door, then “close” the drivers door so that it unblocked the cart and then reverse the process to close the doors.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Kyree,
      The 2.3 Ecoboost in a F-150 would make for an interesting competitor.

      The 2.3 on paper is more than enough to sate the needs of many fullsize customers and make for a cheaper truck.

  • avatar
    pdog_phatpat

    A hideous truck inside and out, with a flippin 4cyl to boot. The article wasnt much better.

    GM. What a joke!

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    A modernized atlas I6 was the answer here. Not sure what the question was that prompted a turbo 4 in a full-sized pickup.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      The question would of been. “How can we produce a pickup to be competitive that sells”.

      The 2.7 four is a “psychological” size. Smaller would of made it appear too small against the Ford 2.7.

  • avatar
    crtfour

    Wow what happened to the Silverado? In my opinion they were so handsome at one time and I used to have them as my daily drivers including a 1990, 1997, and 2002, but I completely lost interest with the 2003 redesign. As of now, my interest hasn’t returned.

  • avatar
    cognoscenti

    Just wish I could get this engine in a small (<3400 lbs), rear-wheel-drive car. Oh, yeah – and you have to be able to see out of it! Both weight and visibility eliminate the Camaro from consideration.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    If this 2.7 Silverado sells well I wonder if Ford ups the ante and drops the 2.3 into the F-150?

  • avatar
    jfb43

    What a turd.

  • avatar
    SD 328I

    The F150 2.7L Ecoboost in giant Supercrew 4×4 configuration was recently tested by a major auto magazine doing 0-60 in 5.7 seconds!

    It’s really a competitor against GM’s 5.3L, which it matches in towing capacity while outrunning it. In fact, I believe it will out accelerate all V8s in every truck currently for sale.

    However, not really fair to compare that motor to GM’s 2.7L, which is really their base motor, meant to compete against NA V6 from other brands.

    Yes, their is a price issue, but the F150 is on it’s 4th year, I suspect they will have a price advantage to a all new GM trucks at this point.

  • avatar
    Wodehouse

    What’s with that spoiler/knick-knack shelf thing that’s Flex Glued to the cabin above the back window? Those things have infected everything with a hatch. (The Jaguar and Volvo wagons should have been spared the gross indecency) Now they’ve begun to grow onto pickups! The backwards ball cap of the motor vehicular world.

  • avatar
    nrd515

    I wouldn’t have a problem with owning a GM truck. I think it’s ugly as hell, but I wouldn’t touch the 4cyl turbo any sooner than I would an Ecoboost F150. Especially the first year. I would probably just take the Ram, with the Hemi, and live with the bad mileage. I still miss my ’03, only traded due to my being injured/handicapped and getting in it was a huge risk. Every time I see it around town, rusting now, I feel sad.

  • avatar
    63whiskey

    When are automakers going to get it through their heads? NOBODY WANTS TINY TURBOCHARGED 4 CYLINDER ENGINES IN BIG VEHICLES. This engine belongs in a Malibu, as an option, not a full size truck. Not even in a mid sized truck.

    All a turbo means is more moving parts, more sensors, and more things that can go wrong especially as it ages. And you’ve just proven the thing offers no fuel economy benefit over a modern V8.

    Whats next? A .75 liter 2 cylinder with quad octagonal turbos?

    We should be looking a turbocharging inline 6 cylinders for pickups, not 4 cylinders.

    • 0 avatar
      MiataReallyIsTheAnswer

      I have no idea why we don’t see more inline sixes, a great, balanced, smooth design. I was impressed a few years back when GM put an I6 in the Trailblazers/Envoys.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Rick T.: You must be having some spectacular spring weather there in Chicago. The trees are much farther along than...
  • Lie2me: $30K is loaded Renegade Trailhawk 4X4 177hp turbo money, I’m not feeling this Kona
  • Art Vandelay: “But we would at least like to have the opportunity not to buy it.” I can say 100 percent,...
  • SCE to AUX: As long as mfrs hedge their bets by not going all in on EVs, they are effectively planning to fail in the...
  • brettc: Sounds like he didn’t say yes to everything in the F&I office… But more seriously, wow. This...

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